Thanks newbies for driving this higher on that news that NYT is gonna be in China (yawn)... So, when the glow is off this stinky rose, this will drift right back to where it belongs, low 6's. I shorted this pig right to it's high today, will keep shorting it as high as it will go, for it is a dying media. Do you really think China cares about the NYT? The Journal, yes, that makes sense-but what do they care about NY in general?
I agree with your position - both short and despairing of a good "turnaround" plan - but I can't let that NY crack go altogether.
(a) EVERYbody in China has 10 or more relatives living in the US, more than likely with NY being well-represented. And if they can sell Big Macs and Coke over there, they obviously aren't - as a country - any "better" than we are. I.e., they still emulate/envy us - heaven knows why.
S&P got it right yesterday - lotsa debt and not the kind of credit that the Times probably was when it could count on a billion (?) in advertising from Bloomingdale's, Corcoran, etc.
Add a leader more likely by far to make the 10 worst list than the A-list and one only has to worry about when/if/how the family can force a sale to Bloomberg or - heaven help us - Carlos Slim.
If it's "all about digital," I join you in thinking "game over." There's room for a HuffPo and a couple of other islands of occasional intelligence, but a top 20 website (which the Times has got to be if/when it stops publishing paper daily) doesn't seem in the cards.
They'd have to borrow from the likes of the NY Post - scantily glad girls and boys and stuff like that - to go from niche audience to mass.
I'll say this for the Sulzbergers - they ALL would rather sell than go that route, ... but this has been playing out so long and the current Sulz can't be within 10 years of being "past it," so I think we've still got good visibility on the downside. They'll tweak this and tweak that and keep losing money.