Big changes at the Wine Advocate- Parker reportedly cashes out and gives up editorial control

WINE TALK
441

https://wineimport.discoursehosting.net/t/big-changes-at-the-wine-advocate-parker-reportedly-cashes-out-and-gives-up-editorial-control/71124/173

…I honestly believe that whoever the buyers are, have a an obvious plan to take this into the Asian market, and within a 2-3 years, they will have 1/4 of a million subscribers, maybe half a mil or more. …



…He could have easily hooked up with Eric with CT, and together they could have done amazing things. With this sale, he gets to “retire” from things he does not like to do, and cannot do well, and do the things that he can do well and likes: Bordeaux/Rhone tasting, traveling, writing. And he will be making lots of trips to Asia and do speeches, etc…

442

Good job, Steve!

443

Thanks todd. I’ve been dying for one of those from you. flirtysmile But you could have found a little boy being rewarded, no?? [pillow-fight.gif]

444

Dude, I couldn’t even find one without a watermark on it! I need help from T-bone

445

[rofl.gif]

446

[\quote]

That is up for debate [stirthepothal.gif][/quote]
Not a very long one if it over facts.

447

From an unsolicited email sent out by Antique Wine Company:
http://www.antique-wine.com/a-img/0mailers/2012/december/nealmartin2/web.html

"World–renowned critic Neal Martin of The Wine Advocate and Wine Journal conducted a superlative tasting of Pomerol wines here last night in conjunction with the release of his first–ever book, Pomerol. Martin wowed the audience with his intricate knowledge of the region and his thoughts on a project that has had a lengthy production period – nearly 4 years – and is clearly a labour of love.

Interestingly, the book is constructed in quite an unusual manner. Each estate is covered in exacting detail, yet from an expressly human perspective and with a focus on the individual winemakers and proprietors instead of just the wine. This format is enhanced by Neal’s humorous writing style and various charming additions such as his comparing each wine to a suitably evocative piece of music.
While Neal skirted addressing the recent changes at The Wine Advocate directly, he seemed pleased and encouraged by the developments and repeatedly referred to “Bob” as “the boss”, making it abundantly clear that Parker is still running the show and will be for some time. That said, given Neal’s supreme knowledge of the region as a whole and of Pomerol in particular – which has, of course, always been one of Parker’s favourite appellations – we could absolutely envision a future in which Neal takes over full responsibility for reviewing Bordeaux in The Wine Advocate.

Of the wines tasted last night, the overwhelming favourite had to be the 2001 Château Lafleur, a wine that Neal had previously rated an impressive, 95 points. Deeply crimson and with captivating aromas of fresh blackberries, saddle leather and smoky earth, it was intensely pure and round in the mouth. With sublime acidity and layers of juicy red and black fruit flavours, it was an absolutely beautiful wine and is certainly worthy of such merit.

Upon tasting it, Neal also related an interesting story that Parker had once told him about the estate. Apparently, if he had not gone on to become a critic, Parker stated that Lafleur was the one Bordeaux property he would have personally attempted to purchase in the late 70s / early 80s in order to try his hand at ownership and production. Had that come to pass, just imagine what a different world of wine we would all find ourselves in now?"

448

A chapter of Neal’s book is on his website. Seemed interesting. I will likely pick one up.

And I agree with his assessment of Pomerol; unfortunately, I just cannot afford it anymore.

449

I want Triumph the Insult Comic Dog to do a tour of Bordeaux.

450

A little late to this arc, but how about…

…a show like Iron Chef, but where a challenger and a champion have 1 hour to counterfeit a wine, having been told only Parker’s descriptors. They’ll have a complete kitchen at their disposal, including cheap wines, liqueurs, fruits, powdered tannin, megapurple etc. and every variety of pear. Then a panel made up of d-list celebrities and wine bloggers, knowing the identity of the wine, blind taste the 2 counterfeits against the real thing.

Rudy could play the Chairman, and Gary V would be the Alton Brown character. It’s pretty straight-forward to tap Iron Chef Germany (although that might limit where the show can be filmed).

