There’s a name I left out in my earlier post on the possible sale of The Boston Globe: Rick Daniels, a former top Globe executive who, in December, left GateHouse Media New England, where he was president.
Not long after Daniels’ departure, I started picking up some buzz that he would emerge as part of a group interested in buying the Globe. And I see both the Globe and the Boston Herald mention him today.
No one has any idea what’s going to happen. But it strikes me that one possible scenario is an alliance joining Orange County Register owner Aaron Kushner; former Globe executive Stephen Taylor, part of the family that used to own the Globe; and Daniels. Kushner wanted the Globe at one time, still may, and has joined forces with Taylor in the past. Daniels worked for the Taylors. Why not?
Update: Your first must-read on the whole topic is Ken Doctor’s latest for the Nieman Journalism Lab, “The newsonomics of The Boston Globe’s sale.” Among other things, he guesses a sale price of $100 million to $150 million for the Globe and its related properties — 10 percent of what the New York Times Co. paid 20 years ago, not adjusted for inflation.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
Jeffrey Goldings
Why is The New York Times attempting to sell The Boston Globe, boston.com, The Worcester Telegram and Gazette, and Globe Direct, a direct-mail marketing company, as a collective group of corporate entities to a single buyer or a single group of partners? I understand the financial and journalistic rationale of pairing the sale of The Globe and boston.com. Nevertheless, I don’t comprehend the value-added for potential buyers, such as Taylor, Daniels, and/or Kushner, of also agreeing to assume the business operations and long-term debt obligations of a struggling, unprofitable local Worcester newspaper and also paying a premimum to own and operate a direct-mail marketing company in the highly competitive data, print, and design services sector. Wouldn’t it make better business sense to sell The Globe and boston.com as a joint entity first and then attempt to sell the Worcester Telegram and Gazette and Globe Direct as separate entities?
Dan Kennedy
@Jeffrey: Maybe I’m missing something, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the Globe and the Telegram & Gazette might not end up with separate owners.
Steve Safran
I see this like a baseball trade. “We’ll give you the Globe, but you have to take these other guys off our hands, too.” Tidier that way.
Tom Parmenter
The most amazing possibility for a new (part) owner, courtesy the Herald: Mike Barnicle!
Laurence Kranich
The thing that worries me about this is the sentence in the Globe about the broker: “Evercore has been involved in selling the San Diego Union-Tribune, BusinessWeek, Newsweek and Variety.” The “U-T” as they now call themselves was sold to a local business-booster who now publishes crap Chamber of Commerce editorials on the front page. Both Newsweek and Variety have had troubled histories full of cutbacks since being sold. And now the Times says they’ll put the Globe up for auction?
Those who complain about the Globe today should take a look at other regional newspapers and see how thin and parochial they have become. Sure, the Globe has cut back also, but there’s almost nothing as good at the regional newspaper level anywhere in North America. I’m crossing my fingers and hoping for Warren Buffett. The Kushner combo sounds ok, too. I hope the Globe can avoid the turmoil and devastating cutbacks of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, and so many other mid-sized papers.
Dan Kennedy
Warren Buffet! That would be cool.