"We remain a family company"
Theodor Gut, publisher of Zürichsee Zeitung and Chairman of the Board of Zürichsee Medien AG (ZSM), on the reasons for bringing NZZ on board.
Theodor Gut, publisher of Zürichsee Zeitung and Chairman of the Board of Zürichsee Medien AG (ZSM), on the reasons for bringing NZZ on board.
WW The Gut family has let NZZ into Zürichsee Presse AG and at the same time increased its own shareholding (see box). Why this hedging measure? Theodor Gut Hedging was absolutely not part of our considerations. The new ratio of 60:20:20 was intended to demonstrate internally and externally that we want to remain independent. The previous ratio of 55:45 arose historically and was always a bit tight for us. Now we had the chance to change this and underline our claim to leadership.
You regretted that you were pressured by PubliGroupe to break away from your neutral stance. But would you have been forced to do so sooner or later anyway?
Looking at how NZZ and Tamedia are positioning themselves in Zurich, this cannot be ruled out. The publishing houses of Landbote, Oberländer and Unterländer are also facing the same question. Two have now made up their minds, the Oberländer is also clearly leaning towards the NZZ, and the Landbote is very open.
You had three options for the Zürichsee Zeitung: Either you continue with PubliGroupe as before. Or you could bring NZZ on board, as has now happened. Thirdly, you had to accept Tamedia
but only at holding level. The latter would also have been possible with NZZ.
That is correct.
Unlike the Neue Luzerner Zeitung, for example, you did not want to participate at holding level - regardless of the partner. Why did you refuse?
After intensive discussions, our family decided that ZSM should remain a family-owned company. This decision was unanimous. We therefore had little interest in letting anyone in at the holding level. On the contrary, we will be buying back a few percent from holding company shareholders from our circle of friends this month, so that the family's stake will rise to 90 or 95 percent. If we allow someone to participate at holding level in the future, then only if this brings us considerable synergies - and this was not the case for either NZZ or Tamedia.
But how will you benefit from the NZZ joining your newspaper? (thinks for a moment) There are actually no concrete, short-term benefits. In the medium term, however, it is to be hoped that the NZZ-related titles will be able to exploit synergies better than before.
So you have no promises of a financial injection if the Tages-Anzeiger launches a split edition on the left bank of Lake Zurich.
We knew that our decision in favor of NZZ would not prevent the Tagi split. That's why we naturally tried to protect ourselves.
I don't want to say with what kind of protection.
Financially of some kind. Because we are now taking various risks. We are the ones who have to bear the consequences of the deal between PubliGroupe and NZZ, first and foremost. In other words: the sack is being beaten, not the donkey. It is therefore obvious that we are trying to protect ourselves somehow. We are not disclosing how we are doing this.
You will probably be managing ZSM for another ten years. What is the situation in the family in terms of succession planning?
We have 13 people in the fourth generation of our family who are now attending secondary school or studying. The course is set
have not yet been made. But of course we hope that one of these people or one of their partners will be interested in media. Incidentally, this large selection of potential candidates in the family played an important role in the decision to remain a family company.
What role did Managing Director Erland Herkenrath, who also works at Zürcher Unterländer in the same function, play? Did he have an integrating effect?
He behaved in an extremely correct and exemplary manner and did not take part in the negotiations. His dual role certainly influenced our decision, but all other reasons were overriding.
What weight did the political orientation of Tagi and NZZ carry? First and foremost, we made sure that we could continue to run the company financially as a family company. If we had had several viable options, politics would certainly have played a role.
The new formula is 60:20:20Zurichsee Medien AG (ZSM), 85 percent of which is owned by the Gut family and 15 percent by friends, announced shortly before Christmas that it was increasing its majority stake in its subsidiary Zürichsee Presse AG (ZSP) from 55 to 60 percent. It is doing this by buying back five percent from PubliGroupe, which previously held 45 percent of ZSP. This brings ZSM, which previously held a mere 46 percent of ZSP over two stages, to 51 percent.
Because ZSM is also waiving its pre-emptive right to ZSP shares, which goes beyond the five percent, PubliGroupe can now transfer a further 20 percent of ZSP to the NZZ Group. With these transactions, which are to be completed by the end of January at the latest, 60 percent of the capital and votes of ZSP will be held by ZSM, 20 percent by the NZZ subsidiary Freie Presse Holding and 20 percent by PubliGroupe. (mk)
Interview: Markus Knöpfli
WW The Gut family has let NZZ into Zürichsee Presse AG and at the same time increased its own shareholding (see box). Why this hedging measure? Theodor Gut Hedging was absolutely not part of our considerations. The new ratio of 60:20:20 was intended to demonstrate internally and externally that we want to remain independent. The previous ratio of 55:45 arose historically and was always a bit tight for us. Now we had the chance to change this and underline our claim to leadership.
You regretted that you were pressured by PubliGroupe to break away from your neutral stance. But would you have been forced to do so sooner or later anyway?
Looking at how NZZ and Tamedia are positioning themselves in Zurich, this cannot be ruled out. The publishing houses of Landbote, Oberländer and Unterländer are also facing the same question. Two have now made up their minds, the Oberländer is also clearly leaning towards the NZZ, and the Landbote is very open.
You had three options for the Zürichsee Zeitung: Either you continue with PubliGroupe as before. Or you could bring NZZ on board, as has now happened. Thirdly, you had to accept Tamedia
but only at holding level. The latter would also have been possible with NZZ.
That is correct.
Unlike the Neue Luzerner Zeitung, for example, you did not want to participate at holding level - regardless of the partner. Why did you refuse?
After intensive discussions, our family decided that ZSM should remain a family-owned company. This decision was unanimous. We therefore had little interest in letting anyone in at the holding level. On the contrary, we will be buying back a few percent from holding company shareholders from our circle of friends this month, so that the family's stake will rise to 90 or 95 percent. If we allow someone to participate at holding level in the future, then only if this brings us considerable synergies - and this was not the case for either NZZ or Tamedia.
But how will you benefit from the NZZ joining your newspaper? (thinks for a moment) There are actually no concrete, short-term benefits. In the medium term, however, it is to be hoped that the NZZ-related titles will be able to exploit synergies better than before.
So you have no promises of a financial injection if the Tages-Anzeiger launches a split edition on the left bank of Lake Zurich.
We knew that our decision in favor of NZZ would not prevent the Tagi split. That's why we naturally tried to protect ourselves.
I don't want to say with what kind of protection.
Financially of some kind. Because we are now taking various risks. We are the ones who have to bear the consequences of the deal between PubliGroupe and NZZ, first and foremost. In other words: the sack is being beaten, not the donkey. It is therefore obvious that we are trying to protect ourselves somehow. We are not disclosing how we are doing this.
You will probably be managing ZSM for another ten years. What is the situation in the family in terms of succession planning?
We have 13 people in the fourth generation of our family who are now attending secondary school or studying. The course is set
have not yet been made. But of course we hope that one of these people or one of their partners will be interested in media. Incidentally, this large selection of potential candidates in the family played an important role in the decision to remain a family company.
What role did Managing Director Erland Herkenrath, who also works at Zürcher Unterländer in the same function, play? Did he have an integrating effect?
He behaved in an extremely correct and exemplary manner and did not take part in the negotiations. His dual role certainly influenced our decision, but all other reasons were overriding.
What weight did the political orientation of Tagi and NZZ carry? First and foremost, we made sure that we could continue to run the company financially as a family company. If we had had several viable options, politics would certainly have played a role.
The new formula is 60:20:20Zurichsee Medien AG (ZSM), 85 percent of which is owned by the Gut family and 15 percent by friends, announced shortly before Christmas that it was increasing its majority stake in its subsidiary Zürichsee Presse AG (ZSP) from 55 to 60 percent. It is doing this by buying back five percent from PubliGroupe, which previously held 45 percent of ZSP. This brings ZSM, which previously held a mere 46 percent of ZSP over two stages, to 51 percent.
Because ZSM is also waiving its pre-emptive right to ZSP shares, which goes beyond the five percent, PubliGroupe can now transfer a further 20 percent of ZSP to the NZZ Group. With these transactions, which are to be completed by the end of January at the latest, 60 percent of the capital and votes of ZSP will be held by ZSM, 20 percent by the NZZ subsidiary Freie Presse Holding and 20 percent by PubliGroupe. (mk)
Interview: Markus Knöpfli
