# Murdoch poised to grab DirecTV with $7bn offer



## platinum (Oct 28, 2002)

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml;$sessionid$IUI34TAPXZDDDQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/money/2003/04/06/cnmurd06.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/06/ixportal.html


----------



## AJ2086 (Jun 1, 2002)

I hope he does.


----------



## platinum (Oct 28, 2002)

Me too.


----------



## Karl Foster (Mar 23, 2002)

I would just like to see the whole issue resolved one way or another. Will they be bought out or not? It's getting old. I imagine it is getting really old for stakeholders in the company - investors hate uncertainty...


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Yesssssssssssssss Bring it on Rupe......This is great news.......lets just hope the FCC acts fast on this one.......


----------



## Frapp (Apr 23, 2002)

I have always felt that if Murdoch obtains DTV, this would be the beginning of some very long term headaches and the strongest competition Dish has confronted to date.

Obviously, there also has to be a little ( if not more ) feeling of revenge toward Ergen on Murdoch`s part.

I would be happy for anyone to correct me if I am wrong :shrug:


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

In hindsight, the DISH offer to buy DTV turned out to be a blessing in disguise for Murdoch. He'll now get a much better deal at $7B than the $22B he was originally willing to pay...


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AllieVi _
> *In hindsight, the DISH offer to buy DTV turned out to be a blessing in disguise for Murdoch. He'll now get a much better deal at $7B than the $22B he was originally willing to pay... *


I wonder if he sent Charlie a thank you card? GM is the one that really got hurt by the collapsed deal, the pention fund (underfunded by $77b) now only gets $7B.


----------



## AJ2086 (Jun 1, 2002)

I dont see how GM lost on the collapsed deal. Didnt they get like 600 Million from Charlie?


----------



## Ken_F (Jan 13, 2003)

$7 billion now + $600 million from Charlie is still a lot less than they'd have gotten last year from News Corp.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2003)

I hope all the concerned parties who opposed the DTV/DISH merger come out and oppose this deal as well ... and I pray Charlie Ergen will be a major player behind the scenes lobbying Congress/FCC/DOJ against this deal just as Murdoch did.

Murdoch is a cross between a turnip and a kangaroo imho.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Sorry Hector....But I have to disagree strongly with you there.....Murdoch would be MUCH better than Ergan could have ever hoped to be for D*.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Based on the reaons they opposed the Echostar/DirecTV deal, they should oppose Murdoch's deal. But I doubt it.


----------



## platinum (Oct 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by tnsprin _
> *Based on the reaons they opposed the Echostar/DirecTV deal, they should oppose Murdoch's deal. But I doubt it. *


Not gonna happen.


----------



## AllieVi (Apr 10, 2002)

> _Originally posted by hectorshelagh2001 _
> *I hope all the concerned parties who opposed the DTV/DISH merger come out and oppose this deal as well ... *


I opposed the merger, but have no real opinion about this acquisition. As long as there are two independent satellite providers competing for my business, I'm satisfied. If Murdoch brings about a change of direction in the company, maybe it will even become profitable some day...


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Two satellite providers will give some choice. If Murdoch improves D* then they will get more subs. If he gets rid of all HDTV because he does not believe in it, then people still have a choice and can switch to E*. Now he could have an unfair advantage negotiating with E* since he is both a competitor and a program provider.


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

If Murdoch gets Direct tv, eventually there will be only one dbs provider in the US. And it will be tied to company with stakes in the whole supply chain. Program product through delivery to the home. Do you think this will be in the consumer's best interest?


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by invaliduser88 _
> *If Murdoch gets Direct tv, eventually there will be only one dbs provider in the US. And it will be tied to company with stakes in the whole supply chain. Program product through delivery to the home. Do you think this will be in the consumer's best interest? *


Yes.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2003)

Murdoch is similar to a koala bear - k.b.'s get drunk with eucalyptus and Rupie is drunk with power.

And Murdoch wants DTV for pure POWER.

Take some advice I received from a wandering hobo: Don't trust Australians!


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Frankly, I'd trust most Aussies LONG before I'd trust Murdoch. After all, this is a man who gave up his citizenship in his home country so that he could control a larger share of the American media. That just rubs me the wrong way.

If the dreck that he pushes on Sky TV over in the UK is indicative of the direction that a Murdoch-owned DirecTV would take, then the future is indeed 1) filled with unintelligent programming 2), rather bleak.

And finally, you can fully expect Murdoch to transfer his well-known opposition to HDTV to DirecTV. Soon, those tri-lnb dishes will be good only for Spanish language channels, IMHO.

It's the Foxification of DirecTV, easily enough to drive me from UTV to a 508.


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by tnsprin _
> *Based on the reaons they opposed the Echostar/DirecTV deal, they should oppose Murdoch's deal. But I doubt it. *


Jealousy?

I'd much rather have Rupert have D* than Charlie.


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mnassour _
> *Frankly, I'd trust most Aussies LONG before I'd trust Murdoch. After all, this is a man who gave up his citizenship in his home country so that he could control a larger share of the American media. That just rubs me the wrong way.*


I believe Australians can be dual citizens now.


----------



## Jerry 42 (Feb 25, 2003)

Murdoch will get the governmental approvals because he can give politicans the one thing Charlie could not -
Free air time and the right look / spin for them on Fox News and Fox O&Os. The politicans who might vote against it could get bad coverage of their re election campaigns. They all know that.

Won't E* will need to fight D* for programming with D* being in the stronger position. Will E* get the Fox NFL package - perhaps but at what cost?

I do not think the Murdoch purchase of D* is good for E* or its subs. 

Just a note, I worked for Murduch. My follow execs and I noted that over the course of months American execs were replaced with Australian nationals. This happened at Fox, New World etc as News Corp took them over. Not sour grapes here I took a better exec position elsewhere.


----------



## markh (Mar 24, 2002)

Why would GM sell Hughes for only 7 billion? If that's all they can get for it, I think they'll just hold on to it. 

I don't believe it's in the consumers best interest for a company such as a NewsCorp owned D* to have a vertical monopoly on TV.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

I believe its not only fair to ordinary consumers its more than fair to D* subs......the ONLY people who maybe affected are those poor E* subs...


----------



## AJ2086 (Jun 1, 2002)

The only benefit that Charlie would have had if he had gotten D* would be the combined bandwidth that the new D* would have.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> If the dreck that he pushes on Sky TV over in the UK is indicative of the direction that a Murdoch-owned DirecTV would take, then the future is indeed 1) filled with unintelligent programming 2), rather bleak.


 To see what he will do just take a look at the Fox Network. Not only that, but if Fox News is an example, look for horrible sound effects and synthesized music every time you change a channel.


----------



## spanishannouncetable (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by tnsprin _
> *Based on the reaons they opposed the Echostar/DirecTV deal, they should oppose Murdoch's deal. But I doubt it. *


Huh ?

The FCC opposed the merger because it would have consolidated nearly all the CONUS slots into the hands of one company, namely Echostar - a company which, BTW, lied to the FCC so many times over the years that the FCC was not inclined to believe anything E* said concerning the merger.

The DOJ opposed the merger because it would have reduced the number of competing TV providers in the marketplace from 3 to 2, or 2 to 1 in many cases.

Neither of these reasons applies to Murdoch's acquisition of Directv, and if there is any opposition it would have to be for different reasons than those stated above. None occur to me.

Directv subs, prepare to be Fox-ified :lol:


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by tnsprin _
> *Based on the reaons they opposed the Echostar/DirecTV deal, they should oppose Murdoch's deal. But I doubt it. *


The Small Dish Sat business will not be run by one person. This deal is not at all like the proposed Dish/DirecTV deal. The dynamics are totally different.

But, you knew that...

I just wished that Roxanne had swung a deal for a managment purchase.


----------



## AJ2086 (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by tnsprin _
> *Based on the reaons they opposed the Echostar/DirecTV deal, they should oppose Murdoch's deal. But I doubt it. *


Murdoch getting control doesnt eliminate the competition in the process thus making a monopoly of sorts. That is why the E*/D* deal went under.


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

Reading the article reviels that Murdoch does not really buy DirecTV, instead he buys GM's share and some more stock to get 35% of the company where he will then have "effective" control. Then he might be able to pick up another 20% or so for real control. So, he is not really buying the entire company, starting with enough to give him basic control, then buy more to give him the majority and true control.


----------



## invaliduser88 (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DCSholtis _
> *
> Yes. *


How so? I don't see it that way.

Fox channels can charge pretty much what they want since they will just pass it on to the consumer.

And who cares if non Fox channels are available or not.

Goodbye dbs HDTV, Fox will only support 480p.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

For the Fox Locals your correct....that might be the case....but IMHO....as far as other channels....that Murdoch could package...and make some cash off of...HDTV will survive....you just might have to purchase a pack to receive it thats all...He is a businessman afterall......so in this case this deal will indeed be great for D* subs....D* will as was posted in another forum under Rupert probably go back to its roots...which is sports... Rupe will seek to package sports in HDTV form in a separate pack.....Wait and see.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

According to an report I read, 7billion only gets him 35% stake..


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Thats all he needs to control it.


----------



## Randy_B (Apr 23, 2002)

Sir Rupe is on Fox News w/Neil Cavuto right now. It is a done deal.


----------



## mattb (Apr 29, 2002)

yep yep, watching FNC, Rupe is on and basically says "DirectTV is ours"... looks like he wants to also keep exclusive programing deals with NFL etc... which is probally bad news to E* subs that want sunday ticket etc..


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Cool, now I don't have to worry about HDTV anymore.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

http://reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=mergersNews&storyID=2538489


----------

