Fairfax - no boss zone

[turk]

One has to wonder about the quality of the Fairfax press, latest AFL headline,


McGrath five as Dogs down Lions in AFL

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/afl...ions-in-afl-20120623-20utx.html#ixzz1yb6gYOeh


Lions won by 58 points

 

[Ideo]

Yeah, it wasn't really a suggestion - more like stating the bleedin' obvious.

I've never seen a company, ever, where the bosses have no say in what the workers do and/or produce.

I was under the impression the ultimate decision making body of any company was the Board of Directors. That last word was 'Directors'. I think that means their only task is to 'direct' the organisation in absolutely everything that the company does.

If the Board of Directors don't direct the company, then who does ??

...and what do they call themselves at Fairfax - the Board of non-interfering tea sipping and scone and jam munching non-influential numpties ??

I reckon the luvvies down at Fairfax are just about to get a huge wake up call about how hard nosed business actually operates.....and I reckon the new Board will call the bluff of all those who say they won't buy the product on offer.

We'll see.


Someone / somewhere along that Fairfax food chain...someone is actually 'in-charge'. It makes no sense that it would be 4 or 5 or 8 steps down the food chain.

Why isn't the Chairman of the Board in charge ??

Was young Warwick that weak livered 25 years ago he not only gave up and squandered the family empire, but also gave up all semblance of control to some militant journo's ??

There is a difference between business control and editorial control.

There would be no issue with her being on the board if age would sign the piece of paper saying that she won't turn the paper into her own propaganda rag.

 

[cimbom]

I'm not sure where the perception comes from that journalists are well paid. Most (unless you are well known by name) are not by any stretch of the imagination.

If you're lucky enough to get a job at a major media outlet like the Age, you'll be starting on about 42k. But even getting this is far from easy. Most people that start on these cadetships (similar to a graduate position) already have many years experience at smaller local outlets where they work long hours for a salary in the mid 30s range.

Cadetships at major media outlets generally attract in excess of 300+ applications for about 2-4 positions. At one local newspaper office I worked at, there were journalists with 5+ years of full-time experience that didn't get passed the initial stage for The Age. So not an easy job to get and once you get it, you don't get paid very well and have almost zero job security.

Also, journalism is not just a business. It performs a vital democratic function. Since when do we require the courts, for example, to meet certain business objectives and turn over a particular profit? There would be public outrage if this was ever given importance and rightfully so.

With the way things are going at present, soon we'll be headed for the Chinese model where you need a government issued permit before you're "allowed" to be a journalist.

 

[sash]

Will be certainly interesting.....but I guess good ole Gina R. has more to worry about from her Children!

Also her confrontational approach does not endear her....in the end people like Conroy still have the ability to veto he buying a controlling interest in the name of "national interest". I won't be the first time either.

Dazz.....your assessment is very simplistic at best. I don't mind GR buying newspapers but I want them to pay their fair share of mining taxes.

Just look what has happened to the sidelining of Clive Palmer by Tony Abbott. People like GR and Clive P. are more the far right...I doubt they will get the support from the majority of moderate voters in Australia.

I guess Dazz....the question is whether you are part of the far right?

I'm reading all of the brouhaha surrounding the latest round of re-positioning, and our home grown WA lass with a bag of cash buying up stuffy left wing wannabes and their east coast rags.

David Marr, the abomination who was on that dreadful episode of Q&A slagging off Ms Rinehart for all he could, now finds himself in the uncomfortable position of his target likely to be his ultimate boss. This should be fun !!

To see all of these left wing journo's demanding stuff they have absolutely no right to demand from the owner's and managers of the company is just hilarious.

I'm trying to relate this worker mentality of "we will do whatever the hell we like and we absolutely demand complete independence from interference and influence from any management levels, and will brook no resistance whatsoever. We've been doing whatever the hell we like for over 20 years and we demand that it continues."


I reckon Billy Connolly would be struggling to write this stuff.


.....this from a company about to go down the toilet....with new buyers purchasing stock at the 60c a pop level that were many multiples of that a few years ago.....perhaps this isn't the best business model to run with fellas ??


Anyway, it's warming to read a few commentators saying "Hey, you left wing guys, if you want to run the show, stump up your own cash, buy the thing yourself and knock yourself out." Unfortunately, being socialists, they are only good at spending other peoples money, and so don't actually have any of their own, so that option is out.....so all that's left is to stomp their feet like children and demand stuff.


