Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

May 29, 2009 -

Take-Two Interactive Chairman Strauss Zelnick seems like a pretty smart guy, so we were surprised to learn that he was actually considering buying a newspaper. In the end, he wised up, however.

Reuters reports that Zelnick decided to pass on acquiring the Austin American-Statesman. The Texas paper had a daily circulation of 152,691 as of March.

Zelnick's private equity firm ZelnickMedia Corp. never made a formal bid and decided to pull out of negotiations as the sorry state of the newspaper business continued to worsen.


Comments

Re: Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

In before Thompson gloats that Straus doesn't know what he's doing.

Re: Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

You don't invest in a failing company, I wish the people running "obamanomics" knows that.

"We invest in a sick and dying horse and we didin't win! Why did this happen?" 

Then

"Hey guys, I gotta tell you that we lost a bunch of money when we bet on that horse so we gotta charge you 10-25% on everything you buy to make up that money even though it's primarly my fault."

Re: Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

Define "failing company". Is it one facing chapter 7 bankruptcy? One facing chapter 11 bankruptcy? One asking congress for help? One that's in need of a management change?

-Gray17

-Gray17

Re: Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

Does it really matter? If their filing bankruptcy obviously something is wrong with the company. Chapter 7 is management but those companie's got there in the first place through their own failing. Take for example Midway whom spent so much money on original IP that sucked, same with Ford and GM. It should be "You shoulden't have relied on your trucks and SUV's too bad so sad, you should have diversified." or, "You shoulden't have given out loans to people you know they can't pay back, you failed sorry." The concept of bailing out a company is insane because they failed in some way shape or form, they should be replaced by a company that doesn't fail. Don't keep those who fail at their job and get people who can keep their jobs.

Re: Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

same with Ford and GM

And yet oddly enough, Ford hasn't gotten a bailout, and isn't staring bankruptcy down the throat. Hence my asking what you're definition of what a failing company is.

-Gray17

-Gray17

Re: Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

The primary definition of capitalism, right there.  The problem is that liberals are trying to spread a message that if people do something wrong, it's always someone elses fault.  Therefore, nobody needs to be held responsible for their actions.

Also, just an FYI; it's GM and Chrysler that were bailed out.  It's looking like Ford will be able to weather the storm without taxpayer's money.

 

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

Imagine being the only paper on the continent that couldn't write stories about how GTA turns kids into cop killers.  That's your entire technology section gone.

---
The Mammon Philosophy

---
Fangamer

Re: Take-Two's Zelnick Passes on Newspaper Purchase

He's an intelligent man who made a sound business decision.  Good for you Strauss.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician