urbanSTL

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:CS, let me guess, you actually believe this was a 'hostile takeover'?

Business 101: Money talks! Major stakeholders walked!



You believed Busch IV when he said 'not on my watch' ? ....with all due respect, quite naive!



What would you call it? Do you actually think Busch IV was oblivious to the possibilities? Was there nothing they could do to prevent it, if he really wanted AB to remain independent? I first heard of a rumored 'combination' 5 or so years ago from friends that work there. It was a rumor to employees. Obviously those rumors carried some weight. You think Mr. Busch just ignored these rumblings? Highly doubtful? Employees (current & former) that I know, feel that this is without question, the way it went down. Did anyone ever publicly admit this, NO! Why would they? The 'friendly combination/hostile takeover' spin is much better PR.

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:

So you have no source?

Wouldn't reveal any source if I could. Just average, everyday, present and former employees beliefs. Based on what? A few, 30+ years of working there, knowing people and what is going on behind the scenes. Others, just pure rumor.



Is it straight from Busch IV, no. Is there some level of common sense required to see that the first rumblings of an INBEV takeover did not occur in recent years, yes! It seems your focusing on the 'planned handover' wording. Maybe that was not the best way to put it. Maybe adding the word 'negotiated' would have been much better. The relationship between the two companies has been there for years. According to Brito, the 'combination' was the next logical step. For AB, the next logical step may not have been a complete handover of control to INBEV, but the fact that some form of 'combination' had been rumored for many years, is no coincidence. It had to come from somewhere within. I heard it and I am a total outsider who just had friends and family there. Once the economic cards stacked against AB, it made it hard for higher ups to refuse. I feel it would have happened at some point in the future, bad economy or not.



I was a shareholder for many years. I would not call the stock 'depressed', try 'stagnant' It held its value, but rarely went up. That was the issue. I bought in for the LONG haul. When you think about how long the stock was stagnant and the ongoing threat of takeover, why did AB take no steps, buy competitors, add any provisions to prevent something they were so concerned about? They actually removed provisions in 2004, I believe. Maybe they knew the US market is not growing and to grow shareholder wealth, the only choice was a merger. When you have 50% marketshare, it is hard to grow. It is not about profitability these days. It is all about adding shareholder value. AB did not. I experienced that frustration first hand as a shareholder. It never went under the price I bought in at. However, the SP never grew much beyond what I bought in at, until the takeover rumors started.

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

innov8ion wrote:Be careful not to feed the troll, dogtown... It's not worth it.

Aren't you busy compiling the list of all the car companies, banks and other companies Obama now runs? Oh wait, you withdrew those claims. Kind of embarrassing.

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:DeBaliviere wrote:

Yeah, but Milwaukee has basically gone through the same thing. What I'd really like to see is the emergence of more smaller breweries now.

How about some of the zillionaires that made out like bandits on the AB deal, open some start up brewerys at the old Lemp and Falstaff sites...an employee at The Stable told me they are going to brew Lemp at the old Brewery again. Is that true or rumor?