Re: Disney $60bn 21CF takeover The simplest thing to do would be for Disney to buy state at the same price that Fox was offering for Sky, then the rest of the deal goes through the normal process.They can then adjust the transaction prices for other bits of the package they have agreed to buy.
Re: Disney $60bn 21CF takeover If Disney acquire the 39% of Sky, they are legally bound to offer for the remaining 61%. Nothing to do with Fox bidding for the shares but any acquisition above 30% triggers a mandatory offer for the remaining shares. What it doesn't, necessarily, have to do is offer cash, it could offer shares in Disney which is the likely deal by Disney for Fox.
Disney $60bn 21CF takeover Looks like the formal announcement will be tomorrow.Meantime,"Also in question is what will happen to 21st Century Fox's bid to buy the 61% of Sky that it does not already own.It is not clear whether Disney will continue with the takeover if it buys the 39% stake from 21st Century Fox as part of the wider transaction."---------- ---------- Disney set to seal $60bn 21st Century Fox takeoverWalt Disney is close to confirming a deal to buy 21st Century Fox's entertainment assets for about $60bn, reports say.The sale would include the 20th Century Fox film studio and the Sky and Star satellite broadcasters in the UK, Europe and Asia.Disney was left as the front runner after Comcast, the NBC owner, dropped out of the race on Monday.CNBC reported that Fox and Disney were on a "glide path" for an announcement on Thursday, according to people familiar with the negotiations. ---------- ----------
CNBC reports that Disney wants to own all of Sky We are running downhill on the takeover IMHOAm already long but no chance am selling ou
Re: Disney Query This is correct, Mr Hopeful.Where it could get complicated is what the valuation is for the 39% stake being bought (if it is) by Disney.I assume that they would make it the equivalent of £10.75 to avoid any complication.Having Disney as the buyer would speed things up as it would take away any concerns about SkyNews - I doubt that Disney would feel as married to SN as Murdoch is and, lets face it, that is where the most concern is about.The share price rise today is all about the deal going through more easily.
Re: Disney Query The takeover code stipulates: When a person or group acquires interests in shares carrying 30% or more of the voting rights of a company, they must make a cash offer to all other shareholders at the highest price paid in the 12 months before the offer was announced (30% of the voting rights of a company is treated by the Code as the level at which effective control is obtained).
Re: Disney Query There was an interesting footnote added the the FT's article on this:"This story has been amended to clarify that a Fox-Disney combination would not automatically end Foxs pursuit of the shares it does not already own in Sky."This seems to imply that as Disney will be taking over the parent company, the bid may still continue but similarly, Fox-Disney could say no and just keep the 39%. It would also affect the current investigations but, as with everything else with this bid, probably just make them take even longer.
Disney Query So, if the takeover by Disney goes ahead and includes the 39% of Sky that the Murdoch's own and this then automatically tirggers a mandatory bid for the rest of the shares. Does anybody know if that means a new offer would have to be made or would the existing £10.75 offer still prevail?
21CF talks with Disney back on Nice rise this morning courtesy of Disney talks;---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --21st Century Fox 'restarts talks' for possible sale to Walt DisneyThe Rupert Murdoch-controlled 21st Century Fox has restarted talks to sell most of the company, including UK broadcaster Sky, to Walt Disney, it was reported on Sunday.The negotiations centre on Foxs film studio, cable channels such as FX, and international businesses including Indias Star network and Sky, the Financial Times reported, citing multiple people with knowledge of the talks. [link]
Darroch on online content. [link]
Re: price drop Yes, as it is listed they have to specify the consideration paid for the shares and then make an offer to all other shareholders on no worse terms.
Re: price drop >> If another party acquires the 39% held by Fox, it is then obliged to make an offer on >> identical or better terms as the price it paid for that holding.Yes, but if the takeover company buys a raft of companies and businesses from the original owner, how is the price for the one part (eg Sky) determined? Do they have to specify in the takeover how much they pay for each part. Even then a "bulk discount" might apply. Basically, until it happens we have no idea what any potential suitor will offer us for our shares. However, I assume we would get a vote on the final offer so if it were low we could try to hold out for more.I would be very disappointed with anything less that the 1075 that NI offered. I think the current SP may have been artificially held back due to the offer.
