Message to Goldman Sachs

by **antiaristo** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:26 pm

Chaps, I just want you to be clear on WHAT you are buying. Just so you cannot claim you did not know. ITV is a portfolio of twelve different and distinct licenses to broadcast. Those licenses were allocated partly on the basis of production quality commitments, and also partly on the basis of commitment to the region. It is a REGIONAL NETWORK. It does not take a genius to figure out how to make a lot more money out of this operation. But in doing that you will run up against the licence conditions. Now it may well be that the current Secretary of State is your bitch, but she is not going to last much longer. Same goes for Richard Hooper at Ofcom. You should also know that you are potentially buying into a CRIMINAL liability. You can read all about it here. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=2221.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...2221.topic</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Will Charles Allen keep the raiders at bay? ITV's rejection of yesterday's takeover bid is not the end of the story. The venture capitalists are being taken seriously on all sides. Chris Tryhorn Thursday March 23, 2006 After ITV's rejection of a private equity takeover bid involving former BBC director general Greg Dyke, the ball is back in the raiders' court - and there is a big difference between the current plan and a full takeover. The consortium of Apax Partners, Blackstone and Goldman Sachs is reviewing its options - which include making a full takeover bid, not just the unusual investment proposal it has already made. "The consortium has been in discussions with ITV regarding a confidential proposal involving the investment of a substantial amount of new capital, in exchange for a minority shareholding," the group said in a statement. "This proposal could be structured, subject to the approval of the board of ITV, in a number of ways, including the consortium subscribing for new equity in ITV or the consortium making an offer for ITV. The consortium is reviewing its position and a further announcement will be made if appropriate." A full takeover would cost around £7bn, including a premium for shareholders, whereas the current plan involves just £1.3bn of investment. Under that plan, the consortium would put in £1.3bn to fund the issue of new equity, giving it a 48% stake in ITV and effective control of the company. Shareholders are being offered two incentives to accept this apparently lowball deal: a £3.6bn one-off payout and the hope of later returns through their halved stake in ITV. The snag for them is that the payout comes not from cash but from loading up ITV's debt to a level that some analysts feel would be risky for a company reliant on a cyclical advertising market. The deeper question for shareholders is whether ITV will actually prosper from a change of management. In other words, will the share price boom just because Greg Dyke is at the helm? The consortium certainly hopes that by installing him as chief executive it can boost the company's performance. Strategic ideas under consideration are said to include improving the effectiveness of programme spend and investing in more digital platforms, including pay-TV. Beyond this, investors will have to ponder whether ITV's struggles with the declining TV advertising market are to any extent the fault of management. Some analysts feel that ITV's predicament as a historically dominant broadcaster now exposed to a multichannel world of ruthless competition and fragmenting audiences is just an unpleasant fact of life. Others point the blame at the chief executive, Charles Allen, and his programme-making lieutenants for not innovating enough and failing to take on the hostile market in the way that the publicly owned Channel 4 has. Under takeover rules, the consortium is not allowed to bend the ear of investors. It has no intention of going hostile on ITV either. So what happens next? Either shareholders will tell ITV's board to change its stance or the consortium will have to come back with a new proposal - a sweeter version of the current plan, or a full-blown takeover offer. If the shareholders prove to be unexcited, the raiders will have to admit defeat and allow Mr Allen to stay in charge. The City's great survivor has plenty of gas in the tank, analysts reckon, but for all the scepticism about the consortium bid's appeal, the proposal being taken seriously on all sides. Mr Allen hasn't quite closed the gate on Greg Dyke and his barbarians yet.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1738046,00.html">business.guardian.co.uk/s...46,00.html</a> Note well the reference to the KKR/RJ Reynolds-Nabisco saga. I'd say you are being used by somebody.

by **antiaristo** » Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:57 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Goldman chief acts over UK office's bid failures Published: 18 April 2006 Hank Paulson, the chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, is moving to rein in some of the most senior bankers in London over concern that the firm is caught up in "bid fever". In recent weeks Goldman has either walked away from or been rebuffed on four high-profile takeover bids. Mr Paulson is worried the failed bids for ITV and Associated British Ports have damaged the bank's reputation. Goldman withdrew its support for an unsolicited takeover approach from the property tycoon Robert Tchenguiz to the pubs group Mitchells & Butlers late last week. The decision to back away came directly from the top, it is understood. At the weekend BAA, the UK airports group, also revealed that it had turned down an unsolicited takeover offer. Senior sources at Goldman indicate Mr Paulson has expressed severe unhappiness at the way some of his top bankers are behaving. One banker who was on the receiving end of the rebuke said: "He doesn't like that we are being seen to bear-hug public companies. His concern is we are allowing ourselves, unwittingly, to be used. There is a high degree of excitement among some people in London to do deals." Goldman declined to discuss what Mr Paulson has said to his leading investment bankers. A spokesman said only: "We take our responsibilities very seriously and expect our people to conduct themselves accordingly." It is thought the blunt message to some of the leading deal-makers in London was, roughly, "stick to banking". Mr Paulson fears Goldman is risking its reputation for discretion and could alienate clients by pursuing too many deals that go nowhere. On some recent bids, Goldman has acted as adviser, underwriter and investor, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest. There is a growing feeling in the City that so-called "virtual bids", where the bidder makes a tentative approach rather than a formal offer, are potentially damaging to public companies. Private equity houses in particular are accused of putting pressure on boards to reveal sensitive financial information on the vague promise that a bid may follow at a premium to the share price. Boards have so far been largely successful in dismissing the offers, though there still appear to be many in the pipeline. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article358372.ece">news.independent.co.uk/bu...358372.ece</a>

Message to Goldman Sachs

Message to Goldman Sachs

Received and Understood

Who is online