Network Six

As inspired by comments last posted by Lee, could we draw up a discussion or listing of who owns how many shares (or what percentage) of whom?

(2/2/2010 6:43PM)armada Wrote:  This is what I'm afraid of: a broadcaster offering a percentage of its shares to other companies partly in the hope of guaranteeing a vote from a shareholder in the franchise round. I hope this is not the case in the vast majority of the voting in each franchise area, but this is the impression I'm getting here in this thread.

I think the issue of cross-ownership should be addressed before the next franchise round, because if this can influence the voting, what chance do other wholly-owned companies and newcomers have?

Or possibly even existing franchisees who want to hold on to their franchise regions?

Well my company Viridian Media Industries is owned by me, 100%.

I'm not involved in any other companies, from a stakeholding point of view.

EDIT: And, speaking hypothetically, if I was involved with another company, I would vote by each bid's own merits, not on whether I own 25% of Group X, or whether I happen to like that member.

(2/2/2010 7:19PM)amyjwilson0 Wrote:  As inspired by comments last posted by Lee, could we draw up a discussion or listing of who owns how many shares (or what percentage) of whom?

(2/2/2010 6:43PM)armada Wrote:  This is what I'm afraid of: a broadcaster offering a percentage of its shares to other companies partly in the hope of guaranteeing a vote from a shareholder in the franchise round. I hope this is not the case in the vast majority of the voting in each franchise area, but this is the impression I'm getting here in this thread.

I think the issue of cross-ownership should be addressed before the next franchise round, because if this can influence the voting, what chance do other wholly-owned companies and newcomers have?

Or possibly even existing franchisees who want to hold on to their franchise regions?

I disagree.

Other companies own shares in Emoa, but they don't run it.

I bid for my franchises; I write the schedules; I make the graphics. Nobody else has participation. It doesn't matter who "owns" a bit of Emoa, because bluntly, they don't do anything for it.

This is a game, and we know these legal contexts aren't put into practice. Perhaps we'd be better amending the rules, stating a member rather than a company has participating-involvement in a franchise.

I think this is a unneccessary complication that can be simplified. I would be insulted to say I have involvement in other franchises which I do own a "share", but this is a game... I don't ACTUALLY have anything to do with it. Similary, none of Emoa's minority shareholders "do" anything for Emoa. Its just a thing we do to make the network seem more "real".

(2/2/2010 8:02PM)Mark Wrote:  I disagree.

Other companies own shares in Emoa, but they don't run it.

I bid for my franchises; I write the schedules; I make the graphics. Nobody else has participation. It doesn't matter who "owns" a bit of Emoa, because bluntly, they don't do anything for it.

This is a game, and we know these legal contexts aren't put into practice. Perhaps we'd be better amending the rules, stating a member rather than a company has participating-involvement in a franchise.

I think this is a unneccessary complication that can be simplified. I would be insulted to say I have involvement in other franchises which I do own a "share", but this is a game... I don't ACTUALLY have anything to do with it. Similary, none of Emoa's minority shareholders "do" anything for Emoa. Its just a thing we do to make the network seem more "real".

When I made my post, I wasn't suggesting that "shareholders" control certain aspects of one "company", but rather because that they hold a substantial share of the franchise holder and want to protect that investment, they could feel duty-bound to vote for that applicant rather than studying carefully the other bidders. I'm definitely not suggesting that every "shareholder" does this, but the fact that one voter wanted to vote for a bidder that he owns 45% of did concern me big-time - and I'm not having a go at that person.

And I agree Mark, it is a GAME, and it is a game that I really enjoy participating in, but if my posts can provoke a good debate like this, then I make no apology. I'm not here to be awkward, malicious or manipulate to my advantage, but I'm not afraid to post any genuine concerns or ideas that could make the game fairer to all. Perhaps my fault is that I'm too passionate about fair-play.

And if I do lose my franchise, it would not be the end of the world for me. I'd be a little disappointed I admit, but I have better things to worry about in the real world. Whether I still retain a franchise or be an independent producer, I'll still participate in this network game. But if the people here feel that I've outstayed my welcome...

(2/2/2010 8:02PM)Mark Wrote:  Other companies own shares in Emoa, but they don't run it.

I bid for my franchises; I write the schedules; I make the graphics. Nobody else has participation. It doesn't matter who "owns" a bit of Emoa, because bluntly, they don't do anything for it.

This is a game, and we know these legal contexts aren't put into practice. Perhaps we'd be better amending the rules, stating a member rather than a company has participating-involvement in a franchise.

I think this is a unneccessary complication that can be simplified. I would be insulted to say I have involvement in other franchises which I do own a "share", but this is a game... I don't ACTUALLY have anything to do with it. Similary, none of Emoa's minority shareholders "do" anything for Emoa. Its just a thing we do to make the network seem more "real".

I echo the comments of Mark entirely - although the shareholdings are different, the way the businesses are run is such that they act that the majority shareholder is a 100% shareholder.

Lee, I do know you are referring to me in your post - but in the scheme of things, what do I gain from my 45% investment? As Mark has said, and Air has shown, the franchise is controlled by him/them which can be seen by the graphics which are clearly not my style. If I lose this investment - so what? To be honest, if Air does pick up the franchise, I was intending to talk to German about a possible trade of SixAM with the 45% shareholding of Echo - plus other terms if need be to make it equal.

Anyway - time for some sleep for me! Hopefully in my daze of tiredness this makes sense and I am in no way meaning to offend anyone here.

(3/2/2010 3:35AM)David Wrote:  I echo the comments of Mark entirely - although the shareholdings are different, the way the businesses are run is such that they act that the majority shareholder is a 100% shareholder.

Lee, I do know you are referring to me in your post - but in the scheme of things, what do I gain from my 45% investment? As Mark has said, and Air has shown, the franchise is controlled by him/them which can be seen by the graphics which are clearly not my style. If I lose this investment - so what? To be honest, if Air does pick up the franchise, I was intending to talk to German about a possible trade of SixAM with the 45% shareholding of Echo - plus other terms if need be to make it equal.

Anyway - time for some sleep for me! Hopefully in my daze of tiredness this makes sense and I am in no way meaning to offend anyone here.

I understand what you're saying, and I do hope I didn't cause offence by bringing this up. However, the fact that you did mention in public that you wanted to vote for a bidder whom you own a huge stake did ring alarm bells for me. As all franchises are settled by anonymous voting, perhaps it would've been better if that enquiry was sent by private messaging.

But I have to say, East Anglia has been the most hotly-contested franchise round I've seen so far.

Lee, I respect your comments and your obvious commitment to the Network and making it fair for all.

I'm sure these are all issues the new DofTV/DofD will be facing in coming months. As one of my last acts, I will ask the members on their opinions on how this should be done

• Should it be 3 franchises per company or 3 franchises per member?
• Should shareholders be forced to admit involvement in the 3rd party franchises they minority operate?
• Should minority shareholdings be considered an additional 'franchise' or should they work up into a % of a franchise?
• If a member has a minority shareholding with no real involvement, should that minority stake be of relevance?
• Should we change the amount of franchises a company/member owns?
• How do we encourage new members to start on the less risky franchises and ensuring overall quality in bids for all franchises?
  

Some key questions in the meantime we could mull over.