Sky makes Â£160m bid for VM channels - Page 3

wizzy500 · 15-02-2010, 12:33

does anyone think now $KY have got thier hands on VMTV channels we will see the following:

$ky will make VMTV move the channels to the highest pack of VM effectivly losing 8/9 channels for (M+ AND L Subs)
$ky will encrypt V1 ON FREEVIEW AND MAKE IT PART OF THE PICNIC
$ky will make sure we virgin customers on a regular basis that VM have lost the channels.

I for one is very un-happy that this has happened

BenMcr · 15-02-2010, 12:53

It hasn't happened - the Guardian think it MAY happen

As for what you have said

1) Even if Sky bought the channels the carriage agreement would still be in effect meaning the channels would stay exactly where they are

2) Sky have not had any regulatory agreement for Picnic - at the moment that's dead in the water and Sky are concentrating on providing Broadband VoD to their satellite customers instead

3) It's not in their interests to gloat if they did buy them - as that would likely bring the regulators eye to look very closely at the purchase

wizzy500 · 15-02-2010, 13:33

but $KY could change the carriage agreement as an when they please IF they have the channels.

ok Picnic is dead in the water

as for Sky not gloating we only need to look at the vm/sky dispute for thier gloating!!

BenMcr · 15-02-2010, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizzy500

but $KY could change the carriage agreement as an when they please IF they have the channels.

No they couldn't - however once the current carriage agreement ends then there would have to be a renegotiation.

Quote:

as for Sky not gloating we only need to look at the vm/sky sidpute for thier gloating!!

That was different. That was after Virgin decided not to pay for the channels at the price Sky wanted. So the gloating was over the fact that Virgin could have the channels but didn't want them - not who owned them

wizzy500 · 15-02-2010, 13:47

ok i see ur point... we will just have to wait and see what happens... But im pestimistic about the whole $ky buisness!

BenMcr · 15-02-2010, 14:23

Saw this over on a comment on the Guardian article

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5c024c4c-0...44feabdc0.html

Virgin has undertaken a series of refinancing deals that have reduced net debt and postponed the maturity dates of loans towards the end of the decade. Because of that, said Mr Berkett, there was "no compelling need" to sell assets such as Virgin Media's pay-TV channels, which include Living and Bravo.

wizzy500 · 15-02-2010, 14:31

wat does this actually mean tho... Im not that smart...lol

15-02-2010, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizzy500

wat does this actually mean tho... Im not that smart...lol

It would mean Sky would have more of a monopoly of tv content, which most would say is a bad thing.

It would mean that VM would loose any bargaining with Sky over the price of carrying there channels. Again a bad thing.

I can't think of anything good.

BenMcr · 15-02-2010, 15:05

I think he meant what does the FT thing mean.

According to that it means that Virgin don't see the need to sell the channels at the moment - so the Guardian article maybe complete speculation

15-02-2010, 15:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I think he meant what does the FT thing mean.

According to that it means that Virgin don't see the need to sell the channels at the moment - so the Guardian article maybe complete speculation

Oh I see. He didn't quote your post so I didn't realise.

I hope you are right about it maybe being just speculation.

m419 · 15-02-2010, 15:28

Well if Virgin Media do sell the TV channels then they have failed. I think they should just get rid of the UKTV channels.

Rather than sell off Virgin Media TV, they would be better off offering more content and more channels, better still,they would better off at TV Broadcasting rather than being a service provider.

Ignitionnet · 15-02-2010, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by m419

Well if Virgin Media do sell the TV channels then they have failed. I think they should just get rid of the UKTV channels.

Rather than sell off Virgin Media TV, they would be better off offering more content and more channels, better still,they would better off at TV Broadcasting rather than being a service provider.

And the multi-billion pound network fits into this how?

I'm re-reading and it still reads that you're suggesting that Virgin Media would be better off getting rid of the retail operation and becoming a broadcaster and content producer.

VMTV is not a core business. VM will ensure that they have access to the channels at reasonable rates written into the sale - they know given half the chance Sky would screw them over and will ensure that they don't.

VM are financially very savvy, note how they have consistently managed to stay ahead of the curve refinancing their debt with quite advantageous terms. If they think the time and value is right then it probably is, and there's no reason why selling to Sky would be an issue.

Most cable companies don't have content arms, doesn't make them a failure makes them a platform operator purchasing content and distributing it via their greatest asset, their network.

VM have plenty enough cash to not need to sell, if they do it will be purely for operational reasons.

AndyCambs · 15-02-2010, 20:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I think he meant what does the FT thing mean.

According to that it means that Virgin don't see the need to sell the channels at the moment - so the Guardian article maybe complete speculation

Newspapers are extremely good at putting two and two together and making 22,222.

skyisdabest · 16-02-2010, 12:12

sky should say to virgin we will give you 2 pence for dem make virgin sell them for nothing

tvtimes · 16-02-2010, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyisdabest

sky should say to virgin we will give you 2 pence for dem make virgin sell them for nothing

Just what we need another miss-informed troll on the forums