Clear conflict of interest

[bluemoondays]

MUTV is 33% owned by Sky. Sky have broadcasting rights for the vast majority of PL games as well as providing MUTV access to the legion of rag fans across the globe.

Surely it's a major conflict of interest for a broadcaster who have a huge majority of the football TV watching public on their books to have shares in a joint venture with one of the clubs in the PL. They should have no interest, financially or otherwise, in any of the clubs they are sponsoring to the tune of billions in TV deals.

At the very least they could be accused of bias towards the club (yeah right), in the worst case they could actively try to influence the viewing public against footballing competitors for that club (now we're getting MUCH closer to what is happening).

I'm amazed they can get away with this pretty major shareholding in one of the subsidiaries of a club they are "supposed" to report on impartially for major sporting events.......................

 

[waspish]

Sky bought 33% of Mutv we should buy 33% of sky 

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

And Sky used to own ten per cent of City.

And Sky are now the joint media partner of Sheikh Mansour in Abu Dhabi.

Stop looking for things which aren't there.

 

[talkativesprout]

And Sky used to own ten per cent of City

So that answers the question of where were you when we was shit ;)

 

[mcnab-sees-red]

also sky do not have to be impartial. It is not the bbc.

instead of thinking sky sports news think news of sport on sky. It is just an channel to promote thier sport offering. Any event on espn is routinely ignored.

cancel your subscription.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

And Sky used to own ten per cent of City.

And of United, Sunderland & Leeds off the top of my head. But Sky's holding in City was clearly not a strategic investment. When I was part of the Supporters Trust and we approached them to buy that 10% their MD didn't even know they had it.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

And Sky used to own ten per cent of City.

And of United, Sunderland & Leeds off the top of my head. But Sky's holding in City was clearly not a strategic investment. When I was part of the Supporters Trust and we approached them to buy that 10% their MD didn't even know they had it.

Well the £8m they paid for it at the time certainly helped, along with Wardle, keeping our heads above water.

Sky don't have an agenda, they want and need a team like City to talk-up the product of the Premier League.

They simply provide a platform for pundits who may or may not have an agenda, some to old club allegiances.

Pity these guys, it is the only limelight left open to them. Merson is back living with his mum and dad and is glad for the crappy £100k a year he gets from the show.

He was once earning £40k a week at Portsmouth.

 

[Cambridgeblue]

Sky bought 33% of Mutv we should buy 33% of sky 

The problem with that would be that buying a 33% stake would trigger a mandatory cash offer for the whole company (current market capitalisation £11.79 billion) under Rule 9 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers. Even at a 10% premium to the share price you're potentially talking about a maximum cost of nearly £13 billion.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

And Sky used to own ten per cent of City.

And of United, Sunderland & Leeds off the top of my head. But Sky's holding in City was clearly not a strategic investment. When I was part of the Supporters Trust and we approached them to buy that 10% their MD didn't even know they had it.

Well the £8m they paid for it at the time certainly helped, along with Wardle, keeping our heads above water.

Sky don't have an agenda, they want and need a team like City to talk-up the product of the Premier League. They simply provide a platform for pundits who may or may not have an agenda, some to old club allegiances.

But Sky do have an agenda and that's to maximise revenue on their product. To do that they need to sell it to individuals and commercial outlets and to get the largest number of people they can to watch it so as to maximise advertising revenue. They're not in it for the love of football.

To do that, they have to appeal to the biggest market they can and we know that involves clubs like United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. If it really was a level playing field and the PL was dominated by Wigan, Swansea, Fulham & Bolton, less people would buy & watch it. Imagine a Ford Super Sunday involving Wigan v Fulham with 10,000 Wigan fans and 200 Fulham fans. Doing the ironing would be more entertaining than that.

It's like The Sun having a classical music column instead of Page 3. Their sales would plummet.

So ultimately Sky's agenda is to ensure their product is saleable and that means promoting the popular clubs and ensuring they're fighting it out for trophies at the end of the season.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

And of United, Sunderland & Leeds off the top of my head. But Sky's holding in City was clearly not a strategic investment. When I was part of the Supporters Trust and we approached them to buy that 10% their MD didn't even know they had it.

Well the £8m they paid for it at the time certainly helped, along with Wardle, keeping our heads above water.

Sky don't have an agenda, they want and need a team like City to talk-up the product of the Premier League. They simply provide a platform for pundits who may or may not have an agenda, some to old club allegiances.

But Sky do have an agenda and that's to maximise revenue on their product. To do that they need to sell it to individuals and commercial outlets and to get the largest number of people they can to watch it so as to maximise advertising revenue. They're not in it for the love of football.

To do that, they have to appeal to the biggest market they can and we know that involves clubs like United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. If it really was a level playing field and the PL was dominated by Wigan, Swansea, Fulham & Bolton, less people would buy & watch it. Imagine a Ford Super Sunday involving Wigan v Fulham with 10,000 Wigan fans and 200 Fulham fans. Doing the ironing would be more entertaining than that.

It's like The Sun having a classical music column instead of Page 3. Their sales would plummet.

So ultimately Sky's agenda is to ensure their product is saleable and that means promoting the popular clubs and ensuring they're fighting it out for trophies at the end of the season.

Which now includes City, as a by-product of the publicity, both good and bad.