The purchase of the ITV stake was legal so I can't see what a regulator could do about it. The only factor I can think of is "people power."
A lot of people dislike Murdoch and like Branson. "Cuddly" Richard could use his immense influence and be on tv all the time moaning about how Murdoch is trying to control British tv and how he can "save" it from Murdoch's claws. If the politicans get enough complaints from people worried by this, they may act.
The move by Sky is just sheer brillance and ntl are now left on the sidelines thinking about what could have been.
That is not Sky's decision though, its C4 and Five's.
No IT WAS their decision to sign encryption contracts several years ago. After that Sky has seemingly enforced the contract against C4's will (see example of More4).
Given recent reports that C4 has joined Freesat it seems they will drop encryption at the first opportunity. It also means the BBC wont be working on their own if ITV is forced out by a new puppet-master.
Who was it in government who ever thought allowing Murdoch even a 20% holding in ITV was permissible is what I'd like to know. In retrospect it was almost entirely predictable that this monopolist would do everything in his power to stop the only other major force in British commercial TV becoming an effective competitor.
If ITV is taken over by NTL this would be a much greater threat to Sky.
It would indeed. As they say on the Guardian site an ITV rebranded as Virgin TV dropping plugs for its cable service every two minutes would have been Murdoch's worst nightmare come true.
One can only hope now that the underlying logic of this deal will still be apparent and RTL somehow merges with NTL once it has control of ITV. (unlikely I admit given RTL's overall strategy)
expect to see NOTHING about it on Sky news or ITV news, pathetic!
Not much mention on N24 either (but I haven't seen a business news section today anyway, apart from the Nationwide account problem). At least it's mentioned on Skynews website but I couldn't find it at all on itv.com?
(Picks up phone and books one way plane ticket to country not infected by Murdoch)
Rather bizarrely - and with a lapse of their usual high standards - BBC Ceefax reported this story last night as Sky buying in to ''ITN'' and ITV Teletext ignored the story completely ! I'm not sure you can buy into ITN in any case
No IT WAS their decision to sign encryption contracts several years ago. After that Sky has seemingly enforced the contract against C4's will (see example of More4).
Its basically the same thing, when you sign upto a contract, you supposed to honour it.
Rather bizarrely - and with a lapse of their usual high standards - BBC Ceefax reported this story last night as Sky buying in to ''ITN'' and ITV Teletext ignored the story completely ! I'm not sure you can buy into ITN in any case
ITN has a share structure and you are welcome to buy into it if any of the existing shareholders would care to sell you some of their shares.
Who was it in government who ever thought allowing Murdoch even a 20% holding in ITV was permissible is what I'd like to know. In retrospect it was almost entirely predictable that this monopolist would do everything in his power to stop the only other major force in British commercial TV becoming an effective competitor.
Well who is Murdochs alleged biggest pal in Government , yes the same man who was all for opening up the media and allowing cross ownership and overseas ownership , and also the same man who is allegedly to be questioned about cash for honours , now I wonder who that is ?
"It has become totally hedonistic. The churches were never much, but what was there has collapsed. You go anywhere in England, when it's not raining, and there's a cluster of people outside every pub, until 10 or 11 at night, boozing.
"The increase in alcohol consumption is pretty alarming."
From what I've been reading this morning, the speculation is that NTL will now have difficaulty in getting support from their bankers if they cannot obtain 100% of ITV; even more so that BSkyB paid 20p per share over the market price.
Firstly, i hate sky, so i am not defending them, i refuse to pay for something that should be free, i am thinking mainly ryder cup, ashes, ..... and the fact that they are the chelsea of the tv world...ie just buy everything.
but from reading the replies to this news one thing strikes me and sadly i agree with sky's reasons.
they have bought the shares for one reason and one reason only, it is a business decision to stop NTL from buying ITV and becoming bigger then them, nothing more nothing less.
it is very funny to see the mass panic spreading throughout the forum that ITV will become subscription only and ITN will disappear. c'mon get a grip.
Sky are scared of anyone pulling the carpet from underneath them and like any other like minded business they will do whatever is in their power to stop it and remain on top.
The EU stopped them from monopolising football do you honestly think they would be allowed control of terrestrial as well?
