[derek500]

Originally Posted by Dan's Dad

Indeed it was, but subject to modification, in an agreement with Blair's 1st Secretary of State for Media and the ECB, yet discarded by Blair's 2nd Secretary of State following a direct approach by a Murdoch.

You can't really have a verbal agreement that goes against what the ECB asked for. They asked for test matches to be removed from the A list and what is what they got.

They could have easily asked for a more specific agreement (like there is for Wimbledon), limiting pay tests to a certain number per season.

How can it be expected to abide to a verbal agreement, when both parties to it were no longer in the their jobs.

The ECB wanted all the tests on Sky and that complied with the B list.

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by derek500

You can't really have a verbal agreement that goes against what the ECB asked for. They asked for test matches to be removed from the A list and what is what they got.

28. In a letter to Sir Peter Tapsell, Member for Louth and Horncastle, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at DCMS, James Purnell MP, stated that:
"We must be clear, there was no binding agreement between Chris Smith and Lord MacLaurin".

32. When asked whether James Purnell's statement in his letter to Sir Peter Tapsell was a fair and accurate construction of events, Lord MacLaurin was unambiguous in rejecting that interpretation.
Lord Smith did not consider it legally binding but went on: "it was a very strong agreement relating to that particular moment and that particular deal".
It would, he added, have been inconceivable for the ECB to have reached an exclusive deal with BSkyB due to the very public nature of the assurances and statements to the contrary made by the ECB at the time.

Originally Posted by derek500

They could have easily asked for a more specific agreement (like there is for Wimbledon), limiting pay tests to a certain number per season.

27. The second option was, perhaps, the pragmatist's choice. Lord Smith explained to the Committee that it would have been problematic to opt for the first as the difficulties in determining which particular Tests
should be placed in Group A were probably insurmountable. Therefore it was decided that the way forward, in 1998, was a form of "agreement" with Lord MacLaurin, the then Chairman of the ECB.

Originally Posted by derek500

How can it be expected to abide to a verbal agreement, when both parties to it were no longer in the their jobs.

on you repeated assertion that it was a 'verbal agreement'

30. Lord MacLaurin said ... "In my letter it quite clearly says that a substantial amount of live coverage would be on free-to-air television. I do not have any doubt about that".

and on the issue of passing on the obligations under the agreement

31. In response to Tessa Jowell's claims that the agreement between them was "somewhat unclear," both were categorical in their rebuttal.
....
Furthermore, Lord MacLaurin confirmed to us that the details of this understanding were conveyed to his successor, David Morgan, as the BSkyB deal was going through.

Originally Posted by derek500

The ECB wanted all the tests on Sky and that complied with the A list.

[complied with the B list, or conflicted with the A list?]

29. Lord Smith informed us that one of his reasons for moving Test matches played in England to Group B was that he had: "been given a very clear assurance from Lord MacLaurin and also there were public statements from the ECB themselves that indicated that they would wish, in any circumstances, a substantial amount of live coverage to be available on free-to-air television".

All quotes from
Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport First Report

4 THE GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT

[ShaunIOW]

Originally Posted by derek500

Not according to BARB. I assume she's heard the statement "BBC One is the most watched channel in pay homes", which is true and misquoted it.

BARB don't monitor my viewing and as I said I'm a Sky Subscriber who watches more on the BBC and other free channels than I do on the pay ones and I doub't I'm the only one so her opinion could be correct as it is in my case, and in my case your statement 'Sky subscribers watch more pay content than they do BBC' is obviously wrong.

[nebogipfel]

Originally Posted by derek500

.....
and another

Premier League football was never a listed event. Now was its predecessor.

She doesn't say that Premier League football ever was a listed event. She is simply using an example of something that Sky has snaffled up to illustrate to readers that this is what Sky would love to do with Wimbledon etc.

[davetherave1701]

Originally Posted by THOMO

I would like to ban all these anti Sky and BBC threads, they seem to be cluttering all the space in the Broadcast part of the Digital Spy forums.
Ian.

i would like to ban all these wannabe posh lads who are really sitting in there grotty little bedsit all alone with a brighthouse laptop on pay as you go dial up internet pretending they have a 3DTV unless uve been to brighthouse again....

[jo2015]

Polly Toynbee who got into Oxbridge with a single 'A' level.

One law for those at the top.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by jo2015

Polly Toynbee who got into Oxbridge with a single 'A' level.

One law for those at the top.

Ironic, your second line could be levelled at the Murdochs!

[Johnbee]

<Polly Toynbee who got into O< xbridge with a single 'A' level.

One law for those at the top. >

Which law are you talking about Einstein?

[derek500]

Sky have replied to Toynbee's article.

Polly Toynbee's outburst against Sky (Murdoch and the Cameron entourage, 27 April) was misinformed and sadly predictable. Sky makes a significant and growing contribution to Britain. Whether it's the 40% of homes who choose Sky for a better choice of entertainment, our support for British sport, investment in journalism or the creation of 19,000 jobs, we're proud of the role we play. Of course we don't dispute that our revenue now exceeds that of the BBC, nor do we make any apology for it. Any success that Sky achieves comes from the free choice exercised by customers and our commitment to keep improving our service. That's why Sky is now the fastest-growing source of investment in original British programmes and is on track to spend £600m a year in this area by 2014. While it is disappointing that Ms Toynbee does not acknowledge this evidence, we will continue to do what we do best: investing for customers and growing our contribution.
Graham McWilliam
Group director of corporate affairs, Sky

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...rupert-murdoch

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by derek500

Sky have replied to Toynbee's article.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...rupert-murdoch

They don't seem to have disputed much of her article though Derek by correcting points they thought were mistaken. Makes you wonder why they bothered to reply.

[mogzyboy]

Originally Posted by Transient1

They don't seem to have disputed much of her article though Derek by correcting points they thought were mistaken. Makes you wonder why they bothered to reply.

They probably can't be ar*ed to give a serious reply to her nowadays, seeing as she trots out the same crap all the time - enough is enough really.

They're probably as bored with the same old rehashed nonsense she insists on spouting as most of us are. She does it even when she's corrected.

She clearly didn't spend much time learning when she attended OxBridge, did she? If she did, she'd learn to give up when she's been corrected time and time again.

[Transient1]

Originally Posted by mogzyboy

They probably can't be ar*ed to give a serious reply to her nowadays, seeing as she trots out the same crap all the time - enough is enough really.

They're probably as bored with the same old rehashed nonsense she insists on spouting as most of us are. She does it even when she's corrected.

She clearly didn't spend much time learning when she attended OxBridge, did she? If she did, she'd learn to give up when she's been corrected time and time again.

It obviously isn't that they can't be bothered or else they wouldn't have taken the trouble to reply. To reply and not say what the faults in the article are suggests rightly or wrongly that the article is factual.

[u006852]

Originally Posted by derek500

Sky have replied to Toynbee's article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...rupert-murdoch

Quote:
Polly Toynbee's outburst against Sky (Murdoch and the Cameron entourage, 27 April) was misinformed and sadly predictable. Sky makes a significant and growing contribution to Britain. Whether it's the 40% of homes who choose Sky for a better choice of entertainment, our support for British sport, investment in journalism or the creation of 19,000 jobs, we're proud of the role we play. Of course we don't dispute that our revenue now exceeds that of the BBC, nor do we make any apology for it.

Any success that Sky achieves comes from the free choice exercised by customers and our commitment to keep improving our service.

That's why Sky is now the fastest-growing source of investment in original British programmes and is on track to spend £600m a year in this area by 2014.

While it is disappointing that Ms Toynbee does not acknowledge this evidence, we will continue to do what we do best: investing for customers and growing our contribution.
Graham McWilliam
Group director of corporate affairs, Sky


I find this statement hilarious.

So, Sky spend a tiny amount on original UK content. Now, lets say this investment doubles it. Fact is, It's still a tiny amount. They then make a claim that it is the fastest growing investor to make it look impressive!

They then say that within another two years it's going to still be a tiny amount, especially when compared to their huge income, and which exceeds the BBCs (and they are proud of it)!


Also, is it so much of a free choice when Sky use their huge commercial power and effective multichannel monoploy to distort the market by hoovering up content - content which was on FTA?

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by derek500

Sky have replied to Toynbee's article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...rupert-murdoch

How very interesting -

this letter was published last evening on the web site at 2100,
most print versions will only be read after newsagents have opened for business this morning -

and yet it is pointed to on this site last evening only 23 minutes after its first appearance!

Makes you wonder, doesn't it!

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by u006852

I find this statement hilarious.

So, Sky spend a tiny amount on original UK content. Now, lets say this investment doubles it. Fact is, It's still a tiny amount. They then make a claim that it is the fastest growing investor to make it look impressive!

