OT. SKY TV the future?

The other day we heard Murdock is not to buy more of Sky Tv, he owns 39%
now, today the situation got even worse for his company in the US now they
got troubles. What I'm wondering is if News International fails would Sky
TV be able to carry on as now? Would the owners of the 61% be able to run
it who ever they are?
Regards
David

On Saturday, July 16th, 2011 at 10:46:14h +0100, David Park wrote:

The other day we heard Murdock

Just because the Financial Times mispells Uncle Rupert's surname is
no excuse for you to do the same.

today the situation got even worse for his company in the US now
they got troubles.

In the USofA, there is The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977
(FCPA) (15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq.)

So charges could be brought against News Corporation the parent
of the UKofGB&NI based News International.

The US legal system take business crimes seriously
and executives end up serving time unlike in the UKofGB&NI
where their friend the judge tells them they have been very
naughty, slaps their wrist, and tells them not to do it again.

What I'm wondering is if News International fails

Why would News International fail?

It is a very profitable business. Income from newspapers
is diminishing year by year, so if News International closed
down all of its newspapers, they would still remain very profitable.

In fact some would probably say, if it were not for the stern
gaze of Uncle Rupert, that it was about time, News Corporation
got rid of its newspapers and stuck to the core profitable business
of TV distribution and production.

would Sky TV be able to carry on as now?

Why not?

Would the owners of the 61% be able to run it who ever they are?

You mean you do not now who they are?

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:46:14 +0100, David put finger to keyboard and typed:

The other day we heard Murdock is not to buy more of Sky Tv, he owns 39%
now, today the situation got even worse for his company in the US now they
got troubles. What I'm wondering is if News International fails would Sky
TV be able to carry on as now? Would the owners of the 61% be able to run
it who ever they are?

Yes. BSkyB is profitable. That's precisely *why* News Corporation wanted to
buy all of it. If NewsCorp ever wanted (or needed) to sell its 39% stake
there would be no shortage of potential buyers. It could continue to run
perfectly well as an independently listed company, and would also be an
attractive takeover target for other media conglomerates.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:46:14 +0100, "David"
wrote:

The other day we heard Murdock is not to buy more of Sky Tv, he owns 39%
now, today the situation got even worse for his company in the US now they
got troubles. What I'm wondering is if News International fails would Sky
TV be able to carry on as now? Would the owners of the 61% be able to run
it who ever they are?
Regards
David

I don't see why the company shouldn't be able to continue. A company is
not necessarily run by its owners (shareholders). Sometimes when an
individual or group has a substantial shareholding in a company they can
choose the Chairman or Chief Executive. That is presumably how James
Murdoch comes to be Chairman and Non-Executive director of BSkyB.

He could be replaced.

The shareholders with the other 61% of the shares probably have nothing
to do with the day to day running of the company.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 13:35:00 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 10:46:14 +0100, "David"
wrote:

The other day we heard Murdock is not to buy more of Sky Tv, he owns 39%
now, today the situation got even worse for his company in the US now they
got troubles. What I'm wondering is if News International fails would Sky
TV be able to carry on as now? Would the owners of the 61% be able to run
it who ever they are?
Regards
David

I don't see why the company shouldn't be able to continue. A company is
not necessarily run by its owners (shareholders). Sometimes when an
individual or group has a substantial shareholding in a company they can
choose the Chairman or Chief Executive. That is presumably how James
Murdoch comes to be Chairman and Non-Executive director of BSkyB.

He could be replaced.

He may be replaced.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...och-oust-bskyb

Vote James Murdoch out, Lord Myners tells BSkyB shareholders

Phone hacking fallout continues as former City minister urges end to
'hereditary principle' that keeps Murdochs at helm

The former treasury minister Lord Myners has urged BSkyB
shareholders to oust James Murdoch as its chairman amid growing
questions about his survival prospects as News Corp's heir apparent.

Myners said the company's next annual general meeting was an
opportunity to end the notion that one of the largest media
companies in the world could still be run like a dynasty.

In the strongest sign yet that the battle to weaken the Murdoch
family's grip on British media is bound for the Sky boardroom, the
former Marks & Spencer and Guardian Media Group chairman said
shareholders should end the "hereditary principle" that allows the
Murdochs to control BSkyB.

Speaking in the Lords on Friday, Myners said: "All directors of
BSkyB should stand for re-election at the AGM this summer, including
Mr James Murdoch. The board should seek to persuade Mr Murdoch that
it is no longer appropriate for him to chair this company. There are
sufficient doubts about his business judgment."
....

The shareholders with the other 61% of the shares probably have nothing
to do with the day to day running of the company.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

"David" wrote in message
...
The other day we heard Murdock is not to buy more of Sky Tv, he owns 39%
now, today the situation got even worse for his company in the US now they
got troubles. What I'm wondering is if News International fails would
Sky TV be able to carry on as now? Would the owners of the 61% be able to
run it who ever they are?


Well at least it takes people's minds of trivia such as the impending euro
crisis and the American debt ceiling, after all who gives a FF if the global
economy collapses around our ears, surely this is much more important?

In article , Rick wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...
The other day we heard Murdock is not to buy more of Sky Tv, he owns
39% now, today the situation got even worse for his company in the US
now they got troubles. What I'm wondering is if News International
fails would Sky TV be able to carry on as now? Would the owners of
the 61% be able to run it who ever they are?


Well at least it takes people's minds of trivia such as the impending
euro crisis and the American debt ceiling, after all who gives a FF if
the global economy collapses around our ears, surely this is much more
important?