Firstly, i hate sky, so i am not defending them, i refuse to pay for something that should be free, i am thinking mainly ryder cup, ashes, ..... and the fact that they are the chelsea of the tv world...ie just buy everything.
but from reading the replies to this news one thing strikes me and sadly i agree with sky's reasons.
they have bought the shares for one reason and one reason only, it is a business decision to stop NTL from buying ITV and becoming bigger then them, nothing more nothing less.
it is very funny to see the mass panic spreading throughout the forum that ITV will become subscription only and ITN will disappear. c'mon get a grip.
Sky are scared of anyone pulling the carpet from underneath them and like any other like minded business they will do whatever is in their power to stop it and remain on top.
The EU stopped them from monopolising football do you honestly think they would be allowed control of terrestrial as well?
Cue the shouting down...
Yes, I think BSkyB are trying to maintain the status quo as much as they are able to. ITV has always been a competitor in the sense that it's another broadcaster, but up to now it's been a pretty benign competitor operating in a different sector of the market to where Sky's main income comes from. Sky saw a danger that this might be about to change if NTL made a move, and they've effectively blocked it. That's probably all they want to achieve.
Well who is Murdochs alleged biggest pal in Government , yes the same man who was all for opening up the media and allowing cross ownership and overseas ownership , and also the same man who is allegedly to be questioned about cash for honours , now I wonder who that is ?
"It has become totally hedonistic. The churches were never much, but what was there has collapsed. You go anywhere in England, when it's not raining, and there's a cluster of people outside every pub, until 10 or 11 at night, boozing.
"The increase in alcohol consumption is pretty alarming."
On a purely factual point, wasn't it Thatcher (admittedly more a man than most of her cabinet) who opened up the media and permitted overseas ownership etc ? Murdoch has more to thank her for than he ever will Blair.
I remember when Virgin lost out in the Premiership football bidding they said they were going to lodge a complaint.
That complaint didn't get anywhere and I can't see them having any success with a complaint about this.
Whenever Richard Branson loses or suffers a setback he always cries foul play. He did so when he didn't win the licence to win the national lottery (even though according to Tom Bower's biography, he did not produce a bid that met the very detailed and clear requirements of the regulator). He also did so when Virgin Radio did not win a national FM licence in the 1990s. Ditto for the Channel 5 licence.
Firstly, i hate sky, so i am not defending them, i refuse to pay for something that should be free, i am thinking mainly ryder cup, ashes..
Who the hell do you think Should pay for the Ryder cup & ashes? Someone has to??! These things don't happen for free!
Even ITV programmes are paid for by YOU. Every time you buy a product a certain amount of the price will go indirectly to ITV in the form of advertising payments..it's almost another stealth tax.
Whenever Richard Branson loses or suffers a setback he always cries foul play. He did so when he didn't win the licence to win the national lottery (even though according to Tom Bower's biography, he did not produce a bid that met the very detailed and clear requirements of the regulator). He also did so when Virgin Radio did not win a national FM licence in the 1990s. Ditto for the Channel 5 licence.
Sky are 17.9% shaerholders
Others are 82.1% shareholders
If Sky wanted to make the extra ITV channnels subscription, and the others totally opposed the idea, what do you think the outcome would be
If Sky own 20% and everyone else 10% each then obviously they have a bigger say than any other individual shareholder!
If shareholders take sides then that's a different matter. However, it's wrong to assume that the remaining 80+% of shareholders will automatically vote against Sky, many may vote with them.
If Sky own 20% and everyone else 10% each then obviously they have a bigger say than any other individual shareholder!
If shareholders take sides then that's a different matter. However, it's wrong to assume that the remaining 80+% of shareholders will automatically vote against Sky, many may vote with them.
Of course
I am just saying that because Sky are the biggest shareholder, what they want will not necessarily happen
Its no different to anyone else having 20% share
If the majority do not agree with the decision it is unlikely that the changes would happen
There seems to be many posts on here that assume Sky could make ITV pay and other changes, surley this will not happen without agreement from others
Comments
That complaint didn't get anywhere and I can't see them having any success with a complaint about this.
A lot of people dislike Murdoch and like Branson. "Cuddly" Richard could use his immense influence and be on tv all the time moaning about how Murdoch is trying to control British tv and how he can "save" it from Murdoch's claws. If the politicans get enough complaints from people worried by this, they may act.
The move by Sky is just sheer brillance and ntl are now left on the sidelines thinking about what could have been.