Re: price drop You're wrong, sir. You're citing company law. But UK takeovers are additionally governed by the Takeover Code. Once an offer is made it can only be withdrawn if one of its conditions is not fulfilled. Offerors cannot simply make an offer and then decide to walk away, so the offer remains open for acceptances and once the acceptance condition is fulfilled (or waived by the offeror) the offer becomes unconditional.If another party acquires the 39% held by Fox, it is then obliged to make an offer on identical or better terms as the price it paid for that holding. Again, that is a Takeover Code requirement (Rule 9) and not a matter of company law.
Re: Wake up You said that Sky 'compliment' the PL coverage with their own commentary and production implying Sky do no more than an add on. In fact the overseas television companies takes the live coverage of the live Sky or BT games and there isn't a 'PL' production. The PL production is only offered on games not shown live in the UK - not often the 'big games' of interest worldwide. The bigger overseas companies may, if there is space at the football grounds in question, occasionally add their own camera(s) for presentation purposes.Netflix cost. Where 'specifically' did you say that 'Netflix could charge up to £60 a month for sports'? However, let's assume that you might be right. But then please be accurate about the deal for Sky customers rather than just throwing a figure of £100 for the TV channels. The Sky TV packages range from £22 pcm to £81.50 pcm (in fact there is a deal currently available for £74.50 pcm for all 350 channels plus box sets and Sky Q.) Note, that this INCLUDES all 10 Sky Sports channels,costed at just £20 pcm.At no stage did I say that you had stated Sky was only a football production department. I said it wasn't as an example as to why they need the personnel and facilities beyond that of just the football department. The fact that there are fewer staff in Italy and Germany is because the head office for the company that includes Sky UK, Sky Germany and Sky Italia is based in the UK!!!So let's look at the real issues: Any discussion of Netflix having 5 times the subscriber base of Sky and growing is largely irrelevant. What is their base in the UK compared to Sky? Simply put, it is impossible for it to be 5 times the size as Sky UK. Sky UK has close on 13 million and to have 5 x would exceed the total population of the UK!!! I said in my previous response that I agree that these companies, Netflix, Google & Amazon do provide a challenge to the likes of Sky and BT but ironically, the one area that I don't think is at risk is that of PL football. Now if you said something like F1, then you might have a point - production undertaken by FOM, circuits in 20 different countries with a product that isn't offered by anybody else as football is could just work (mind you, even then, the US isn't as keen on F1 as it is NASCAR) But, do you really think that in Spain the PL is more popular than La Liga? Do you really think that PL is of more interest to the US than MLB, NFL or NBA? That PL is of greater interest than cricket to India or Pakistan? No. So the numbers do not stack up for the global giants. So, unless the infrastructure is put in place to offer UHD coverage for the majority of the UK with no loss of signal guaranteed and that these global giants can guarantee to the PL that they can restrict their broadcasts to the UK only so that the PL can still sell overseas rights on a territory by territory basis and also receive a huge increase on the money they currently receive from Sky & BT for the UK rights alone, then they (Netflix etc) are way off acquiring these rights.
Re: Wake up Hopeful please don't make out I said things I clearly did not. I never said:- Sky don't their own production of the PL. They definitely do have access to the PL's feeds as well and can use these during their broadcasts and as backups if they wish. I do not dispute that both Sky and BT do their own production of the PL games and to suggest I said anything different is wrong.- Netflix can sell PL for £15 a month. Clearly they can't long term, I have never said they could. In fact i specifically said that Netflix could charge up to £60 a month for sports and it would still be cheaper for the end consumer than on Sky. I made no comment about what they would charge. My point is that without the PL, the pricing strategy of Sky looks dead and buried.- Sky is only a football production department. Of course its not and I have never said that it was. My point still stands though, their costs are bloated. Yes google and amazon have great head offices, but compare their revenues and market capitals with Sky's! Even Sky's operations in Germany and Italy run with a fraction of the staff the UK operation does. I stand by my point, the UK business is terribly bloated involved in many activities with questionable financial merits (mobile, bigger picture etc).