Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Washington »

Jul 21, 2008 12:00 AM | last updated Jul 21, 2008 9:25 AM
Seattle Times Co.

Click to enlarge

Advertisement
Advertisement

In Maine, banks are involved in Seattle Times Co. decisions

To satisfy lenders, the company says, it will impose another round of cuts — the fourth in a year — at its Portland, Maine, newspaper.

By Bill Richards

The Seattle Times Co. has long billed itself as "fiercely independent, locally owned," a newspaper company in charge of its own destiny. But at least some of the struggling company's major business decisions, at newspapers in Maine, now are being overseen by out-of-town bankers.

The Times Co. first raised that possibility last month in a lawsuit it filed in federal court in Portland, Maine, against a newspaper union there. The lawsuit warns that the Times Co. faces "the dire consequences of being in default" on bank debt if it cannot sell the Blethen Maine Newspapers chain, and that it can't interest a buyer if continuation of the union contract is part of a deal.

Dire consequences seem to be now the case. Last Friday, July 18, Blethen Maine Chief Executive Charles Cochrane, citing the Times Co.'s "fragile financial situation," told Portland Press-Herald and Sunday Maine Telegram staffers in a memo that the company plans another round of layoffs at the paper — the fourth in the past 12 months. The paper's editor says that will affect about 10 percent of 85 remaining newsroom jobs. "In order to meet our commitments to our debt holders," Cochrane's note said, Blethen Maine's flagship needs to cut operating expenses by $1.2 million more this year.

Union officials said Blethen Maine executives told them at a meeting Friday that the company has to slash Maine payroll by more than 30 jobs to avoid defaulting on Times Co. loans, which come due in September. The Times Co. cut 31 jobs at the paper on July 1. The Seattle Times Co. also owns the Kennebec Journal in Augusta and the Morning Sentinel in Waterville, as well as MaineToday.com.

It wasn't the first the Maine union has heard of the Seattle company's precarious position with lenders. According to two officials of the Portland Newspaper Guild, officials at the Times Co.'s Maine subsidiary have told them in previous meetings that the company's bankers are now requiring the Times Co. to clear spending decisions with lenders.

Kathy Munroe, the union's acting administrative officer, told Crosscut that a senior Blethen Maine executive told her in a meeting last month that the company had to get approval from bankers before offering severance payments to 25 of the Press Herald staffers laid off this month. Munroe said Robert Bickler, general manager of the Blethen Maine chain, said the Times Co. could not offer the severance agreement until its was approved by a bank consortium holding the Times Co.'s debt.

"They made it clear they had to get the banks' nod to get the money," Munroe said.

The Times Co. borrowed $230 million in 1998 to purchase three Maine dailies and a Web site. Since then, the company has struggled with that debt, defaulting twice as its fortunes, along with those of the entire newspaper industry, have declined.

At another meeting about the layoffs at Blethen Maine's Portland Press Herald headquarters on July 2, the heads of the chain's human resources and labor relations departments reiterated to Munroe and another union official, C.J. Betit, that the chain could not authorize a staff buyout without the banks' approval. "They weren't sure they could do the buyout," Betit said, "without first getting permission from the bank."

The Seattle Times Co. is 50.5 percent controlled by the Seattle-area Blethen family, with Sacramento-based McClatchy — a similarly strapped though much bigger chain — owning the other 49.5 percent. The Times Co. is privately held and does not disclose financial information. A spokesperson did not respond to Crosscut's request for comment on the company's financial status. A spokesperson for Bank of New York Mellon, which took over last year as lead lender of the bank group holding the Times debt, said the bank doesn't comment on the details of loans.

The prospect of Times Co. bankers calling the financial shots in Maine could resonate on this side of the country, too. The company is negotiating this summer with three unions, The Newspaper Guild and two Teamsters units. The Seattle Times contract with the Guild expires today, and the union wants more money. The Teamsters also have contract talks pending and are fighting Times Co. cost-cutting efforts that include outsourcing 70 company trucking jobs. Bankers in the background could affect those talks greatly.

"Clearly," says newspaper industry financial analyst John Morton, "when you are close to default almost anything a company does could require them to have to confer with their bankers."

As worrisome for newspaper readers in Seattle is whether those bankers will let the Times Co. invest in continuing technology improvements at the time they're needed most. Hearst, for example, which through the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is the Times Co.'s partner in a joint operating agreement, is putting serious money behind a Palo Alto, Calif.-based effort called FirstPaper, to develop a new digital delivery device.