I'm just trying to picture this worker / boss "independent" thing, where the boss gets no say....

-------

Mr BHP Chairman : "Go and dig over there and stockpile it over here."

Mr Haulpak driver : "No, I demand to dig elsewhere and refuse to stockpile it anywhere.....I've been driving trucks for 20 years and will drive wherever I damn please. How very dare you."

-------

Mrs Fashion Guru : "I want 300 dresses cut like this and they are to made of lilac silk."

Lowly seamstress : "No, I shall make 1,000 pair of knickers and I prefer yellow leather. How very dare you."

-------

Bakery Owner : "We've got to deliver 20,000 loaves of bread by 4am."

Baker : "No, instead, my preference is to bake 3,000 doughnuts and I won't be finished 'til 11am. How very dare you."

-------

Lindsay Fox : "Right, I want 15 semi-trailers headed to Brisbane tonight. Go."

Truckie : "No, we all wish to drive to Darwin. How very dare you."

-------

Telstra Chairman : "I want to lay a digital cable from Melbourne to Sydney to handle the increased internet traffic."

Linesman : "No, we are only prepared to dig a trench between Canberra and Adelaide. How very dare you."

-------


Healthy businesses where the managers and owners have no say in the product being produced....yep, good onya.


It brings a broad smile to my face to know that poor ol' evand and his mates only have the choice between Murdoch and Gina papers in this country....and the overlord protectorate Senator Conroy can't do a damn thing about it.

I miss Kerry Packer....

 

[Dazz]

Dazz.....your assessment is very simplistic at best.

Why complicate things - simple things work. Complicated things are notorious for breaking down and not working at all.

Robust my boy - go look that word up !!

I guess Dazz....the question is whether you are part of the far right?

.....it depends on your definition of 'far right'.

I raised the issue in the initial post that the boss and/or owner of a company should have the right to run a company as they see fit. I certainly wouldn't put money into a company if I had no say whatsoever - would you ??

If 'far right' means you wish to have control of a company that you own - then yep - pop me in that bucket.

If 'far right' means I'm in the same bucket as GR and CP, then no.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

If bosses could run their companies how they see fit, there'd be no ASIC governance. Individual media barrons could control all the press (not just limited to certain categories). There's be no workplace laws, worksafe, etc. We'd have more monopolies, supposed compeditors colluding. It would be a mess for individuals who would in essance become indentured servants (an polite word for slaves).

Unless you were born into wealth, the chances of you ever becoming wealthy would be negligible.

Bosses cannot be allowed run their businesses without restriction or interferance. In the example of Fairfax, there may or may not be an argument, but there has to be (and thank goodness there is) some level of corporate accountablility.

The sad thing is, I believe the world is slowling going down this path anyway.

 

[Dazz]

So, just saw a report that Reinhart is seeking 3 board seats 'without unsuitable conditions'.

She obviously wants editorial control....or a portion of it.....rather than nil.

One thing that doesn't gel with me is, she's purchased 18% of the stock, so I would have thought with a board of only 8 members, that would buy her definitely one, but not quite two.

Why would she think she's entitled to 3 seats ?? Surely if you were part of Fairfax, you'd want her to stump up at least 37.5%, more than double what she has, to secure 3 board seats ??

Anyone ??

 

[Ideo]

So, just saw a report that Reinhart is seeking 3 board seats 'without unsuitable conditions'.

She obviously wants editorial control....or a portion of it.....rather than nil.

One thing that doesn't gel with me is, she's purchased 18% of the stock, so I would have thought with a board of only 8 members, that would buy her definitely one, but not quite two.

Why would she think she's entitled to 3 seats ?? Surely if you were part of Fairfax, you'd want her to stump up at least 37.5%, more than double what she has, to secure 3 board seats ??

Anyone ??

No argument from me. And it sums up my issue with her. She is demanding special treatment.

She wants to change the fundamental management ethos there for her own gain, above what she has put in.

 

[HiEquity]

With under 20% of the company I'm not convinced she should have any seats. 80% of the shareholders wish to run this company in a commercial manner. It is highly likely Gina wishes to run it to prosecute her mining interests instead - this is all just spare change for her. She should be forced to put in a takeover bid if she wants control.

