Sky shares jumped 18 per cent this morning on news that Rupert Murdoch is seeking full control of the company. Murdoch's News Corp is offering 700p per share - an offer rejected by Sky's board of directors. Murdoch's son James has removed himself from negotiations - he is Sky's chairman as well as chairman and chief executive …
Your Sky Belong us
Sky UK or all of Sky (Italia, Mexico etc)?
I wonder what he is up to. Go Private and then ..?
Although he owns less than 40% he does in effect control it. A lot of money to spend unless he plans to do something that would make more than 51% of the 60% of "others" howl.
The title is required, and must contain letters and/or digits.
I suspect that part of the objective is just to get his hands on more of the profits - Sky is a very profitable business these days.
Also, by taking it private, he can probably put it under an off-shore corporation and pay less tax, and also make the financials of News Corp less transparent.
I've made a point of not having Sky TV because I'm not buying into the "Fair and balanced" News Corp. behemoth. I was even going to have a crack at Virgin Media until I heard they were going to bring in Sky channels. Seriously, not a penny of mine is going to them.
In this age of globalization there should be some kind of multi-national monopolies commission. Murdoch's media presence, while perhaps not a monopoly in any one country is a worrying omnipresent threat to the freedom and neutrality of information across the world. The Sun already supposedly dictates who gets voted in. I appreciate that it's more likely they change allegiance to whomever they think is going to win. However, it's worrying that they even consider themselves to have this clout. Their ambitions are clear.
News Corp. have been migrating steadily more right in the political spectrum and more overtly political as time has gone on IMHO. My only solace is that the BBC pisses Murdoch off no end and I do not resent paying my TV licence for this reason. Murdoch can suck my chubby one.
P.S. I might have had an axe to grind there... could you tell?
"The Sun already supposedly dictates who gets voted in"
Given the sour faces and sulking over the hung parliament and subsequent coalition (from ALL the tabloids!), I think the idea that the electorate are led like sheep by the press has been pleasingly debunked.
Maybe this is why
Rupert appears to be attempting to draw more power to himself. Bear in mind that the power of News Corp comes not only from its control of many aspects of the media, but it also has good old fashioned financial clout, in terms of funding the 'right' politicians, etc. The tabloid press is simply one element of this.
but you already subsidise them. Part of the deal with sky news on freeview is a tax break so in effect you cant win.
And once he has control of Sky
He will move quickly to control, sea, land and fire too...
I for one do not welcome, etc...
The fact that he wants it is good enough reason to say no, surely..?
Have a read of todays alphaville:
Basically they've got evidence that this was leaked 3 months ago and no-one from News Corp/BSkyB acknowledged this, basically it looks like insider trading fraud.
Should be interesting.
@"Both sides" - what sides? ... they are the same side!
i.e. "Murdoch's son James" ... "is Sky's chairman"!
Murdoch's News Corp is offering 700p per share to Sky. So Murdoch is offering 700p per share to his son's company!
Wow, talk about conflict of interests!?! ... No wonder his son James is trying to appear to be distancing himself from the negotiations, but he is still the company chairman!
Also lets not forget, News Corp created Sky Television in 1989!
Then there's the directors of Sky who have very strong connections with News Corporation. i.e. from Sky board and management list...
"David F. DeVoe (Sky Non-Executive Director) has been a Director of News Corporation and its CFO since October 1990."
"Tom Mockridge (Sky Non-Executive Director) is the CEO of Sky Italia and Chief Executive, European Television of News Corporation"
"Arthur Siskind (Sky Non-Executive Director) has been the Senior Advisor to the Chairman of News Corporation since January 2005." ... also "has been an Executive Director of News Corporation since 1991"
Also James Murdoch (Sky Chairman and son of Rupert) is still "a member of News Corporation’s Board of Directors"
i.e. "James Murdoch was appointed as a Director of the (Sky) Company on 13 February 2003 and as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with effect from 4 November 2003. On 7 December 2007, he was appointed Non-Executive Chairman of the Company having relinquished the role of CEO. James is Executive Chairman and CEO, Europe and Asia, at News Corporation and is a member of News Corporation’s Board of Directors and Executive Committee."
i.e. http://corporate.sky.com/about_sky/our_board_and_management/board.htm (Welcome Mr R Murdoch to the power of the Internet, where we can all lookup details on your business moves and see through your PR lying spin of different "sides" and see through your son pretending to distance himself from this "negotiation" ;)
So there is no "Both sides", they are the same side.
He'll want it because...
.. he's probably already persuaded Cameron to relax the controls on broadcaster neutrality. Fox News, right-wing shock-jocks, and even stupider politicians, here we come.
To think, I've been boycotting Sky all these years, and the old bastard wasn't even in control of it.
".. he's probably already persuaded Cameron to relax the controls on broadcaster neutrality. Fox News, right-wing shock-jocks, and even stupider politicians, here we come."
Time to remind the weasels of Westminster that The Sun did *not* win it (or loose it), despite what Rupe likes to threaten their leaders with.
Murdoch in the Sky with diamonds
Okay, i have nothing to follow that up -- just thought it sounded neat.
Does Murdoch still own a chunk of ITV? Anybody who has thought for two seconds about this will realise that he will almost certainly have to sell his shares in ITV if he is to be allowed to buy BSkyB. ITV have just managed to get back into the black, but if News Corp are ordered to sell all their shares in ITV as a condition of buying BSkyB what will that do to the ITV share price?
Share Price != Profit
From the perspective of an operating company in profit, the share price is irrelevant to day-to-day operation. If you're making money then you don't need more share capital[*]. Of course, the investors like the share price to go up rather than down, and might vote out the board of directors that made the company profitable, but if it is turning a profit the share value is more likely to go up longer-term, regardless of what News Corp has to do with its shares.
[*] Unless you want capital to fund expansion, but that's a different issue
Missing the point...
That's an incredibly simplistic view. Of course share price has an effect on the way a business performs, just as much as the performance of the business effects shareprice. To keep it nice and simplistic, you are aware that in general when a company publish good results either quarterly or year end then this will tend to have a positive effect on their share price? Confidence in the company results in people wanting to buy shares. Well it's a two way street. Share prices fall, people have less confidence in the company and therefore harms the company's performance. We're not just talking the confidence of people investing in shares, but the confidence of people doing business with them. Everybody from a bank lending them money, to credit rating agencies, to suppliers, to customers are going to treat a company differently if the share price takes a knock.
Interestingly ITV's share price has dropped by something like 3.5% since trading opened this morning. It might not be related to people panicking about the possible impact of the News Corp/BSkyB deal. Or it might.
I Ain't gettin' on No Plane Wit' That Crazy Fool!
oops, sorry, wrong Murdoch.
"he can probably put it under an off-shore corporation and pay less tax"
Difficult, when he pays almost none already! It would be nice to see Botox Dave and his chums correct this situation, but I can't see it happening before the old bastard croaks.
- World's OLDEST human DNA found in leg bone – but that's not the only boning going on...
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Pics Brit inventors' GRAVITY POWERED LIGHT ships out after just 1 year
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Storagebod Oh no, RBS has gone titsup again... but is it JUST BAD LUCK?