Sinclair Broadcast twice tried to top Gannett’s $1.5 billion cash offer for Belo in the days before the TV company's shareholder vote, but ultimately failed, according to a Bloomberg News report today.
Sinclair first sought to assemble a deal with various Belo shareholders, and then attempted to put together an offer with private-equity firm CVC Capital Partners, according to Bloomberg, which cited people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because the process was private.
Neither effort led to a bid, these people said, and Belo shareholders approved Gannett’s offer on Sept. 25. The deal also includes assumption of $715 millionbillion in debt.
The two companies hope to close the deal by the end of the year, although regulator approval is hung up during the partial federal government shutdown.
Sinclair first sought to assemble a deal with various Belo shareholders, and then attempted to put together an offer with private-equity firm CVC Capital Partners, according to Bloomberg, which cited people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named because the process was private.
Neither effort led to a bid, these people said, and Belo shareholders approved Gannett’s offer on Sept. 25. The deal also includes assumption of $715 million
The two companies hope to close the deal by the end of the year, although regulator approval is hung up during the partial federal government shutdown.
You Ganneters are all miserable on this blog (newspaper industry folks at least... I never see TV posters...) -- but Gannett is a WALK IN THE PARK compared to Sinclair. Big waves of relief going through Belo today.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I get here too. I think it is the newspaper people in general and what is happening to their industry. Same thing across all newspaper properties. Same thing was happening at Belo Newspaper Division before they spun Belo Corp out of the combined company. When will they be splitting print and broadcasting? I think they will have to finish the Belo purchase first.
DeleteBut, yes. I will say a prayer of gratitude that it was NOT SINCLAIR!!! OMG! We really dodged a sledgehammer there.
Gracia Martore made it clear during the last conference with Wall Street stock analysts that she sees value in keeping the newspapers and TV stations within the same company. In other words: no spinoff of the newspaper division.
DeleteHer rationale was that the combined 120-plus newspaper and TV sites become create synergies (hate that word) in terms of selling digital marketing services and advertising.
However, as always, she said none of this was carved in stone. If the market changes, the board of directors will consider any reasonable offers or ideas that ultimately benefit shareholders.
They'll spin the newspapers. Mark it. That's what this is about -- and anyone in the newspaper division who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Papers are dying the slowest death possible, and all the workers who are pissed about the reality of business (which manifests itself as being pissed as Gannett... or McClatchy... or whatever company they work for) will continue to sink into oblivion unless they switch careers.
DeleteA-yup. Bank it. Done. Gracia has followed the Belo story for a few years now. Peas in a pod-- locked. The only question the Belo TV people have is "Will the print company stick the debt on us like Belo Newspapers did?"
DeleteWow - it sure is going to take Gannett a long time to pay off $715 billion.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteWe understand that many here visit to fulfill a wish to see bad news about Gannett, but the Belo deal did not include assumption of $715 billion in debt. The number is $715 million. A sizeable difference (by a factor of 1,000) that calls for a correction.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThe word "zero" (as in calling someone that name) now joins the ever-growing list of words including "troll" that lead to my removing a comment.
DeleteGood catch, 9:40. Thanks. And I've now corrected that.
DeleteI suspect 7:32 also caught it, Jim. We might want to be prepared to recognize sarcasm without relying on the commenter to add "sarc" at the end.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete