John, what you say is true, but far too complicated for a small deal like this, where the business being sold has no hard assets to divest and there are no antitrust issues (only lack of trust issues!). It appears to have been rushed as a year-end deal for fiscal cliff tax purposes, and it also appears that the husband, the actual investor, abruptly exited Hermitage immediately prior. That only technically passes the smell test for many. But if he quit, it is not clear why his wife could not have as well. If he transferred his interest to her in order to claim that he was not ITB and she is charged with divesting in the fullness of time, the investor is still ITB in the interim. And if you do not have a closing for tax purposes, why create an ethical dog’s breakfast like this one? That makes Parker ill-informed or a liar, however you cut it. Or, it being the holiday season, maybe we can leave it at Parker had no business making any personal public statements on this at all, and should have deferred to professional PR types, as many have called for. It just strikes me as sloppy and dumb, like so many things Parker has said and done in recent years…
I’m sticking to the null hypothesis, ie, there is no deal. Or if there was a deal, there soon won’t be. Or if there was a deal and will continue to be a deal, it was between Singapore and the minority shareholders.
Good point. I guess it would have been awkward to say “the new owners soon won’t have any connection to the wine industry.”
His statement “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” makes it sound like he isn’t sure or didn’t know a wife had a stake.
I’d forgotten about that phrasing. See my response to Gene.
It’ s not a complicated term. If this really was a $10 million deal (or several million, anyway) and Parker didn’t want to sell out to someone with a major conflict (which I believe he would not want to do), I don’t think such a condition would be surprising at all. And Parker says clearly that that was built into the sale agreement: “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.”
I just wonder if the wife’s or wives’ interests were considered when the agreement was signed.
Thanks for the clarification, John. Yes, it sounds as if perhaps he didn’t know (and didn’t think to ask) that the wife had an interest.
John, strike the comment on the antitrust loop, which you were only using as an example. I do think that the deal is closed or will be closing by year-end, so I suspect that a lot of Parker’s annoyance stems from the public embarassment he is suffering from the release of details that he, his lawyers or his bankers (if any) should have thought of and covered in the transaction documents. Parker’s particular road to hell seems paved with his own often good, but ill-conceived and badly executed, intentions…
John Morris said :
… 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. …
On 09 December 2012 Parker made the announcement to his Susbscribers re the possible sale of TWA.
On 10 December 2012 Felix Salmon ( Reuers ) wrote in his article The Robert Parker bombshell.
Here is what he said in the last paragraph : * I suspect that in coming days and weeks there will be further shoes to drop; quiter possibly, this deal won’t end up closing at all. …What’s bad for TWA could be very health for the wine industry as a whole: if it is no longer particulary beholden to one man, it cane branch out into making more heterogeneous and individualistic wines. The idea that a 95-point wine is always better than an 85-point wine is an idea which deserves to die. And this deal, with luck, might just hasten its demise.*
Very interesting comments and obsverations.
Here are my questions : Is there any chance maybe the deal will not be close ? If not, is there any good news for Parker and TWA ?
*… there will be further shoes to drop; quiter possibly, this deal won’t end up closing at all …
Well said. The pattern you describe also plays out in the ‘cover-up’ reaction, observed from time to time in the political arena, and the consequent intensification of interest.
I’m just amazed at the ignorance and nastiness of many of the commentators here, especially Mr. Klapp. Seems like the root of the problem is that lots of folks don’t like Parker’s palate or influence. Its a free market out there boys and girls. You are free to like or not like the WA’s take on particular regions, producers or wines. The idea that there is some grand conspiracy with money at its core seems ridiculous and petty.
Like many here, I find the WA useful in particular regions where I can correlate my preferences to the mix of the ratings and commentary. There are regions and wines where my tastes differ and I either don’t buy or use different writers and publications as my guide. The WA is a tool and entertainment around my hobby, not some 900-pound Gorilla.
Parker has build a tremendous publication and a tremendous business because of his talents as a taster and writer. He’s entitled, as are all of us on this board who can afford to buy the wines he writes about, to make money in the free market selling his products and skills. If you don’t like or trust him or his palate, don’t subscribe to his publications. If you don’t like his influence in the wine world, build a better alternative. Please just stop whining, complaining and hypothesizing grand conspiracies!!
Good points, Jim. It is a bit ironic, but some of the same people who complained about paying $100 or so bucks a year to subscribe to TWA and have access to the formerly free eBob are critiquing the deal terms, PR approach and press handling like they were a major investor on the TWA board of directors who weren’t fully briefed on all deal terms before they voted.
Jim, pick on nastiness all you like, but ignorance, not a chance. When the dust settles, you will find more truth on this thread than in Parker’s posts on his “important news” thread on his home board.
You seem to have missed the point entirely. Nobody cares how much money he has, or begrudges him a penny of it. There is no conspiracy afoot here, just the simple notion that Parker has blown off his “independence” foot and seriously damaged his credibility (yet again). The point is this: most of the people “whining, complaining and hypothesizing grand conspiracies” are the very people who made Parker rich, and in so doing, have earned the right to say whatever they want about Parker and the Wine Advocate, good, bad or indifferent. (Parker being a public figure, however, even non-subscribers get to say pretty much whatever they choose to as well.) Alas, your “free market” does not give you the freedom to silence Parker’s critics, and it makes much more sense for you not to read this thread than to tell others to shut up.
The better alternative that you allude to is, in my opinion, fewer amateur wine buffs like Parker passing themselves off as professional critics. The better alternative is there never being another human being with Parker’s influence on the market for those few wine regions that he influences. Let me put the shoe on the other foot: if you don’t like completely legitimate discussion and criticism of Parker, criticism that, by and large, he has brought upon his own head, then don’t read this thread, or better still, hop on over to the conspirator-cleansed, censored board where your opinion is pretty much the only one that exists. A place where “if you don’t agree with Bob, don’t subscribe and leave this board” is as close to a logical argument as the local denizens can muster. A place where those who cannot offer intelligent, well-reasoned and articulate defenses of Parker try to silence those who take issue with him. You see how unsatisfying that is?
Hey, Brian: before Parker sold, those bankrolling him at $100 a pop were the equivalent of all of the shareholders and the board of directors, since Parker’s business sans Parker may not have any value, and since there would be no Wine Advocate if the steady stream of c-notes ceased…
I will say all I wish about Parker. I am indeed a wine critic critic. At least I play one on the internet - besides focusing on the wines themselves was so 2012.
Jim,
Now that you have posted your opinion you have been painted with the dreaded “Parker Apologist” brush. After all, only Bill Klapp knows the truth and only he decides who is worthy of joining his crusade. There is no room in the middle. You are either wih him or against him. I will give him credit for a more mannerly post in response to you vs. his language where he is talking about Robert Parker’s “Fat Ass”. I have followed this thread and still fail to comprehend all of Bill’s venom for Robert Parker. My view is that soon enough we will know what really happened with The Wine Advocate and we all get to vote with our dollars whether we continue to support it or not. Clearly, if the credibility of the The Wine Advocate is compromised, TWA implodes and the buyers will not have gotten much in return for their investment and likely Robert Parker won’t achieve his earnout. Seems to me that is not a likely scenario. At the end of these couple of weeks there has been an awful lot of hand-wringing on this topic. I can only think that as we sit here on Christmas day, that a lot of people need to remember that it is only wine and we will all survive with our without TWA. Compared to the events of Newtown, CT, this doesn’t seem very important.
Bill,
Merry Christmas!
Byron
Byron, clearly you are being much too reasonable!
Can someone distill this whole mess into a bullet point of takeaways?
1- Robert Parker cashed in by selling a controlling stake of the WA
2 - There is some confusion as to what that means, mainly within the WA group
3 - Parker points will continue to be doled out like pollen from ragweed
4 - Everything else remains the same
[edited for completeness]
I will see your Merry Christmas, Bryon, and I will raise you a Santo Stefano Day, which it now is in Italy. While it does have religious implications, I am told that it is essentially a holiday to allow one to recover from Christmas…
Jim:
Granted, some of the rhetoric does get nasty.
But, from my perspective, much of the discussion on this subject (and related ones) boils down to a legitimate critique of Mr. Parker’s work. It is he, after all, who has claimed that both he and his publication are ethically superior to other wine critics and their work product. When he or someone affiliated with WA engages in behavior that calls into question a commitment to a rigorous ethical policy it is only natural to wonder aloud whether things are as they should be.
I don’t think that Mr. Parker is whining or petty when he criticizes a wine he dislikes. In the same way, I don’t think it necessarily petty or whining to question or criticize Mr. Parker when he appears to have failed to abide by an ethical code of his own making.
Cheers,