OUTFOXED - Murdoch no longer on course to finally purchase Sky

BBC News wrote:US media giant 21st Century Fox has made a takeover approach for Sky that values the UK-based satellite broadcaster at £18.5bn.

The proposed offer is worth £10.75 a share in cash, a premium of 36% to the closing price on 8 December.

Sky shares jumped 32% in late trading in London following the announcement.

Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch controls 21st Century Fox, which already owns a 39.1% stake in Sky.

Sky said that the independent directors of both companies had "reached agreement on an offer price" of £10.75 a share, but added that "certain material offer terms remain under discussion".

According to Reuters' calculations, Fox will pay £11.25bn for the stake in Sky that it does not already own.

Fox chief executive James Murdoch was named chairman of Sky this year, fuelling speculation that the US media company would make a bid.

It is the second time that Rupert Murdoch has attempted to take full control of Sky.

In June 2010 his company, News Corporation - from which 21st Century Fox was subsequently split off - made a 700p-a-share offer that valued Sky at about £12bn. It was rejected by Sky's directors.

The bid was ultimately abandoned in mid-2011 in the wake of widespread opposition and the fallout from the phone hacking scandal that prompted the closure of the News of the World newspaper.

KK wrote:

Well, it had a good run...

It just couldn't get away with being as blatantly biased, but Murdoch has wanted to Foxify Sky News for yonks.

Saint of Killers wrote:You means laws stop them from biased reporting? Yes.

I wish it was same in US. There newspapers cannot be biased, TV can. Here it's t'other way round.
What purpose does biased reporting serve?

Rocsleddy wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:You means laws stop them from biased reporting? Yes.

I wish it was same in US. There newspapers cannot be biased, TV can. Here it's t'other way round.
What purpose does biased reporting serve?

Wut?

Saint of Killers wrote:

Rocsleddy wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:You means laws stop them from biased reporting? Yes.

I wish it was same in US. There newspapers cannot be biased, TV can. Here it's t'other way round.
What purpose does biased reporting serve?

Wut?

I thought in the US the TV news was allowed to push one side of the story (not lie, but choose to more heavily cover GoP over Dems, etc), whereas newspapers had to remain neutral and just report the facts. Something along those lines?

Rocsleddy wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:

Rocsleddy wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:You means laws stop them from biased reporting? Yes.

I wish it was same in US. There newspapers cannot be biased, TV can. Here it's t'other way round.
What purpose does biased reporting serve?

Wut?

I thought in the US the TV news was allowed to push one side of the story (not lie, but choose to more heavily cover GoP over Dems, etc), whereas newspapers had to remain neutral and just report the facts. Something along those lines?

I'm not sure, I don't think that's true. Even just looking at the last election, virtually all of the print media openly declared for Clinton.

Alvin Flummux wrote:As long as a network can claim its news coverage to be entertainment or one person's opinion, as Fox has, they can say whatever they like.

KK wrote:The papers are the same as here. For example the New York Post would be the equivalent of The Sun - sensationalist and showing a strong Conservative bias.

captain red dog wrote:The impression I get from the US is that the majority of media/press leans more to the left? Now granted the left in the US is still right wing here but that's how it comes across.

Lucien wrote:Everyone I know with Sky is close to getting rid of it.

Qikzmas wrote:Wait what? I thought Fox already owned Sky. Weird.

BBC News wrote:Sky and 21st Century Fox agree £18.5bn takeover deal

Broadcaster Sky and 21st Century Fox have reached agreement on the terms of a takeover deal.

Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox will pay £11.7bn for the 61% stake it does not already own.

Sky shareholders will receive £10.75 in cash for each share, valuing the entire company at £18.5bn.

The deal comes amid concerns that Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Sun and the Times newspapers, will have excessive influence over UK media.

Karen Bradley, the Culture Secretary, will have 10 days to decide whether the Fox bid raises public interest concerns - in this case media plurality. She has the power to ask Ofcom, the media watchdog, to examine the deal.

More information

Tom Watson, shadow culture secretary, urged Ms Bradley to refer the deal to Ofcom: "When she stood on the steps of Downing Street this summer, the prime minister said to the people of this country that 'when we take the big calls, we'll think not of the powerful, but you'.

"This is a big call. The government needs to decide whose side it's on."

A number of Sky shareholders, including Standard Life Investments and Jupiter Asset Management, have questioned the independence of the non executive directors and their ability to extract a higher price since a possible bid was announced last Friday.

Richard Marwood, senior fund manager at Royal London Asset Management, owner of a 0.36% stake in Sky, said on Thursday: "We would urge the independent committee of Sky directors, who recommended that shareholders accept the offer, to share more information on the independent financial advice that they based their agreement on.

"Such disclosure would help shareholders assess the fairness of the offer and give greater confidence in the independence of the committee in the bid process."

James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's son, is both chairman of Sky and chief executive of Fox.

Daily Mail reader... wrote:Clever move this, get Sun newspaper to promote leave, Brexit happens and pound sinks, transfer cash at good exchange rate and buy Sky.