Jump to content

Carnival Corp In Talks To Sell Seabourn


 Share

Recommended Posts


Carnival is in discussions to sell Seabourn brand to the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, per sources. Talks are still ongoing, no deal finalized as of yet. Comes <1 week after Carnival went to the debt market to raise $1b at 10% yield. Saudis currently own 5.1% stake in $CCL.

 

https://twitter.com/cruiseindustry/status/1529171404494602242?s=21&t=T3M1l-k9LQG9G9fAbxg6Vg

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, difranco said:

Will those with human rights values shun the brand if the deal goes through.

I would think so.  I know that we would not be interested in contributing to the wealth of the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund.  Not necessary to explain all the reasons why.  

 

I'm sure alcohol would still be served.  I'm sure women could still wear swimsuits on board.  It's all about controlling their own people.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 28 I made my comment on the Silversea board that SB was on the short list of the CCL dump they need to make for the balance sheet.   Nothing shocking here.   Honestly, I'm currently on a SB ship and it is the most disappointing cruise ever taken with this company.   Under HAL/Princess, there is no future for SB.   Sooner sold off, the better.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, saminina said:

   Honestly, I'm currently on a SB ship and it is the most disappointing cruise ever taken with this company. 

Can you be specific as to what makes this a particularly disappointing cruise for you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for having to ask this question but would this "sale" mean that SB would no longer be part of Carnival Corp? or would this be an investment/ ownership of the brand by Saudi but still under the CCL umbrella? Would this be something similar to what happened with Azamara ?

Would think CCL would want to have a upscale/luxury line under their umbrella since that seems to be one of the segments of the industry that is seeing huge growth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, robertmartha said:

Sorry for having to ask this question but would this "sale" mean that SB would no longer be part of Carnival Corp? or would this be an investment/ ownership of the brand by Saudi but still under the CCL umbrella? Would this be something similar to what happened with Azamara ?

Would think CCL would want to have a upscale/luxury line under their umbrella since that seems to be one of the segments of the industry that is seeing huge growth.

What happen to Azamara was a complete sale of the ships and brand.  RCL had a limited role only in managing sales and other services under contract but that has been moved to another company.

 

Sale would mean brand and ships.  Whether CCL remains to handle the management of the ships and services is TBD.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SLSD said:

I would think so.  I know that we would not be interested in contributing to the wealth of the Saudi Sovereign Wealth Fund.  Not necessary to explain all the reasons why.  

 

I'm sure alcohol would still be served.  I'm sure women could still wear swimsuits on board.  It's all about controlling their own people.  

Just google what the Saudi fund is invested in….you might be surprised how broad their investments are (I.e., Carnival, Marriott, Uber, Facebook, Banks, Boeing…..and the list goes on). They are likely already in your life somehow🙃

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sunprince said:

Just google what the Saudi fund is invested in….you might be surprised how broad their investments are (I.e., Carnival, Marriott, Uber, Facebook, Banks, Boeing…..and the list goes on). They are likely already in your life somehow🙃

Not surprised at all.  I keep up with these things.  It's not quite the same as choosing to sale  on a cruise line whose brand has been purchased.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SLSD said:

Not surprised at all.  I keep up with these things.  It's not quite the same as choosing to sale  on a cruise line whose brand has been purchased.  

'

Yes it is.

 

You either patronize a business or you don't.  And rationalizing that a cruise is somehow a "different" purchase than staying at a hotel (or the like), is sophistry.

 

And since you "keep up with these things", I wonder if you have boycotted their other investments, or are just trying to make this a cause celebre?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FlyerTalker said:

'

Yes it is.

 

You either patronize a business or you don't.  And rationalizing that a cruise is somehow a "different" purchase than staying at a hotel (or the like), is sophistry.

 

And since you "keep up with these things", I wonder if you have boycotted their other investments, or are just trying to make this a cause celebre?

Not to be combative, but to me, it IS different to CHOOSE to sail on a particular cruise line.  I can choose not to sail.  It is more difficult to parse out which jet liner my flight will be using and when.  We all get to make our choices.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FlyerTalker said:

'

Yes it is.

 

You either patronize a business or you don't.  And rationalizing that a cruise is somehow a "different" purchase than staying at a hotel (or the like), is sophistry.

 

And since you "keep up with these things", I wonder if you have boycotted their other investments, or are just trying to make this a cause celebre?

Wow, labeling anything short of absolute purity as sophistry is, well, sophistry. There is an identifiable and quantifiable difference between wholly owning an entity vs. holding a non-controlling minority stake, particularly in publicly traded companies where anybody can buy shares.

 

By your logic, if the Saudi fund purchased a large holding in an S&P 500 index fund purety would obligate that we no longer patronize any S&P 500 company. Likewise, since you've previously mentioned petroleum, because it's literally impossible to know where the barrel of oil that became your gasoline originated, I guess purity obligates us to no longer consume gasoline. Those are insane expectations.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to avoid patronizing Saudi holdings where it is practicable, particularly when they are the clearly identifiable sole or majority interest owners, while recognizing that it would be impossible to avoid every last entity in which they have any level of stake or interest.

 

Finally, I'd also add that my five figure cruise purchase warrants a higher level of scrutiny and decision-making than my choice of filling my gas tank or which airplane I may fly on. We don't live in a binary world where every decision is clearly black and white.

 

Sorry to be long-winded about this, but those of us who feel the Saudis taking full or majority ownership of Seabourn would be a deal breaker prefer not to have our integrity impugned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Robisan said:

 

 

Sorry to be long-winded about this, but those of us who feel the Saudis taking full or majority ownership of Seabourn would be a deal breaker prefer not to have our integrity impugned.

Thank you for making this clear.  I don't understand the rush to explain that our reluctance to sail a cruise line wholly owned by the Saudis is a bad thing--and we need to understand how we are wrong due to the fact that we cannot truly separate the morally repugnant Saudi government from our lives.  

 

I do understand that  Carnival (and that means Seabourn) badly needs cash.  And I do also understand that to them, when desperate, it doesn't really matter where the cash comes from.  But, we can choose where and when to sail.  It's that simple.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, saminina said:

Honestly, I'm currently on a SB ship and it is the most disappointing cruise ever taken with this company.   Under HAL/Princess, there is no future for SB.   Sooner sold off, the better.  

 

Please elaborate.  I'd be very interesting in the details of your dissatisfaction.  Thanks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Robisan said:

It is perfectly reasonable to avoid patronizing Saudi holdings where it is practicable, particularly when they are the clearly identifiable sole or majority interest owners, while recognizing that it would be impossible to avoid every last entity in which they have any level of stake or interest.

 

Some might be surprised of the tangled web of investments by other entities in one's favorite companies.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Robisan said:

It is perfectly reasonable to avoid patronizing Saudi holdings where it is practicable, particularly when they are the clearly identifiable sole or majority interest owners, while recognizing that it would be impossible to avoid every last entity in which they have any level of stake or interest.

 

Some might be surprised of the tangled web of investments by other entities in one's favorite companies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Some might be surprised of the tangled web of investments by other entities in one's favorite companies.  

So true and about this we agree.   Hypocrisy is the true pandemic of our time and nowhere does it bare its fangs more than when it comes to folks who claim to base many of their day to day decisions on who owns/invests in what!  The world of major capital investments is so complex that few have a clue as to who actually owns various entities.  So, for example, folks might notice that Blackrock owns some major chunks of several cruise lines (including CCL, RCL and NCLH).  But it so happens that PIF (a major Saudi investment arm) owns a big stake in Blackrock.  One could dig even deeper and find that Saudi money is spread thoughout our society.  How many who use Uber stop to think that there is a lot of Saudi money invested in that entity.  And I wonder how many who have ever bought a General Motors product was aware that there is a significant Saudi investment (at least $2 Billion) in GM Cruise Holdings.  And the next time you buy a Smart Phone, television, etc. you might want to consider that there is likely a major Saudi investment in the chips that are the guts of those devices.

 

So when folks tell me they make their day to day spending decisions based on who owns what it just makes me laugh.  Few folks have a clue as to who is really underwriting their favorite companies.

 

Hank

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

So true and about this we agree.   Hypocrisy is the true pandemic of our time and nowhere does it bare its fangs more than when it comes to folks who claim to base many of their day to day decisions on who owns/invests in what!  The world of major capital investments is so complex that few have a clue as to who actually owns various entities.  So, for example, folks might notice that Blackrock owns some major chunks of several cruise lines (including CCL, RCL and NCLH).  But it so happens that PIF (a major Saudi investment arm) owns a big stake in Blackrock.  One could dig even deeper and find that Saudi money is spread thoughout our society.  How many who use Uber stop to think that there is a lot of Saudi money invested in that entity.  And I wonder how many who have ever bought a General Motors product was aware that there is a significant Saudi investment (at least $2 Billion) in GM Cruise Holdings.  And the next time you buy a Smart Phone, television, etc. you might want to consider that there is likely a major Saudi investment in the chips that are the guts of those devices.

 

So when folks tell me they make their day to day spending decisions based on who owns what it just makes me laugh.  Few folks have a clue as to who is really underwriting their favorite companies.

 

Hank

BRAVO!   Well said!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lois10028 said:

BRAVO!   Well said!!!

+1

 

And just to add to this….Today it is an aversion to patronizing a Saudi owned business but that is just one example where personal beliefs/preferences guide one’s spending decisions. Russia, China etc also come to mind.  Also, for ex, as Canadians, we have friends who have avoided travelling and spending their money in the US, and more specifically certain states, because their personal beliefs/preferences are at conflict with the (political) environment in those areas. So this can be applied more broadly….but where does it end? 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • Special Event: Q&A with Laura Hodges Bethge, President Celebrity Cruises
      • Hurricane Zone 2024
      • Cruise Insurance Q&A w/ Steve Dasseos of Tripinsurancestore.com Summer 2024
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Cruise Critic News & Features
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...