Plenty of 20% shareholders don't have seats on the board - because they only want what all the other shareholders want - a good return on their equity!

 

[dan c]

So, just saw a report that Reinhart is seeking 3 board seats 'without unsuitable conditions'.

She obviously wants editorial control....or a portion of it.....rather than nil.

One thing that doesn't gel with me is, she's purchased 18% of the stock, so I would have thought with a board of only 8 members, that would buy her definitely one, but not quite two.

Why would she think she's entitled to 3 seats ?? Surely if you were part of Fairfax, you'd want her to stump up at least 37.5%, more than double what she has, to secure 3 board seats ??

Anyone ??

I agree, I can't see any justification for three seats, unless it comes with added investment or something along those lines. But as far as I know, no plans have been put forward by Gina to the current Fairfax board.

Three seats seems like an ambit claim to me.

 

[Peter_Tersteeg]

One thing that doesn't gel with me is, she's purchased 18% of the stock, so I would have thought with a board of only 8 members, that would buy her definitely one, but not quite two.

Apparently there's some kind of precedent for it.

Chances are she just wants editorial control to influence mining tax and keep her kids out of the media.

 

[sash]

Being a simpleton with a year 3 edumucation....I like simple.

Agree on the having say.....but wanting to control the board with a 18% stake...she must be smoking something! 1 seat....well that is fair.

As for bosses telling people "do it" or else..... old boy.....feudalism died in the 16th century?

Unless you are telling me people out west still subscribe to feudalism. This is going to upset the applecart in areas like Lockridge, Balga, and Girraween..

Why complicate things - simple things work. Complicated things are notorious for breaking down and not working at all.

Robust my boy - go look that word up !!




.....it depends on your definition of 'far right'.

I raised the issue in the initial post that the boss and/or owner of a company should have the right to run a company as they see fit. I certainly wouldn't put money into a company if I had no say whatsoever - would you ??

If 'far right' means you wish to have control of a company that you own - then yep - pop me in that bucket.

If 'far right' means I'm in the same bucket as GR and CP, then no.

 

[oracle]

I don't follow the company's financials much but just had a quick look at their 2011 Annual Report.

Remuneration of Directors (Total for all directors)

Base salary
2011 $4,262,893
2010 $1,405,014

Non-executive Director fees
2011 $1,614,752
2010 $1,111,180

Cash Bonus
2011 $347,952
2010 $1,155,750

Superannuation
2011 $200,381
2010 $142,313

Total Excluding shares
2011 $6,425,978
2010 $3,814,257

Renumeration of Executives (CEO, CFO etc basically key management)

I will just summarise the total

2011: $9,761,801
2010: $6,956,241

----------------------------------------------------------

This is what the shareholders got during the past 2 years

Net Profit After Tax
2011: -$389,667,000 loss
2010: $282,377,000 profit

Share Price
2011 (June): 55c
2010 (January): $1.74

-----------------------------------------------------------

Top 5 shareholders at 22 Aug 2011

National Nominees Ltd - 18.84%
JP Morgan Nominees Australia Ltd - 14.87%
HSBC Custody Nominees Australia Ltd - 13.01%
Marinya Media Pty Ltd - 9.68%
Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd - 7.06%

--------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the above except Marinya Media Pty Ltd the others are all nominees which means individual investors are pooled together into trust and the shares are bought by these investment banks.

None of the directors holdings show up among the top 20 shareholders.
--------------------------------------------------------------

So now that Gina R owns over 18% of the company she is effectively the largest shareholder (based on 2011 Annual Report figures).

Based on how the directors and executives have rewarded themselves inspite of shareholders losing out I say Gina R has every right to demand changes so that the directors start working for the benefit of shareholders once again.


(PS: Just looked at the chart history and can see in April 2007 the stock price reached $5.40...todays close at 55c means it has dropped around 90% )

Cheers,
Oracle.

 

[Aaron_C]

FXJ was a great penny stock to trade back in 07/08. A bit too low now though the spreads are 1% now which is bad for day trading.

 

[Dazz]

Nice summary oracle.


Looks like the typical company where the management don't own substantial stock and are just in it for the gravy and bonus. Sort of the opposite of Warren Buffett.

