SP
Not strictly the case. Although ITV had a controlling interest, it was a separate company with its own internal structure which had to answer to both sets of shareholders, ITV and Disney. ITV as a shareholder would have limits to what it could do to the company it had shares in, and had to be on a reasonably level playing field with Disney. Sure it could force shareholder decisions through if it needed to (I guess - I don't know the constitutional structure) What it couldn't do was merge departments, as Disney still owned a portion of the company, and so merging divisions would have been problematic.
Now GMTV is wholly owned by ITV, ITV have access all areas and can effectively merge GMTV with ITV if it wants to.
Are you sure about all that? The company I work for was recently the subject of a hostile takeover bid. The company which now has a controlling stake with around 60% of the shares has been able to make widespread changes, including selling off parts of the business, closing some departments and merging others with its existing business, along with bringing our branding and logos in line with theirs.
From what I understand, the only things they've not been able to do have been because of existing contracts with external companies and providers which are still binding. However, that would still be the case even if they owned us outright.
I was always led to believe that whoever owns the majority of a company calls the shots and can overrule the wishes of any minority shareholders whose role is little more than that of investors.
[Oh, and sorry for the delay in replying - hadn't seen your post til today!]
I'm a bit puzzled as to why ITV buying Disney's 25% should make any difference. With 75% of the company, ITV already had a controlling stake, and so would already have been in a position to do exactly what they wanted, whether it be renaming, rebranding or tattooing the presenters' foreheads with ITV1 logos.
If they were wanting widespread changes to GMTV, I see no reason why they wouldn't have made them already.
If they were wanting widespread changes to GMTV, I see no reason why they wouldn't have made them already.
Not strictly the case. Although ITV had a controlling interest, it was a separate company with its own internal structure which had to answer to both sets of shareholders, ITV and Disney. ITV as a shareholder would have limits to what it could do to the company it had shares in, and had to be on a reasonably level playing field with Disney. Sure it could force shareholder decisions through if it needed to (I guess - I don't know the constitutional structure) What it couldn't do was merge departments, as Disney still owned a portion of the company, and so merging divisions would have been problematic.
Now GMTV is wholly owned by ITV, ITV have access all areas and can effectively merge GMTV with ITV if it wants to.
Are you sure about all that? The company I work for was recently the subject of a hostile takeover bid. The company which now has a controlling stake with around 60% of the shares has been able to make widespread changes, including selling off parts of the business, closing some departments and merging others with its existing business, along with bringing our branding and logos in line with theirs.
From what I understand, the only things they've not been able to do have been because of existing contracts with external companies and providers which are still binding. However, that would still be the case even if they owned us outright.
I was always led to believe that whoever owns the majority of a company calls the shots and can overrule the wishes of any minority shareholders whose role is little more than that of investors.
[Oh, and sorry for the delay in replying - hadn't seen your post til today!]