Main Page Content:
United Business MediaRSS feed
-

UK news media job losses: To October 2008

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 14 November 2008 at 12:00
Tags: Guardian Media Group, Independent News & Media, Media, United Business Media

As requested by one reader, a graphic. Prepare yourself for a big increase in November.

PS: Jeremy Dear (NUJ) and Jon Slattery (ex-Press Gazette) make the point that these reported job losses understate the real magnitude of the problem.

Plenty more jobs are being burned off by non-replacement of staff, for example. Here’s Dear on the subject:

The true picture in some newsrooms is grim. For example yesterday I spoke to a journalist at a daily regional paper who was the only reporter there that day. The reporting staff as a whole has dropped by half. It’s a familiar story for those working in local newspapers. But it is also now becoming more familiar to those working across the media.

A reader called hizz makes the same point — with reference to Northcliffe.

Certain parts of Northcliffe are doing drip drip redundancies and saying nothing about it in public at all, because it’s a sub here, an exec there, and a strict policy of non-replacement when the overworked and underpaid hacks who are left quit.

True enough. All we can do, I think, is capture the trend.

That said, If you’re reading this blog, you can help us by submitting news of unreported redundancies. Get in touch with me: 0208 670 0039 / fullrun [at] googlemail [dot] com.

Do remember to use a non-work email address. A non-work broadband connection might be a good idea, too. When you submit info, I’ll do my best to confirm it. . . and add your numbers to the running total.

-

The discreet charm of non-executive directors: Sharp hires at The Guardian and The Telegraph

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 15 October 2008 at 00:59
Tags: Associated Newspapers, Daily Mail & General Trust, Google, Guardian Media Group, Independent News & Media, News Corp, News International, Trinity Mirror, United Business Media, emap

What do non-executives get paid for?

Actually, the money isn’t great (at least not by the standards of Masters Of Universe).

The official version is that non-executives act as neutral voices, mediating between management teams and shareholders. Occasionally, they are called upon to mediate between chairman and chief executives, too.

If that sounds a bit like working as a counselor at Relate, the marriage guidance service, think again. Non-executives also have some serious (fiduciary, in the jargon) responsibilities. In extremis, neglecting these responsibilties can get them prosecuted.

As I say, that’s the official version. In many ways, the unofficial version is much more interesting — particularly at non-quoted companies, where there’s less pressure to appoint directors who are deeply acceptable as guardians of the City’s interests.

Away from the public markets, copper-bottomed presentability in the City doesn’t matter so much as a gilt-edged contact book.

Nothing wrong with that at all. It’s the stuff from which deals are made. In particular, today brought two stunning examples of the genre.

First up, Telegraph Media Group appointed Lauren Twohill, Google’s European marketing boss, as non-executive director.

Twohill has worked at Google for the past six years — long enough to assimilate the DNA of a company that lies at the heart of the web economy.

Meanwhile, over at the Guardian Media Group, in the wake of Paul Myners’ departure, the company has appointed venture capitalist Judy Gibbons as a non-executive director.

Like Twohill, Gibbons is unusual — in the sense that she’s a female Brit with extensive high-level experience of Silicon Valley.

But Gibbons’ track record in the tech industry — all 25 years of it — is deeper and wider. After stints at Hewlett-Packard and Apple, she switched allegiance to Microsoft, playing a big role in the development of MSN.

Next, Gibbons ascended to tech exec heaven — that’s to say, she became a partner at one of Silicon Valley’s largest and most respected venture capital firms, Accel Partners. (Its portfolio of investments include Facebook and a bunch of established and well-respected deep-tech companies.)

No doubt Gibbons will play a big role in advising Carolyn McCall on how to invest the tens of millions that GMG has banked from the part-sale of Auto Trader. (There’s a rather large “investment fund” waiting to be spent — although some of it may already have been blown on the £30m acquisition of Paid Content).

We know less about Telegraph Media Group’s investment plans. Have the Barclays ponied up cash for a 2.0 spending spree? Given the desperation of so many start-ups, they could do a lot worse. No doubt Ms Twohill will help the Barclays to spend what’s available.

If anything, the corollary these appointments is even more intriguing.

At Wapping, can we expect James Murdoch to tear down the walls that traditionally separate News Corp’s operating units — and bring in some digital expertise from his dad’s empire? You’d hope so. But there’s little sign of it.

