Rupert Murdoch's finally gets his hand on Sky

Newspapers aren't a fanastically profitable industry to be in. Influence is the bigger motivation for owning a newspaper than money. Even the relatively profitable ones aren't that profitable in the terms Murdoch will be used too. He owns them for the influence and the romance of journalism.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Are you really so naive that you think that the then owner of News International actually knew what each individual Editor of each newspaper was doing to generate income for each one?

Owners of multi facted newspapers look at one thing only, just like heads of multi corporations. The headline figures provided by the bean counters.

If it ain't making a profit, get rid of it!

Are you equally so naive to believe that Rupert Murdoch does not play a part in what is happening at all his companies past and present or whether they are big or small as he would know exactly what his trusted editors and lieutenants were up to at all his companies.

So if you was the owners of these companies you would not know what was going on??

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by denphone

Are you equally so naive to believe that Rupert Murdoch does not play a part in what is happening at all his companies past and present or whether they are big or small as he would know exactly what his trusted editors and lieutenants were up to at all his companies.

So if you was the owners of these companies you would not know what was going on??

What's the point of having a dog and barking yourself? I'd have better things to do.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

What's the point of having a dog and barking yourself? I'd have better things to do.

He's a hands-on, highly successful proprietor who phones his editors frequently.
It's a shame that another hugely successful British company has been taken over by a foreign owner but it was always on the cards and I don't have a problem with it. At the last bid, Fox agreed to spin-off Sky News. I doubt they will have to do this again as the newspapers are held in a different company (News Corp) and the power of traditional media is weaker today.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

He's a hands-on, highly successful proprietor who phones his editors frequently.
It's a shame that another hugely successful British company has been taken over by a foreign owner but it was always on the cards and I don't have a problem with it. At the last bid, Fox agreed to spin-off Sky News. I doubt they will have to do this again as the newspapers are held in a different company (News Corp) and the power of traditional media is weaker today.

All SKY have done is taken back control since they merged into BSB.

"On 8 July 1988 rival tycoon Rupert Murdoch, having failed to gain regulatory approval for his own satellite service, and failing to become part of the BSB consortium announced that his pan-European television station, Sky Channel, would be relaunched as a four channel UK-based service called Sky Television, using the Astra system and broadcast in PAL with analogue sound.

In October 1990, an enterprising manufacturer came up with a dual satellite dish that could be used to receive both Sky and BSB services, although separate receivers would still be required - the following month this technology became effectively obsolete.

Both companies had begun to struggle with the burden of huge losses, rapidly increasing debts and ongoing startup costs. In November 1990, a 50:50 merger was announced to form a single company, operating as British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB), but marketed as Sky. The merger may have saved Sky financially as it had very few major advertisers at the time, so acquiring BSB's healthier advertising contracts and equipment helped to solve the company's problem."

A good move by Murdoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...e_Broadcasting

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

All SKY have done is taken back control since they merged into BSB.

"On 8 July 1988 rival tycoon Rupert Murdoch, having failed to gain regulatory approval for his own satellite service, and failing to become part of the BSB consortium announced that his pan-European television station, Sky Channel, would be relaunched as a four channel UK-based service called Sky Television, using the Astra system and broadcast in PAL with analogue sound.

In October 1990, an enterprising manufacturer came up with a dual satellite dish that could be used to receive both Sky and BSB services, although separate receivers would still be required - the following month this technology became effectively obsolete.

Both companies had begun to struggle with the burden of huge losses, rapidly increasing debts and ongoing startup costs. In November 1990, a 50:50 merger was announced to form a single company, operating as British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB), but marketed as Sky. The merger may have saved Sky financially as it had very few major advertisers at the time, so acquiring BSB's healthier advertising contracts and equipment helped to solve the company's problem."

A good move by Murdoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...e_Broadcasting

Sure, what you have pasted complements but does not contradict what I have said. It's important to note that the Sky of today is far different from the small British company back in 1990.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Sure, what you have pasted complements but does not contradict what I have said. It's important to note that the Sky of today is far different from the small British company back in 1990.

But SKY back then was owned by Murdoch. All he's done is sit back and wait until the time was right and Hey Presto, he's back in control. In the meantime he has been reaping rewards for his initial investment.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

But SKY back then was owned by Murdoch. All he's done is sit back and wait until the time was right and Hey Presto, he's back in control. In the meantime he has been reaping rewards for his initial investment.

Sky would not have survived had News Corp not merged it with BSB to form BSkyB. BSkyB was built upon sport and that came from BSB's The Sports Channel; the merger formed a new company.
BSkyB and latterly Sky plc has always been significantly influenced by News Corp with family connections on the board and close working relationships. Recently, Sky News took space in News UK's premises. This is a tidying-up exercise executed now thanks to the weaker Pound and phone-hacking no longer being an issue.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Sky would not have survived had News Corp not merged it with BSB to form BSkyB. BSkyB was built upon sport and that came from BSB's The Sports Channel; the merger formed a new company.
BSkyB and latterly Sky plc has always been significantly influenced by News Corp with family connections on the board and close working relationships. Recently, Sky News took space in News UK's premises. This is a tidying-up exercise executed now thanks to the weaker Pound and phone-hacking no longer being an issue.

Well bugger me, explain then how Murdoch got back control.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Well bugger me, explain then how Murdoch got back control.

With a 40% stake in a business and with the remainder owned by small shareholders, the Murdoch family never really lost control. Unless they did something obviously daft, they would not be opposed.
What the Murdochs are now getting is ownership and absolute control.

[TheDaddy]

I think he should be stopped from owning it on general principle. For no other reason than its him and imo he's not a nice individual.

Originally Posted by Damien

Newspapers aren't a fanastically profitable industry to be in. Influence is the bigger motivation for owning a newspaper than money. Even the relatively profitable ones aren't that profitable in the terms Murdoch will be used too. He owns them for the influence and the romance of journalism.

Exactly!

This increases Murdoch's ability to influence the government to dance to his current tune.He's not a the sit back and do nothing boss he made himself out to be at the Leveson Inquiry.

It's not a done deal yet though ,even though the newspapers are a separate company Sky have taken over all the European Sky branded companies so the European commision that cleared the previous bids may block this one

The European commission, which cleared the previous bids, is also likely to look at the new deal. In 2014, Sky took full control of Sky-branded services in Germany, Austria and Italy, meaning any UK takeover has a European dimension that did not exist before.

[muppetman11]

I'm pretty sure it will happen this time.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I'm pretty sure it will happen this time.

I agree. I don't see any real competition grounds for it to be blocked. There is a Fox Sports channel in Italy but it's now exclusive to Sky Italia anyway.