Tribune not to publish for four weeks.

outandabout

The Sunday Tribune will not be published for four weeks as a receiver appointed to the company yesterday seeks new investment to save the newspaper from closure.

In a statement published on its website, the company announced that the receiver, Jim Luby of accounting firm McStay Luby, has decided to defer publication during the sale process.

That's a shame for the people working on the paper but also for the wider audience who want to read good poliitical analysis on the General Election.

I don't really trust the Sunday Times or Independent Group to give me a balanced look at the issues or the Mail or any of the tabloids.

The Irish Times is too stodgy (apart from Miriam Lord) so I'll be relying on RTE and TV 3 for my election updates.

Horsebox_twenty

what makes you think the Trib would have been any more "balanced" (whatever that is) than any other paper?

outandabout

what makes you think the Trib would have been any more "balanced" (whatever that is) than any other paper?
...
Hi Horsebox

That's purely a personal opinion based on my occasional reading of articles by Shane Coleman and other members of the Trib's political team.

mike65

I'll bet the Tribune will not publish again. Can't imagine who'd sink several million into a paper with 40,000 sales in 2011.

steelcityblues

Dare I say there is something suspicious about the Tribune pulling out just as the election kicks off.

Corsendonk

mike65 wrote: »

I'll bet the Tribune will not publish again. Can't imagine who'd sink several million into a paper with 40,000 sales in 2011.

I agree, Vincent Browne was hinting that people would buy the paper this Sunday if it was published but no hope now.

steelcityblues wrote: »

Dare I say there is something suspicious about the Tribune pulling out just as the election kicks off.

Don't think so, people just like reading crap columists in the Sindo more when you have a lazy Sunday. I imagine that some of Independent News & Media regional titles will go the same way.

JustinDee

steelcityblues wrote: »

Dare I say there is something suspicious about the Tribune pulling out just as the election kicks off.

Yeah, there's a conspiracy there. They've been sieving losses purposely for the past four year all leading up to a general election.

flogen

I'd imagine all the editorial staff are feeling quite frustrated at the moment, especially on the political side.

I know the over-riding emotion will be for their jobs but not being allowed to work (while still being paid) can only make matters worse.

I wonder if they'll publish an unofficial version of the paper online to keep themselves busy; just something between the staff that the Tribune isn't responsible for. Irish Press staff did the same back in their day with the X-Press, though that was a somewhat different situation.

Southsider1

mike65 wrote: »

I'll bet the Tribune will not publish again. Can't imagine who'd sink several million into a paper with 40,000 sales in 2011.

40,000 a week/day. It reached up to near 100,000 during 2010. It has potential and, with small investment, could work...

steelcityblues wrote: »

Dare I say there is something suspicious about the Tribune pulling out just as the election kicks off.

Not really. The problem is that their libel insurance ceased when it went into Receivership so to publish while in Receivership (and while the Journos are on notice)would be impossible.

jmcc

Southsider1 wrote: »

40,000 a week/day. It reached up to near 100,000 during 2010. It has potential and, with small investment, could work...

You do know how you make a small fortune in the publishing business? Those figures were for a weekly edition rather than daily and they were heavily inflated by free copies. Like it or not, most of the Tribune was junk.

Regards...jmcc

flogen

Southsider1 wrote: »

40,000 a week/day. It reached up to near 100,000 during 2010.

What do you mean by that? One edition had sales of ~100k during last year?

It's circulation figures were dire and declining year on year. Jan-June 2010 were 54,400 which would include bulks.

It has potential and, with small investment, could work...

Even if INM was willing to write off every cent of the €40m it's owed by the newspaper it would need more than a small investment - cuts that were made in the last decade in an attempt to make the newspaper profitable have hollowed it out.

It still has some decent journalists but its resources have been chipped away at time after time. It doesn't even have an office of its own any more (which would be the least of its worries).

IRE60

Southsider1 wrote: »

40,000 a week/day. It reached up to near 100,000 during 2010. It has potential and, with small investment, could work...

You are deluded - it never made 100.000 in 2010 or in the past 20 years- if it were at 100k it would still be publishing.

Actually, the last time is saw 100,000 we were in our first world cup!

Circ chart attached so you can see the rate of decline.

Plus, and a big plus, 20% of its last audited figures were bulks.

I wonder if Dennis O'Brien has still designs on (more) print. Be an interesting mix! Could reduce the overhead by amalgamating with Communicorp resources.

flogen

IRE60 wrote: »

I wonder if Dennis O'Brien has still designs on (more) print. Be an interesting mix! Could reduce the overhead by amalgamating with Communicorp resources.

I had thought that he might end up taking the Trib stake as part of some settlement with the O'Reilly's back when their spat was getting quite heated (along with some other parts of INM).

I don't think he wants it, though, and even if he did his now heavy involvement in INM could stifle any attempt by him to take it over.

He is in one of the best positions to make it viable and I'd say there is still space in Marconi House for another media outlet but I think he'd be happy enough to get Newstalk viable without taking on another struggling media business.

The only other viable buyers would be The Irish Times (again, there are clear "synergies" like office space, print and distribution facilities etc.) but a) they're not in the position financially to take it on and b) would be better off starting their own bona fide Sunday edition if they were so inclined.