Anyway, I don't suppose that in reality a change of chief exec would make much difference. Like Lorraine Heggessey, Charles Allen is just a convenient hate figure.
I personally think that this proposed ITV takeover of ITN is only bad news. If Charles Allen wants to kill off ITN, then that's another one of ITV's core values buggered up thanks to him. This Chief Executive needs to be desposed, and bring a Chief Executive in to salvage the ITV in which Charles Allen has ruined.
Have you seen where ITV are gonna have to pay Arsenal 30million or something for shares coz of a deal Charles Allen did a few year ago when he was buying shares in football clubs! Imagine what ITN could do with 30million or for that matter any of ITV.
And this is what Greg Dyke has to say in his Independent column today:
Greg Dyke posted:
Bad idea means bad news for ITN
ITV chief executive Charles Allen has never been famous for being subtle but his threat to get rid of ITN as ITV's news provider is about as unsubtle a form of negotiation as you can get. He is basically telling the 60 per cent owners of ITN that if they don't sell their shares to him at a cheap price he will take away ITV's business and in effect destroy ITN.
So how will his partners react to this blatant threat? My guess is badly; why would organisations with the reputations of Associated Newspapers, Reuters and United Business Media be willing to be bullied by Allen? I suspect all three would sell their shares if he offered them a fair price, but if he carries on as he is it's much more likely they will call his bluff.
His idea that ITV will take its news in-house at a cheaper price when the current contract with ITN ends in 2008 is about as far-fetched as you can get. Not only would it cost him more but he also has to write off his own 40 per cent share of ITN. Personally I can think of no faster way of further damaging ITV's reputation for news.
Allen should move in the opposite direction and reinstate the ITN brand on all the ITV news services. ITV News - as the news services on his channel are now called - has no reputation or brand image at all.
I really hope Greg Dyke, Lord Hollick et al take over ITV very quickly, before the company becomes totally unsalvagable.
Charles Allen is destroying ITV. I have personally experienced the effects of his cost-cutting. Basically, anyone defending him either doesn't work in itv, or is deluded.
He is a bland economist, with no creative insight or long-term vision. The Chief Executive of ITV should definately have a background in the media or at least have some vision. Charles Allen possesses neither.
This is demonstrated in the share price: five years ago, the share price of Border Television was around £6. The current share price of ITV plc is around £1.20.
This is demonstrated in the share price: five years ago, the share price of Border Television was around £6. The current share price of ITV plc is around £1.20.
But in that 5 years there has been a massive downturn in advertising which hit ITV hard, which will explain a large amount of that loss - it cant all be blamed on charles allen etc.
He's not an economist, he's an accountant, and the idea that Greg Dyke would be good for anything is absurd. Greg is damaged goods, and any organization that needs to have a decent lobbying relationship with government won't touch him with a bargepole.
Clearly Allen's position isn't subtle, but what he's talking about is getting the other shareholders to take a price based on the numbers, not some inflated idea of what ITN might be worth. Stewart Purvis's column, written several months ago (before Allen's public statement) is far more pertinent than Mr Cockney Geezer Dyke's.
I don't often argue with pedantic comments, but I certainly can spell! I fail to understand how two words each with one incorrect letter can be considered an example of bad spelling.
Humph!
Anyway, to counter your comments:
Quote:
Clearly Allen's position isn't subtle, but what he's talking about is getting the other shareholders to take a price based on the numbers, not some inflated idea of what ITN might be worth.
The point though is that under Charles Allen, ITV (and Previously Granada) has endured the results of some terrible decisions:
1 - The ITV digital fiasco. Hundreds of millions of pounds lost.
2 - News at Ten disaster. Millions of pounds probably lost in advertising revenue.
3 - A dramatic decline in non-news regional programming,
4 - The end of regional continuity.
5 - The dumbing down of ITV News.
6 - The largest closure of studios in the history of itv.
So, why should anyone trust Charles Allen to do anything but cost-cutting if itv plc does buy ITN?
Quote:
Stewart Purvis's column, written several months ago (before Allen's public statement) is far more pertinent than Mr Cockney Geezer Dyke's.
The point though is that under Charles Allen, ITV (and Previously Granada) has endured the results of some terrible decisions:
1 - The ITV digital fiasco. Hundreds of millions of pounds lost.
2 - News at Ten disaster. Millions of pounds probably lost in advertising revenue.