Given recent reports that C4 has joined Freesat it seems they will drop encryption at the first opportunity. It also means the BBC wont be working on their own if ITV is forced out by a new puppet-master.
It would indeed. As they say on the Guardian site an ITV rebranded as Virgin TV dropping plugs for its cable service every two minutes would have been Murdoch's worst nightmare come true.
One can only hope now that the underlying logic of this deal will still be apparent and RTL somehow merges with NTL once it has control of ITV. (unlikely I admit given RTL's overall strategy)
K
ITN has a share structure and you are welcome to buy into it if any of the existing shareholders would care to sell you some of their shares.
Well who is Murdochs alleged biggest pal in Government , yes the same man who was all for opening up the media and allowing cross ownership and overseas ownership , and also the same man who is allegedly to be questioned about cash for honours , now I wonder who that is ?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1573618,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6033333.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/70597.stm
Then of course there is the rumoured job for Blair when he stands down
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/murdoch-set-to-back-blair-for-a-place-in-his-boardroom
It also makes you wonder where Mr Blair gets his ideas o nthings such as alcohol consumption etc
The chairman and chief executive of News Corp. also said he was dissatisfied with the social climate in Britain.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/09102006/325/murdoch-unsure-blair-successor.html
"It has become totally hedonistic. The churches were never much, but what was there has collapsed. You go anywhere in England, when it's not raining, and there's a cluster of people outside every pub, until 10 or 11 at night, boozing.
"The increase in alcohol consumption is pretty alarming."
It is because of News Corp. No company with a significant share of the national newspaper market (I think 20%) is allowed to own more than 20% of ITV.
ie If News Corp had no shareholding in BSkyB, BSkyB could buy all of ITV (subject to a possible review by the OFT).
Even though News Corp only own 39% of BSkyB the rule still operates to prevent BSkyB owning more than 20% of ITV.
but from reading the replies to this news one thing strikes me and sadly i agree with sky's reasons.
they have bought the shares for one reason and one reason only, it is a business decision to stop NTL from buying ITV and becoming bigger then them, nothing more nothing less.
it is very funny to see the mass panic spreading throughout the forum that ITV will become subscription only and ITN will disappear. c'mon get a grip.
Sky are scared of anyone pulling the carpet from underneath them and like any other like minded business they will do whatever is in their power to stop it and remain on top.
The EU stopped them from monopolising football do you honestly think they would be allowed control of terrestrial as well?
Cue the shouting down...
Yes, I think BSkyB are trying to maintain the status quo as much as they are able to. ITV has always been a competitor in the sense that it's another broadcaster, but up to now it's been a pretty benign competitor operating in a different sector of the market to where Sky's main income comes from. Sky saw a danger that this might be about to change if NTL made a move, and they've effectively blocked it. That's probably all they want to achieve.
But being the biggest shareholder presumably they will have the biggest say..?
Whenever Richard Branson loses or suffers a setback he always cries foul play. He did so when he didn't win the licence to win the national lottery (even though according to Tom Bower's biography, he did not produce a bid that met the very detailed and clear requirements of the regulator). He also did so when Virgin Radio did not win a national FM licence in the 1990s. Ditto for the Channel 5 licence.
I dont see how
Sky are 17.9% shaerholders
Others are 82.1% shareholders
If Sky wanted to make the extra ITV channnels subscription, and the others totally opposed the idea, what do you think the outcome would be
Thats how I see things, could be way off though
Who the hell do you think Should pay for the Ryder cup & ashes? Someone has to??! These things don't happen for free!
Even ITV programmes are paid for by YOU. Every time you buy a product a certain amount of the price will go indirectly to ITV in the form of advertising payments..it's almost another stealth tax.
Ditto when BA refused to sell him Concorde...
is there a pattern emerging here?
If Sky own 20% and everyone else 10% each then obviously they have a bigger say than any other individual shareholder!
If shareholders take sides then that's a different matter. However, it's wrong to assume that the remaining 80+% of shareholders will automatically vote against Sky, many may vote with them.
Of course
I am just saying that because Sky are the biggest shareholder, what they want will not necessarily happen
Its no different to anyone else having 20% share
If the majority do not agree with the decision it is unlikely that the changes would happen
There seems to be many posts on here that assume Sky could make ITV pay and other changes, surley this will not happen without agreement from others