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

WINE TALK
481

You don’t need to be a member of the tin-foil-hat gang to view that as a significant conflict.

482

Nope, no conflict of interest here:

It’s totally fine for the same family to control TWA and Hermitage Wine.

483

Ah, sorry, Bill, I just noticed the link at the bottom of your song. Get the good stuff up-front, lad!

484

Not my style to bump, but folks need to click on Brady’s link. The question now is whether the worst suspicions of Parker’s lack of independence are confirmed, or whether he was ignorant of all of this and neither he nor his lawyers did any investigation of the buyers (making Parker the poor man’s Ken Lay of Enron fame, and dumb as a freaking post (the wooden kind)). On FB, Soo’s wife thanked Decanter, someone with a Chinese name who may have ratted her out and the entire blogosphere for all of the free publicity for Hermitage, and suggested that we get a life. She did not deny the particulars of the Decanter article…

485

Not saying it wasn’t a smart move by Soo Hoo Khoon Peng (well done if you can get it) and congratulate him on the purchase, as well as Bob on the windfall. As a WA subscriber though, I’d have to rethink my subscription (not that anyone cares) as the only -independent- wine publication ought to remain just that: independent ! - from the trade.

486

Bob just responded to the Decanter article:

“I have not taken on any investor with ANY interest in the wine business.To have done so would be stupid,and create a major conflict of interest.Moreover, the investors recognize the significance of TWA’s independence and hard-earned credibility,and along with me, are fully committed to this.One of the investors was required…in order to invest in TWA, to sell their interest in a wine company,as this was an abolute prerequisite to participation), and that was done…if any of the wives of these investors have an interest, I am 100% certain it has been sold or is in the process of being sold as these transactions can unfold over several months before all T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted…once again , this is much to do about nothing,and is aimed at distracting people from an exciting new chapter of TWA.”

487



It’s totally fine for the same family to control TWA and Hermitage Wine.

Hmmmm - how fine is totally fine. rolleyes


Here is what Parker said :


One of the investors was required…in order to invest in TWA, to sell their interest in a wine company,as this was an abolute prerequisite to participation), and that was done…if any of the wives of these investors have an interest, I am 100% certain it has been sold or is in the process of being sold as these transactions can unfold over several months before all T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted…once again , this is much to do about nothing,and is aimed at distracting people from an exciting new chapter of TWA

488

Wow. So basically he is saying -I have not taken on any investor with ANY interest in the wine business; anymore, or soon won’t, or not so much directly, or well we will just have to see.

489

You left off “…maybe, I think, as far as I know, sorta.”

490

perhaps my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek?

491

And “that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”…

492

[welldone.gif] [winner.gif]

493

There was a great inadvertent quote from the British boxer, Billy Walker:

“Yeah, well, as far as I know and to the best of my knowledge, my manager thinks…”
So who is pulling the strings?

Let me give him some free advice; get a PR person who knows what the hell he is doing.

Parker’s inability to get his ducks in order before going to the press has been laughable. Why keep the investors quiet; why not explain it properly instead of letting us find things unsaid, which then become uncomfortable revelations, and look as though Parker has been hiding important information. Get Galloni and company on board, declare conflicting business interests and make they are either sold or at least on the market etc.

I am getting really tired of things coming out and then being told that it is our own fault pursuing them because we have an agenda and are conspiracy addicts. This is all stems from Parker’s total inability to get his message out clearly, and for that matter, having a palatable message in the first place.
Hands up if you think this is “an exciting new chapter of TWA.”

494

Parker does show a desire to control the news that invariably gets him into trouble. It is also a very human desire. In the few times I have been involved in University decisions to handle potentially embarrassing information, the first impulse of administrators-and indeed most faculty-is to try to determine how little they must say and how to spin the story. It is very hard to persuade people that being the source of the whole story first is always more desirable than having it come out bit by bit later and have to answer questions about what one originally did not say. And this is the case when the story is merely a matter of awkwardness and not illegality. In Parker’s case, it isn’t even awkwardness. If he had merely identified the buyer, noted his business connections and his being in the process of severing them, the hysteria surrounding the story would have shrunk to zero. His reaction to blame the press for discovering what he didn’t want to tell, is also completely common. This pattern follows every political scandal, even the ones that turn out to be about nothing but some embarrassment. About Parker’s comportment in this, the phrase “human, all too human,” deeply applies.

495

More and more this deal seems rushed for tax purposes.

496

“I have again taken on some investors, three 30-early 40ish highly qualified business and technology people and enthusiastic wine lovers as well as long time subscribers. They are totally independent of the wine industry and have a very global vision that is essential in today’s world.”

I think most telling is that even though the primary investor sold his interest in Hermitage (apparently days before Parker’s announcement), Decanter reported his wife apparently still has a controlling interest. When Decanter published this, I thought her Facebook post (now removed) was telling: "To Decanter, Chng Po Tiong and all the bloggers out there - thank you for all the publicity hermitage can get

Get a Life!!!"

I love how “totally independent of the wine industry” they are. (emphasis added above)

497

Nothing new in this post, but Dr. Vino has a blog entry detailing the ‘complications’ with Parker’s supposedly clean break without creating any new conflicts of interest. The screen capture on the blog of the facebook page of WA’s owner’s wife is priceless:

Fits right in with Parker’s perspective on ‘blobbers’ and other ‘anti-flavor wine elite’ types who are always ‘seeking out conspiracy theories’ concerning the WA. [rofl.gif]

498

There is an innocent explanation here (hold your wrath for a second): It’s not uncommon for the closing of a deal to be conditioned on one of the parties taking particular actions. For antitrust reasons, for instance, buyers frequently agree in advance to sell assets that would make their takeover of another company anticompetitive. The sale occurs after the deal is announced.

That seems to be what Parker was saying in response to the Decanter story – that the sale of the retail business is in the works and that the investment in WA won’t close for several months.

That said… his waffle on the investors’ wives’ wine interests makes me wonder if he was snookered – that buyer agreed to divest his interest but the wife’s stake was never discussed.

In any event, the Decanter story and the blog post certainly make this look fishy.

499

The certainly could be the case. It would make sense. It just contradicts statements that the new owners have no connection to the wine industry. Clearly they do. It would have been much easier to explain this if the WA had simply been up front and not publicly taunted the wine community in its responses to journalistic inquiries.

500

John, could you explain your use of the word “waffle” regarding the wife’s wine interest? Not sure I understand.

Also, if the sale were conditional,and shares were in the process of being sold, would Parker have been correct in the initial announcement to state that (the investors) “are totally independent of the wine industry?”