It would be possible 'I Hate...'. There would need to be a referendum on the subject however, so I think that this would be held back until after the smoke from the iraq war has fully settled.
I'm sorry, but you're living in cloud cookoo land here.
its all very odd, but i can understand the channel's motives - come up with a plan that is best for the channel, rather than wait for tessa to come up with another *brilliant* plan, which will undoubtedly be the best thing since sliced bread for the public, and a nice little earner for the treasury.
i understand the whole concept of creating a trust, and can see the logic of transferring channel 4 into such an organisation - but what would happen to channel 5? would it be part or fully owned by the trust - would channel 5's shareholders become part owners of this new "channel 4 & 5" company? or would the trust purchase channel 5?
Notwithstanding all the issues surrounding C4's public service obligations, and its privileged license, this does at first seem to be one of hose issue that is supportable in concept, but comes unstuck with the detail.
How would C4 transfer out of public ownership? Either you have a trust, which if based on the current valuations would overwhelm RTL and UBM's combined ownership of a merged C4/FIVE something like 60:40. This might not be acceptable to RTL's shareholders. You could just allow RTL/UBM to buy C4 in a trade sale, but that would open a messy debate about C4's remit and license position.
You could just remove C4's special obligations and conditions, charge it something like £M350 per annum for a commercial license and just dispose of it for about £Bn3. All the public service obligations would then be mopped up into the current Offcom Public Service Obligation Review, and possibly form part of a castrated BBC?
Channel 4 merger plan 'sad and bad'
Claire Cozens Friday February 27, 2004
One of the founding fathers of Channel 4 has described its proposed merger with Channel Five as "sad and bad", saying it provided further evidence that the channel had not remained true to the principles upon which it was set up.
Anthony Smith, the president of Magdalen College, Oxford and a prospective candidate for the BBC chairmanship, said he was "shocked" by the revelation that the famously innovative broadcaster was exploring a merger with Five.
"Channel 4 takes place within a public space; Channel Five is a purely commercial channel which has not earned itself any credit," said Mr Smith, a former television producer who in an article for the Guardian first came up with the idea of a 'publisher' TV station that formed the backbone of the new Channel 4.
"I don't see how a not-for-profit broadcaster can have the gall to suggest such an idea. I think it's sad and bad."
I'm sorry, but you're living in cloud cookoo land here.
If only we were ...]
That article doesn't refute what Chris (and in fact, in different words, I) said, namely that there won't be a referendum on this. Read the full quote:
I REALLY hate HTV West posted:
MarkNewby posted:
It would be possible 'I Hate...'. There would need to be a referendum on the subject however, so I think that this would be held back until after the smoke from the iraq war has fully settled.
I'm sorry, but you're living in cloud cookoo land here.
I can actually imagine Channel 4 turning into ITV2, with ITV2 becoming ITV3... Where would that leave poor little five? ITV1 is strong as it is, and as we have already heard, one of the only viable ways for C4 and five to survive is to merge.
Maybe it might be called 'Channel45' or 'The Entertaiment Channel'.
MO
morgaineofevil
yeah but i think they will allow the merger as it has to compete against poo itv1 . the problem here i that german favourites rtl own much of five tv and therefore would then probably scoop up 4. although rtl isnt great i is certainly the best i have seen of german tv the rest is tripe
