1989-90 What if?

I'm not convinced there wouldn't have been changes regardless of whether the 1991 round was done the way it was, the way it was done in 1980 or whether they just picked names out of a hat. It's still entirely plausible that an incumbent could have come along and played all the right notes to the appropriate authority without needing to wave a blank cheque around in the process. After all if you're tooting for business based on the strength of your ideas and what you can bring to the table as opposed to comparing wallet sizes, you're going to have to try and come up with better ideas to win people over.

Until the time-travelling Delorean becomes reality and we can explore potential timelines without upsetting the present space time continuum (so we don't end up with whisks for arms for example), answers to questions like these can only ever be speculation due to the number of factors involved regardless of the Broadcasting Acts. All decisions of the past have a knock on effect, after all.

I imagine TV-am would have lived under the old system, not least because they were Maggie's favourite company, but they'd achieved enough regardless.

Someone said tvs would have lost either way, because the business was in a mess. In 86 it was one of the worse companies to get told off by the iba.

Studio closurse were already in the cards in a number of areas.

No, just no. TVS had that reputation in the late 80s and tried to stretch that into the 90s through glossy promos. Unfortunately by 1990 they were crashing and had already made hundreds of redundancies, their fingers badly burnt by poor business investments.



Depends on nothing of the sort. Very few new businesses make a profit in their first year, let alone a new television station in a tiny new market during a recession.

If you need any illustration of this, UK Gold made a loss of around 25 million in its first year, 15 million in the second, 14 million in the third and didn't generate a profit for some time. That would have been delightful for TVS' already splendid books.

I'd be very surprised if Thames would have got away unscathed by the IBA. I can't find the article in question at present but I can remember reading one that said the Authority was not happy with the way in which Thames' shareholders didn't seem to have much interest in it anymore. Perhaps an ATV style carve up and reallocation of shares?

It's very hard to say what would have happened had the IBA remained, because either way I don't think it would have been the IBA of the previous franchise round. For all its reputation of being a bit stuffy at times, it was fairly dynamic and adapted to changing times. It would often mould ITV accordingly. With an eye on a multi-channel future perhaps it would have merged certain regions or granted multiple licences to one bidder. Maybe they'd have insisted on a consolidated news operation in London. Who can say?

What i never stood was why Carlton never excepted half ownership of thames in 1985.

Thats what caused all of this. I could understand why the iba never wanted one owner.

The answer to that I think is 'not much', as the quality thing was becoming an anachronism by 1991. Few external companies would want to come in and beat the incumbents on quality.

TVS might have lost based on its problems at the time (if anyone bothered to bid against it), but I'm struggling to think of any others to be honest.

Replace 'TVS' with 'James Gatward' and drop the word 'company' and then that sentence makes more historical sense.

He was being sidelined by the board who could see the TVS Express was heading at gathering speed for the buffers, yet he kept hiding the keys to the drivers cab..
..with inevitable results.

You have to judge it on the circumstances at the time I guess. ITV was still the dominant force in commercial television, and Thames was the most dominant force in ITV. If it only had one owner, it would have made that particular owner very powerful.

That's the reasoning given, reading between the lines anyway. Also I guess the franchises were always granted with things such as the company structure taken into account. To have a substantial change of ownership, could have undermined the IBA's decision to grant the franchise in the first place.

What was the ownership structure of Thames at the end of its time on ITV? I thought the Thorn EMI/Rediffusion ownership had been diluted by then?

A-R Television, which owned the Rediffusion side of Thames, was "winding down its activities" in 1995, according its annual report filed to Companies House. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00810228

Thames was floated in 1986 but it didn't go very well and Thorn EMI/Rediffusion were still stuck with around 60%.

Interesting fact: if you look up London Weekend Television Ltd's paperwork at Companies House, the incorporation paperwork (company certificate etc) is in the name of Thames Television Ltd - the original name proposed for LWT.