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.
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.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!










Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Jul 21, 10:57 a.m. Inappropriate
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.
Posted Mon, Jul 21, 8:44 p.m. Inappropriate
180 degrees: 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?
Posted Tue, Jul 22, 6:32 a.m. Inappropriate
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.?
Posted Tue, Jul 22, 8:40 a.m. Inappropriate
Bill Richards
Posted Wed, Jul 23, 11:29 p.m. Inappropriate
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
Posted Thu, Jul 24, 5:30 a.m. Inappropriate
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...
Posted Thu, Jul 24, 10:24 a.m. Inappropriate
Bill Richards
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.