Instead, the banks might keep pressing the Times Co. to raise more cash, perhaps through sale of more assets, while the value of those assets shrinks. In addition to the Maine papers and The Seattle Times, the Seattle Times Co. owns in Washington the Yakima Herald-Republic, the Walla Walla Union-Bulletin, three weeklies, NWsource.com, real estate including the company's headquarters in Seattle's South Lake Union neighborhood, and Rotary Offset Press in Kent, Wash.

Assuming it can pacify the union in Maine, the Times Co. might be lucky to recoup a small fraction of the $230 million Maine purchase a decade ago.

A worst case for the Blethen family would be the need to sell the entire company. Through a longstanding agreement, New York-based Hearst has first right to bid on the family's Seattle Times Co. stake. CEO and Seattle Times Publisher Frank Blethen has vowed in recent years never to sell the company but also has left open the possibility of doing just that. For the Times Co., that decision may now rest as much with bankers as with the Blethens.

  • Bill Richards is a former Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reporter who covered the Seattle newspapers' joint operating agreement for The Seattle Times under a three-year contract that ended in 2005. He also worked for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 1990-91. You can e-mail him in care of editor@crosscut.com.
Comments
Sad Times for a sad Times
Report a violationPosted by: Tahoma on Jul 21, 2008 10:57 AM
Yes, the information highway delt a serious blow to newspapers, ditto the byproducts of printing (paper manufacturing, ink, transportation). They is another component needed in the demise of the Times. One is the companies posture during the 2001 strike. I don't think Seattle (NW) area subscribers and advertisers have forgotten how Times management treated their top notch college educated newsroom writers and advertising account executives. Seattle is still a union city, Port, aerospace, teachers, post office, police & fire, bus drivers, teamsters, etc... These folks enmass canceled their subscriptions and found other ways to advertise.
My final thought is when the strike was over, the Times selected who they wanted back and offered severance to those who they did not. The Times had the right to do so but it was very BAD PR. Who they chose to return were the weak, sick, and lower paid people. They sacrificed their Pulitzers winners adding to more bad PR. There was a time the Times was king, it had class and the BEST people in the industry. When you're a publisher, one should know the value of good PR. Sadly the Times didn't, and that "contributed" to their sad times. I've certainly learned a lesson observing how not to manage a paper. The PI is much smarter and "frankly" a superior publication these daze.
180 degrees
Report a violationPosted by: Michaeljohns on Jul 21, 2008 8:44 PM
Wait a minute. Just a few months ago, Bill Richards was writing disdainful reports about whether the Seattle Times was even losing money. Now, his Henny Penny coverage would have you forget he ever once questioned the losses in numerous article jammed with far more attitude than facts. Is Richards making up for lost time, or just hoping everyone will forget that he got it completely wrong the first time around?
RE: 180 degrees
Report a violationPosted by: richards on Jul 22, 2008 8:40 AM
Crosscut WriterInteresting comment Michaeljohns, but the Times’ finances are a bit more complicated than you suggest. Not too long ago—a couple of years, not months—the Times own internal accounting contradicted its claims of financial difficulties in Seattle, while hiding the hemorrhaging taking place in Maine. Since then, the Times’ fortunes here and in Maine have rapidly deteriorated, like news organizations across the country, but compounded by its Maine debt. Now, the company faces “dire consequences” from a loan default. That’s from the Times’ own lawyers, not our “Henny Penny” coverage. Oddly, the Times has apparently decided to stop covering its own financial deterioration, so you’ll have to read about it in Crosscut.
Bill Richards
RE: 180 degrees
Report a violationPosted by: frankb on Jul 24, 2008 5:30 AM
I have to say that being here in Maine and having some inside information about the Maine papers, it is important to note that the flagship Maine paper, the Portland Press Herald, is really the paper that is having a very tough time of it financially. The two smaller papers, The Morning Sentinel and Kennebec Journal, had been holding their own up until the past few months. Portland is simply overstaffed in almost every department, and even though they are having their 4th round of layoffs, there is still plenty of fat to cut there, compared to the MS & KJ papers. Portland has been seriously mismanaged from a staff size standpoint, and the unions there have to take a lot of the responsibility; they have not been open to the fact that newspapers are hurting, and they have done whatever they can to keep the status quo going, even though almost every single newspaper in the country is going through ridiculous revenue declines. Anyone who argues that it is a coverup by management for them saying that times are horrible are simply in another world...
I have to admit that the union knows that with the sale pending they are fighting for their lives, but at what price do they want to win? By having these papers shut down? What good will that "win" do them then?
That being said, the Times were simply unlucky to buy when they did, and it seems to me that it was simply a poor run of luck (regardless of the reasons for the bad luck) to have a strike, have revenues decline so rapidly, and then have the economy crap out during the time they bought the Maine papers until now. No one could have foreseen this happening.
I think that Mr. Simmons saying that the Times had good financial results through this period is not believeable and seems a bit biased...Never in the past 10 years have their numbers been "good" - I suppose relatively you could argue it, but I don't see that they can be called good just because for two years they only lost 50% of revenue instead of 80%? That is like saying you had two good years because instead of losing two thousand troops in Iraq, you only lost one thousand...
More questions than answers
Report a violationPosted by: Edward Allen on Jul 22, 2008 6:32 AM
Informative post. I have more questions than answers about Blethen's future, but am absolutely floored at the prospect that Hearst might be the big winner here. Talk about Lazarus-like revival. I had written off the P-I as a goner.
Are there any hints that Hearst might assist Blethen into that good night with a buyout offer? I would assume that what you write about the banks controlling the Maine operations would also apply to Seattle.?
Bill Richards' shell game
Report a violationPosted by: Michaeljohns on Jul 23, 2008 11:29 PM
Finances are always complicated, Bill, but your reporting has been defined by your absolute certainty that the times was making gobs of money that it was hiding in an effort to shut down the PI. You clung to that story line, and minimized or ignored anything that contradicted it.

