Sale of Channel 5

Rick_

Looks as if Discovery/Sky are going to make a joint bid for Channel 5. If they do end up getting it, I wonder what they will end up doing with the channel. I would imagine Sky would handle the news and some programming, and the rest would be up to Discovery. What will become of 5 USA and 5*, and if Sky's part of the deal is more than we think, what will happen to Pick and Challenge? Channel merges, new channels...? Interesting times ahead. Final date for bids is on Thursday.

mike65

Hard to know what might happen to be honest, the channels prime time hours are so reliant on US imports - esp the CSI franchises. When they lapse whoever takes over will have some big gaps to fill.

watty

Again?

byte

I didn't know it was for sale?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Rick_

Yes, it is for sale again. Desmond wants out it seems, and he also wants up to £700m for it, even though he only paid £104m a few years ago.

Bidding closes tomorrow and Discovery/Sky are seemingly going to make a joint bid. Discovery for the main duties of the channel with Sky only involved in the advertising part (with their Sky Media brand) and news programmes/bulletins.

Will be interesting to see if they do get it and what they end up doing with it.

mike65

ITV have said they are not interested.

Paddy C

Paddy C wrote: »

Yes, it is for sale again. Desmond wants out it seems, and he also wants up to £700m for it, even though he only paid £104m a few years ago.

Bidding closes tomorrow and Discovery/Sky are seemingly going to make a joint bid. Discovery for the main duties of the channel with Sky only involved in the advertising part (with their Sky Media brand) and news programmes/bulletins.

Will be interesting to see if they do get it and what they end up doing with it.

We may finally see it on the Irish Sky epg if Discovery/Sky take over!

watty

Eu & UK competition Authority though should examine Sky bid.

Sky as a Pay TV platform provider I think should be forbidden to own channels. They should be forced to divest of Sky Sport & Sky1 to start with.

Probably nothing has been done as ALL Sky Sport Channels together are under 2% viewing time as is Sky1 and these are the most successful pay TV channels. But as anyone that wants to watch certain sports knows the % viewing time hides some nasty problems.

lertsnim

zorro2566 wrote: »

We may finally see it on the Irish Sky epg if Discovery/Sky take over!

I wouldn't be putting any money on that to happen for a long time if ever.

Elmo

Discovery:- I don't really see their reasoning. Do Discovery own channels outside their genre? Perhaps to diversify, maybe UKTV's Yesterday, Blight and Eden are too much competition in that market.

Sky:- I noticed that pick have are slowly changing. They are repeating better programmes over the last number of weeks and are largely sponsored by Sky's other products NOW TV and Sky Promos. Challenge needs to change slightly. If they do buy the could close both channels or be forced to sell both channels, though the regulators would really need Sky to divest more of their interest other than PICK and Challenge. Sky could aggressively go after the FTA market by real investing in both channels and using their +1s. Invest 700million into those channels, better use of money IMO.

BT:- Rumours that Desmond saw them as a buy were circling after they bought UEFA, and as they are planning to show some of the matches FTA Channel 5 might fit with that strategy.

I think it is way over priced.

stereomatic

Will this affect their freesat position (remaining on freesat and channel number) and programme content

lertsnim

Elmo wrote: »

Discovery:- I don't really see their reasoning. Do Discovery own channels outside their genre?

They recently took a controlling stake in Eurosport.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/discovery-buys-controlling-eurosport-stake-202822105.html

Capt'n Midnight

stereomatic wrote: »

Will this affect their freesat position (remaining on freesat and channel number) and programme content

Maybe that's why they bought them, lots more ads for SKY

5 do a fair few documentaries so some Discovery overlap, it'll have a lot of WWI stuff come November no doubt

lertsnim

Done deal according to this link,
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/discovery-bskyb-purchase-channel-5-350m-1444931

Richard Desmond has reportedly sold TV station Channel 5 to Discovery Communications and BSkyB in a £350m deal.

Broadcast magazine reports the deal was agreed in principle last week but was signed and sealed on Monday 14 April 2014.