If anything, the recent promotion of two insiders to take over Anne Spackman’s role as editor of Times Online points to a continuing preference for autarky.

What about Daily Mail & General Trust? This is a company that has excelled in snapping up high-margin B2B and database publishers. But its top table visibly lacks a digital star. (Charles Dunstone of Carphone Warehouse is a retailer at heart, and a superb one. But he doesn’t quite make the cut in tech terms IMHO.)

Endearingly, five of DMGT’s non-execs appear to be over 70 years of age.

At Independent News & Media, there’s no News Corp-style pool of talent to call upon. Here, the roster of non-execs resembles a procession of stuffed shirts, old mates with Irish surnames and the odd bloke who has some expertise in international relations. Plus Baroness Jay.

As at DMGT, this is a boardroom policy minted in the 1980s. The appointment of Twohill and Gibbons elsewhere will steadily increase the pressure on the O’Reillys — and the Rothermeres — to confront the recent arrival of the 21st century.

And what of Trinity Mirror? Sly Bailey has made some interesting-looking digital acquisitions. But have you looked at Trinity’s line-up non-execs lately? To say the least, it lacks digital oomph.

There’s Gary Hoffman (a vice-chairman at Barclays, who seems well-versed in the credit card business); Laura Wade-Gery (an ex-management consultant and investment banker who runs Tesco.com); Kathleen O’Donovan (former beancounter-in-chief at industrial widget company Invensys); and Jane Lighting (former CEO of Five).

DMGT, IN&M and Trinity Mirror need to get their backsides in gear. Their non-quoted competitors have just raised the ante. Significantly.

-

Freefall Friday: Richard Littlejohn might laugh at Banki Hankipanki, but the City is running scared

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 10 October 2008 at 13:09
Tags: Centaur Media, Daily Mail & General Trust, Independent News & Media, Johnston Press, Trinity Mirror, United Business Media

Another massive downward lurch on the markets today. Partly caused by technical issues relating to the liquidation of Lehman Brothers.

And partly caused by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The Daily Mail is calling it Freefall Friday. In the media, everything has taken a hammering — except, oddly, Johnston Press.

DMGT: Down 6.7% at 304.5p

Trinity Mirror: Down 9.1% at 65p

Johnston Press: Up 6.5% at 37p

ITV: Down 2% at 35.25p

Independent News & Media: Down 5.4% at E1.05

United Business Media: Down 5.6% at 454.75p

Centaur Media: Down 7.1% at 52.5p

WPP: Down 6.9% at 367p

This morning’s Markets Live session at FT Alphaville made for astonishing reading: 700+ reader comments in the space of two hours.

There’s still little sign that credit markets are unfreezing. Banks are still unwilling to lend to each other, and to their customers.

In the Mail, Richard Littlejohn takes the piss out of “Iceland’s Banki Hankipanki”. Presumably, he’s been reading yesterday’s Sun, which continued its policy of laughing in the face of financial apocalypse.

Under different circumstances, comparing Alastair Darling to a Gerry Anderson puppet would be funny. But there’s something about this humour that doesn’t quite work.

In the real world, anger is building. Max Hastings is now calling for the public naming and shaming of the City’s “lunatics”. (”And when we have the names, like the profiteers of the First World War, they should be perceived as men and women whom decent people will not share a park bench with.”)

On a more somber note, Peter Oborne warns that Britain is just five meals away from anarchy.

Alarmist? Who knows? In North America, there are reports of grain shipments piling up in warehouses because no-one can give (or take) credit guarantees. China is turning away shiploads of iron ore because worldwide demand for steel is collapsing.

Here, thanks to government seizure of Icelandic banks, Debenhams, Moss Bros, Woolworths and French Connection now seem to be part-owned by Gordon Brown’s new best friends in Reykeyavik..

Sainsburys is in deep trouble. Retail Week is reporting that JJB Sports, the high street chain, can’t pay its rent. Several branches have been visited by bailiffs, it seems.

On Wall Street, there are rumours that the investment bank Morgan Stanley might go under. General Motors, too. Yesterday on Wall Street, the motor manufacturer’s shares lost one-third of their value, closing at their lowest level since the 1950s.

At FT Alphaville, economists suggest that equity markets are at “riot point”.

