This weekend the Ambassador Theatre Group (ATG) is completing the purchase of Live Nation's 17 UK venues, becoming by far Britain's top theatre operator in size.
Although the official announcement is scheduled for Monday, hands can already be clapped as details of the deal have been published by now. This final bid comes approximately 4 months after Live Nation put them on sale. At that time, when the bidding had opened in July, the number of interested was about 20 and, as the Guardian highlighted, the selling price was believed to exceed 75 million pounds (finally, the price asked by ATG was £92mi). Also, that article already expected something from the ATG, Qdos - a more modest theatre operator maybe willing to gain market -, Key Brand - company which already acquired US Live Nation theatres - or Stage - Dutch-owned operator and producer currently presenting at West End. As published, the first one would surely be likely to expand its operations, once numbers matter in that sector and since they were even then a leading group, an acquisition of this size would isolate them as number 1 in the business, resulting in more control over producers. That should be a good initiative, but it was also noted that an increase in the supply of seats could have its drawbacks, especially after their not-so-successful "Guys and Dolls" recently. All in all, however, the author was pretty optimistic about the whole idea of selling because, according to him, it would lead to better quality venues. In my opinion, on the other hand, the articled showed some bias aspects as to his preference for ATG.
In addition, apart from the early bidding history, the purchase is announced barely 1 month after the UK antitrust authorities stopped a merger process between Live Nation and Ticketmaster, for the ticketing department. The FT had a story on that in early October and tried to maintain a neutral view of the fact, though bad news are in their essence not pleasant and I couldn't really notice a pitying tone in the article. Authors did point out the impact in the stock market and related aspects of mergers in the present, which could give a broader view on the subject for the readers.
Thus, the news wasn't too much of a surprise. In fact, as The Stage published, it has "been long anticipated by the UK market". Alias, this newspaper focused more on the managing side of the story, by writing down the name of every single venue agreed in the deal as well as how the theatre business is affected by the agreement, especially when it comes to the supply of seats in London. Still, concerning the financial aspect of the story, I could only find the speculation about ATG's funding for the bid - widely thought to come from outside finance.
The other source that I used was the Times. As emphatic as Sunday newspapers are in Britain, this article emphasises more of the new owner's world. So, the approach used ranges from the company's history to business anticipation now that the acquisition is complete. It does show financial figures behind the deal and a solid one-sentence statement about ATG's funding: "The deal is being financed from increased bank borrowing and new cash raised from shareholders". By the way, venue names and the supply of seats were also mentioned in this source, but shortly. In my view, it was good that the author could remind the readers about the Live Nation-Ticketmaster failed attempt to merge and LN reason to sell the venues; keep its operations focused on the booming segment of live music.
Accordingly, these two pieces of news I found didn't really demonstrate any bias to me. They more factual and more informal in the Sunday Times, as I already expected. Anyway, my idea was to check how a specialised paper's coverage would differ from a more general one, and actually they tended to follow the same format, to some extent. I could mainly notice the fact that The Stage named each and every theater, whereas the Times had more financial numbers instead.
Ultimately, my opinion on this story follows the one from Mr. Shenton, the Guardian's author back in July. I believe this transaction will probably be a good thing for costumers. After all, Live Nation will maintain it's business oriented to what they already do best, promoting concerts. That way they shall come up with even more contracts with the world's top performers, benefiting the fans. On the ATG's side, they'll be dominating the theatre business here in the UK, and I hope they use all their influencing power with producers to bring selective shows to theatres, as well as investing in them so that people have an even better experience when going to musicals, plays etc. As he noted, "It's a striking and inescapable fact: the most powerful people in commercial British theatre are not directors, or even producers, but landlords", so I reckon that's the reason the we should keep an eye on them if we desire theatres change for the better, in either side of the footlights.
The Guardian (July 15):
FT (October 8):
The Times:
The Stage:
Good - I like your comparison of the trade and national coverage. 7/10
ReplyDelete