Given Sky owns a chunk of ITV, maybe turnaround should be fair play and ITV should snap up the outstanding 39% of Sky. Although I suppose that's probably against whatever rules prohibited Sky from owning a bigger piece of ITV in the first place.
News Corps shares should be donated to Licence Fee holders who are not customers of BSkyB, by way of compensation for loss of FTA Test cricket and corruption of UK democratic procedures.
I see, corruption only affects TVL holders that don't have Sky.
So, neither of you wish to see widespread ownership of companies, and the consequential accountability of those companies; fascinating!
Why should those who can't afford, or won't subscribe to, or can't subscribe to Sky for whatever reason, be donated shares of the company and, therefore, have a say in how it's run?
I'm not a Vodafone customer, so do I want a say in how they run their business? No!
If News Corp is forced to sell then it seems highly likely that it will be through some sort of stock market placing which will result in their 39% becoming similarly widely owned.
As for the idea of a "donation" to LF holders, well, as with everything about this case, it's going to be governed by the law.
I'm not aware of any law which says that anyone losing their broadcast licence can be required to forfeit their shares without compensation so that will not happen.
Fortunately we don't live in a country where people can just change the law on a whim because they happen to feel like it.
As for what OFCOM is going to do I'm still waiting for any journalist to set out the exact procedure including details of any possible appeal process. As previously posted it seems to me that that is absolutely critical in assessing what is likely to happen. ie:
- IF no appeal, high likelihood OFCOM will act.
- IF appeal process exists, OFCOM likely to be more cautious and even if they do act we can probably settle in for a year or two of legal argument.
We haven't actually got to the point where News Corps are forced to sell their shares although today's report makes it a bit more likely. I think when it comes to the crunch News corps will try and get off the hook by negotiating concessions. The only way i can see that succeeding is if Murdoch resigns and corporate governance issues are sorted.
If they are forced to sell the shares then presumably they will just go on to the stock market for institutions and private individuals to buy?
I don't think News Corp will sell their shares in BskyB, all they will do is get a broadcasting licence in Ireland, a newly independent Scotland , Holland or other EU country and use that to broadcast into the United Kingdom.
Mikw is a freelance journalist for Sky Sports, the person I fully quoted.
But he also hates Murdoch, he's happy to take his shilling though.
So why would a freelance journalist for Sky Sports want the shares be given away. He would stand to gain more by suggesting shares should be divided up amongst the employees.
So why would a freelance journalist for Sky Sports want the shares be given away. He would stand to gain more by suggesting shares should be divided up amongst the employees.
If you bothered reading we have established he wasn't talking about the shares, he decided to part quote me and change the subject totally.
He always does it to suit his own somewhat contrived position.
Mikw is a freelance journalist for Sky Sports, the person I FULLY quoted.
But he also hates Murdoch, he's happy to take his shilling though.
With all due respect Mersey70 you have now brought that up about ten times. How is it relevant? Why does it offend you so much? It just clutters thread with personal accusations.
With all due respect Mersey70 you have now brought that up about ten times. How is it relevant? Why does it offend you so much? It just clutters thread with personal accusations.
Read the previous posts please on part quoting people out of context.
That's all my gripe was but he's good at it being a journalist.
Anyway getting back onto what I was actually talking about before my quotes were hijacked I think any sane person would agree the giving away of BSkyB shares just to TVL holders is nonsense.
Read the previous posts please on part quoting people out of context.
That's all my gripe was but he's good at it being a journalist.
Anyway getting back onto what I was actually talking about before my quotes were hijacked I think any sane person would agree the giving away of BSkyB shares just to TVL holders is nonsense.
If you were quoted out of context that is wrong I just don't see what it as relevant what a persons job is unless their posting seems to be blind loyalty driven by personal gain.
Anyway like you say back to the discussion.
Comments
I see, corruption only affects TVL holders that don't have Sky.
Rarely have I read such complete tripe.
I'm not a Vodafone customer, so do I want a say in how they run their business? No!
That's how it should be.
Keep digging.
Ah I see.
That makes your standpoint all the more rational
So said anyone of a reasonable mind when they read Rupert Murdoch's testimony to the Leveson enquiry.....
If News Corp is forced to sell then it seems highly likely that it will be through some sort of stock market placing which will result in their 39% becoming similarly widely owned.
As for the idea of a "donation" to LF holders, well, as with everything about this case, it's going to be governed by the law.
I'm not aware of any law which says that anyone losing their broadcast licence can be required to forfeit their shares without compensation so that will not happen.
Fortunately we don't live in a country where people can just change the law on a whim because they happen to feel like it.
As for what OFCOM is going to do I'm still waiting for any journalist to set out the exact procedure including details of any possible appeal process. As previously posted it seems to me that that is absolutely critical in assessing what is likely to happen. ie:
- IF no appeal, high likelihood OFCOM will act.
- IF appeal process exists, OFCOM likely to be more cautious and even if they do act we can probably settle in for a year or two of legal argument.
Come on, are you seriously saying all News Corp's BSkyB shares should just be given away, and just to TVL holders?
I'd happily have some though
Seriously though the level on debate in these forums has degenerated into fantasy.
If they are forced to sell the shares then presumably they will just go on to the stock market for institutions and private individuals to buy?
I don't recall ever saying that.........
But you (yet again) only part quoted my post that was in response to someone who suggested just that.
I am sure you find it as ridiculous as me.
I didn't actually say it, did i?
You didn't, I agree.
You conveniently part quoted me yet again though removing any context from what I said, something you regularly do.
Then again you are a journalist that works freelance for Murdoch/BSkyB so no surprise there.
Who works for BskyB. Kind of blows your argument out of the water.
Mikw is a freelance journalist for Sky Sports, the person I FULLY quoted.
But he also hates Murdoch, he's happy to take his shilling though.
So why would a freelance journalist for Sky Sports want the shares be given away. He would stand to gain more by suggesting shares should be divided up amongst the employees.
If you bothered reading we have established he wasn't talking about the shares, he decided to part quote me and change the subject totally.
He always does it to suit his own somewhat contrived position.
With all due respect Mersey70 you have now brought that up about ten times. How is it relevant? Why does it offend you so much? It just clutters thread with personal accusations.
Read the previous posts please on part quoting people out of context.
That's all my gripe was but he's good at it being a journalist.
Anyway getting back onto what I was actually talking about before my quotes were hijacked I think any sane person would agree the giving away of BSkyB shares just to TVL holders is nonsense.
If you were quoted out of context that is wrong I just don't see what it as relevant what a persons job is unless their posting seems to be blind loyalty driven by personal gain.
Anyway like you say back to the discussion.