TV Home Forum

26 years ago today...

The 1990 Broadcasting Bill published. (December 2015)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
WH
Whataday Founding member
Central & Scottish getting away with £2000 cos nobody bid against them


But HOW did they know that? Who told them, or did they act to stop anyone from doing so? The Central region is hardly something any of the bidders would have turned their nose at. Even the Channel Islands had a few bidders.

It would be impossible to compile a bid without making some noise - particularly you had to demonstrate support from independents. Central was probably better placed than any other to detect this with its fragmented ownership/board.


You raise a very valid point. The internal business workings would have been a considerable factor.

I know that Thames was unable to bid higher because Thorn EMI wanted an exit anyway, and more than £30m would have devalued the company to sell. So basically the attitude was "if anyone bids higher, good luck to them".
SW
Steve Williams
As for why nobody else bid - there was probably nobody better placed than Central themselves to serve the region; the business was sound (they had no sprawling assets like Granada, nor any risky investments like TVS) and the changes insisted by the 1990 act didn't represent a threat to them (Central were already doing quite a lot of independent commissions - particularly with the Childrens' output). The only weak spot was Oxford, which they had moved to protect in 1989. In short, there was no question of their ability to win, nor their ability to finance themselves - so it would have been suicide to bid against them.


The other week I bought Independent Television In Britain 1981-92 from Oxfam in Notting Hill (they have a different kind of Oxfam in Notting Hill) which obviously goes into the franchise round in great detail. And Central were unapposed for the reasons you suggest, they were working with a lot of independent companies. The one consortium that was pondering a bid for the Midlands was the one headed up Mentorn, who were eyeing up either LWT or Central, but Mentorn were making programmes for Central. Central wrote to all their existing indies to ask if they were happy to be included in their bid, and when Mentorn didn't reply they got in touch, arranged a meeting and promptly offered them a new contract, at which point Mentorn decided to bid against LWT instead.

They also commissioned a lot of market research because they neighboured so many regions and they felt there was a potential for so many people on the edges to say Central were crap at serving their area and a lot of the neighbouring regions to make use of that to bid against them. In the end it turned out everyone was pretty happy with how things were going apart from in the South of the region, which is why they launched the South opt-out off their own backs, knowing full well that any opposition would have to match that. OK, so it was based on the cash bid but that was surely one of the scenarios where exceptional circumstances would have come into play. So nobody fancied the expense of running three sub-regions, and most people in telly in the Midlands were already happily working with Central, so nobody went up against them.

It was a bit different when TVS launched the separate show for the South East - that wasn't something they offered, it was stipulated they would have to provide it as a condition of the franchise. Southern would have had to have done it had they won it.

As for STV, again most of the big Scottish indies were already working with STV, and though it covers a nation the Scottish media industry is quite small - you only have to see how many people worked for both the BBC and STV - so if there had been someone bidding against them they'd have known about it. The managing director also went to the board and their non-executive directors, who were all merchant bankers and solicitors and so on, and had been deliberately picked to be the best in their field, and so it was assumed they would easily get wind of any other bids.

As for Thames, the book points out that the ITC were seriously considering letting Thames through on exceptional circumstances, because the Thames plans were considered exceptional, but one of the issues was that they weren't supposed to judge on their existing programme line-up because that would mean the incumbent would always win. Thames could point to the programmes they had already made, but Carlton couldn't, so it was an unfair contest. They decided that Carlton had some very talented people working for them, and had done deals with independent companies with very good track records and with a reputation for quality, so while the proposals weren't quite as good as Thames, they were certainly good enough.

In the book too David Mellor says that nobody ever really worked out what "exceptional circumstances" meant and it was up to the ITC to use their skill and judgement as to what it might entail. He suggests that if Thames had made a really low bid but instead pledged to spend many millions more on programmes, that might have been considered the "exceptional circumstances". But David Elstein says they thought about doing that, but thought they should make a competitive bid so it looked like they were taking it seriously and didn't come across as arrogant, relying on their name and heritage.
JA
james-2001
I'd sort of argue you coule have put TV-am through on exceptional circumstances, for going from nearly bust to being the most profitable ITV company in the space of a few short years.
SW
Steve Williams
I'd sort of argue you coule have put TV-am through on exceptional circumstances, for going from nearly bust to being the most profitable ITV company in the space of a few short years.


Again, though, you weren't supposed to be judging them on what they had done, but what they were going to do. And that might have been good for TV-am, but it had no benefit for anyone else.
WH
Whataday Founding member
The problem is, the process of choosing the contractor involved looking at the highest bidder first and deciding if they would pass the quality threshold, so the second that Sunrise passed that (with backers like Disney, LWT and having small, hired facilities), TV-am didn't get a look in.

The original legislation didn't even allow for a quality threshold, so we would have lost Granada and kept TVS
JA
james-2001
You wouldn't have even had Carlton without it either, as CPV-TV outbid them.
BR
Brekkie
At what point was it decided that the franchises wouldn't be put out to tender again. It never really seemed to be on the cards once digital TV started up and the mergers and acquisitions soon signficantly reduced the number of companies holding the franchises.
JA
JAS84
The problem is, the process of choosing the contractor involved looking at the highest bidder first and deciding if they would pass the quality threshold, so the second that Sunrise passed that (with backers like Disney, LWT and having small, hired facilities), TV-am didn't get a look in.

The original legislation didn't even allow for a quality threshold, so we would have lost Granada and kept TVS

Which would've led to a drastically different ITV. No Granada means no Corrie (though, it could've been presented to the network by someone else - The Bill was a Yorkshire Television presentation for a while in 1993). It also means someone else would now be in charge, and the sequence of takeovers would have been different. The fate of Brookside and the channel Hollyoaks was on could've both been different too (as those two shows were made by Mersey TV, the company who bid against Granada).
:-(
A former member
The Bill was NEVER a YTV programmes, it was also a Thames programme but you needed a ITV station to get it on the network. hence the reason, Mr Bean was never a Central programme it just went via Central to to get on the network.

Granada would have been the shame it would have kept going making shows for ITV like corrie and World in Action and place them via god knows who.
JA
JAS84
I said YTV presentation, not production...
:-(
A former member
JAS84 posted:
I said YTV presentation, not production...


Sorry about that, It been a running battle over the years with some people . So I tip my hat to you good sir.
WH
Whataday Founding member
At what point was it decided that the franchises wouldn't be put out to tender again. It never really seemed to be on the cards once digital TV started up and the mergers and acquisitions soon signficantly reduced the number of companies holding the franchises.


Most of the reports during the 91 franchise round state it is "unlikely to happen again". I think the basis of this is that the act stated that once granted, the ITV companies would be subject to annual reviews which would monitor their performance. If they weren't adhering to the terms of their franchise they would be fined and ultimately lose their licence.

Although GMTV pushed their licence to the limit, I'd say the closest anyone came to losing their licence was Central in 1998 for the faking of a documentary. In the end they were fined £2million.

Newer posts