Among Alphaville readers, the gallows humour includes one prediction of martial law in the US within a week. “Go long on ammunition and canned food,” writes one commenter. Another suggests that Zimbabwe is now looking like a safe haven.

There’s talk of surviving by “hunting wild animals and surviving off berries and tree bark”. And, of course, there’s laughter at the fact that the FT published an edition of How To Spend It this morning.

The FT’s Neil Hume has taken to referring to the British krona, rather than the British pound. The krona in question is tumbling against the dollar — down below $1.70 now.

Who’d be a finance minister at this weekend’s G7 and G20 crisis meetings? Our leaders have got 48 hours to save the world from depression. They’d best get busy.

-

Meltdown implications: Eerie silence hangs over media stocks

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 18 September 2008 at 11:09
Tags: Johnston Press, Trinity Mirror, United Business Media

You’re probably assuming that the worst has happened to the share prices of media companies this week.

Not quite. Much of the carnage has been confined to financial stocks. By contrast, the broad FTSE-100 index of Britain’s largest quoted companies fell by 7% between Monday morning and Wednesday evening.

That’s a lot by normal standards. But it’s not quite a repeat of 1929. And it’s nothing like the hammering taken by HBOS, Barclays and HSBC.

Predictably, however, the media sector fared worse than most. Trinity Mirror’s shares opened at 114p on Monday morning. Last night, they closed at 89p.

Trinity racked up big declines on Monday and Tuesday. Yesterday, the company’s share price seemed to stabilize. This morning, it’s up slightly. Overall, the company’s share price has declined by around 25% since the start of the week.

Johnston Press opened at 45p on Monday morning and fell to 42p at the close. On Tuesday, it recovered to 48p. Yesterday, it declined to 37p. This morning, JP is also up slightly. Overall: a decline of some 17%.

Two things need to be said about these numbers. The first is that stock market has been behaving erratically, to say the least. A huge (and bankrupt) Lehman Brothers sold millions of shares into the market earlier this week, skewing prices all over the place.

The second is a reminder that Trinity and Johnston Press remain two of the sector’s most exposed companies. Despite this, their share prices have yet to go below the lows recorded earlier this summer when short selling them was in vogue.

For a slightly more upbeat view, take a look at the shares of United Business Media, the UK’s largest quoted B2B publisher. The company’s shares fell heavily on Monday before stabilizing on Tuesday afternoon and today.

Overall decline? From 555p to 515p, UBM fell by around 7% — exactly in line with the FTSE-100.

More generally, investors and analysts are still a long way from figuring out the implications of this week’s crash.

Even before this week’s events, the news was bad. On Monday, Newsquest reported that classified ad revenues fell by a whopping 30% during August. Yesterday’s unemployment figures showed the fastest increase in benefit claimants since 1992.

On top of this, the savage forced consolidation of the banking sector means that corporate borrowing will become even more expensive. Consumers will lose even more confidence. And marketers will cut ad budgets further.

How much? No-one knows. But when the dust settles, it makes sense to anticipate another round of speculation about debt levels at places like Johnston Press and Trinity Mirror.

This time, analysts will have to factor the fallout from a remodelled banking system into the equation. It’s hard to see anything positive emerging from that.

-

Er, what was that about a broad-based recession?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 29 July 2008 at 22:55
Tags: Daily Mail & General Trust, Media, Pearson PLC, United Business Media

This morning, United Business Media turned in revenues up by 10.4% YOY for the six months to the end of June. Cash conversion improved, and so did operating profit (up 11.4%).

Even CMPi managed growth of 6.2% (although margins dipped slightly below 20%).

For the journalists among you, it’s worth pointing out that all of this happened inside a company (UBM as a whole) where only 25% of revenues are now generated by print. That’s down from 56% four years ago.

It’s just as well, then, UBM’s events business is doing a fair impression of the Duracell bunny. In his presentation to analysts this morning, David Levin, UBM’s chief executive, kept the best news until his last slide, which contained these bullet points:

– Forward bookings across UBM’s major events scheduled for 2H08 are 10% ahead of the previous year.

– Bookings for 2009 major events demonstrating good growth — 10% ahead.

Pearson was also presenting half-year results this morning. There, the FT Group delivered revenues up by 11% for the half-year. Much of that was attributable to the group’s Interactive Data division. But FT Publishing itself managed a 2% increase in subscription, circulation and advertising revenues.