Full details have yet to be revealed but Discovery is thought to have a 70% share in the channel with broadcasting group BSkyB taking the remaining 30%.

So what will this mean for Channel 5? A new direction to attract more advertisers? Could it appear on Irish Sky and cable EPG's?

JDxtra

Interesting move by Discovery. Have they done this in any other markets? I thought they only had channels branded as Discovery, Animal Planet, TLC, DMAX etc. Not a generic entertainment channel.

icdg

Well DMAX is an entertainment channel in some markets, though the UK version is mainly factual. I guess this has to be seen in the context of Discovery's move beyond their factual roots. Some of their channels, particularly TLC, are now more reality TV. They've also just bought a interest in Eurosport and there's talk they'll try to get in on the next Premier League auction though that'd be a big change in strategy for Eurosport as the cost involved in acquiring those rights would almost certainly mean a move from basic to premium tier.

But as for Channel 5, expect no immediate change in the ROI situation though having two owners used to operating in both UK & ROI may mean they will at least investigate a change with their rights holders.

Elmo

It is strange why didn't BSkyB and Discovery merge their Free-To-Air channels and re-market them?

Pick, Quest and Challenge (and their +1s). Re-brand them as Channel Something, E Something and More Something.

kn

I suppose Discovery will bring some of their excellent documentaries on Channel 5?

mike65

Do Discovery do excellent?

lertsnim

Not for more than a decade anyway. It's all "reality" nonsense these days.

icdg

If ever there was a deal, it may have fallen through:

m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/312888

mike65

Viacom are the new owners subject to the usual t&c's

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

Viacom are the new owners subject to the usual t&c's

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/30/richard-desmond-sale-channel-5-viacom

Rick_

Yes, all done and dusted. Viacom now own Channel 5. What will they do with the spin-offs, on air look, content, etc.... Will be interesting to see what will become of it all...

channelsurfer2

could have implications for 5* and 5USA if they decide to have a mix of FTA and pay tv channels with some of the stuff moving off FTA.

icdg

Nothing at first, I'd wager. In the longer term they may look for synergies with the MTV Networks channels.

byte

I think I'd have rather Sky and Discovery had bought it.

Mind you, apart from sporadic viewing of The Gadget Show or Fifth Gear (haven't seen that in ages though), I guess I'm not really a target audience.

watty

Is anyone a target Audience? Or are they just missing the Target?

EdmondShiels3

Will Channel 5 become available in Ireland now it is owned by viacom?

lertsnim

I'd imagine their current tv rights would make that difficult .

Capt'n Midnight

EdmondShiels3 wrote: »

Will Channel 5 become available in Ireland now it is owned by viacom?

*Hugs satellite box*

watty

EdmondShiels3 wrote: »

Will Channel 5 become available in Ireland now it is owned by viacom?

Been available same way as BBC, ITV and C4, for a few years now.

Buy a Freesat HD box (once off cost under €100). Connect to existing Sky dish or get a better dish installed.

Why would you want to have to pay for it (Sky, UPC etc)?

radiowaves

watty wrote: »

Been available same way as BBC, ITV and C4, for a few years now.

Buy a Freesat HD box (once off cost under €100). Connect to existing Sky dish or get a better dish installed.

Why would you want to have to pay for it (Sky, UPC etc)?

The HD version of Channel 5 is a pay channel (people here would have to pay for that).

watty

But you'd want a Freesat HD box
A) for the other FTA HD channels
C) non-HD boxes are obsolete
D) Does anyone need Channel 5 in HD?
E) Some Freesat HD boxes support non-Freesat Diseqc (i.e. for Saorsat which is DVB-S2 only)
F) More non-Freesat channels in the future will be DVB-S2 even if not HD.
H) HDMI may be handier.

Sorry I didn't make clear why a Freesat HD box. Of course a non-HD box is very cheap, but none do DVB-S2.