Yes, in the UK at least there are good reasons for thinking it is at least
as important as the other issues. Although I can see why the Murdocks would
like us to think otherwise. I doubt they would like us to start wondering
if they are fit and proper people to keep what they already control. :-)

We aren't just an 'economy' we are also a society which should aspire to
being a genuinely informed democracy whose politicians aren't cowed by the
over-powerful owners of the media into doing what suits those owners. And
whose citizens aren't subjected to illegal acts by parts of the media who
come to think they are above the laws that apply to the rest of us.

And if the said media had in the past spent more time investigating the
bankers, and less time hacking the phones of murder victims, assorted
celebs, and politicians, maybe we might not be facing such an economic
mess.

How important this may be in other countries I have no idea, as yet. Time
will tell, perhaps.

Slainte,

Jim













--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sunday, July 17th, 2011, 09:59:05h +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

Although I can see why the Murdocks would like us to think otherwise.

I am shocked to read that you have misspelt the name also -- it is

Murdo*ch*

I doubt they would like us to start wondering if they are fit and
proper people to keep what they already control. :-)

I think you will find that people in Oztralia have for years wondered
if the Murdochs were fit and proper to control the newspapers there.

We aren't just an 'economy' we are also a society

"There is no such thing as society: there are individual men
and women, and there are families."

spake the beloved Margaret Hilda Thatcher.

Or maybe you were thinking of the BIG society?

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.UK/big-society

which should aspire to being a genuinely informed democracy

Not much chance of that. The next episode of Emmerdale,
Consternation Street, and Eastenders is what is important.

And what the name the Beckhams give to their next offspring.

You see, what your problem is, is you are one of these people
(academics, radicals, troublemakers [editor's note, all the
same type of people really]) who does not live in the real world,
and does not understand what is of real importance and relevance
to people today.

Thanks to affordable levels of income and comparatively generous
welfare allowances (to people with lots of children at least),
the panem side of "panem et circenses" is taken care of.

So all you have to worry about is the "circenses" (entertainment).

No need for any of that political nonsense.

So let's get back to the discussion about Stella and Tina on
the Street, and Katie and Leandro's latest shopping spree!

[Continued on page X of most major tabloid newspapers
including The Sun, The Sun, Daily Mirror, and one of the
best celebrity trash coverage papers, the Daily Mail]

This should be added to your bookmarks if you have not
already done so, so that you have quick access to all
the *important* news stories --

http://www.dailymail.co.UK/tvshowbiz/index.html

And if you must have "political stuff", at least keep it to
who was having parties with whom.

http://www.dailymail.co.UK/news/article-2015563/Elisabeth-Murdoch-threw-party-Camerons-cronies-hours-beofre-Milly-Dowler-scandal.html

On 17/07/2011 15:59, J G Miller wrote:

This should be added to your bookmarks if you have not
already done so, so that you have quick access to all
the *important* news stories --

http://www.dailymail.co.

And if you must have "political stuff", at least keep it to
who was having parties with whom.

http://www.dailymail.co.

Yeah, ironical but ...

The Dail Maul is playing a bait and switch scam, the voice of "reason"
in a storm while keeping their usual diet of populist bigotry
reinforcement on the low fire.

That madness has only started to creep back into the Metro freesheet as
a headline, but the odds on whether the next bigger story is slated
against immigrants or gays or [insert other disenfranchised UK group] is
surely dropping. Those URL links do serious damage to this country when
picked up and repeated by foreign media and the like.

In some respects I have the same opinion of DMGT as NI, and should the
revolution come I hope they will be first against the wall to be fired
upon with rotton marsh mellows (I eat the good ones).

BTW Please stop refering to murdoch as your, or by association, our
uncle. It's endearment he does not deserve.

--
Adrian C

In article , J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, July 17th, 2011, 09:59:05h +0100, Jim Lesurf wrote:

Although I can see why the Murdocks would like us to think otherwise.

I am shocked to read that you have misspelt the name also -- it is

Murdo*ch*

Sorry about that. I must have had in mind the saying, "It's called Fox News
because that's what it does." :-)

Or maybe it is because I was wondering if people in France ever referred
to newspapers sic like the Scum or News of the Screws as 'merde-UK'
papers...

Or maybe it is the long-term effect of reading PE. :-)


I doubt they would like us to start wondering if they are fit and
proper people to keep what they already control. :-)


Or maybe you were thinking of the BIG society?

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.UK/big-society


Fascinating idea. Allow some rich folk to have their fun making lots of
money by activities like weakening banks, selling off the assets of
care companies, etc. Then let them dodge hundreds of millions of pounds
in UK tax. They can then give a million to a 'charity' and - provided
they also make a hefty donation to the Tory party - can be praised as
wonderful benefactors and beacons of the 'big con'... erm, 'big society'.

And of course if they also happen to own a newspaper or two they can
always put up an entertaining smokescreen by running acres of print
attacking poorer people on benefits who should be begging at the door
of their charity.

Such generousity! Warms the heart. Just remember, "We're all in it
together, chum." Although the precise meaning of "it" seems to vary
from case to case... :-)


http://www.dailymail.co.UK/tvshowbiz/index.html

And if you must have "political stuff", at least keep it to who was
having parties with whom.

http://www.dailymail.co.UK/news/article-2015563/Elisabeth-Murdoch-threw-party-Camerons-cronies-hours-beofre-Milly-Dowler-scandal.html


The reports earlier today seem to be saying that one of Dave's best known
dinner guests has been arrested - as well as having quit her job recently.
Oh dear... I wonder who will be bringing the cheap aussie wine to dinner
in future...

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html