Based on how the directors and executives have rewarded themselves inspite of shareholders losing out I say Gina R has every right to demand changes so that the directors start working for the benefit of shareholders once again.

Unfortunately, you seem to have your business hat on oracle. This won't do. It's all about jobs / jobs / jobs and workers and of late, the stellar careers of publishers / editors and high profile journo's.


No-one seems to give a stuff about whether the company can actually trade profitably.


I note when Ms Reinhart threatened yesterday to withdraw her financial support from Fairfax and hint at selling, the price dipped to 53c per share.


If she pulls out her cash, I reckon there won't need to be a charter of independence. All of the workers will be truly independent - i.e. no longer have a job.


This is one thing the unions and Labor never understand, seen it with Ansett, seeing it with Qantas now.....you cannot demand all this stuff as employees whilst the company dies. Union delegates demonstrating and employees striking and demanding things doesn't go very far if the company goes bankrupt.


You cannot have the workers running the show. A boss-free zone doesn't work.

 

[Token Funder]

Nice summary oracle.


Looks like the typical company where the management don't own substantial stock and are just in it for the gravy and bonus. Sort of the opposite of Warren Buffett.





Unfortunately, you seem to have your business hat on oracle. This won't do. It's all about jobs / jobs / jobs and workers and of late, the stellar careers of publishers / editors and high profile journo's.


No-one seems to give a stuff about whether the company can actually trade profitably.


I note when Ms Reinhart threatened yesterday to withdraw her financial support from Fairfax and hint at selling, the price dipped to 53c per share.


If she pulls out her cash, I reckon there won't need to be a charter of independence. All of the workers will be truly independent - i.e. no longer have a job.


This is one thing the unions and Labor never understand, seen it with Ansett, seeing it with Qantas now.....you cannot demand all this stuff as employees whilst the company dies. Union delegates demonstrating and employees striking and demanding things doesn't go very far if the company goes bankrupt.


You cannot have the workers running the show. A boss-free zone doesn't work.

Rinehart's issue isn't a fightwith the employees of Fairfax...she hasn't even got to that stage yet.

She's having a stoush with the other shareholders and their representatives including notorious Green Left Commos like Simon Marais, managing director of funds manager and hotbed of Bolshevism, Allan Gray .

They - with some basis, I think - see her as someone who has a range of personal agendas that are unlikely to coincide with the interests of the other shareholders.

Gina's problem is Gina.

 

[willair]

(PS: Just looked at the chart history and can see in April 2007 the stock price reached $5.40...todays close at 55c means it has dropped around 90% )

Cheers,
Oracle.

Always a good way to see Who the top volume holdings are,that gives you a baseline to work from,the chart for this one is a shocker but depending which way this goes and it is reasonable to assume that below 50 cents
short-term it may be a opportunity worth pursuing,not that i know anything.imho.

 

[Ideo]

Rinehart's issue isn't a fightwith the employees of Fairfax...she hasn't even got the that stage yet.

She's having a stoush with the other shareholders and their representatives including notorious Green Left Commos like Simon Marais, managing director of funds manager and hotbed of Boshevism, Allan Gray .

They - with some basis, I think - see her as someone who has a range of personal agendas that are unlikely to coincide with the interests of the other shareholders.

Gina's problem is Gina.

And that she wants to override the respected practice of directors not using the paper as their own party political platform.

You really think any journalism would be undertaken into her activities if she succeeds?

I'm not comfortable with losing a free media. Others, it seems, aren't bothered by it.

 

[Tuppence]

Top 5 shareholders at 22 Aug 2011

National Nominees Ltd - 18.84%
JP Morgan Nominees Australia Ltd - 14.87%
HSBC Custody Nominees Australia Ltd - 13.01%
Marinya Media Pty Ltd - 9.68%
Citicorp Nominees Pty Ltd - 7.06%

FWIW, Marinya Media Pty Ltd is the Fairfax family, by way of their holdings in the former Rural Press. I think they have since sold at least part of their stake.

 

[Aaron_C]

I'm not comfortable with losing a free media. Others, it seems, aren't bothered by it.

Well you always have the non-Gina Rinehart press like News Corp, ABC etc. It's not like Fairfax controls other media outlets like TV, radio etc the way they do with newspapers.