Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Shall we start putting weather forecasts in here too?

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Given that weather does not affect cable in any way then, no.


You could just ignore the thread if it annoys you so much.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Could put it in the satellite forum, though ;)

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Bizarre....

Sky has been Murdoch's company from the beginning.

As I am sure everyone knows, he set up the original Sky company then merged it with BSB a few years later.

Although there were other shareholders from that point on, Murdoch held the largest shareholding in the merged BSkyB and controlled the board, giving him effective control of the company. Most of the original shareholders of BSB either sold their stakes, or downsized their stakes after the merger with Sky. Pearson being one of them.

And for those that like trivia, guess who was also one of those original shareholders in BSB..... yep, Virgin.

In TV terms, there's the pre Sky era, of no choice, but quality tv. And the post Sky era of oodles of choice and crap tv.

Thank you Rupert...

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Exactly. A non issue, really.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

AIUI the Murdoch family currently only own 39% of Sky.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Correct.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Murdoch controls Sky and always has. I've had similar discussions about John Malone on this forum, as some people believe he doesn't control his companies based on his shareholdings.

It's the difference between "De Facto" control and "De Jure" control.

De Facto means "in effect", the reality on the ground, whereas De Jure means "in accordance with the law".

Murdoch and Malone have de facto control of their companies, if not necessarily de jure control, full legal ownership. This is done through numerous ways, including their large shareholdings. But they also control their boards, so even if some directors may "legally" be independent, they're not. They take their orders from the media moguls.

It will bore everyone to death if I talk in detail on here about the BSB and Sky merger, and besides you can google it the same as I. But, from the merger onwards, Murdoch had de facto control of the merged company, just not full legal ownership, de jeure, which he will now have.

Murdoch, is, in effect, selling his own company to himself.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

I guess so. But not all cable users enter the 'enemy part of town' ;):D. And it could, for better, or for worse, affect the channels that VM receive from Sky. Therefore, I personally don't find it out of place here.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

...plus Sky isn't just satellite anymore.

I wonder if things will get any better or worse for VM & it's customers if this deal goes through?

If Murdoch had effective control of Sky anyway, I suspect it won't make any difference either way.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

I look forward to your more extensive missive. The only de facto holdings the Murdoch family have had in Sky since 2011 is via their 20th Century Fox holdings of 39%, If you can prove otherwise then please do so.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Or even current affairs..

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Please re-read my post which explained the difference between de facto and de jure. It's not de facto holdings...

If that is not convincing enough, look at the management of BSkyB over its entire history and see if there are any inklings as to whom the management's allegiance has been to. Clue: it hasn't been to Pearson, Virgin, Granada or the other BSB shareholders....

Look at the history of the top people like Sam Chisholm, Andrew Neil, Chase Carey. You might wish to look at who the current chairman is, that will give you a clue who is in de facto control of the company... If that doesn't assist you, you may wish to explore what branding the merged company used.... or what technology they used...

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

Don't expect me to research a point that you want to put over.

You do the research and you prove your point.

I do know the difference between de facto and de jure BTW.

Re: Petition to try and block Murdoch taking over Sky & it's channels.
 

You're the one trying to make the point not me. I know the Murdoch's control Sky, it is you who think they don't.

The fact that you said that Murdoch has de facto holdings of 39% demonstrates you don't understand the difference. That's de jure... You also probably think to control a company you must own more than 50% of a companies' shares...

Point 1: After the merger Murdoch held a 50% stake in BskyB. All other shareholders held smaller stakes and could not outvote him.
Point 2: After the merger Murdoch's man (Chisholm) became boss of the company. Murdoch became chairman with de facto control over the board.
Point 3: The sky branding and technology was used for the merged company.

That's 3 clear reasons why Murdoch did then and still does now, control Sky.