Not bad given what’s happening to City jobs and financial services advertising.

Dame Marjorie sounded over the moon. She told the FT: “In downturns, companies like ours, which have consistently invested and have very strong balance sheets, have huge opportunities. This [the next couple of years] is probably going to be the most fun time I have had yet in this job.”

How so? Scardino mentioned acquisitions, “bolt-ons, things which are hugely synergistic”.

Whether or not she’s thinking — in part? — about enriching the FT Group with acquisitions remains to be seen.

Three or four years ago, when the FT was languishing miserably at the bottom of its profit cycle, investors would have demanded Scardino’s head on a pikestaff at Traitor’s Gate if she’d so much as hinted at such a thing. Now, as the FT prepares to confront a rampaging Wall Street Journal, there’s just a chance that things might be different.

Stranger things have happened.

-

Memo to private equity: Why not try a proper challenge?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 2 July 2008 at 17:46
Tags: United Business Media, emap

So a consortium of private equity firms has got round to bidding for Informa.

This, however, feels like one of those deals that — like climbing Mt. Everest — lacks a rationale apart from the fact that it’s capable of being done.

Currently, Informa carries around £1.25bn of debt. At 4.4 times EBITDA (roughly equivalent to operating profits), that already looked high. Indeed, reducing debts was supposedly one of the attractions of talking with United Business Media.

So what will private equity bidders do? Yep: they’re going to increase, rather than reduce, Informa’s debts.

Specifically, according to the FT, they are proposing to ratchet up the company’s loans from £1.25bn to £1.85bn.

This will help to pay for the deal (in the same way it helped the Glazer family buy Manchester United). But it would also mean that Informa’s net debts would amount to more than six times EBITDA.

And take a look at the interest rates that a newly-private Informa would have to pay on its shiny new loans, as reported by the FT:

  • £1.39bn at 3.75% over Libor: in other words, around . . . 9.7% *
  • £463n in high-yield (a.k.a. junk) debt costing. . . 11.75%

Under these circumstances, after a successful private equity deal, Informa would find itself making interest payments of £188m a year.

In a recent conference call with analysts, Informa suggested that it expected to pay a “blended” interest rate of 6.25% on its debt during 2008.

Of course, this will have increased since then, but it’s worth noting that under such circumstances, Informa would find itself making interest payments of around £78m this year.

What’s £110m between friends?

Actually, quite a lot — even if Informa’s new owners don’t demand much in terms of dividends from their investment in the short term.

If this deal goes through, employees can expect the mother of all cost-cutting programme to swing into action from Day One.

Unless Informa’s board has been deceiving investors about the company’s prospects, this acquisition would take a moderately stressed, but fundamentally solid, company and put it through the wringer without much justification.

By contrast, if private equity were really doing its job, it would be tackling a proper challenge — like restructuring the regional press.

The only silver lining is the market’s suspicion that Informa’s private equity suitors won’t be able to raise the money required for a bid. This is evident in a share price that’s stolidly refusing to perk up to anything like the anticipated offer of 506p.

* I’m using three-month LIBOR (5.95%) here: it seems to be the benchmark.

-

Who will save Kelvin?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 20 June 2008 at 11:00
Tags: GCAP PLC, Independent News & Media, Media, News International, United Business Media, emap

The happy-go-lucky saga of Kelvin MacKenzie’s potential candidacy in the by-election at Haltemprice and Howden cannot be allowed to hide the bleak reality.

Kelvin MacKenzie is a man who has lost an empire, but has yet to find a role.

Friends are worried that he is turning into the media world’s equivalent of Gazza.

The drink-sodden Geordie’s latter years were a steady downward spiral of broken dreams in dreary places: Gansu Tianma, Wolves, Boston United, Kettering Town and Burnley.

All the time, he was being helped through the darker moments by old mates from Spurs like Terry Vanables and Gary Mabbutt.

It’s a similar story with MacKenzie, who never properly recovered from the shock of leaving The Sun.

He was edged out of Sky after a few months in 1994. (The job had been arranged by his mate Rupert.) Then it was on to broken dreams in dreary places: LIVE TV, Talk Radio, Highbury House, Media Square.

Every one a winner? Not quite — despite the quiet behind-the-scenes help from his old mates Rupert and Les. At every port of call, MacKenzie’s self-destructive talent for destroying shareholder value resurfaced to devastating effect.