451

What I am about to write is nothing more than pure speculation, so please regard it as such. I couldn’t help noticing the quote in the Decanter piece that others above have quoted, which stated: “The source also confirms the US$15m price on the deal, and that Soo Hoo will ‘command and control’ the Wine Advocate.” (emphasis added) Let’s just, for the sake of interesting argument, assume the “unnamed source” is Soo Hoo himself. Perhaps he is annoyed that after paying a hefty sum for TWA, Parker walks back everything and dictates a new article in the WSJ via Lettie that states that he, Parker, is really still in charge. After Parker changes the story to “he is still in charge” and the main office is still in Monkton, can you imagine Soo Hoo’s reaction? How to correct that misconception? Agree to be an unnamed source to set the record straight. There’s little ambiguity in the expression “command and control.” I don’t believe that source stated that as an aside comment; I think it was given to Decanter to set the record straight.

452

Wilfred, Parker is now prevaricating with “I am still a important owner [whatever THAT means], CEO and Chairman of the Board”, rather than stopping all of this with one of two simple statements: “I remain the majority owner, as well as CEO and Chairman of the Board, of the Wine Advocate” or “I sold a controlling interest in the Wine Advocate, but I retain an ownership interest and am the CEO and Chairman of the Board.” The titles mean nothing if the controlling interest chooses to strip him of them (and the charter documents do not somehow bar that). If he sold a minority interest, he should have said so in the first sentence of his first missive on this subject, and avoided the well-deserved shitstorm that has ensued. Only some rube from a place like, say, Monkton, MD would have done otherwise. There is NO evidence that he did not sell a controlling interest in anything that Parker has said publicly. You have a boy named Soo in Singapore claiming a “command and control” position. You have a woman in Asia who was a half-step ahead of Squires in the Pantheon of the Wine Advocate Unimportant suddenly promoted to Editor-In-Chief and making a lot of ugly noises about the worth of the present staff and publicly addressing the issue of replacing them. She has ties to Soo. Both were (and may soon be again) ITB in Asia. Parker calls her a proofreader, but somebody let Lettie Teague interview her. Parker is either blowing smoke up his own fat ass after selling control, or he only sold a minority interest and suffers from some bizarre megalomania that is causing him to mislead and yank the chains of the wine media and his many detractors. Either way, the handling of this reveals an ignorance and lack of sophistication all the way around that is truly stunning…

453

Bill, seriously, enough with the personal attacks. You can disagree with Parker all you want, but the unnecessary name calling really is unwarranted, isn’t making you look particularly good and undermines any points you’re trying to make.

454

I respectfully disagree, Brad. Seriously. At the end of the day, nothing is going to undermine any of the points that I am making but contrary facts, and if and when those show up, I will be the first to embrace the contrary facts and shut up. And I am not here to posture and look good, nor to extend any unwarranted civility to a pompous jerk like Parker. He does not reciprocate…

455

At the end of the day Parker seems to want people to still believe he is in control. I am still an “important” owner…I still have fancy titles…etc etc. All the while his counterparts are trying to establish that they, in fact, are the ones in control.

If Parker did a majority stake and I were the owner I would probably have no problem with him continually running his mouth. He now works for someone else. He can say he has a big title and that the main office is still in MD etc. but that does not make it necessarily so…

456

Well, Matt, not on THIS board, but seems like there is more Koolaid than wine being drunk from whence you came…

457

I don’t understand why anyone is taking issue with Robert
Parker’s statement that he remains as an important shareholder,
as opposed to holding a majority interest. So Long Ooh Long
undoubtedly wanted to hold the seller to an “earn out”
arrangement, and to protect the new investment requires Bob
Parker to remain as CEO & Chairman and to fulfill certain
obligations over the next few years. This is common practice
when smaller private firms are sold.

Idle speculation doesn’t alter the facts, nor is anyone obliged to
provide those without any interest in the transaction with any
explanations. ( subscribers do have an interest, but non-subscribers
do not, of course )

Hank [cheers.gif]

458

Bill K,
I really think you’ve hit this subject from every possible angle.
Enuf already! Redundancy doesn’t become you.
Who cares what Bobby does with his publication…

TTT

459

It would appear, Paul, that far more people care about what Parker does with his publication and how he does it than care about what he has to say about wine. Admittedly, a curious state of affairs, with Parker doing what he can to fuel both curiosity and controversy…

460

Bill, just get in line and skip along. Bob is the Pied Piper. Or so the new money hopes.