Channels Pulling Off Sky?

thelostonethelostone Posts: 2,697
Forum Member
✭✭✭
With Advertisers pulling ads off NOTW and maybe other NI things,Do you think some channels could,I think know channel would.
«1

Comments

  • gottagogottago Posts: 14,094
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    thelostone wrote: »
    With Advertisers pulling ads off NOTW and maybe other NI things,Do you think some channels could,I think know channel would.
    Nope.
  • thelostonethelostone Posts: 2,697
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Maybe BBC should pull it channels off sky:D:)
  • mersey70mersey70 Posts: 5,049
    Forum Member
    Maybe Fox should pull their channels ;)

    Seriously though I don't think any channels will be removed.
  • ShaunWShaunW Posts: 2,356
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No because NI are only a Sky shareholder at the moment and they are also a share holder in a few of the channels.
  • LeewichLeewich Posts: 1,111
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, because it can't be said enough that Sky has nothing to do with the scandal.
  • SpotSpot Posts: 25,121
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thelostone wrote: »
    Maybe BBC should pull it channels off sky:D:)

    The BBC and many others only pay Sky for their EPG positions. Carriage on the satellite platform is not controlled by Sky.
  • foxlafoxla Posts: 1,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    and all the other channels will pull out of 'reality police shows' too
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ShaunW wrote: »
    No because NI are only a Sky shareholder at the moment and they are also a share holder in a few of the channels.

    News International aren't Sky shareholders, it's News Corp that own 39%.
  • packerbullypackerbully Posts: 2,812
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thelostone wrote: »
    With Advertisers pulling ads off NOTW and maybe other NI things,Do you think some channels could,I think know channel would.

    No, why would they? What has Sky got to do with NOTW other than News Corp owning a minority portion of Sky.
  • Digi DanDigi Dan Posts: 988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This thread gets my vote for the most rediculous of the year so far...
  • alan1302alan1302 Posts: 6,336
    Forum Member
    thelostone wrote: »
    With Advertisers pulling ads off NOTW and maybe other NI things,Do you think some channels could,I think know channel would.

    No, different companies so why would they?
  • bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Leewich wrote: »
    No, because it can't be said enough that Sky has nothing to do with the scandal.

    They have little to do with it at the moment because Murdoch is only a 40% shareholder. If the takeover happens then it definitely has something to do with Sky because the person mostly responsible for the scandal will be in charge of Sky!
  • foxlafoxla Posts: 1,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But the takeover is many, many months away now, if at all (!) by which time, something else will be upsetiing the nation!

    Lets hope all the other papers that are reporting all this are squeaky clean !
  • linkinpark875linkinpark875 Posts: 29,699
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thelostone wrote: »
    With Advertisers pulling ads off NOTW and maybe other NI things,Do you think some channels could,I think know channel would.

    The whole point of closing the paper is so it does not have a negative impact on other brands.
  • True TrotterTrue Trotter Posts: 22
    Forum Member
    When Sky first started broadcasting, did'nt Murcoch own the company?
    It was losing money hand over fist, the Sun & NOtW massive proffits were used to keep Sky operating, until Sky managed to manoeuvre Premier League football rights. Murdoch then floated shares for BSkyB and after receiving £m's for its sale and some years later, now wants to regain control.
  • thelostonethelostone Posts: 2,697
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    When Sky first started broadcasting, did'nt Murcoch own the company?
    It was losing money hand over fist, the Sun & NOtW massive proffits were used to keep Sky operating, until Sky managed to manoeuvre Premier League football rights. Murdoch then floated shares for BSkyB and after receiving £m's for its sale and some years later, now wants to regain control.

    He owned all of sky from 1984-1990
  • 2shy20072shy2007 Posts: 52,579
    Forum Member
    Leewich wrote: »
    No, because it can't be said enough that Sky has nothing to do with the scandal.

    This seems to be something that is going over the heads of some ;)
  • pjcd1970pjcd1970 Posts: 1,228
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    When Sky first started broadcasting, did'nt Murcoch own the company?
    Yes he/News Corp owed 100% of Sky Television until the 1991 merger with BSB to form BSKYB.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 7,004
    Forum Member
    pjcd1970 wrote: »
    Yes he/News Corp owed 100% of Sky Television until the 1991 merger with BSB to form BSKYB.

    Which left News Corp with 50% of the shares in BSKYB and the former BSB shareholders with 50%.

    Then shares were sold to finance expansion at Sky which diluted News Corp's holding to 39% - leaving them a minority shareholder although the largest single shareholder.

    And even if the PTB agree to News Corp obtaining the remaining 61% an agreement would still have to be reached with the other shareholders and News Corp's earlier offer was rejected.
  • Aaron_ScotlandAaron_Scotland Posts: 8,487
    Forum Member
    thelostone wrote: »
    With Advertisers pulling ads off NOTW and maybe other NI things,Do you think some channels could,I think know channel would.

    Which channel do you think will?

    Personally I think a channel would be stupid to, But I also have a list of channels I wouldn't mind going away. :D
  • be more pacificbe more pacific Posts: 19,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Here's evidence of a channel pulling off Murdoch.;)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHlGQPYJGu0
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,414
    Forum Member
    Leewich wrote: »
    No, because it can't be said enough that Sky has nothing to do with the scandal.

    I disagree on that one because Sky, News International and News Corporation are all closely linked - see below:
    To the contrary, what has gone on at the NOTW and News International is highly relevant to the News Corporation bid for 100% of Sky shares.

    The current scandal has shown that a major News Corp subsidiary has effectively been out of control committing illegal acts and so any internal, corporate anti-corruption policies have quite clearly failed.

    Next, senior employeers, Coulson aside, have been implicated in highly dubious acts http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/revealed-brooks-past-link-with-milly-private-detective-2307517.html and Brooks has also admitted that police have been paid for information which is a criminal act. And where is Brooks now? Yes, that's right, News Corp's Rupert Murdoch promoted her to be the boss of News International.

    James Murdoch in his recent Sky News interview admitted signing off "hush money" cheques to buy off the victims of phone hacking without acting with due diligence. In addition to his News International duties by virtue of being the Chairman and CEO of News Corporation Europe and Asia, James Murdoch is, wait for it, the Non-Executive Chairman of British Sky Broadcasting.

    Therefore, In terms of both corporate governance and personal probity, Ofcom would be perfectly entitled to conduct a "fitness" test since there are already very strong corporate and personnel links between Sky, News International and News Corporation.

    It's getting to the point where anything Murdoch related now has untouchable pariah status and it's almost certain that former (and perhaps some current) Murdoch employees will be put on trial. Not only that, more nasty revelations will be revealed in due course: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012326/News-World-phone-hacking-Will-Rebekah-Brooks-FINALLY-go.html?ITO=1490
    "Worse revelations are yet to come and you will understand in a year why we closed News of the World"

    Faced with all that, I can see more advertisers deciding not to place adverts with all Murdoch enterprises (some are already boycotting all News International newspapers) and it might very well be that a few channels might decide to defect from Sky and go free to air/Freesat.

    One thing's for certain; this appalling scandal will continue over the next few months and there'll almost certainly be more very bad headlines for Murdoch.
  • derek500derek500 Posts: 24,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I disagree on that one because Sky, News International and News Corporation are all closely linked - see below

    So apart from James Murdoch being the Non-executive Chairman of BSkyB (which in reality is a non-job) what other links are there?

    Also, all the News Corp representation on BSkyB's board are non-executive so they have no part in the actual running of the company.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 549
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    derek500 wrote: »
    So apart from James Murdoch being the Non-executive Chairman of BSkyB (which in reality is a non-job) what other links are there?

    Also, all the News Corp representation on BSkyB's board are non-executive so they have no part in the actual running of the company.

    Do you honestly believe what you just wrote, Sky was murdoch's baby he started it , do you think he has no say in the day to day running of his baby.
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,414
    Forum Member
    derek500 wrote: »
    So apart from James Murdoch being the Non-executive Chairman of BSkyB (which in reality is a non-job) what other links are there?

    Also, all the News Corp representation on BSkyB's board are non-executive so they have no part in the actual running of the company.

    I am frankly shocked that you are apparently attempting to defend, and divert attention from, the immoral, callous, illegal and unpatriotic (hacking into the mobiles of the relatives of fallen soldiers) activities of the Murdoch Empire. :eek:

    Let's get some facts straight right now:
    1. From 2003 to 2007, James Murdoch was Chief Executive Officer of BSkyB;
    2. James Murdoch, as head of News Corporation Europe, will become the de facto head of all UK BSkyB operations in the event that News Corporation controls 100% of all BSkyB shares;
    3. James Murdoch has already publicly admitted conduct that fell woefully short of best corporate practice when he signed off the "hush money" cheques to silence victims of the illegal phone hacking scams;
    4. News Corporation, headed by one James Murdoch in Europe, is already the single largest Sky shareholder with 39% of BSkyB shares.

    Therefore, the ties are already there and News Corporation in general and James Murdoch in particular should be put through Ofcom's "fitness" test at the earlest practicable opportunity which will presumably be after Murdoch employees and contractors have been sentenced for any illegal wrongdoings.
Sign In or Register to comment.