Not even mildly amusing;

just part and parcel of the ethos that runs throughout News Corp and associated companies -

never credit your readers with the ability to think and question; expect them only to accept 'our wisdom'.

[TUC]

Originally Posted by Big Boy Barry

The general theme of her article is correct.

Murdoch has way too much power over the media in this country. Handing him control of Sky would be a disaster.

It still comes back to, whatever you make of Murdoch, who else has had the guts and ability to make a success of a ground-breaking adventure like Sky.

BSB and On-Digital-expensive, poorly delivered flops.

No one else has opened their wallet and tried. For those against Murdoch, what are they saying should have happened instead?

[mlt11]

Originally Posted by TUC

For those against Murdoch, what are they saying should have happened instead?

They would have preferred it if nothing had happened.

They would have preferred the status quo.

They know that would never have held entirely due to technological change. But they would have just preferred to have small new entrants (eg people like Eurosport) - ie nobody who would have really shaken up the cosy cartel.

And you have to realise that that is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint - many people prefer that kind of world. Everyone gets the same service, it's all free, it's all safe, no feathers are ruffled, the producers can all pay themselves generous salaries and expenses, there's no threat from any competition etc etc.

Many, many people think that is the best way of doing things. Personally I don't, but many people do.

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by TUC

.... For those against Murdoch, what are they saying should have happened instead?

That Thatcher showed respect for the accountability of the IBA through its statutory obligations, and ensured the matter
of the delay and threat to the viability of British Satellite Broadcasting be referred to Parliamentary scrutiny and decision.

[nebogipfel]

Originally Posted by mlt11

They would have preferred it if nothing had happened.

They would have preferred the status quo.

They know that would never have held entirely due to technological change. But they would have just preferred to have small new entrants (eg people like Eurosport) - ie nobody who would have really shaken up the cosy cartel.

And you have to realise that that is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint - many people prefer that kind of world. Everyone gets the same service, it's all free, it's all safe, no feathers are ruffled, the producers can all pay themselves generous salaries and expenses, there's no threat from any competition etc etc.

Many, many people think that is the best way of doing things. Personally I don't, but many people do.

And some people prefer the worst excesses of amoral ruthless businesmen to be curbed. That doesn't necessarily imply a desire for the status quo.

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by derek500

Sky have replied to Toynbee's article.

Guardian readers have replied to Graham McWilliam's response, and find him un-convincing.

The truth about Sky's free choice

As to claiming Sky is the "fastest-growing source of investment in original British programmes", this week's programmes provide very little evidence of that.
There is a mass of programmes from the US channels it has bought, and films from their studios. But quality British programmes? Please show me a list of those.

Mr McWilliam should not confuse paying for Sky with showing enthusiasm for it.

Our viewing choices would be freer (in both senses of the word) if the government massively expanded the list of events that have to be made
available for live coverage by a free-to-air broadcaster. It should also stop making the BBC pay Sky £10m per year to carry its programmes.

So there's no connection with the fact that, while James Murdoch on behalf of Sky's 39% shareholder, News International, attacked
the BBC's size as a threat to Sky ...., David Cameron earlier hastened to reassure the Murdochs that the BBC would be brought to heel.

Graham McWilliam's hypocritical letter in praise of BSkyB fails to reveal that, unless they are already provided, it is too mean
to pay for subtitles for the hard of hearing, its much trumpeted Playhouse Presents being a good example.

I cannot be the only person to refuse to subscribe to Sky because of Murdoch's involvement.
When will BSkyB realise it would make commercial sense to get rid of News Corporation's shareholding?

Over to you, derek500

[TUC]

Originally Posted by Dan's Dad

That Thatcher showed respect for the accountability of the IBA through its statutory obligations, and ensured the matter
of the delay and threat to the viability of British Satellite Broadcasting be referred to Parliamentary scrutiny and decision.

You mean that BSB should have been bailed out or protected from the effects of their incompetence to run a business?

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by TUC

You mean that BSB should have been bailed out or protected from the effects of their incompetence to run a business?

No. I mean exactly what I say.

[TUC]

Originally Posted by Dan's Dad

No. I mean exactly what I say.

What purpose would it have achieved?

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by TUC

What purpose would it have achieved?

That communication law and policy is determined by due democratic process and not by the commercial interests
of a single person of non-British nationality who is now shown to have had undue influence in the UK for decades.

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by Dan's Dad

Guardian readers have replied to Graham McWilliam's response, and find him un-convincing.

Over to you, derek500; or do you have no interest in responding to the points raised by the correspondents?