BSKYB bid 20 years on

[stubie]

As it is now 20 years when we woke up to the news that Manchester United had accepted a bid from Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB later to be blocked by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. How do you reckon we would have fared on and off the pitch had the takeover gone through?

Would Sky have kept Fergie on? Would we have had the same level of success? Would we have attracted the likes of Ronaldo (Brazilian) to Old Trafford?

 

[ti vu]

A lot of thing can be very different. One thing for sure, we would be viewed in a better view by the media even if we had enjoyed less success.

 

[Eriku]

All I know is that I would have hated United to have been owned by a company affiliated with a loathsome figure like Rupert Murdoch.

 

[Bojan11]

They probably would have sacked Fergie during those lean years between 2003-2006.

Murdoch is a bigger cnut than the Glazers and would have probably interfered in footballing matters.

 

[deafepl]

Probably would turn us into the Bayern of the league, from 2006 to 2013. More financial powers, Rupert Murdoch would welcome expensive signing like Ronaldo, Kaha, Aguero, Neymar, etc so they can increase more viewer, more customer would pay more to watch and probably have more ambition to win more UCL.

Of course, we'll get more loves from the Sky media and Liverpool/City would be hated more.

 

[Ramshock]

They probably would have sacked Fergie during those lean years between 2003-2006.

Murdoch is a bigger cnut than the Glazers and would have probably interfered in footballing matters.

Murdoch and Glazers all suck at Trumps teat

 

[Tarrou]

We'd definitely be hated more, that's for sure. In fact I think I'd even hate us if that cnut took over.

Can you imagine the corruption and favouritism cries from the scousers and city though?

 

[AaronRedDevil]

All I know is that I would have hated United to have been owned by a company affiliated with a loathsome figure like Rupert Murdoch.

Yes! He's the one who responsible for cancelling Firefly! Also Fox

 

[Adisa]

Imagine being owned by Murdoch?

 

[FujiVice]

Ferguson probably would have walked if they'd have taken over. He was very against it, and the supporters club knew about his opinion at the time. Michael Crick's book on Fergie explains it better, but Ferguson absolutely didnt want to work for a Rubert Murdoch organization.

As far as what would happen, we'd have still dominated for years, but in a different way. We'd have had a monopoly on the money in this country for years, with the owner of Sky running the biggest club in England.

 

[SteveJ]

Imagine being owned by Murdoch?

We don't have to imagine it - given his influence on media and politicians, we in the West are owned by him.

 

[711]

We'd have been on performance enhancing drugs for sure. Any objections would have been sorted with a few quid in the right places.

 

[Eriku]

Yes! He's the one who responsible for cancelling Firefly! Also Fox

Wait, what?! Really?!?

Christ, as if there wasn’t enough reason to hate him before finding that out.

 

[Billy Blaggs]

Imagine being owned by Murdoch?

Dandilion and Burdock though.I'll swim in that

 

[MancunianAngels]

Ferguson probably would have walked if they'd have taken over. He was very against it, and the supporters club knew about his opinion at the time. Michael Crick's book on Fergie explains it better, but Ferguson absolutely didnt want to work for a Rubert Murdoch organization.

As far as what would happen, we'd have still dominated for years, but in a different way. We'd have had a monopoly on the money in this country for years, with the owner of Sky running the biggest club in England.

Nah they’d have given Fergie more money and he would have been all for it.

Fergie was no fan of Edwards penny pinching pre 98/99.

 

[IrishRick]

I was very young at the time and never understood why it didn't go through. Was it fear of a monopoly? Would it have made an unfair playing field? How were Chelsea and City allowed change the financial landscape in England but this was, thankfully, vetoed?

 

[ROFLUTION]

I can just imagine us being indirectly involved with Murdoch's paper The Sun - It would be a weird way to be involved with all the latest turns of events with the Hillsborough-saga and all and Liverpool fans hating both United and The Sun.

So glad we didn't get Murdoch. I remember his ridiculous PR-words when he stood trial for the hacking of phones-event. "I stand here today humble".. Who the hell is he to put words in our mouthes about whether he is humble or not? Terrible guy.

 

[stubie]

I was very young at the time and never understood why it didn't go through. Was it fear of a monopoly? Would it have made an unfair playing field? How were Chelsea and City allowed change the financial landscape in England but this was, thankfully, vetoed?

Sky would have had an advantage when the Premier League rights were up for auction as owners of United

 

[NotoriousISSY]

Would Manchester United still be called Manchester United? Or would it be Team Sky Football Club?

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Murdoch and Glazers all suck at Trumps teat

Thanks for that image pal

We need a puke emoji

 

[JohnnyKills]

Ferguson probably would have walked if they'd have taken over. He was very against it, and the supporters club knew about his opinion at the time. Michael Crick's book on Fergie explains it better, but Ferguson absolutely didnt want to work for a Rubert Murdoch organization.

As far as what would happen, we'd have still dominated for years, but in a different way. We'd have had a monopoly on the money in this country for years, with the owner of Sky running the biggest club in England.

Yet he was happy to work for the Glazers?

 

[JohnnyKills]

I was very young at the time and never understood why it didn't go through. Was it fear of a monopoly? Would it have made an unfair playing field? How were Chelsea and City allowed change the financial landscape in England but this was, thankfully, vetoed?

Well the cases were different. The BSkyB bid was blocked because it would meant the biggest broadcaster owning the biggest club, so they could use their power to reduce the value of TV contracts - and could also have pulled out of the collective TV rights deal.

But i agree, it's galling to think the authorities blocked Murdoch, someone who at least had money, but let the Glazers bleed us dry. And of course they were happy for a state-level regime to buy City.

Maybe we'll end up creating a European superleague and locking the petroclubs out. Would be no more than the FA deserved.

 

[harms]

Would Manchester United still be called Manchester United? Or would it be Team Sky Football Club?

Yeah, because of the brand value

 

[Feed Me]

I was very young at the time and never understood why it didn't go through. Was it fear of a monopoly? Would it have made an unfair playing field? How were Chelsea and City allowed change the financial landscape in England but this was, thankfully, vetoed?

I had a very heated debate with my wife at the weekend about how it's unfair that the likes of Chelsea and City have been artificially elevated in English football thanks to them winning the lottery with questionable financial impetus from Russia and Abu Dhabi. She's a Wolves fan, so sides with our rivals, probably because her own team is benefiting similarly, albeit on a smaller scale.

Now I know that the Sky takeover bid for United was vetoed on the basis of anti-competition, which is fair enough, but it still sticks in the throat that our rivals have essentially flouted any concerns about having a level playing field via their sugar-daddy ownership.

 

[FujiVice]

Yet he was happy to work for the Glazers?

There's a world of difference between the Glazers and Murdoch.

 

[deafepl]

There's a world of difference between the Glazers and Murdoch.

I think Murdoch would be more involved in footballing matters and could approve expensive signing like Neymar/Ronaldo/Messi tier in order to increase the profile of our brand and the Premier League so Sky can get more customers to watch best players in world to play in Premier League and probably want to see success on the pitches, Glazers wouldn't give a damn about us, saddle us with debt that is not belong to us and doesn't care about our performance on pitches as long as we are making too much money.

 

[whatwha]

What do people have against Rupert Murdoch exactly?

 

[FujiVice]

I think Murdoch would be more involved in footballing matters and could approve expensive signing like Neymar/Ronaldo/Messi tier in order to increase the profile of our brand and the Premier League so Sky can get more customers to watch best players in world to play in Premier League and probably want to see success on the pitches, Glazers wouldn't give a damn about us, saddle us with debt that is not belong to us and doesn't care about our performance on pitches as long as we are making too much money.

Or we'd be leveled with a European ban or a transfer ban due to how underhand his business pracitices are and always have been. Its laughable that anyone would think Murdoch is in it for anything other than himself.

 

[Moriarty]

What do people have against Rupert Murdoch exactly?

This could take a long time...

 

[finneh]

I had a very heated debate with my wife at the weekend about how it's unfair that the likes of Chelsea and City have been artificially elevated in English football thanks to them winning the lottery with questionable financial impetus from Russia and Abu Dhabi. She's a Wolves fan, so sides with our rivals, probably because her own team is benefiting similarly, albeit on a smaller scale.

Now I know that the Sky takeover bid for United was vetoed on the basis of anti-competition, which is fair enough, but it still sticks in the throat that our rivals have essentially flouted any concerns about having a level playing field via their sugar-daddy ownership.

Loads of businesses are "artificially elevated" due to high net worth investors entering the market, so I'm not sure why you'd be offended by Chelsea/City (except that it reduces United's status as perpetual champions of England)

Amazon for example are "artificially elevating" every market that they're entering at the moment and even announcements related to new business ventures is met with a lowering stock value of their competitors.

We should thank the Chelsea/City owners as the entertainment and competitiveness of the Premier League and ergo the value of our annual TV revenue is based on the players they've brought into the league. The Premier League without Aguero, Hazard, De Bruyne, Silva etc would be a much more unattractive spectacle.

 

[IrishRick]

So the deal was stopped cause Sky have tv rights? Does that mean if Abramovich or the City owners created a sporting channel it would be a conflict of ownership? And though its a league lower whats the story with Leeds and their owner having Eleven Sports? Its all very murky ain't it

 

[whatwha]

This could take a long time...

Start with a few of his worst horrors then.

 

[Mr Anderson]

Start with a few of his worst horrors then.

The phone hacking done under his rule was a huge scandal. Awful shenanigans including bribery.

We dodged a bullet here.

 

[Thunderhead]

Start with a few of his worst horrors then.

His media outlets deride climate change and whipped fake up news storm on trivial matters on like where Obama was born, the media outlets he owns are not far off fascist outlets which breed hate

 

[JohnnyKills]

There's a world of difference between the Glazers and Murdoch.

Is there? How?

 

[FujiVice]

Is there? How?

Google him. He's a horrendous person. Bad stories about the former head of News International and Fox News aren't hard to find.

 

[ROFLUTION]

What do people have against Rupert Murdoch exactly?

I'm sorry but.. Where to even start with all of his scandals. Would you be pro? And why?

 

[FujiVice]

We should thank the Chelsea/City owners as the entertainment and competitiveness of the Premier League and ergo the value of our annual TV revenue is based on the players they've brought into the league. The Premier League without Aguero, Hazard, De Bruyne, Silva etc would be a much more unattractive spectacle.

And if you dont thank the City owners, they'll shove a cattleprod up your arse and make you thank them.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I was very young at the time and never understood why it didn't go through. Was it fear of a monopoly? Would it have made an unfair playing field? How were Chelsea and City allowed change the financial landscape in England but this was, thankfully, vetoed?

https://footballexplainers.wordpres...ed-footballs-biggest-jewel-manchester-united/

Sky already had a monopoly when it came to TV rights. To buy the biggest football club and sub let games would've been disastrous.

Chelsea and City's owners didn't buy those clubs for TV interests. There was no conflict of interest unlike Murdoch's deal.

Murdoch actually looked into buying Spurs in the 1980s but didn't for conflict reasons (get one up on his rival Maxwell). And that's where Lord Sugar came in.

 

[MP1711]

Fun fact we would about to be sold to Disney had this deal gone through.