Sky makes £160m bid for VM channels

[howden]

http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/?p=18837

Extremely high ?

[broadbandking]

Makes me wonder if Sky get these channels are we going to see another spat between the two of them.

Virgin would be extremely stupid to sell them to Sky at any price. They would be completely at the mercy of a company that runs not only the most successful pay-TV delivery platform, but also the most successful channels. Virgin would be left with only a delivery platform, and totally reliant on its major competitor to provide any decent content to show on it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Virgin would be extremely stupid to sell them to Sky at any price. They would be completely at the mercy of a company that runs not only the most successful pay-TV delivery platform, but also the most successful channels. Virgin would be left with only a delivery platform, and totally reliant on its major competitor to provide any decent content to show on it.

But that's what Virgin want, Virgin don't want to be a content provider.

It's the old NTL business plan. NTL made up their minds many years ago that they just wanted to deliver the service over their network.

Viritually all of the TV side of things came over with Telewest, and I don't think it has sat well ever since.

I also agree, I don't think VM need to be a content provider.

[Toto]

Originally Posted by Chris

Virgin would be extremely stupid to sell them to Sky at any price. They would be completely at the mercy of a company that runs not only the most successful pay-TV delivery platform, but also the most successful channels. Virgin would be left with only a delivery platform, and totally reliant on its major competitor to provide any decent content to show on it.

I'm wondering though how much of an improvement Sky could make to those channels if it did buy them, but before that could happen how much time would have to lapse before the sale is agreed assuming the sale would require ofcom approval.

Do VM take the lower bid risking little if any ofcom oversight (assuming the buyer wouldn't come under ofcom), or do they go for the big money and a lengthy wait for the cheque to clear whilst ofcom take their time?

I doubt Sky sees any opportunity to improve the viewer experience with those channels. At Sky, controlling and dominating the market are considered valid business objectives.

[LondonRoad]

There are some hours in the day when Sky don't have enough capacity to screen episodes of the Simpsons. Perhaps they could utilise the purchased channels to ensure Simpsons is always available.

Seriously though, I'm sure Chris is correct regards Sky's objectives. I'm not so sure Sky would have it all their own way.

The recent dispute showed that, despite being the dominant pay TV provider, Sky need VM more than VM need Sky.

[AndyCambs]

I'm surprised Sky has the cash available with the loss it made on buying ITV shares..

[broadbandking]

Sky has alot of money and will make it back if it does buy the channels.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

I doubt Sky sees any opportunity to improve the viewer experience with those channels. At Sky, controlling and dominating the market are considered valid business objectives.

Bit like most other companies then.

Sky buying won't really change things too much I don't think.

[Horizon]

VM has supposedly been selling its channels for what, 3 years now? So, I'll believe it when it happens.

Berkett said last year, that he was trying to find out the value of the channels and the only way to do that is to see what someone else is prepared to pay for them by putting them up for auction.

The value of the actual channels is pretty minimal, I believe it's the Sky EPG slots that is where the real value is gleamed from.

[BexTech]

Originally Posted by broadbandking

Sky has a lot of money and will make it back if it does buy the channels.

They sure do have a lot of money, VM would be crazy to sell to Sky, what would Sky do then, likely charge an arm and a leg for VM to carry the channels and therefore VM then losing the channels completely for months or years just like the Sky basics.

[brundles]

Given the new contracts for the Sky Basics now I suspect Sky wouldn't do much, but thinking long term it does mean that in the not so distant future Sky would have the opportunity to deprive VM of a much bigger portion of the available content.

Don't forget Sky is the company that was prepared to throw away millions purely to stop VM buying something that would potentially make them more competitive against Sky (ITV). I'm sure that ethos of throwing money at things, accepting they may lose it, to hurt VM hasn't changed.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by BexTech

They sure do have a lot of money, VM would be crazy to sell to Sky, what would Sky do then, likely charge an arm and a leg for VM to carry the channels and therefore VM then losing the channels completely for months or years just like the Sky basics.

Or VM sell to Sky conditionally on keeping access to those and whatever other channels for x years, they get cash from the channels and keep access to them, Sky get more for their world domination plans.

Makes perfect sense to me and I suspect to both companies.

[shadow771]

This would affect TNA Wrestling programming such as, TNA Impact, TNA Epics and TNA pay-per-view broadcasts. Sky airs WWE programming, hence the problem. It is doubtful World Wrestling Entertainment's deal would negatively affect UFC, but there is a good chance it would negatively affect TNA.