Sky takes GBP251.5m loss on ITV shares

Published on 8th February 2010 at 16:54 by Brian Butterworth on UK Free TV

BSkyB's boss James Murdoch seems to have lost £433m of his shareholders money. And £251.5 of that has to be taken soon. Still, he won't be for the chop, will he?

• 17 November 2006, Sky buys 696,000,000 ITV shares, 17.9% of ITV plc. 114.75p/share, £798.66m
• 26 February 2007 the Trade and Industry Secretary issues noticed to OFT to investigate under the Enterprise Act 2002 with a view to reducing holding to 7.5%
• 24 May 2007, after OFT and Ofcom reports the matter is referred to the Competition Commission.
• 20 December 2007, CC publishes report.
• 29 January 2008, Secretary of State approves reminded of CC that share holding be lowered to 7.5%
• 28 February 2008, Sky appears to Competition Appeal Tribunal.
• 29 September 2008, Tribunal finds against Sky
• 18 December 2008, Sky goes to Court of Appeal.
• 28/30 October 2008, Appeal Court hears from Sky.
• 21 January 2010, Appeal Court rejects Sky's appeal.
• 8 February 2010, Sky agrees to sell ITV shares. 52.50p/share, holding now worth £365.4m, paper loss of £433.26m

Your comments are always welcome. Please use the form below to add your thoughts or questions to this page. We will get back to you as soon as we can.

alan
Tuesday 9 February 2010 12:45PM

Ok so £433 million loss so what ?
That equates to probably less than just one month subscription revenues in the UK alone
And tax relief etc comes in play
They wont even feel it
(Rupert would be miffed though).

10 posts

Briantist
Tuesday 9 February 2010 1:25PM

alan: Sky's APRU is £469, with 10,000,000 customers, makes that £390m income each month.

37,135 posts

Jordy
Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:40PM

I'm not really sure if i have any sympathy for them at all... Whats that old parable, "What happens when you play with fire" You get your fingers burnt...

1,831 posts

Briantist
Thursday 11 February 2010 7:54AM

Jordy: I think in the long run James Murdoch has quite a good chance of being remembered for using these tactics. It was a blatant disregard for the law to squash a competitor by a monopolistic player.

It probably won't effect him today, but I am sure that it will be remembered what he did here.

37,135 posts