The FT's funky Globe-Herald rumor

Jack Connors: No Globe for me! Plus: FT, WTF?

Stunner of the day: Globe worth just $20 million?

11 Comments

• Ron Newman said:

  Wouldn't it be a pretty serious anti-trust violation for one ownership group to buy both daily newspapers and then promptly shut one of them down?

  December 27, 2008 6:40 PM

• GoldsteinGoneWild said:

  The NYT owns 17% of the Sox (which includes Fenway, the little racing thing, TV), which is easily north of $1b.  

  So that's 170 million of the $200m to $225m bid.  

  Which means NYT bought the thing for $1.1 billion and will now sell for $50 million, $27 million, $20 million -- who cares?

  If you're rich and looking for a hobby, and you can't afford a sports franchise, you can afford to be a newspaperman...

  December 27, 2008 6:54 PM

• GoldsteinGoneWild said:

  Ron,probably not an anti-trust violation.  They'll define the market as "media" - TV, radio, even BlueMassGroup.

  December 27, 2008 6:55 PM

• Tony Schinella said:

  This is really very interesting ... there are so many possibilities ... The more logical thing to me would be to spin off both the Globe and the Sox shares separately. There is an inherent conflict of interest with the Times org owning 17 percent of the Sox and having to cover the Sox on the sports pages. As well, they could probably get more money for the Globe selling the two separately.

  December 28, 2008 12:11 PM

• aging cynic said:

  "Do we really want a 'group of wealthy Boston business leaders' running the Globe?" Yeah, like Eben Jordan and the Taylor Family; what do THEY know about running a newspaper?

  December 28, 2008 12:40 PM

• Wes Rand said:

  Adam-

  Maybe FT updated their article but I can't find any reference to the Times' "stake" in the Globe. All the references in the article refer to the Times' stake in the Red Sox.

  December 29, 2008 12:07 PM

• Adam said:

  Wes, I think they must have updated it. It's possible I misread, but I'm pretty sure I didn't--and the current wording wouldn't have struck me as odd.

  Also, Dan Kennedy has posted the Barclays report in question; it's at medianation.blogspot.com/.../monday-morning-odds-and-ends.html . Apparently Barclays' value range for the Globe is 12-20 million--not the 27-54 million cited by the FT. So I remain skeptical about the FT's other info.

  December 29, 2008 2:05 PM

• Adam said:

  Hey Wes--In fact, I'm almost positive FT has updated the story. Look at the second and third grafs (from the FT article) that I cite in my original post, and then look at the story as it now stands. There's no longer a reference to "wealthy Boston business leaders," and the discussion of Ottaway/Herald scenario has become more specific.

  Also, I don't think Peter Nicholas and Jack Connors were mentioned as potential *future* buyers for the Sox stake and Globe, respectively, in the original (see my second point).

  December 29, 2008 2:14 PM

• Adam Reilly said:

  Sorry for the multitude of comments, Wes, but I think I've figured out what's up: there are either two or three versions of the FT story floating around the web. See thephoenix.com/.../jack-connors-i-don-t-want-the-globe.aspx .

  December 29, 2008 7:20 PM

• Wes Rand said:

  Glad you're still on top of this, Adam. That undermines the FT's reporting even more.

  January 1, 2009 1:19 AM

Leave a Comment