Austerity at the Grauniad

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

Newc said:

Putting aside the 'socialists find running a business is harder than it looks' shocker

Because the Guardian's only been in business for a couple of years

With all those years underwritten by a Trust fund established, dissolved and then re-formed in 1948 to avoid tax, not forgetting the recent sale of the profitable group publication Auto Trader which had also been propping up the Guardian, in an attempt to secure the latest (2008) incarnation of the Trust.

The total fund value is claimed to be over £800m so it can still underwrite Guardian losses of around £40m per year. However on that trajectory while the new Trust Co can still help with losses, it wouldn't be able to protect the Guardian financially 'in perpetuity' so something had to give.

It's questionable that this saga would appear in a list showcasing how to run a business, apart from into the ground.

[zygalski]

Well business mismanagement is hardly a socialist phenomenon.
Unless you consider UK banking execs socialists. An entire key industry brought down by greedy capitalists.

[Smollet]

zygalski said:

Well business mismanagement is hardly a socialist phenomenon.
Unless you consider UK banking execs socialists. An entire key industry brought down by greedy capitalists.

And a complete lack of regulation from the FSA set up by a socialist government per se.

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

Well business mismanagement is hardly a socialist phenomenon.
Unless you consider UK banking execs socialists. An entire key industry brought down by greedy capitalists.

Or in reality by some less than sparkling decisions by some high ranking people in some operations in some banks around buying Clintonite toxic debt wrapped in sparkly paper rated AAA - which must have referred to the paper - all virtually untouched by Brown's tripartite regulatory framework at the time.

That's all a bit OT though, the topic under discussion is The Guardian's finances. It has a remit to maintain a left-liberal perspective. It also happens to be sinking fast. Reasons on a post card to Jeremy Corbyn

[FiF]

This is obviously not a serious comment, not on my part, probably not by the originator either, but must confess this made me snigger, just a little.

From Twitter.

25/07/16, 9am: "We need a lesbian James Bond - The Guardian"

25/07/16, 11.30am: "The Guardian posts record £173m loss"

Fancy that.

[Slaav]

Oh look! Look.....

It appears the previous editor massively expanded the salaried staff without increasing income to a corresponding amount?

Can't continue indefinitely so new editor slashes and burns in an attempt to keep the paper afloat.....

Sound at all familiar??? 😄😄😄😄




Ps - so where does the blame really lie?

[Pan Pan Pan]

BlackLabel said:

They published this hatred-of-Britain revenge piece over the weekend calling for 'maximum economic damage' to the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul...

It's ironic then that they themselves are the ones suffering economic damage and risk going burst.

The problem for the Grauniad was that its lefty messages were often at odds with its financial survival.
I am pleased to have had the privilege of being banned from posting there, after I pointed this out to them. Good riddance to bad rubbish IMO.

[Newc]

My query still stands though. As I recall, history was something like

May 2010
Osborne: "JHTFC! You people spend like drunken sailors. Have you never heard of balancing the books ? I'm going to have to slash and burn"

The Garudian: "No! Austerity bad! Bad Osborne! If you are overspending you must borrow more money. Borrow to spend to invest. It is the only way."

and yet

July 2016
The Gudarian's auditors: ""JHTFC! You people spend like drunken sailors. Have you never heard of balancing the books ? You're going to have to slash and burn"

The Grudiarn: "Yeah, ok, good point, we'll sack loads of people".

[Mr_B]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Read the Mail if the Guardian goes around the U bend and reverse everything you read - Big immigrant problem become no immigrant problem what so ever,and so on and so on. Both are off by a country mile in their approach and over compensate. You do seem to be able to feel more smug and intellectual though as a Guardian reader though.

[irocfan]

hornetrider said:

They are shaking down everyone who visits the website. There's a constant footer on there asking for £50 a year to provide 'ongoing excellent journalism'.

wouldn't they be better off asking for £50 to provide ongoing leftist journalism? One might imagine that the excellent chaps will ask for funds on their own

[Guybrush]

Pan Pan Pan said:

The problem for the Grauniad was that its lefty messages were often at odds with its financial survival.
I am pleased to have had the privilege of being banned from posting there, after I pointed this out to them. Good riddance to bad rubbish IMO.

Agreed. Yes, they do delete posts and ban contributors if the message challenges their (clearly weak) lefty mantra.

[anonymous-user]

The only good thing about the Guardian is that its a good source to link to when some dribbling lefty is trying to tell you black is white.

[Derek Smith]

zygalski said:

Well business mismanagement is hardly a socialist phenomenon.
Unless you consider UK banking execs socialists. An entire key industry brought down by greedy capitalists.

Loss making papers is hardly unique to the Gurardian either.

As for it being a trust, it probably gives more to the exchequer than certain other papers.

[Jasandjules]

hornetrider said:

There's a constant footer on there asking for £50 a year to provide 'ongoing excellent journalism'.

You'd think with money problems they would want the cash for their own publication instead.........

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

zygalski said:

Well business mismanagement is hardly a socialist phenomenon.
Unless you consider UK banking execs socialists. An entire key industry brought down by greedy capitalists.

Loss making papers is hardly unique to the Gurardian either.

As for it being a trust, it probably gives more to the exchequer than certain other papers.

That's rather ironic when a key aim of the trust was to avoid paying taxes, such that when the law changed the trust was re-formed so that it could continue to not pay as much tax.

Not paying so much tax when there's no profit is easy for any newspaper, it just happens that the Guardian is rather better at it than others (not making a profit) over a reasonable period of time.

[turbobloke]

Jasandjules said:

hornetrider said:

There's a constant footer on there asking for £50 a year to provide 'ongoing excellent journalism'.

You'd think with money problems they would want the cash for their own publication instead.........

Harsh but fair.

[irocfan]

Jasandjules said:

hornetrider said:

There's a constant footer on there asking for £50 a year to provide 'ongoing excellent journalism'.

You'd think with money problems they would want the cash for their own publication instead.........

You're a bit late with that comment chap - 2nd hand comment. You don't work for the G do you?

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

hornetrider said:

There's a constant footer on there asking for £50 a year to provide 'ongoing excellent journalism'.

You'd think with money problems they would want the cash for their own publication instead.........