what is micheal Grade up to?

It's just that Central bid low because no-one else bid, not because they wanted out.

This seems actually rather sensible and, dare I say it, feasible. Assuming Ofcom decide to get up off the lazy do-naff-all ar$es and do something.

The Office of Fair Trading has said it is provisionally recommending the relaxation of the contract rights renewal obligations applying to ITV.

The statement came in a provisional view from the OFT issued today that is subject to a further consultation period closing on February 27.
If the OFT does not change its mind after the consultation it intends to recommend that the Competition Commission relaxes the CRR regime, which was introduced after the merger of Carlton and Granada in 2003 to prevent ITV wielding unfair market power.

The OFT said that the "detrimental effects of the merger on the advertising market appear to have reduced but may not have eroded completely".

John Fingleton, the OFT chief executive, said: "Since the remedy was introduced in 2003, ITV's position has changed and so has the wider market. This means it is now the right time to ask whether the remedy remains proportionate, or could be eased or removed.

"Our provisional view is that we should recommend to the Competition Commission relaxation of the CRR Undertakings, while retaining safeguards for advertisers and media buyers."

I didn't say Central bid because they 'wanted out'; AIUI they had the impression that nobody else was preparing a bid, so offered a paltry £2,000 a year for what was a lucrative licence!

Why would there want STV? which has what about 3 - 4 million viewers over two operations areas. I dare say Tyne tess and even anglia has more than that in its separate own area

I don't know, but Grade appears to be interested, what with his claims of a fully national ITV1 brand.

Well that could be a national English brand, if the lawyer get started on this then it make take years to solve and if the Scottish parliament get independents then ITV will NEVER get it

ITV is already a 'national' brand and is protected under the terms of the 1991 Franchise round by legislation. ITV is also bound by the terms of the joint scheduling agreements, its just that STV and UTV choose not to use it. PLus if ITV plc chose to buy the two, no lawyer would be needed at all.

As for Scotland and its 'independence', I suggest that holding your breath isn't advisable.

over the past few days he has been popping up on tv show talking about the good old days of tv and how grand and grate some of the classic show are.

yet we are 2 1/2 years in to a major over 5 year overhaul of ITV AND nothing seem to be getting better. and there does not seem to be any major new show appearing and itv has improved but that's because there used there best show the to the best times.

what i don;t understand is he goes on these show, talks about shows and yet he seem to be turn into something he should never be, or the opposite to how he started out : : account. :: it seem he knows he turned into them and know the best days a gone

He seems to be indicating to the audience (and 'the industry') that a better balance of programmes, with more uplifting entertainment, is what is required, but that, at present, there's a dearth of talent (and money) available.

The focus of his job, though (and remember that he answers to shareholders) is to provide the best structure for a competitive ITV, which isn't exactly easy, given the downturn in advertising revenue that's been caused by hugely increased competition, particularly from the internet- broadcasters were slow to recognise the potential and impact of the internet. It would help, though, if legislation didn't favour Sky and allowed ITV to charge what it can get for advertising space, rather than having it limited, stopped satellite broadcasters from having longer commercial breaks than terrestrial broadcasters are allowed and withdrew from ITV the requirement that at least 25% of its programmes have to be bought from independent production companies in the UK.