Branson v Murdoch fight

[BoredBloke]

"Murdock's actions are anti-competitive without any shadow of a doubt"

No they are not. Branson, who is a major shareholder of an existing broadcaster, wanting to buy a rival on the cheap is anti-competitive. Murdoch buying a large minority stake in it is not. His actions mean that ITV will either stay independent or Branson will have to pay significantly more.

If Murdoch ups his stake then he enters a whole different ball game meaning he would have to signal his intentions as to launching a takeover. He has already stated that he has no intentions of doing this.

"the true intention of his actions however may cause law changes."

How do you know what his true intentions are? The only intentions so far expressed are the ones he has stated. Is there even a business case for him expanding into ITV?

"The whole Sky's exclusive stuff should be illegal in the first place"

Why?? Sky buy exclusive rights and pay for them through their subscriptions and advertising. People could vote with their wallets and stop this.

"the whole intention of such arrangement is to reduce competition."

or to make your product significantly more attractive than your rivals and to get customers to pay for it. Have any of the ITV stations gone out of business since SKY launched - because of the exclusive deals by SKY? I can't think of one.

[premiere]

What I can't understand is why either of them want ITV.

Because I now work there. Both Murdy and Branson can see how I and my one man band ltd consultancy are adding huge value to the organisation as a whole.

[AtW]

No they are not. Branson, who is a major shareholder of an existing broadcaster, wanting to buy a rival on the cheap is anti-competitive.

The issue is not the price of ITV - the issue is that with Sky owning more than 10% of the stock they can not be forced to sell it, at any price - thus preventing from buying ITV.

There is already a law limiting Sky from buying more than 20% in ITV because it is recognised that competition issues will be raised - and they have been now because less than 20%, but more than 10% is enough to prevent competitor from becoming stronger, hence this is anti-competitive measure.

By the way Branson only owns 12% of NTL.

Exclusive contracts are anti-competitive - their whole purpose is to reduce competition via exclusivity (ie monopoly on sale), this is clearly anti-competitive and must be regulated by law - either price of goods or services that were offered exclusively, OR better ban exclusivity all together.

[BoredBloke]

To be honest, I don't really care. I just like to see Branson running to the regulators crying like a spoilt child when he comes up against the big boys. In all these deals there are trigger points. As in the case of Man U and the shareholders untited thing, there is a percentage where the shareholder has to make his intentions clear. There is another which effectively means that a shareholder can force a buyout. So Murdoch has not prevented Branson buying ITV, they have just made it more expensive. If Branson wants to purchase it, he still can and Murdoch will pocket the cash for his shareholders.


i don't see a problem - it's business!

[Ardesco]

As in the case of Man U and the shareholders untited thing,

I'm sure that a load of Man U shareholders are tits