James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

[Hotdog60]

BILLIONAIRE James Packer has swooped on Network Ten in a spectacular $245 million share raid that positions him for next year's grab for the AFL broadcast rights.
The move marks a dramatic return for Mr Packer as one of the Australian media's heavyweights four years after he started selling his family's historic share in PBL Media, including the jewel in the crown, the Nine Network.

And analysts expect the move will trigger more manouevering in the industry by rivals ahead of key changes to sports broadcast laws, especially the anti-siphoning regime that restricts pay-TV's reach.

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy said the purchase of Ten shares was a matter for Mr Packer.

Mr Packer's Consolidated Media Holdings purchased the 15.6 per cent stake in the network through investment bank UBS.

A block of 163.3 million Ten shares was traded in a single transaction at $1.50 a piece, according to the Australian Securities Exchange.

Sources confirmed Mr Packer's company was behind the sale.

The move also comes amid renewed speculation Mr Packer is planning to privatise his gaming empire, Crown Limited, in which he has also recently increased his stake.

Mr Packer and Mr Stokes began tussling for Consolidated Media, which holds online and pay television assets in the middle of last year.

The move sparked speculation Mr Packer was moving into position ahead of the next round of AFL television rights that are up for grabs in 2011

MORE

What's peoples take on this?
Will it give us better free to air coverage or will it give Foxtel more games.

[The Underdog]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

What's peoples take on this?
Will it give us better free to air coverage or will it give Foxtel more games.

Consensus seems to be that Packer will tear down OneHD to kill off the competition to Fox Sports. Age reported today that he'll likely turn one of Ten's digital channels into an outlet for Sky News (or Murdoch Live or whatever the hell the devil calls himself*). So in essence people who like sport lose out, as do the NBL and any other Australian sports hoping to make it onto and stay on free to air TV any time in the future. Unbalanced "news" coverage gets a new outlet.
Me, I'll be back to watching highlights of NFL and MLB on the interweb.

(*quote from Future of the Left song "Lapsed Catholics", apologies to Falco)

[Topdog]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

yeah I'm very concerned by that report Underdog. I think he will find it very hard though to take it down without a big fight.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

yeah I'm very concerned by that report Underdog. I think he will find it very hard though to take it down without a big fight.

Apparently it's not making much money despite it's ratings being OK.

[GVGjr]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

Apparently it's not making much money despite it's ratings being OK.

They can work on that though. I hope Packer isn't making a play for something just to rip it apart. If its rating OK and they take it off just to benefit Foxtel then that really would be a shame.

[LostDoggy]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

How does the ACCC not have alarm bells ringing here?

[GVGjr]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

How does the ACCC not have alarm bells ringing here?

Despite his investment in pay TV his argument will be to change part of the 10 network that isn't meeting the business profit targets. He will argue that if he copies the FTA channels of 99 and Go he will get a better result.

We would all know that is rubbish but it might be a hard one for the ACCC to dispute.

[LostDoggy]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

We would all know that is rubbish but it might be a hard one for the ACCC to dispute.

There is a spirit of the law clause to anti-competitive legislation isn't there? That regardless of the explicit arguments for it, if it walks like a duck etc.

IIRC, that's what they used to stop the petrol station mergers a couple of months back.

[GVGjr]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

There is a spirit of the law clause to anti-competitive legislation isn't there? That regardless of the explicit arguments for it, if it walks like a duck etc.

IIRC, that's what they used to stop the petrol station mergers a couple of months back.

He has no other FTA interests though.

[boydogs]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

How does the ACCC not have alarm bells ringing here?

Is this the sort of thing they can stop? It's not a merger, acquisition or anti-competitive behaviour to protect the interests of the company performing it. I don't remember a business ever having been prevented from scaling back operations.

If that's why he got involved, you would expect he would have made sure he would get away with it before going ahead

[LostDoggy]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

Is this the sort of thing they can stop? It's not a merger, acquisition or anti-competitive behaviour to protect the interests of the company performing it. I don't remember a business ever having been prevented from scaling back operations.

If that's why he got involved, you would expect he would have made sure he would get away with it before going ahead

You're kidding with the bolded statement right? These guys throw their weight around first, THEN deal with the fallout, just as his dad did before him.

Make no mistake the ACCC are looking into this seriously (very seriously, but the Packers and Murdochs have history getting their way despite high court rulings) -- if the same person buying majority stakes with an intention of control in two direct competing interests isn't the very (and most direct) definition of a merger I don't know what is -- just because it's usually a bunch of people rather than one person simply means most mergers aren't this ludicrously anti-competitive.

As for a more moral reason for opposing this blatant pisstake, Kenneth Davidson has written a piece on how James's gambling companies (which is where he makes his money these days) are a direct conflict of interest to the quality of public television (which is an oxymoron, I know): http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soc...ml?autostart=1

If anyone needs a reason for hoping for the existence of an afterlife, it is to know that pure scum like the Packers get their comeuppance somewhere.

[boydogs]

Re: James Packer's bold swoop on Channel 10

You're kidding with the bolded statement right?

No, probably naive though

Make no mistake the ACCC are looking into this seriously (very seriously, but the Packers and Murdochs have history getting their way despite high court rulings) -- if the same person buying majority stakes with an intention of control in two direct competing interests isn't the very (and most direct) definition of a merger I don't know what is -- just because it's usually a bunch of people rather than one person simply means most mergers aren't this ludicrously anti-competitive.

It's not a majority stake, it's 19.9% which is just below 'the maximum without having to undertake formal takeover negotiations'. He will need some friends on board to get what he wants over the line, and if One HD isn't profitable it will be hard to argue the decision was not in Ten's interests.

In my limited experience with the ACCC, you don't need much more than that, but I would be happy to hear your insights.