News International and BSkyB

Precisely. The times when governments could simply nationalize entire broadcasting industries are long since over.

It'll be interesting to see what effect ESPN has on the auction.

ESPN actually lost a package last time round.

The nature of the Premier League auction this time around might be completely different thanks to the fallout from Murphy v MPS. In particular, this could be a pan-European auction with no 3pm games up for sale at all in Europe. In such an auction only an international broadcaster with big pockets will be able to buy the rights. Certainly Setanta can probably count itself out of the next auction if that happens, which probably lead to the shutdown of Setanta Ireland.

As said before Murdoch's long term game seemed to be for the various Sky branded operations to eventually become a single broadcaster operating in multiple markets - the so called "Sky Global Networks" once talked about. As long as BSkyB remains a publicly quoted company with minimal integration with its German and Italian namesakes that won't happen.

(I know its OT for this thread but I can probably see a number of other changes in Premier League broadcasting. One is that the exemption from the generic Premier League graphics allowed for broadcasters in the UK and Ireland will probably end, given that the ECJ made a big point in its judgement of emphasizing what can be copyrighted by the FAPL. The other will be the eventual end - maybe not in this period, but probably in the next five to ten years - of the Premier League kicking off games on Saturday 3pm at all).

Some details of tomorrows report have been leaked to ITV News. Some good news for James Murdoch as it looks unlikely that he will be found to have misled parliament,although he will be 'heavily criticised'.

MPs are set to find Colin Myler, Tom Crone and Les Hinton guilty of misleading the committee and therefore Parliament.

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-04-30/exclusive-three-news-international-executives-misled-parliament/

Significant developments at Westminster this morning as the Culture Committee claim that Rupert Murdoch "is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17898029

EDIT: although there seems to be quite a bit of division amongst the committee about the scope of the report and that, in fact, the above statement regarding Rupert Murdoch is inaccurate and biased.

Sounds like it was Tom Watson who pushed through that line about Murdoch not being a 'fit' person to run an international company. Is it really within the committees remit to decide who is and who isn't a fit person to run a private company? I would find it more credible if the likes of Watson weren't on a crusade against the Murdoch's.

Apparently Watson was the sole author of the section on Rupert Murdoch,


https://twitter.com/#!/joeyjonessky

The fit and proper part is just what they think. It will be down to Ofcom, who I understand are doing tests, have the authority to decide. Tom Watson and co. putting the fit and proper in their report guarantees headlines and it is doing so.

The party lines were definitely drawn on that report (no Tory members backed it) and as many commentators have said who are MPs to decide who is "fit and proper" to run anything. I really think that has overstepped their remit as Rupert Murdoch is a proven business man, even if he has taken unsavory steps to get there. Really though they should have held off any reporting until the end of the full enquiry - indeed this kind of devalues it somewhat.

MPs are elected so to do Brekkie.

Am looking back to Railtrack to see whether the methods used to remove the rail network from them have some relevance to any possible remedy required as a result of Ofcom's investigations.

Don't see how it would, Railtrack lived off a government subsidy without which it was insolvent. It had essentially been looking for a blank cheque from the Government yet insisted on using it to pay a dividend as if it was a normal company making a profit. The Railways Act 1993 provided the method of special railway administration which as I understand it applies only to a railway undertaking. And Railtrack was created by the State.

British Sky Broadcasting is a normal company making a profit.

Similar legislative process could be used though if necessary. should there need to be a confiscation of NC's shareholding in BSB if they refused to co-operate with any Ofcom triggered sanction.

I think the committee have overreached. By inserting the 'unfit' remark the result was a politically charged document rather than an objective report. Clearly Murdoch has questions to answer but making broad statements just to get big headlines is the wrong approach.

Nick Robinson reporting tonight that Tom Watson has said he went after Murdoch in the way he did so that the blame wouldn't lie wholly with 'undelings'.

Be interesting to see if Sky comment on the Ofcom investigation when they announce their quarterly earnings in the morning - I guess they probably won't.