EdmondShiels3

I would like it on the sky epg so I would be able to record programs on it.

radiowaves

watty wrote: »

But you'd want a Freesat HD box
A) for the other FTA HD channels
C) non-HD boxes are obsolete
D) Does anyone need Channel 5 in HD?
E) Some Freesat HD boxes support non-Freesat Diseqc (i.e. for Saorsat which is DVB-S2 only)
F) More non-Freesat channels in the future will be DVB-S2 even if not HD.
H) HDMI may be handier.

Sorry I didn't make clear why a Freesat HD box. Of course a non-HD box is very cheap, but none do DVB-S2.

Your post (and the thread as it happens) was specific to Channel 5.

But if you're branching it out it is/was a strange response to somebody who has Sky. You see the pay channels (sports, movies, others) are not possible on a Freesat box. Yet the version of Channel 5 you're alluding to is possible on a Sky box. So why would anyone be giving up their Skybox to buy the rather expensive box you recommend just to have it recordable via the EPG?

A strange response.

Your point D is patronising in the extreme too.

watty

92% viewing time of pay TV subscribers is FTA TV.
The highest share any PayTV channel has is under 2%!

People are being "ripped off" by Pay TV. Average annual spend on Pay TV is more than x3 price of a Freesat HD box. Expensive? I don't think so.

radiowaves

watty wrote: »

92% viewing time of pay TV subscribers is FTA TV.
The highest share any PayTV channel has is under 2%!

People are being "ripped off" by Pay TV. Average annual spend on Pay TV is more than x3 price of a Freesat HD box. Expensive? I don't think so.

Again, patronising in the extreme to think that you know better than the people who subscribe and that you know what's best for them.

The fact is that people are subscribing to either Sky or UPC because they want the pay tv channels and, as you say, they actually view them 8% of the time (you do actually realise that's an average don't you?).

And because they want pay tv it is also fantastic for them that the FTA channels that they view are also available to them via their subscription tv service giving them a one box solution.

Your "solution" means more feeds and two boxes (where one would suffice).

And, as has been pointed out to you anyway, your "solution" is irrelevant in a thread about Channel 5 and as a solution to people who would like it available on the Irish EPG of either a Sky or a UPC box.

icdg

Play the ball not the man please

ftakeith

leave watty alone

I totally agree with Watty

most irish people have pay tv all around their house such as 3 rooms have pay tv

I have sky tv in one room with saorview, but the other 2 rooms have freesat/saorview and all connected to the one dish and the one aerial

channel5's channels is terrible
I have only recorded films, 'under the dome' tv series on freesat+
no great loss for sky ireland

BAI's crazy idea of having pay tv for saorview was a waste of time due to the reliance on sky/upc

radiowaves

ftakeith wrote: »

I totally agree with Watty

Which is your right - however as you say yourself....

ftakeith wrote: »

most irish people

....don't agree with him.

ftakeith wrote: »

leave watty alone

That made me smile

I'll repeat, I think

ftakeith wrote: »

most irish people

have a better idea of what they themselves want from their TV sets than either yourself or Watty (with all due respect).

Elmo

I think most Irish people don't even know what Channel 5 is, I never really understood why Channel 6 took that name over Channel 5, it would have been different if it was Channel 4.

radiowaves

Elmo wrote: »

I think most Irish people don't even know what Channel 5 is, I never really understood why Channel 6 took that name over Channel 5, it would have been different if it was Channel 4.

They took the name Channel 6 because it was the 6th Irish channel (Setanta Sports was the 5th)

It was actually nothing to do with UK TV.

Elmo

radiowaves wrote: »

They took the name Channel 6 because it was the 6th Irish channel (Setanta Sports was the 5th)

It was actually nothing to do with UK TV.

Channel 5 came after many Sat UK channels, Sky One, Sky News, Sky Sports, Sky Two .... and don't forget TV5.

And it was Ireland's 7th channel if you include City Channel, 8th if you include Bubble Hits.

radiowaves

Elmo wrote: »

Channel 5 came after many Sat UK channels, Sky One, Sky News, Sky Sports, Sky Two .... and don't forget TV5.

