That's not their content is it? They just bought it. Anyone can do that.
Seems silly to hold that against them in the digital era. That's what the vast majority of channels do, buy in their content. But Five commissions a lot of its own stuff too and some of it is decent. I enjoy the imports particularly and watch the channel more than ITV and Four combined in an average week.
Second-round offers due Monday 14 April. One potential bidder said that Channel 5’s financial performance was masked by deals with Desmond’s publications and there was "not a lot to like".
Someone else said the most likely outcome was a recapitalisation, ie borrowing against the value of Channel 5, allowing Desmond to pay himself a substantial dividend.
Suggestions that second-round bids would only reach £200m-£300m were branded “complete nonsense” by a Channel 5 spokesman. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/62ccb35e-bb0f-11e3-b2b7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2y2dOSiej
If Channel 5 or Desmond are screwing up then maybe the Channel 5 licence should be stripped from them!
Desmond could always do something with the other channels Channel 5 has and Ofcom could allow the Channel 5 licence itself to be re-bided for!
If Channel 5 or Desmond are screwing up then maybe the Channel 5 licence should be stripped from them!
Desmond could always do something with the other channels Channel 5 has and Ofcom could allow the Channel 5 licence itself to be re-bided for!
Channel 5's licence cannot be removed just because a poster on Digital Spy has a bad feeling about how the sale process is going!
Channel 5's licence cannot be removed just because a poster on Digital Spy has a bad feeling about how the sale process is going!
to be fair to myself, I was not suggesting that.
I was saying, that the sale for Channel 5 may not go as smoothly as Desmond think it will be, and that his turn around of the company is not quite as total as he (and his papers) claim.
I was saying, that the sale for Channel 5 may not go as smoothly as Desmond think it will be, and that his turn around of the company is not quite as total as he (and his papers) claim.
It was all me thinking about the possibility of C5 loosing its license.
So if issues with the handling of selling it aren't bad enough for C5 to loose its license, what is?
It was all me thinking about the possibility of C5 loosing its license.
So if issues with the handling of selling it aren't bad enough for C5 to loose its license, what is?
To be fair to Charnham he/she said "I have got a bad feeling about this sale", not that there were issues with the handling of the sale.
For Channel 5 to lose its PSB licence, it would have to do things like provide the wrong kind of programming (eg insufficient news) or be sold to the wrong owner (eg Putin).
To be fair to Charnham he/she said "I have got a bad feeling about this sale", not that there were issues with the handling of the sale.
For Channel 5 to lose its PSB licence, it would have to do things like provide the wrong kind of programming (eg insufficient news) or be sold to the wrong owner (eg Putin).
"The Australian newspaper, published by News Corp, reported that the media chief, who owns Australia’s leading TV network, Seven, was considering whether to bid after expressing an interest in the first round of bids in February."
Ignore the section in the article which lists potential bidders, some of these have ruled themsleves out!
"The Australian newspaper, published by News Corp, reported that the media chief, who owns Australia’s leading TV network, Seven, was considering whether to bid after expressing an interest in the first round of bids in February."
Ignore the section in the article which lists potential bidders, some of these have ruled themsleves out!
Very speculative - based on a report in The Australian, speaks of "considering" a bid, and Seven decline to comment.
Non story as it stands. The title of the article is also misleading as it suggests any bid would be £700m when that is simply the sum Desmond would like.
Would it not be a better idea instead of selling Channel 5 to market the channel better?, I mean when it first started not all of the country could receive it but since the Digital Switch Over at least nearly everyone can now receive it.
Why not have adverts on boards and buses etc. Up and down the country with sayings such as Have You Tried Channel 5, Why Not Give Channel 5 A Go, also include some of the programmes they show in the adverts.
Failing that the only other option is to have a complete relaunch with new/different programming and new ideas as if even Richard Desmond is unable to turn things round fully then who can?. And I don't want it to turn into like a documentary channel as there must be an alternative to ITV and Channel 4.
Well if Seven did buy it I suppose that means they won't have to bid for Home and Away anymore
I wouldn't have expected Five would have to bid for Home & Away or Neighbours anymore either (unless they volunterily decide to walk away).
Isnt Channel 5 heavily involved in production (whether it be financially or creatively, I dont know)? I'm sure if seen this hinted at in numerous places over the years.
I wouldn't have expected Five would have to bid for Home & Away or Neighbours anymore either (unless they volunterily decide to walk away).
Isnt Channel 5 heavily involved in production (whether it be financially or creatively, I dont know)? I'm sure if seen this hinted at in numerous places over the years.
Home and Away is on a lifetime deal so it'll only go if Seven give up on it. Neighbours is up for renewal in 2017. I think Channel 5 pump money into both soaps and have a say in the storylines.
I quite like what Channel 5 shows today so in a way I will be sad when a sale goes through as it's more unique than other British channels.
In what way is it "more unique..."? What does it show that you can't get elsewhere and how is it more unique specifically than say Channel 4 or BBC Two, Three or Four.
Also why would it significantly change after a takeover? It's not that dissimilar from before Desmond took it over. Any decent programming it lost would soon find a home elsewhere. A lot of it is nothing special. I basically only watch The Mentalist, Person of Interest and other US series which would happily transfer to Sky, Universal, More 4, Fox, UKTV etc if needs must.
Have you ever considered that change sometimes brings improvement?
CH5 has the same problem that any other "brand" would have, peoples perception of it.
It's basically the 'Pot Noodle' of broadcasting.
So any new owner can go with that and make it an asset (but limited growth potential), or they can change the name and go in a different direction.
What we are lacking in the UK is a general entertainment channel for all, a sort-of Tesco of broadcasting. So it would make sense to go in that direction.
CH5 has the same problem that any other "brand" would have, peoples perception of it.
It's basically the 'Pot Noodle' of broadcasting.
So any new owner can go with that and make it an asset (but limited growth potential), or they can change the name and go in a different direction.
What we are lacking in the UK is a general entertainment channel for all, a sort-of Tesco of broadcasting. So it would make sense to go in that direction.
I agree the name does need changing, then people will invariably think its a new channel!
There will be people who know its a re-brand, but a lot of people will think its a new channel if its different enough!
They can call it whatever they want, unless it gets decent programming, a free HD version and changes it's policies on some things, such as on screen graphics, news during films etc. then people will continue to stay away from it like they currently do. A name isn't going to do much to help them out really.
They can call it whatever they want, unless it gets decent programming, a free HD version and changes it's policies on some things, such as on screen graphics, news during films etc. then people will continue to stay away from it like they currently do. A name isn't going to do much to help them out really.
Those things are needed too, but having a name re-brand with these things would mean the channel really seems like something almost completely different!
With the only things staying the same are any good shows that are on the channel, of course if Channel 5 itself has a re-brand then its other channels will need re-branding too!
Comments
That's not their content is it? They just bought it. Anyone can do that.
They treated Dallas like crap moved it from primetime 9pm slot to 11pm , I heard that it might be shunted to 5USA when it returns.
The new Dallas would be better on More4 or Channel 4 at least they treat shows with more respect.
Someone else said the most likely outcome was a recapitalisation, ie borrowing against the value of Channel 5, allowing Desmond to pay himself a substantial dividend.
Suggestions that second-round bids would only reach £200m-£300m were branded “complete nonsense” by a Channel 5 spokesman.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/62ccb35e-bb0f-11e3-b2b7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2y2dOSiej
why do you think something is going wrong?
If Channel 5 or Desmond are screwing up then maybe the Channel 5 licence should be stripped from them!
Desmond could always do something with the other channels Channel 5 has and Ofcom could allow the Channel 5 licence itself to be re-bided for!
How dare you. This is a very important website.
I was saying, that the sale for Channel 5 may not go as smoothly as Desmond think it will be, and that his turn around of the company is not quite as total as he (and his papers) claim.
It was all me thinking about the possibility of C5 loosing its license.
So if issues with the handling of selling it aren't bad enough for C5 to loose its license, what is?
For Channel 5 to lose its PSB licence, it would have to do things like provide the wrong kind of programming (eg insufficient news) or be sold to the wrong owner (eg Putin).
ah I see so rare circumstances
If you have a spare five minutes it's all here ;-) http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/current-licensees/channel-5/
Ignore the section in the article which lists potential bidders, some of these have ruled themsleves out!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/07/australian-media-mogul-kerry-stokes-eyes-sale-of-uks-channel-5
Very speculative - based on a report in The Australian, speaks of "considering" a bid, and Seven decline to comment.
Non story as it stands. The title of the article is also misleading as it suggests any bid would be £700m when that is simply the sum Desmond would like.
Seriously though I still think Desmond won't find a buyer for the price he wants so he won't sell.
Why not have adverts on boards and buses etc. Up and down the country with sayings such as Have You Tried Channel 5, Why Not Give Channel 5 A Go, also include some of the programmes they show in the adverts.
Failing that the only other option is to have a complete relaunch with new/different programming and new ideas as if even Richard Desmond is unable to turn things round fully then who can?. And I don't want it to turn into like a documentary channel as there must be an alternative to ITV and Channel 4.
I wouldn't have expected Five would have to bid for Home & Away or Neighbours anymore either (unless they volunterily decide to walk away).
Isnt Channel 5 heavily involved in production (whether it be financially or creatively, I dont know)? I'm sure if seen this hinted at in numerous places over the years.
Home and Away is on a lifetime deal so it'll only go if Seven give up on it. Neighbours is up for renewal in 2017. I think Channel 5 pump money into both soaps and have a say in the storylines.
In what way is it "more unique..."? What does it show that you can't get elsewhere and how is it more unique specifically than say Channel 4 or BBC Two, Three or Four.
Also why would it significantly change after a takeover? It's not that dissimilar from before Desmond took it over. Any decent programming it lost would soon find a home elsewhere. A lot of it is nothing special. I basically only watch The Mentalist, Person of Interest and other US series which would happily transfer to Sky, Universal, More 4, Fox, UKTV etc if needs must.
Have you ever considered that change sometimes brings improvement?
It's basically the 'Pot Noodle' of broadcasting.
So any new owner can go with that and make it an asset (but limited growth potential), or they can change the name and go in a different direction.
What we are lacking in the UK is a general entertainment channel for all, a sort-of Tesco of broadcasting. So it would make sense to go in that direction.
I agree the name does need changing, then people will invariably think its a new channel!
There will be people who know its a re-brand, but a lot of people will think its a new channel if its different enough!
Those things are needed too, but having a name re-brand with these things would mean the channel really seems like something almost completely different!
With the only things staying the same are any good shows that are on the channel, of course if Channel 5 itself has a re-brand then its other channels will need re-branding too!