21st Century Fox takeover over Sky bid

I really hope it gets stopped somehow, but can't see it.

I really don't see what difference it will make. They've controlled the company since the early 80s, just having a bigger stake doesn't change anything except where the profits go

There's much more at stake here. If Murdoch's empire gets its way, he’ll effectively become the most powerful media owner in the UK. Murdoch will have excessive power if the deal goes through, and many people do not want this old scumbag to have more influence than he already inappropriately has over our elected politicians, despite the current Tory gov't having lost its (slim) majority.


This grubby deal to fully takeover Sky in the UK cannot be allowed to happen ... full stop.

He isn't now?

This deal gives his companies no more power or control than they do now. Fox already have the controlling share of Sky as its predecessor, News Corp did before that

Lets see if the Competition Commission has the nuts to make Sky split the platform business from the broadcast. Be interesting to see how many visits the CC get from Murdoch's heavies

If that is your personal viewpoint, it is a very naive viewpoint with regards to this subject. The fact is, the more power Murdoch has, the more he makes politicians listen to him instead of voters. With that in mind and in light of the phone hacking scandal which put an end to his last Sky takeover bid, and is still fresh in many people memories (he seems to think we've forgotten about that) Murdoch cannot be considered a ‘fit and proper person’ to take further control of the UK's media than he already has.


Murdoch owns 39% of Sky (an otherwise excellent broadcaster) and IMO that's 39% too much.

The Sun has basically turned on May now hasn't it.

But you're not explaining how taking over the rest of a company that his corporation already controls gives him any more control?


You also haven't explained how he isn't already the most powerful media owner in the UK? He's not suddenly going to get 61% more powerful


You don't think his corporation (it's not him directly of course) should own a company that he built up from nothing, bankrolled it through financial difficulties and made it a very successful business?


You said yourself that it's an excellent broadcaster, like it or not, it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Rupert Murdoch

Removing external shareholders as the deal will do, removes a layer of supervision of the company. As a result measures can be wholly internal and not published. This opens up all sorts of issues with competition and attitude to deals etc. Yes there's external regulation but it adds a layer of secrecy currently not there.

I think the sticking point will be ensuring the media plurality of Sky News. If the business decides that the news channel goes into a trust where the company pays a lump sum per annum to them or is sold to another company, which in a Global/Communicorp type deal will pay Fox to use Sky's facilities and brand name as part of a franchise arrangement which would include Sky providing distribution and technical support. Staff would be paid by the new owner.

This may be enough to keep the rest of the business together.

That is true, however do you reckon the other shareholders get to do much of that? It's basically a Murdoch family company now and always has been.

I'd have thought that if they span off anything it would be the platform side of the business.


I don't see how the buy out affects media plurality, there's no real change to who controls what and it doesn't involve opening or closing news outlets.

The outcome of the election might be at Sky's advantage in that department too, a lot of discussion over the decline of the influence of print media. There's less of an issue if it isn't the 'Sun wot won it' any more. And that will continue to be the trend. Not that The Sun etc and Sky are part of the same corporate structure any more