In the Sun column he used to announce that he wouldn’t be standing against Davis, McKenzie admitted that cashflow is, er, a little bit tight.

Will anyone help this once-proud man to conquer his demons? For his own good, MacKenzie needs to be prevented from ever running a business again. . .

-

Morgan Stanley hails Roger Parry as King of the Bears: Prepare your handbasket for hellish ordeal, say bankers

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 18 June 2008 at 12:47
Tags: Daily Mail & General Trust, Future, ITV, Johnston Press, Trinity Mirror, United Business Media

Nasty. Morgan Stanley has slashed its profits forecasts for the media sector in 2009 and 2010.

In an aggressively-worded note, the bank’s media analysts foresee distress spreading from consumer-facing media companies to their B2B counterparts. Like this:

Away from the consumer-related areas we see pressures mounting in the corporate environment.

Finance directors looking into the second half of 2008 and into 2009 are likely to seek to reduce controllable costs whether in advertising, marketing, information costs, travel and other expenses.

This means that, while the thrust of this note is to reduce expectations for consumer-related companies, we also take down numbers for those exposed to B2b markets and professional publishing.

Morgan Stanley has cut its profit forecasts for what it calls “advertising inventory companies” (I guess this means anyone who sells advertising) by a whopping 17%.

Advertising and marketing agencies have been cut by 12%. BSkyB is down by 10%. And “professional publishers” are down by 6%.

Morgan Stanley is very bearish on what it calls the “cyclicals” (ITV, Trinity Mirror), which remain dogged by “a combination of structural deterioration, heavy downgrades and, in some cases, leverage fears”.

One possible exception is Johnston Press. Having endured the pain of an early rights issue, the company “could produce very attractive returns on a 2 year view”.

(Note that reference to “heavy downgrades”: The point here is that share price collapses haven’t yet been “heavy” enough to generate buying signals. The implications of this are fairly scary.)

Among the few positives, Morgan Stanley regards United Business Media and DMG&T as “safe” and “interesting”.

A big shake-out is predicted for adland, as revenue growth moves from 3.75% in 2008 to -1% in 2009. As Morgan Stanley puts it:

In 2008, boosted by a strong start to the year and by the ‘super quadrennial’ factors (Beijing Olympics, US Presidential elections, Euro 2008) most forecasters have assumed organic revenue growth of around 5%.

In 2009 estimates for organic revenue growth tend to range in the vicinity of 3-4%. Our starting point is now to ask why there should be any global advertising growth in 2009.

Losing 1% of growth (in revenues) might not sound like much. But when that 1% falls down to the profit line, it becomes a very big number. In organisations with large fixed costs (including employees), it’s also a very threatening number. . .

Scrabbling around for corroboration on this, Morgan Stanley alight upon Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, who has been warning of a 2009 slowdown for as long as anyone can remember.

But who is the uber-bear identified by Morgan Stanley as supporting their arguments? Step forward Roger Parry, chairman of Johnston Press, Future Publishing and Media Square, the troubled marketing services company.

No doubt Parry’s unvarnished honesty horrifies the financial PRs who have to work with him. Last week, he explained Media Square’s disappointing results by commenting upon “the amazing speed with which the advertising economy has tanked out in the last six months”.

For good measure, Parry added that “the level to which confidence has fallen is really scary.”

At the time, I was rather hoping that no-one would notice his comments.

Too bad: Morgan Stanley did.

-

UBM-Informa talks collapse as the princes of private equity wave silly money under Mr Rigby’s nose

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 18 June 2008 at 12:29
Tags: United Business Media

So Informa and United Business Media won’t be getting hitched after all.

Talks collapsed last night after the market closed. UBM put out a statement first, suggesting that a deal in shareholders’ best interests had proved impossible to negotiate.

Then Informa followed up, throwing in the added information that it had received “a further approach from a third party that may or may not lead to a takeover offer in cash”.

That approach seems to have come from Providence Equity Partners (PEP). According to Neil Hume at FT Alphaville, PEP made an approach to Derek Mapp, the chairman of Informa yesterday, offering an indicative price of between 520p and 550p.

This would have been enough to embolden Informa — and break UBM’s bid, which was already undermined by the way in which investors had bid up Informa’s shares.

