WH
Whataday
Founding member
Firstly, should Central have lost its franchise, it wouldn't have lost the CITV contract by default.
But the rights to use the name CITV (or Children's ITV) would have belonged to Independent Television Association Ltd which later became ITV Network Ltd. That company also owned the trademark for News At Ten.
But the rights to use the name CITV (or Children's ITV) would have belonged to Independent Television Association Ltd which later became ITV Network Ltd. That company also owned the trademark for News At Ten.
:-(
A former member
Central lost the contract in 1989, and only won it back in 1991 with a very very cheap bid.. you could tell... the next contract for CITV was from Jan/Feb 1993
https://identcentral.co.uk/idents/itv/citv/childrens-itv-1989-1991/
A new logo did appear when Central won it back:
https://identcentral.co.uk/idents/itv/citv/citv-1991-1993/
However the Corporate CITV ident: was kept. its the proof in the pudding.
https://identcentral.co.uk/idents/itv/citv/childrens-itv-1989-1991/
A new logo did appear when Central won it back:
https://identcentral.co.uk/idents/itv/citv/citv-1991-1993/
However the Corporate CITV ident: was kept. its the proof in the pudding.
:-(
A former member
Why did ITC just not give TVS and TSW the license but make them pay million more than the people behide them? It does not make any sense highest bid would win., but only if its not to high...
SW
Because it was so high it was totally unrealistic and then they'd have gone bust. In Independent Television in Britain, Harry Turner talks about all the various cuts they'd have had to have made with their bid, outsourcing absolutely everything. If you're suggesting they should have given it to TSW or TVS but made it so instead of what they bid they'd bid a million pounds more than the second bidder, that seems to defeat the whole point of requesting bids in the first place (and they'd have to extend the offe to every other single winning bidder).
Deciding how much you can afford to bid is a basic aspect of any auction, it's financial planning. If you bid too much then it doesn't say much for your ability to run the business.
And as mentioned here before, TVS seemingly wouldn't have won whatever they bid because Meridian's plan for three sub-regions meant they'd have got through regardless on exceptional circumstances.
Why did ITC just not give TVS and TSW the license but make them pay million more than the people behide them? It does not make any sense highest bid would win., but only if its not to high...
Because it was so high it was totally unrealistic and then they'd have gone bust. In Independent Television in Britain, Harry Turner talks about all the various cuts they'd have had to have made with their bid, outsourcing absolutely everything. If you're suggesting they should have given it to TSW or TVS but made it so instead of what they bid they'd bid a million pounds more than the second bidder, that seems to defeat the whole point of requesting bids in the first place (and they'd have to extend the offe to every other single winning bidder).
Deciding how much you can afford to bid is a basic aspect of any auction, it's financial planning. If you bid too much then it doesn't say much for your ability to run the business.
And as mentioned here before, TVS seemingly wouldn't have won whatever they bid because Meridian's plan for three sub-regions meant they'd have got through regardless on exceptional circumstances.
:-(
A former member
Clearly the itc had no idea how to do business as three other compaines all over bid and still won...
It also crystal ball since all bids were based the recession being done by early 1993.
It also crystal ball since all bids were based the recession being done by early 1993.
PC
Given the Channel franchise was entirely viable as things stood, I'm not sure why it would be an idea to combine it with the south-west.
In terms of whether the south of Scotland should be included in the STV region, that is somewhat of a political hot potato and somewhat predictably is now viewed through the prism of the independence debate along with everything else by political parties. However, there was genuine feedback from some people in the borders that they would prefer to remain in Border, where they'd have a chance of seeing their local area on TV, versus being submerged in the STV region where they probably wouldn't.
In terms of whether the south of Scotland should be included in the STV region, that is somewhat of a political hot potato and somewhat predictably is now viewed through the prism of the independence debate along with everything else by political parties. However, there was genuine feedback from some people in the borders that they would prefer to remain in Border, where they'd have a chance of seeing their local area on TV, versus being submerged in the STV region where they probably wouldn't.
:-(
A former member
Is that how border got reinstated after only four years being away? I found it odd the inde vote was going to happen and out of the blue lookaround was back in full force and a new political programme appeared three times aweek. 
PC
So here's what definitely happened:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21532460
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-23419129
Basically, STV were hammering ITV Border Scotland in terms of Scottish content and there was political pressure to get that fixed. OFCOM took it on, and that's why we are where we are now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21532460
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-23419129
Basically, STV were hammering ITV Border Scotland in terms of Scottish content and there was political pressure to get that fixed. OFCOM took it on, and that's why we are where we are now.
:-(
A former member
The viewers complaints never really changes since the 2008 consultation, I think some back room high presure talks took place with ofcom to force itv hands.
I do believe Ofcom needs its teeth back.
I do believe Ofcom needs its teeth back.
HC
What teeth? It's a light touch regulator, that's how it's set up and only gets involved (quite rightly) when there have been serious breeches of the programming code.
Not, to adjucate on takeovers (unless new prospective owners had dubious past histories) and or change of ownership structures, or the removal of channel heritage names from the studio building frontages.
I'm not sure we really need to go back to the days of the IBA, creating shotgun marriages between rival bidders, over regulation, and sanctioning permission to sneeze to members of the individual regional ITV franchise holders board members.
Not, to adjucate on takeovers (unless new prospective owners had dubious past histories) and or change of ownership structures, or the removal of channel heritage names from the studio building frontages.
I'm not sure we really need to go back to the days of the IBA, creating shotgun marriages between rival bidders, over regulation, and sanctioning permission to sneeze to members of the individual regional ITV franchise holders board members.