Those crazy BB pranksters.
NJ
I read somewhat its intention to pool with TV-am was used by the ITC to fault the company because IIRC there was no provision in the bid for what the company would do if TV-am didn't keep its licence.
Which of course, is exactly what happened, so may indeed explain why CPV lost. In the event, TV-am didn't even keep it's news operation until the end, they outsourced to Sky News!
But they only farmed it out to Sky after they lost the licence, though of course whether they'd have kept it anyway even if they'd retained the licence after 1993 will never be known. Of course they may have actually rebranded after 1993 as well!
Neil Jones
Founding member
Yes, I've read that. It was a Virgin/David Frost consortium wasn't it, the P in CPV presumably was for Paradine, Frosts company. He was still an owner/director of TVam
I read somewhat its intention to pool with TV-am was used by the ITC to fault the company because IIRC there was no provision in the bid for what the company would do if TV-am didn't keep its licence.
But they only farmed it out to Sky after they lost the licence, though of course whether they'd have kept it anyway even if they'd retained the licence after 1993 will never be known. Of course they may have actually rebranded after 1993 as well!
:-(
A former member
I did ask about CPV a while ago and I did post this a while back, but here it is again: from Ofcom
https://up.metropol247.co.uk/barcode/CPV%20TV%20Q3.pdf
ITC look at the plans and throw it in the bin, just like southern plans in 1981. David frost should have known better.
https://up.metropol247.co.uk/barcode/CPV%20TV%20Q3.pdf
ITC look at the plans and throw it in the bin, just like southern plans in 1981. David frost should have known better.
BR
Probably moving News at Ten to 9pm saw it heading in the direction of the bin. Just can't see CPV-TVs logic in that at all (unlike the argument to move it to 11pm).
I did ask about CPV a while ago and I did post this a while back, but here it is again: from Ofcom
https://up.metropol247.co.uk/barcode/CPV%20TV%20Q3.pdf
ITC look at the plans and throw it in the bin, just like southern plans in 1981. David frost should have known better.
https://up.metropol247.co.uk/barcode/CPV%20TV%20Q3.pdf
ITC look at the plans and throw it in the bin, just like southern plans in 1981. David frost should have known better.
Probably moving News at Ten to 9pm saw it heading in the direction of the bin. Just can't see CPV-TVs logic in that at all (unlike the argument to move it to 11pm).
:-(
A former member
I still wonder who there were going to commission the hour long to cover the current affairs aspect? So Weekday ITV would have come from TVAM studios with everything bar news being outscored, and even then there were to many fingers in pies.
HC
That, and - the whole idea of sub-contracting out the production of the regional news provision to a company that itself had to hurdle over the ITC franchise award system. Like to bet that every other franchise bidder - either existing or new bidder - for every regional ITV contract would be saying they would produce the regional news themselves.
I know the ITC said that in the event of TV-am going out of business - CPV-tv would pick up the production and bring it in-house themselves, but that was undermined by the paragraph further up the page, where the ITC pick apart the proposed staffing levels, and said their plans for staffing the operation were with a suspiciously low headcount number in the first place.
In other words - thanks for the laughs, lads. But it won't be you winning any franchises.
I know the ITC said that in the event of TV-am going out of business - CPV-tv would pick up the production and bring it in-house themselves, but that was undermined by the paragraph further up the page, where the ITC pick apart the proposed staffing levels, and said their plans for staffing the operation were with a suspiciously low headcount number in the first place.
In other words - thanks for the laughs, lads. But it won't be you winning any franchises.
IS
Well the winner of that license didn't, and LWT had never produced their own news, so it's probably wasn't as toxic an idea as you think.
Sharing operations with TVam wasn't a bad idea either, they had all those resources just for 3 and a half hours of TV a day, makes sense to take advantage of those for both companies advantage
Like to bet that every other franchise bidder - either existing or new bidder - for every regional ITV contract would be saying they would produce the regional news themselves.
Well the winner of that license didn't, and LWT had never produced their own news, so it's probably wasn't as toxic an idea as you think.
Sharing operations with TVam wasn't a bad idea either, they had all those resources just for 3 and a half hours of TV a day, makes sense to take advantage of those for both companies advantage
:-(
A former member
Like to bet that every other franchise bidder - either existing or new bidder - for every regional ITV contract would be saying they would produce the regional news themselves.
Well the winner of that license didn't, and LWT had never produced their own news, so it's probably wasn't as toxic an idea as you think.
Big difference... LWT owned half that company.
IS
Big difference... LWT owned half that company.
Prior to 1993 they didn't. LWT News was never made by LWT
Plus CPV and TVam had some shared ownership
Big difference... LWT owned half that company.
Prior to 1993 they didn't. LWT News was never made by LWT
Plus CPV and TVam had some shared ownership
:-(
A former member
I can't tell if I've got mixed up somewhere? and I was agreeing with your point or not