And it was Ireland's 7th channel if you include City Channel, 8th if you include Bubble Hits.

I can only advise you why the channel chose the name but, as it happens, what goes down in the UK has no bearing on channel identification here. I'm also guessing that the digital only nature of the channel ruled out what happened in the UK re Channel 5.

Channel 6 was Ireland's 6th national channel.

City Channel was Dublin only.

Bubble Hits Ireland came after Channel 6.

Edit: and just to add: the idea that the people running the station couldn't come up with a name that didn't involve a number and instead decided on Channel 6 just because there was a Channel 5 in a different jurisdiction is a bit of a strange one tbh.

byte

In fairness, if Channel 6 had called itself Channel 5, there would have been confusion alright. Heck, before Sky Digital, many in Ireland got Channel 5 thru their old satellite receivers with a Videocrpyt decoder (that's all you needed).

Also, with TV listings etc. there may have been more confusion with two C5's being listed in some publications.

radiowaves

byte wrote: »

In fairness, if Channel 6 had called itself Channel 5, there would have been confusion alright. Heck, before Sky Digital, many in Ireland got Channel 5 thru their old satellite receivers with a Videocrpyt decoder (that's all you needed).

Also, with TV listings etc. there may have been more confusion with two C5's being listed in some publications.

Whilst that is a fair point it has absolutely no bearing on why they called themselves Channel 6

They called themselves Channel 6 because they were the sixth national Irish channel. No criteria made them the fifth. Any criteria that might do instead makes Setanta the fifth.

The Channel 5 UK example given earlier was different - that was the 5th terrestrial channel in the UK. Other channels mentioned that arrived before them were digital only.

As I said, why use a number in the name at all if a channel in the UK was a consideration. Any other name would've done.

I really don't know where this idea came from that the UK Channel 5 was a consideration. Does anyone really believe that the execs at the channel were so moronic that they could only think in numbers and as Channel 5 was used already it then had to be Channel 6? That they couldn't come up with any other name that didn't involve using a number?

icdg

Their biggest reason may have been the 106 slot they were allocated on UPC, which was the only platform they were on when they launched. I suspect they would not have called themselves Channel 5 anyway due to the UK station - it would have caused some confusion at any rate as Irish newspapers do list the UK station in their TV listings despite its lack of availablity south of the Border. TV5 would also have been out. None of us here are (as far as we know) the original backers of Channel 6 so we can but speculate.

For their first few years they were a pay-TV channel - they only became available free to air when they joined Saorview.

gordongekko

They may also have had long term plans to launch in the UK so channel 6 seemed a logical choice.

radiowaves

icdg wrote: »

I suspect they would not have called themselves Channel 5 anyway due to the UK station - it would have caused some confusion at any rate as Irish newspapers do list the UK station in their TV listings despite its lack of availablity south of the Border. TV5 would also have been out. None of us here are (as far as we know) the original backers of Channel 6 so we can but speculate.

For their first few years they were a pay-TV channel - they only became available free to air when they joined Saorview.

Again, I will ask the question, do you all seriously believe that they HAD to have a number in their name? Really??

So when they themselves realised that if they used the number 5 they might be confused with Channel 5 in the UK that the only alternative they could come up with was the next number down the line? Come on guys!!

So why not use a different word then? How about dropping the word channel and using a totally different word altogether in conjunction with the number 5? The channel's bigwigs couldn't consider this? They were that dumb?

icdg wrote: »

Their biggest reason may have been the 106 slot they were allocated on UPC, which was the only platform they were on when they launched.

There's a reason why they went onto 106 on cable; the name didn't come after placement (their working name was Six at the licence application stage).

Setanta Sports is Ireland's fifth channel - I'm not sure what part of that people aren't getting . At their launch they made quite a big noise calling themselves Ireland's fifth channel. Any reasons that could be argued against them not being considered Ireland's fifth channel apply equally to Channel 6