Between 8 June, when news of the talks was leaked, and yesterday, Informa’s share price rose steadily from 386p to 470p. To do the deal, UBM would have needed to bid at least 500p.

On 6 June, Informa was valued at £1.6bn. By yesterday, the market’s valuation had shot up to £2bn. At 500p, the company would have been valued at £2.12bn

Informa’s rising value created a problem for UBM. Under chief executive David Levin, UBM requires that its acquisitions deliver a post-tax return of at least 8% in Year 1.

After buying Informa for £2.12bn — plus the $1.24bn required to settle its debts — UBM would have needed the company to produce post-tax profits of at least £270m in 2009.

For 2009, Informa is likely to deliver post-tax profits of under £170m. Even after adding into the equation cost cuts (or synergies) of £30m to £50m, the deal was always going to be a goner at 500p.

Predictably, the Telegraph is suggesting that the deal was called off because of an “irreconcilable difference between the companies’ relative share price”.

At the Times, Amanda Anthony also suggests that some UBM shareholders were concerned about Informa’s debts.

In retrospect, UBM’s interest in Informa feels like an opportunistic episode triggered by collapsing share prices — and overcooked fears about Informa’s debts.

Who comes out of it better? For the moment, Informa, which has some distracting bait for the sharks in the form of an “approach” from an alternative bidder. For Peter Rigby, the company’s chairman, the dalliance with UBM has worked out well.

He has held on to his job, watched Informa’s share price rise sharply and used UBM to elicit interest from private equity funds (which was probably what he wanted in the first place).

There’s only one cloud on the horizon. At the weekend, apparently unprompted, Rigby made a reference to the possibility that Informa might be broken up into smaller parts and sold off.

This morning, the same suggestion re-surfaced, courtesy of several analysts, including Paul Richards from Numis Securities.

“As a business built by acquisition/merger, Informa could be dismantled into more manageable pieces relatively easily in our view.”

A break-up would serve only one purpose: it would allow a private equity bidder to bid high (possibly as high as 530p) in the hope of recouping some cash by selling off Informa’s specialist businesses on a piecemeal basis.

For UBM, one possible result of an episode like this is renewed market scrutiny. Questions will now be asked about the company’s strategy. Does UBM have another bid target in mind? If not, why not?

Morgan Stanley isn’t alone in recommending UBM as one of the market’s “safe” and “interesting” stocks. That said, David Levin, UBM’s cerebral chief executive, will need to move quickly to quell inevitable post-bid murmurings about quality of earnings and lack of ambition.

-

Why can’t Peter Rigby think of any positive arguments for a UBM-Informa merger?

Posted by Peter Kirwan on 16 June 2008 at 18:05
Tags: Media, United Business Media

From Andrew Davidson in the Sunday Times, an odd interview with an agitated-sounding Peter Rigby, chairman of Informa.

Odd because. . . well, I can’t imagine a PR advisor telling him to do it. (And PR advisors tend to rule the roost in situations like this).

Perhaps Rigby has chosen the Sunday Times to have a chat because it was the Sunday Telegraph that broke the story about merger talks.

Either way, it’s clear there’s a blame game going on about who leaked news of the UBS-Informa talks to the media. (“Our team didn’t leak it,” says Rigby.)

Also in the air: a clear concern on Rigby’s part that he may not play a part in any merged company.

Indeed, he slips into something like walkaway-mode when he starts to discuss Informa’s motives:

“It’s not to solve a debt problem or a CEO problem. We [Informa] are a fantastically balanced business, 60% of profits come from publishing subscriptions, we have really good geographic spread, our Dubai office is really motoring. Only 3% of our revenues come from advertising.”

Rigby is clearly also negative on the prospect of a UBM takeover (as opposed to a merger). The scenario he sketches out positions David Levin of UBM as a prospective Napoleon on the road to Moscow.

“If it turns out that way, it is more problematic, because people inside will feel like they have been taken over. We have to work very hard with people here, it’s about the niche-ness, the specialisms.”

Rigby spins the obligatory line that he will “try and do the right thing by shareholders”. But in terms of pro-merger arguments, that’s about it — a perfunctory commitment to do the right thing, and nothing else.

Lukewarm? That doesn’t quite cover it. From where I’m sitting, Peter Rigby’s approach to merger talks seems positively chilly.

Previous Posts

-

Advertisement

E-mail Newsletter Signup

-

Advertisement

-

Advertisement