To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.mediawatchOpen lugnet.mediawatch in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 MediaWatch / 1861
1860  |  1862
Subject: 
Re: LEGO® is near an agreement to sell its LEGOLAND theme parks
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.legoland
Date: 
Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:04:25 GMT
Viewed: 
9546 times
  
In lugnet.mediawatch, Marc Nelson Jr. wrote:
   In lugnet.mediawatch, Thomas Main wrote:
   In lugnet.mediawatch, Larry Pieniazek wrote: snip
   Jake said the key word is “speculated”... to me, the key word is “head scratcher” (well that’s two words)!

I still don’t see why LEGO want to do this, the amount of money they get back seems a pittance and it loses significant brand equity control... IMHO anyway.

As long as we are in a speculative mood...why does TLG want to raise money.

      Last year 2004, LEGO had a net loss of about $335 million

That might have something to do with it.

Faced with a loss, tactical managers keep doing what they were doing but sell off valuable/strategic assets (or lay off key people) in order to raise cash to keep afloat a while longer and avoid the day of reckoning.

Faced with a loss, strategic managers change what they were doing but sell off underperforming assets (or lay off underperforming people) in order to fund transformation.

The truth is usually somewhere in between, of course... So which is it here? We have seen a lot of signs that LEGO, in response to the lossmaking, is changing what they are doing and some that they are not.

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. If they’re strategic, it’s not at all shrewd.

This is all second guessing, of course, we have no info to really judge on. But neither did that analyst, presumably, and he’s thinking not. Of course, if you ask 10 analysts, you’ll get 11 opinions.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: LEGO® is near an agreement to sell its LEGOLAND theme parks
 
In lugnet.mediawatch, Larry Pieniazek wrote: Snip (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.legoland, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: LEGO® is near an agreement to sell its LEGOLAND theme parks
 
(...) Last year 2004, LEGO had a net loss of about $335 million That might have something to do with it. Marc Nelson Jr. (URL) Marc's Creations>> (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.legoland, FTX)

9 Messages in This Thread:



Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR