Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

MCLEAN, Va. — Former Gannett Co. CEO Craig Dubow's received a severance package valued at about $32 million after chronic health problems prompted his resignation from the largest U.S. newspaper publisher.

The owner of USA Today and more than 80 other U.S. newspapers disclosed the details of Mr. Dubow's compensation in a regulatory filing late Friday. A contract that Mr. Dubow signed in February 2007 guaranteed he would receive his full pension, stock awards, a severance payment and other benefits if he became disabled.

Mr. Dubow resigned last October after six years as CEO and 30 years with the company. He stepped down after taking two medical leaves during 2010 and 2011 to deal with hip and back ailments.

Mr. Dubow's final compensation package includes $12.8 million in retirement benefits, $6.2 million in disability benefits and a $5.9 million severance payment, according to the filing. Gannett stock options and restricted stock, which Mr. Dubow had accrued during his years of employment with the company, were also part of the package. Those stock awards are valued at nearly $7 million.

Separately, Gannett will pay $25,000 to $50,000 annually for a $6.2 million life insurance policy covering Mr. Dubow and another $70,000 annually for benefits such as health insurance, home computer and secretarial assistance and financial counseling. He will receive most of these benefits for three years unless he goes to work for a competitor, according to the filing.

Mr. Dubow's tenure as Gannett's CEO coincided with deep cutbacks in staff, triggered by a sharp decline in print advertising, the main source of revenue in the company's publishing division. Gannett's revenue from print advertising plunged from $5.2 billion in 2005 to $2.5 billion last year. Gannett's stock price plummeted by 86 percent while Mr. Dubow was CEO, dropping from $72.69 to $10.45.

AZGrizFan wrote:a) this guy presided over a newspaper company during the death of newspapers nationwide. I find it difficult to place the 86% drop in stock price on his head alone.
b) His $7 million in stock options used to be valued at about $50 million (based on the 86% decline), so he took a bit of a haircut there
c) He may have (and most likely DID have) a contract which they were obligated to adhere to
d) Its none of our **** business

AZGrizFan wrote:a) this guy presided over a newspaper company during the death of newspapers nationwide. I find it difficult to place the 86% drop in stock price on his head alone.
b) His $7 million in stock options used to be valued at about $50 million (based on the 86% decline), so he took a bit of a haircut there
c) He may have (and most likely DID have) a contract which they were obligated to adhere to
d) Its none of our fucking business

AZGrizFan wrote:a) this guy presided over a newspaper company during the death of newspapers nationwide. I find it difficult to place the 86% drop in stock price on his head alone.
b) His $7 million in stock options used to be valued at about $50 million (based on the 86% decline), so he took a bit of a haircut there
c) He may have (and most likely DID have) a contract which they were obligated to adhere to
d) Its none of our fucking business

UNI88 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:a) this guy presided over a newspaper company during the death of newspapers nationwide. I find it difficult to place the 86% drop in stock price on his head alone.
b) His $7 million in stock options used to be valued at about $50 million (based on the 86% decline), so he took a bit of a haircut there
c) He may have (and most likely DID have) a contract which they were obligated to adhere to
d) Its none of our **** business

AZ, I agree with what you're saying but how is this any different than Governor Walker in Wisconsin taking steps to change the benefits that were outlined in contracts agreed to by both parties? If the state of Wisconsin is in the fiscal crapper, it's ok for the government to unilaterally change a contract but the same doesn't hold true for Gannett? A contract is a contract and should be honored but that doesn't mean that the parties can't sit down in an attempt to renegotiate. The state of Wisconsin could have said we're going to layoff x number of people if we don't change benefits to encourage the union to renegotiate. Gannett might have been able to question whether chronic health issues = disability in order to encourage Mr. Dubow to renegotiate in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.

HI54UNI wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
AZ, I agree with what you're saying but how is this any different than Governor Walker in Wisconsin taking steps to change the benefits that were outlined in contracts agreed to by both parties? If the state of Wisconsin is in the fiscal crapper, it's ok for the government to unilaterally change a contract but the same doesn't hold true for Gannett? A contract is a contract and should be honored but that doesn't mean that the parties can't sit down in an attempt to renegotiate. The state of Wisconsin could have said we're going to layoff x number of people if we don't change benefits to encourage the union to renegotiate. Gannett might have been able to question whether chronic health issues = disability in order to encourage Mr. Dubow to renegotiate in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.

Did Gov. Walker change contracts though? The law was changed but I thought it didn't change any existing contracts. I thought I even read something that some public employee unions in Milwaukee quickly agreed to new contracts to get them in before the law had final approval.

UNI88 wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Did Gov. Walker change contracts though? The law was changed but I thought it didn't change any existing contracts. I thought I even read something that some public employee unions in Milwaukee quickly agreed to new contracts to get them in before the law had final approval.

I believe so. If contributions to retirement, health, etc. were part of the contracts (which they typically are) and the budget repair bill altered who contributed what then yes, the legislation changed the contracts.

I agree that what Governor Walker did needed to be done in some fashion and I'm not sure all of the unions would have negotiated in good faith but I find it disingenuous to say that Gannett should honor Dubow's contract without taking a similar stand on other contracts.

AZGrizFan wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
I believe so. If contributions to retirement, health, etc. were part of the contracts (which they typically are) and the budget repair bill altered who contributed what then yes, the legislation changed the contracts.

I agree that what Governor Walker did needed to be done in some fashion and I'm not sure all of the unions would have negotiated in good faith but I find it disingenuous to say that Gannett should honor Dubow's contract without taking a similar stand on other contracts.

I don't know how it works with government contracts, but I guaranfuckingtee you that if he had a contract with Gannett and they tried to NOT honor it, they'd have lost in court.

UNI88 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I don't know how it works with government contracts, but I guaranfuckingtee you that if he had a contract with Gannett and they tried to NOT honor it, they'd have lost in court.

I know that. I have two problems with this situation:
1) People railing against/defending Gannett & Dubow for honoring a contract on one hand and railing against/defending Gov. Walker for pushing legislation that essentially broke a contract on the other. They're two sides of the same coin and IMO it's hypocritical to change your position based on who is impacted.
2) I argued it in another thread, but these CEO contracts are incestuous. There are too many CEOs sitting on Boards and helping to award outrageous contracts to their peers. I believe it was Joe that stated that things have improved and maybe they have but this is proof that there is still a problem. Yes the economy sucked for his industry and I'll cut him some slack for that but I don't think he came anywhere near to earning a golden parachute like this one. Executive severance packages should be no more than 2 years salary (not bonuses). If an exec hasn't saved enough to live on that, it's their problem just like it will be my problem if I haven't saved enough when I retire.

UNI88 wrote: AZ, I agree with what you're saying but how is this any different than Governor Walker in Wisconsin taking steps to change the benefits that were outlined in contracts agreed to by both parties? If the state of Wisconsin is in the fiscal crapper, it's ok for the government to unilaterally change a contract but the same doesn't hold true for Gannett? A contract is a contract and should be honored but that doesn't mean that the parties can't sit down in an attempt to renegotiate. The state of Wisconsin could have said we're going to layoff x number of people if we don't change benefits to encourage the union to renegotiate. Gannett might have been able to question whether chronic health issues = disability in order to encourage Mr. Dubow to renegotiate in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.

UNI88 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I don't know how it works with government contracts, but I guaranfuckingtee you that if he had a contract with Gannett and they tried to NOT honor it, they'd have lost in court.

I know that. I have two problems with this situation:
1) People railing against/defending Gannett & Dubow for honoring a contract on one hand and railing against/defending Gov. Walker for pushing legislation that essentially broke a contract on the other. They're two sides of the same coin and IMO it's hypocritical to change your position based on who is impacted.
2) I argued it in another thread, but these CEO contracts are incestuous. There are too many CEOs sitting on Boards and helping to award outrageous contracts to their peers. I believe it was Joe that stated that things have improved and maybe they have but this is proof that there is still a problem. Yes the economy sucked for his industry and I'll cut him some slack for that but I don't think he came anywhere near to earning a golden parachute like this one. Executive severance packages should be no more than 2 years salary (not bonuses). If an exec hasn't saved enough to live on that, it's their problem just like it will be my problem if I haven't saved enough when I retire.

When Dubow took over as CEO, Gannett employed some 52,000 people in its publishing, broadcast, digital and mobile divisions. When he resigned last week, it employed 32,000 people. Among the 20,000 jobs that were cut were thousands of talented journalists. Mr. Dubow also required many employees to take unpaid leaves of absence, and instituted pay freezes. He referred to this as “increasing workplace efficiencies.”

Last year, while laying off more journalists, Gannett increased Mr. Dubow’s 2010 pay package to $7.9 million. Including the estimated future value of stock awards and options, his 2010 pay package could increase to $9.4 million. Gannett said the raise was meant to reward Mr. Dubow for boosting the publisher’s earnings — remember, the emphasis is always on the net — for the fourth consecutive year

Someone had to take a stand against ridiculous bonuses and high executive pay and that person was Gannett CEO Gracia Martore.

A definitive proxy statement filed Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission shows that Ms. Martore, who ascended to the CEO position this year after the resignation of Craig Dubow, asked that she not be given the $1.5 million bonus the Executive Compensation Committee wanted to give her.

Thanks to that selfless act of generosity, the Gannett CEO, who required all employees in the newspaper division to take an unpaid one-week furlough during the first quarter of 2011, will only receive a $1.2 million bonus and the top five company executives will only receive $3,070,000 in bonuses.

Although the committee determined that Ms. Martore should receive a bonus of $1.5 million to reflect her performance in 2011, her promotion to CEO and her leadership in executing on the company's strategic plan, Ms. Martore requested that her 2011 bonus be less then her 2010 bonus, and the Committee honored her request by reducing the amount of her 2011 bonus to $1.2 million.

kalm wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
I know that. I have two problems with this situation:
1) People railing against/defending Gannett & Dubow for honoring a contract on one hand and railing against/defending Gov. Walker for pushing legislation that essentially broke a contract on the other. They're two sides of the same coin and IMO it's hypocritical to change your position based on who is impacted.
2) I argued it in another thread, but these CEO contracts are incestuous. There are too many CEOs sitting on Boards and helping to award outrageous contracts to their peers. I believe it was Joe that stated that things have improved and maybe they have but this is proof that there is still a problem. Yes the economy sucked for his industry and I'll cut him some slack for that but I don't think he came anywhere near to earning a golden parachute like this one. Executive severance packages should be no more than 2 years salary (not bonuses). If an exec hasn't saved enough to live on that, it's their problem just like it will be my problem if I haven't saved enough when I retire.

I actually think Z is correct in much of what he's saying, but this is the point I was getting at. It's not that he can't get it but it's another symptom of how **** up our economic system is. It's why I entitled the thread "Meritocracy". Meritocracy is a useful term when applied to $50/year teachers but not $7million/year CEO's.

When Dubow took over as CEO, Gannett employed some 52,000 people in its publishing, broadcast, digital and mobile divisions. When he resigned last week, it employed 32,000 people. Among the 20,000 jobs that were cut were thousands of talented journalists. Mr. Dubow also required many employees to take unpaid leaves of absence, and instituted pay freezes. He referred to this as “increasing workplace efficiencies.”

Last year, while laying off more journalists, Gannett increased Mr. Dubow’s 2010 pay package to $7.9 million. Including the estimated future value of stock awards and options, his 2010 pay package could increase to $9.4 million. Gannett said the raise was meant to reward Mr. Dubow for boosting the publisher’s earnings — remember, the emphasis is always on the net — for the fourth consecutive year

Is overcompensating a CEO while laying off front line workers and as stock prices fall efficient? By contrast here's what his replacement is doing:

Someone had to take a stand against ridiculous bonuses and high executive pay and that person was Gannett CEO Gracia Martore.

A definitive proxy statement filed Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission shows that Ms. Martore, who ascended to the CEO position this year after the resignation of Craig Dubow, asked that she not be given the $1.5 million bonus the Executive Compensation Committee wanted to give her.

Thanks to that selfless act of generosity, the Gannett CEO, who required all employees in the newspaper division to take an unpaid one-week furlough during the first quarter of 2011, will only receive a $1.2 million bonus and the top five company executives will only receive $3,070,000 in bonuses.

Although the committee determined that Ms. Martore should receive a bonus of $1.5 million to reflect her performance in 2011, her promotion to CEO and her leadership in executing on the company's strategic plan, Ms. Martore requested that her 2011 bonus be less then her 2010 bonus, and the Committee honored her request by reducing the amount of her 2011 bonus to $1.2 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randy-tur ... 54822.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other words, Dubbow was a douchebag.