Earlier today I wrote about Firebrand Partners and Harbinger Capital Partners' bid to get four directors onto the board of directors at the New York Times Co. (NYSE: NYT) . The other nine directors are controlled by the Sulzberger family through a dual-class voting structure and, in his letter to the company's top two executives, Firebreand CIO Scott Galloway wrote that:

I want to assure you that we are not pursuing a change in the dual class shareholder structure. The New York Times is a great institution controlled by the Sulzberger family and we have no illusion about, or desire to change, that fact. Our efforts are focused on how we can work with management and the Board for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Amazingly, the stock is trading up about 9% on the news. But here's the problem: no matter how good Galloway's idea that the company should invest more in digital media assets, his suggestion that the company do something about it is no more than walking up to the owner of a privately-held restaurant and telling him he should serve better steaks. Maybe he'll listen, maybe he won't: But with the ownership structure that's currently in place, the New York Times board and management has no particular reason to listen to an outside shareholder.

Firebrand has no leverage -- The fact that they own almost 5% of the company's stock means nothing. If their proxy contest is successful, they'll end up with 4 of 13 seats on a board controlled by a family that has refused to allow other shareholders to have any meaningful say in the company.

I have no idea whether the company is headed up or down, short-term or long-term. But there is no real reason for the stock to be up nearly 10% today.