3 - A dramatic decline in non-news regional programming,
4 - The end of regional continuity.
5 - The dumbing down of ITV News.
6 - The largest closure of studios in the history of itv.
So, why should anyone trust Charles Allen to do anything but cost-cutting if itv plc does buy ITN?
What sort of business would it be if it didn't try and cut costs? No company takes over an other to try and increase costs - ITV is no diffrent
Charles Allen may be in charge, but most of your list would either have happened anyway (the closure of redundant studios, end of regional continuity) and the major mistakes (ITV Digital, News at Ten) were the fault of many people - they were group decisions.
Clearly Allen's position isn't subtle, but what he's talking about is getting the other shareholders to take a price based on the numbers, not some inflated idea of what ITN might be worth.
The point though is that under Charles Allen, ITV (and Previously Granada) has endured the results of some terrible decisions:
1 - The ITV digital fiasco. Hundreds of millions of pounds lost.
2 - News at Ten disaster. Millions of pounds probably lost in advertising revenue.
3 - A dramatic decline in non-news regional programming,
4 - The end of regional continuity.
5 - The dumbing down of ITV News.
6 - The largest closure of studios in the history of itv.
So, why should anyone trust Charles Allen to do anything but cost-cutting if itv plc does buy ITN?
Quote:
Stewart Purvis's column, written several months ago (before Allen's public statement) is far more pertinent than Mr Cockney Geezer Dyke's.
How?
1 and 2 fair points. 3 Thank God. 4. Oh no, string him up. 5. If that's true then it's more to do with Nigel Dacre than anyone else - he was the Editor. Notice the difference since the return of David Mannion? No? Then you're not watching very closely - too busy pining for regional announcers. 6. What would you prefer - leave them there gathering dust? There's not enough programmes to go around, dozy!
By the way, you missed the point - I said Greg Dyke would not be an improvement. He'd be a disaster now for ITV - damaged goods.
You should trust Charles Allen to do what he can to maximize return for shareholders within the legislative framework governing the company's operation. That's his job. If Greg Dyke was Chief Exec then it would be his job too, and reinstating regional announcers or keeping open studios just to keep you happy wouldn't figure in those plans. Trust me.
Stewart Purvis has correctly identified that the key to the future of ITN as a separate company (separate from ITV plc) is the role of Reuters. Of the three "non-ITV plc" shareholders Reuters is the one that might have some long term interest in retaining a role in the business. Greg Dyke is too busy slagging off the man who took LWT away from him to get to that point.
Clearly Allen's position isn't subtle, but what he's talking about is getting the other shareholders to take a price based on the numbers, not some inflated idea of what ITN might be worth.
The point though is that under Charles Allen, ITV (and Previously Granada) has endured the results of some terrible decisions:
1 - The ITV digital fiasco. Hundreds of millions of pounds lost.
2 - News at Ten disaster. Millions of pounds probably lost in advertising revenue.
3 - A dramatic decline in non-news regional programming,
4 - The end of regional continuity.
5 - The dumbing down of ITV News.
6 - The largest closure of studios in the history of itv.
So, why should anyone trust Charles Allen to do anything but cost-cutting if itv plc does buy ITN?
Quote:
Stewart Purvis's column, written several months ago (before Allen's public statement) is far more pertinent than Mr Cockney Geezer Dyke's.
How?
1 and 2 fair points. 3 Thank God. 4. Oh no, string him up. 5. If that's true then it's more to do with Nigel Dacre than anyone else - he was the Editor. Notice the difference since the return of David Mannion? No? Then you're not watching very closely - too busy pining for regional announcers. 6. What would you prefer - leave them there gathering dust? There's not enough programmes to go around, dozy!
By the way, you missed the point - I said Greg Dyke would not be an improvement. He'd be a disaster now for ITV - damaged goods.
You should trust Charles Allen to do what he can to maximize return for shareholders within the legislative framework governing the company's operation. That's his job. If Greg Dyke was Chief Exec then it would be his job too, and reinstating regional announcers or keeping open studios just to keep you happy wouldn't figure in those plans. Trust me.
Stewart Purvis has correctly identified that the key to the future of ITN as a separate company (separate from ITV plc) is the role of Reuters. Of the three "non-ITV plc" shareholders Reuters is the one that might have some long term interest in retaining a role in the business. Greg Dyke is too busy slagging off the man who took LWT away from him to get to that point.