The Supreme Court ruled that the losses the Times claimed in 2000 and 2001 were real. The losses from 2003 to 2004 were also real, or at least that's what your sources said. Whether there were losses in 2002 is an unanswered question.

So forgive me if I don't understand the single piece of "evidence" you'd have us believe over all else to prove your jaundiced skepticism about whether the Times' losses were related to Maine or to accounting rules that could be understood only in the wonderland inhabited by Alice.

For those of us who remain loyal readers of both the times and the pi, your earlier skepticsm remains a cruel joke. You seemed intent on having readers pick the times as the bad guy who was trying to kill off the pi for thrill and massive profits, but you never really made your case. In doing so, you jeopardized both papers. Even now, you're defending the indefensible.

I googled your previous articles, and came up with this gem (which just happens to have run in the Times):

"Hearst says Times officials overspent on hiring and other newsgathering efforts in that year, creating a loss.

"The question of whether The Times hired too many people and spent too much on news seems a more disputable issue," he says.

Proving such a case would likely also require a trial, Kirkwood says, and that would certainly drive up legal costs for The Times.

Other industry experts say Hearst might have a difficult time proving its case.

"It would be hard for any reasonable person to say they overspent and there was excessive coverage of news," said Bob Giles, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University."

What a classic. The Times loses money because it spends too much gathering news. As conspiracy theories go, i suppose a news organization could do worse: you tried to lose money by doing good journalism. But i'll leave it to you to write about that angle with the appropriate outrage.

There's always a danger when a reporter falls in love with his idea of the world, and becomes fearful of challenging that world view lest he appear foolish later. It's always easier to be the skeptic who was wrong than the optimist who wasn't. But those of us who care demand better. It's true that we tune into your articles because they give us information about a topic we care about. But that doesn't mean we believe you.

You may ultimately be proven right. But if you are, it will be luck, and not good reporting.
MJ
RE: Bill Richards' shell game
Report a violationPosted by: richards on Jul 24, 2008 10:24 AM
Crosscut WriterMichaeljohns, you are correct, corporate finance can be complicated, and in this case you do not seem to get it. The Washington Supreme Court only ruled on the Times Co.’s argument that the force majeure clause in its joint operating agreement with the P-I didn’t invalidate the Times loss claim. That claim for 2000 and 2001 was not a corporate loss—or even a loss for the Seattle newspaper-- but a loss only under a specific JOA provision that applied to newsroom expenses at the Seattle Times. Neither the Seattle Times, nor its corporate parent, lost money in those years. The Times Co. and its CEO did claim in some of their public statements that the company and the paper were losing money in 2000 and 2001. My articles, citing an accounting expert who reviewed the Times own financial documents, pointed out those claims were inaccurate and based on accounting that did not conform to accepted professional standards. The evidence supporting those stories is both ample and comes from the Times Co.’s own files, made available in the court file. Similarly, the stories about the Times Co.'s current financial plight are based on documents filed in court by the Times Co., on staff memos by Times Co. executives, and on the company's own public statements. As for prejudice in those earlier articles, I can assure you the Times’ editors, while always professional with my copy, made sure their employer was treated accurately and fairly.
Bill Richards
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement