View Full Version : Carlyle Group Buys Out Loews' Theatres
Jul 2nd, 2004, 3:42 AM
Loews Sale Nets $1.46 Billion
NewsStand - Tuesday, June 22, 2004
A team of buyout firms sealed a deal to snap up Loews Cineplex Entertainment for $1.46 billion.
Canadian buyout firm Onex Corp., which owns Loews with Oaktree Capital Management, said yesterday that it would sell the world's third-largest movie theater chain to a company formed by Bain Capital, the Carlyle Group and Spectrum Equity Investors.
A source familiar with the deal said Bain and Carlyle will have equal stakes of 38 percent each, while Spectrum will have around 20 percent, with existing management owning the rest. The Post reported on June 7 that the Bain-led consortium was in advanced talks to purchase Loews.
"Loews is a solid, 100-year-old business with consistent and stable cash flows in a well-known industry," said Michael Connelly, a managing director of the Carlyle Group's telecommunications and media group. "We look forward to working with management and employees of the company to create new opportunities."
The assets being acquired by Bain, Carlyle and Spectrum include Loews' U.S. operations, Grupo Cinemex in Mexico and its 50 percent interests in Megabox Cineplex of Korea and Yelmo Cineplex of Spain.
Jul 2nd, 2004, 3:41 PM
What do ya think..?
Record Sales of Fahrenheit 9/11 Could Fill War Profiteer's Pockets
Fahrenheit 9/11 turned on the box office heat in its first few day in theaters, breaking single-day records at the two New York City theaters where it opened and becoming the highest grossing documentary of all time in just its first weekend. The movie, which aims a critical eye at President Bush and his prosecution of the war in Iraq, sold $49,000 worth of tickets at the Loews Village 7 theater, beating the venue's single-day record of $43,435 held by 1997's "Men in Black," according to distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.
Unfortunately, while the movie is spreading information about Bush and Co.'s war profiteering exploits, it is may also end up filling the pockets of the Carlyle Group, one of the most infamous war profiteers with direct links to the Bush family. On Tuesday June 21, the previous owners of Loews Theatres in the United States agreed to sell the theatres to Bain Capital, The Carlyle Group and Spectrum Equity Investors for $2.0 billion. It is currently believed that the deal for the Carlyle Group and others to buy Loews Theatres in the United States is not likely to be held up in the regulatory process, and that it will close during the third quarter. This would mean that any profits made during the summer through ticket sales at Loews Theatres for Fahrenheit 9/11 would eventually go towards actually filling the pockets of Bush and Co., and would be especially beneficial for the Carlyle Group in particular.
Jul 2nd, 2004, 3:49 PM
i think if they can't stop the producers from distributing the movie, they'll stop future releases of harmful films by not showing them in the theatres.
Jul 2nd, 2004, 3:58 PM
Oh wow, businessmen condoning business to make themselves even richer. What a friggen shocker.
ED if it needs to come out then it will come out regardless. Tis the greatness of word of mouth, and easily accessible and available technology.
Jul 2nd, 2004, 5:42 PM
yeah, i heard that its available for download off some website [F911].
it was all the blocking attempts to prevent it from coming out that bothers me. why block it, if its one guy's opinion? is it so close that it would hurt politicians credibility? :rolling:
things don't happen overnite, you have to plan for them, get your ducks in a row. have you looked at what Carlyles' into? Its a conglomerate, for sure, but its got lots of clout. its bad enough our mass media are controlled, now its theatres.
>Oh wow, businessmen condoning business to make themselves even richer.
> What a friggen shocker.
if you can't read past the profit vs. motif, i guess others will have to do it for you. Not everything is about money. Even me. You know why I got involved in politics, and now, I know better.
Jul 2nd, 2004, 6:19 PM
I knew what he was trying to suggest but like I said, just business men making business to swell their pockets. You have to be incredibilly naive to think they would just buy theatres to censor movies. Yeah like 100 Michael Moore type films are going to be produced a year now and they have to stop this! Give me a break. Moore's film didn't phase their profits and I think they could careless about their public image. All the info and their dealings are readily available all over and accessible if people were really interested in them.
Jul 4th, 2004, 1:47 PM
>I knew what he was trying to suggest
its good that you can see it, now.
>You have to be incredibilly naive to think they would just buy theatres to censor movies.
your implication that i am naive is laughable. just because you can't see how mass media has censored the news by not reporting it because its not "newsworthy", does not mean that others can't, au contraire, they can. If you cannot see that controlling another media medium can lead to the same, what kind of American capitalist are you? it all starts somewhere.
leave the detective work to those who have a nose for it.
i'll try and spell it out for you. Consider what happened to Moore when he tried to get his film out. He couldn't. Miramax wanted to distribute it, Disney, the controlling partner, says no, it won't make money. The Weinstein brothers buy the rights with their own money and look for a distributor. They find a smaller distributor, Lions Gate. So they release it in 800+ theatres instead of the 2500+ that would have had access to the rights. It makes money comparable to new releases.
Now imagine, if you controlled the theatres instead of the distributors. You wouldn't have to worry about who's distributing it if the theatre decides not to show it because they don't have space for it or don't believe it will be profitable. voila. makes perfect business sense, much like Disney's official reason for not releasing it. and if the film wasn't released, much fewer people would be exposed to what it has to say, a distinct minority.
you prolly have a hard time comprehending the concept. but time will tell.
>Yeah like 100 Michael Moore type films are going to be produced a year now and they have to stop this!
>Give me a break.
not at all. its more like insurance, that pays for itself. putting people in the right places. you should know how corporate America works.
Jul 4th, 2004, 3:48 PM
Heh, you've either grown a backbone or your sheer stupidity is showing itself once again. It's good to see that you can use insults that people have continously used on you and for good reason, but they don't hold up against me.
Lets see where your cookie cutter responses in debates start:
1) Make up shit about someones views to further along your own arguements.
just because you can't see how mass media has censored the news by not reporting it because its not "newsworthy", does not mean that others can't, au contraire, they can.
Oh no, wise one I'm a misguided sheple. Educate me for I am lost! Please. What medium of news are you talking about? Ever read the newspaper, internet articles, even magazines like time, etc. Great censoring there. The media you're supposidly talking about is television. Media are businesses with commercial interests. Reporting on certain things don't bring in the $$$ and isn't what people usually tune in to see. Not to mention political straggles that might affect the stories.
If you cannot see that controlling another media medium can lead to the same,
Yes like I've said above, 100s of Michael Moore type films are going to come out to the wide screen now that highlight connections between Carlyle and it's associates so Carlyle bought out theatres to censor movies that show this....yeah that's it. I guess they're going to also buy out various newspaper companies, and somehow the internet to censor everything about them because they really give a shit about what the public thinks of them and this somehow effects their deals and income....
2) Make various inane irrelevant statements to make it appear you know what you're talking about.
what kind of American capitalist are you? it all starts somewhere.
i'll try and spell it out for you. Consider what happened to Moore when he tried to get his film out....
Regardless of how it got out, it did get out didn't it? Now isn't this reminiscent of what I said earlier "ED if it needs to come out then it will come out regardless." Hmmm.
The movie made money because of all the controversy surrounding it and the name Michael Moore attached to it. I don't think Disney was afraid it wouldn't make money, it was more of the political situation Eisner was in. But this has all been covered in other threads.
makes perfect business sense,
Wouldn't the theatres be loosing money on all the potential people that would go see it?
You're also acting like they control all the theatres. Not to mention that banning a film such as these wouldn't bode well with the public.
3) Desperation, start throwing ideas out of your ass.
not at all. its more like insurance, that pays for itself. putting people in the right places.
Right, so if ever a movie came out that showed them in a bad light they would ban it, because that makes perfect business sense, correct?
leave the detective work to those who have a nose for it.
Don't quit your day job.
Jul 4th, 2004, 4:30 PM
Denile. Its the American way.
They don't control all the theatres. Its gotta start somewhere. Tell me, how much of a viewing market is any 1 broadcasting network allowed to own? was that 60%? How many networks are there? 3? What does that tell you?
Now, how many networks of movie theatres exist? Cineplex, Loews, etc. What if you owned 1 or more of these networks? Can you decide what is shown on them and what is not? Can the smaller independant theatres compete with you?
What is a media medium? It encompasses many things we use to get our information about what's going on. Be it TV, newspapers, radio, entertainment. What happens when an entity can control 60% of the information put out in a market?
We all know how reliable Fox is, they've been known to fire their own, for not reporting false news. What of entertainment. Does it or does it not, effect peoples opinions? What does that mean?
I hope you can catch what I'm saying, else It may take more than me, to explain it to you. From what i've read of your response, it may well just.... :fencing:
Jul 4th, 2004, 6:31 PM
Denile. Its the American way.
It could be said about you also, trying to find something in which none exists. Also considering I'm not american...
blah blah blah....
What I gather is that you believe they're trying to keep control over the people. Try to keep them misinformed and restrict their opinions. To go about this they have to control and manipulate the media.
Now that's all fine and dandy, but what's the motifs of the Carlyle group to do this?
Does Michael Moore's film hurt their profits or alter their dealings and business conduct somehow? The business world they operate in is a mighty shady business. To propose that the Carlyle group is buying up media distributors to contain their image and views is preposterous. It's a sad attempt to blend your own views and conjecture of a pseudo reality that you hold true and try to use this to make sense of them.
Unfortunately many of the minds of reason have been absent from these boards, for whatever reasons. Mike, MD, laz, etc. So you get to run rampant throughout threads with your BS without being shot down, harshly. Enjoy it while it lasts :guill:
Jul 4th, 2004, 7:20 PM
We all know how reliable Fox is, they've been known to fire their own, for not reporting false news. Who got fired ED? What was the circumstance?
Jul 4th, 2004, 8:09 PM
>Who got fired ED? What was the circumstance?
It happened awhile back...
On April 2, 1998, two award-winning Florida TV producers, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, held press conferences in Tampa and Tallahassee to announce a lawsuit against a Fox TV network television station, WTVT. The reporters sued Fox for firing them after they refused to broadcast false reports about Monsanto's controversial genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone
here's another POV (slightly differing).
Also in 1997, Fox Florida network affiliate WTVT, pressured by advertiser Monsanto, fired co-directors Jane Akre and Steve Wilson for refusing to change their story on rBGH in Florida's milk supply. WTVT insisted the story be changed after Monsanto's attorney sent letters to the station accusing the reporters of bias and defamation that could "lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences for Fox News.
And we won't hear about it on any news station. You can guess why not. One can argue its not newsworthy. But well....
"We (the Fox TV network) paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."
So, how much did Carlyle pay for these theatres? That's all i'm saying. My opinion.
Jul 4th, 2004, 8:20 PM
"We (the Fox TV network) paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." LOL! That's a crazy quote ED. Who's credited with saying that?
Jul 4th, 2004, 8:31 PM
David Boylan, the station manager.
Jul 4th, 2004, 11:07 PM
LOL, the very basics of Business 101. If you cant beat it and you didnt create it, buy something that is connected in some way to it so you can profit off it. :thumbs:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.