Subject:
|
Re: LEGO® is near an agreement to sell its LEGOLAND theme parks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.legoland
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Jun 2005 18:22:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8352 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
Snip
| |
Are the parks strategic assets or underperforming ones? The analyst cited
thinks strategic, thinks they are a vital part of brand management. He could
be wrong.
If they’re non strategic, underperforming or even lossmaking (beyond their
strategic value if any to support the brand, which should be factored in when
counting up losses, assuming you can quantify it), this is a shrewd move.
|
I think it could be extremely shrewd. The parks will always have to rely on the
company for bricks and sets to sell. For example in Saint Louis, Anheuser-Busch
used to own the baseball stadium and sell their beer there. The team lost money
so they sold it but still sell their beer there for very large profits. Another
thought would be when Ross Perot sold off his company only to buy it back later
for a cheaper price. This could work out quite well for LEGO.
Lego has a press release today denying the sale at this time:
http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=pressdetail&contentid=14959&countrycode=2057&yearcode=&archive=false
Ben E.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
