|
||||||||
21st Century Fox to buy Sky |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
And one wonders how many of them are Murdochs family and mates ?
And having lots of such (relatively) small shareholders means they are in effect financing your business. People like Richard Branson and Virgin base their whole business model of having lots of other shareholders. The reason Rupert wants to own Sky 100% is because then he can consolidate their accounts with other News Corp/Fox units and write off their profits against other losses. It will save him millions in tax. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Les Pays-Bas
Posts: 1,468
|
The 'debate' on Newsnight about this was ludicrous, the chap streamed in from New York was putting forward the fantastical idea that because the company 'Fox' will be the owners, it somehow is not in the hands of Murdoch and people who share his ideals!
Anyone deliberately running news networks to pump out ideological propaganda can't be considered trustworthy. The only major difference between what Murdoch does and say North Korean state TV is the level of sophistication in the delivery of the propaganda. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,403
|
It's like the Fall of the Roman Empire all over again!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,432
|
Kind of hilarious he just recently did it in Australia too. I guess that was the warm up act?
http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2016/12/...-sky-news.html |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
Tell that to the 60% of non-Fox shareholders!!!
Does anyone really believe that Sky News have ever criticised the Murdoch family or run critical stories ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,457
|
Quote:
I have never been a big fan of Murdoch.
How will this affect its broadcasting. Will it mean that in time ever more programmes and stuff will move to Sky after the deal gose though. As I have said a few times in the past I all for other companies like BT and Netflix trying to take Sky on. I know Sky is still the biggest pay TV provider in the UK. Also Skys packages have almost doubled in price since I got rid of Sky over 12 years ago. Darren Sky have put a lot behind Now TV over the last year and with Netflix and Amazon will no doubt gain more ground in the UK meaning that more people will choose the streaming options not necessarily because they are cheaper although obviously that is a factor but because they can have much more choice for the same outlay as an entry bundle on the satellite platform. Just a few days ago Disney released a new Disney Life app on Amazon Fire TV at just £4.99 a month, that becomes very attractive for families who may have wanted it but £9.99 was too much. I think despite this deal and is likely to go through it won't make much difference. Sky will face increasing pressure from existing and new competition and will have to pay a lot more than what they do now to retain and add new content. That undoubtedly will bring pressure on SKY and probably is why Sky recently announced that they would be more selective in their sports rights strategy. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
|
Can someone please explain the likely practical effects the takeover would actually have?
What can the Murdochs do with 100% of Sky that they currently can't with 40%? |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,095
|
Quote:
Can someone please explain the likely practical effects the takeover would actually have?
What can the Murdochs do with 100% of Sky that they currently can't with 40%? |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 20,370
|
Quote:
Can someone please explain the likely practical effects the takeover would actually have?
What can the Murdochs do with 100% of Sky that they currently can't with 40%? |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,457
|
Quote:
Can someone please explain the likely practical effects the takeover would actually have?
What can the Murdochs do with 100% of Sky that they currently can't with 40%? |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Whatever...
Posts: 2,210
|
Quote:
It's like the Fall of the Roman Empire all over again!
Jp |
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1
|
How can this go ahead puts sky way above competition for TV distribution.. Why hammer bt to separate from open reach.. We should be building our companies big instead of selling cheap... if sky board had any sense they would rebuff the offer and wait for pound to rise
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Old Father Thames
Posts: 4,011
|
Would it mean BT is dead in the water regarding sports rights?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London
Posts: 10,446
|
Quote:
Can someone please explain the likely practical effects the takeover would actually have?
What can the Murdochs do with 100% of Sky that they currently can't with 40%? Suppose Sky make a billion pounds profit and a Fox unit makes a billion pounds loss, either by making movies that flop or by investing huge sums into future projects. At the moment Sky has to declare that £1bn and pay tax on it, say 30%, leaving £700m. If Fox owned Sky 100% they can consolidate accounts of both companies and that £1bn loss would swallow Sky's £1bn profit. By taking both companies together you now have one big company that just broke even, no profit. Meaning they do not have to pay £300 million in tax. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Scotland, Dunfermline Area
Posts: 10,699
|
Quote:
Would it mean BT is dead in the water regarding sports rights?
It will just be that BT may find it a bit harder to get the sport it wants. Darren |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Old Father Thames
Posts: 4,011
|
Quote:
BT will still have the right to bid for UK sporting rights as and when they come up.
It will just be that BT may find it a bit harder to get the sport it wants. Darren |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,160
|
Quote:
Save millions in tax.
Suppose Sky make a billion pounds profit and a Fox unit makes a billion pounds loss, either by making movies that flop or by investing huge sums into future projects. At the moment Sky has to declare that £1bn and pay tax on it, say 30%, leaving £700m. If Fox owned Sky 100% they can consolidate accounts of both companies and that £1bn loss would swallow Sky's £1bn profit. By taking both companies together you now have one big company that just broke even, no profit. Meaning they do not have to pay £300 million in tax. So if any Fox company makes a loss there is already no shortage of Fox profits in the US for any loss to be offset against. It's also more sensible to offset any US losses against US profits as the US corporate tax rate is higher than the UK rate. However there may be other opportunities for tax planning - eg it looks as if the offer is 100% cash - if Fox borrows that cash in the US then the debt interest will be tax deductible and presumably that deduction could be claimed in the US - ie set against other US profits which would otherwise be taxed at the higher US corporate tax rate. The UK corporate tax rate is lower so Sky's profits will be taxed at a lower rate - whether any additional tax would be payable if any of these profits are repatriated to the US I'm not sure - I think this is an area where Trump has proposed changes but who knows what might actually happen. Having said all that I don't think tax is the driving force behind any deal. As you said in an earlier post - this will enable Fox to consolidate 100% of Sky's profits - so Fox gets immediate control over 100% of all cash generated by Sky - whereas at the moment it just gets 39% of the dividends - a far, far lower sum as only a portion of profits are paid out as dividends. Plus of course they want to own it as a point of principle - it's a good time to buy with the pound having fallen and if they believe the value of the Sky business will grow in the long term then they want 100% of that growth - albeit that they are having to pay a substantial premium now to the current share price in order to purchase the other 61% of the shares. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,160
|
Quote:
Can someone please explain the likely practical effects the takeover would actually have?
At present, Sky is reporting financial results on its own and therefore has all the pressures which that entails. We've seen that recently with the increase in Premier League rights costs leading to substantial pressure to make cost savings elsewhere in the business - because they want the immediate impact on profits to be mitigated as much as possible and they obviously wouldn't want to have to make any cut to the dividend. With Sky part of Fox it's a bit different - it's no longer reporting financial results on its own - it's just a part of a much bigger entity - so there is a bit less short-term pressure - Fox can more easily afford to take a longer term approach. So, for example, they might be more willing to keep spending plentifully on sports rights if they thought it would pay off in the long run (eg by changing the balance of power with BT) - whereas Sky as it is now would have to take more account of the short-term impact on its P&L. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,160
|
In practice I doubt it's relevant for the reason I gave in post 43 - but further to the above it should also be noted re group relief:
"Companies resident overseas are included within a group relief group. However, losses can only be surrendered between companies that are resident in the UK or are resident overseas but have a permanent establishment in the UK." Link - page 2: http://www.accaglobal.com/content/da..._p6uk_corp.pdf |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:18.



