SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[mistaTea]

I always wonder where the share price would be today if John Fellet was in charge at the helm. Sky didn't have a vision beyond satellite TV under him, so it would definitely be lower than what it was when he retired. But he was your classic frugal businessman that tried to bean count and maximise profits. I'm sure dividends would still be paid out under him and he would never have done a rights issue when the share price was so low to begin with.

I think one has to separate perceived errors in strategic judgement with how he behaved towards shareholders.

In my view, if you looked through his record, you would have to draw the conclusion that he was definitely trying to maximise shareholder earnings/wealth throughout. He would not, for example, pay over the odds for content no matter how great it was. There were times in the past where he would have to reluctantly pass on some content because to 'win' the content would be too destructive to shareholder wealth. As a quick aside, more often than not when a party would pay over the odds to outbid John on some content, they very seldom did it a second time when the rights were up for renewal again. Reason being that they were not able to make any money off the content and would not be able to sustain another loss moving forward.

John definitely made mistakes around strategy with regards to streaming. He did not want to cannibalise his high margin satellite base as he wanted to maximise earnings for shareholders. So in his way he was looking out for shareholders, however it was a strategic mistake in my view. It is entirely possibly to have your shareholders best interests at heart and still cock up.

As I have outlined previously, his last gift to shareholders was supposed to be the Vodafone merger. He saw the writing on the wall when Netflix entered the market, and Vodafone-Sky would have been a terrific business. It was blocked by the regulators, and John quickly formed the view that he was no longer the best person to lead the company. It was not in shareholders best interests.

And this is key. He was getting paid $2M a year and The Board were not asking for him to resign. He could have stayed on if he just wanted to line his own pockets.

John Fellet was not perfect and made mistakes for sure (show me a leader anywhere who hasn't). You can acknowledge his errors but still give credit where credit is due though.

Ah Christ, I think I just became a FELLET FANBOY!

[Quantitative Easing]

I think one has to separate perceived errors in strategic judgement with how he behaved towards shareholders.

In my view, if you looked through his record, you would have to draw the conclusion that he was definitely trying to maximise shareholder earnings/wealth throughout. He would not, for example, pay over the odds for content no matter how great it was. There were times in the past where he would have to reluctantly pass on some content because to 'win' the content would be too destructive to shareholder wealth. As a quick aside, more often than not when a party would pay over the odds to outbid John on some content, they very seldom did it a second time when the rights were up for renewal again. Reason being that they were not able to make any money off the content and would not be able to sustain another loss moving forward.

John definitely made mistakes around strategy with regards to streaming. He did not want to cannibalise his high margin satellite base as he wanted to maximise earnings for shareholders. So in his way he was looking out for shareholders, however it was a strategic mistake in my view. It is entirely possibly to have your shareholders best interests at heart and still cock up.

As I have outlined previously, his last gift to shareholders was supposed to be the Vodafone merger. He saw the writing on the wall when Netflix entered the market, and Vodafone-Sky would have been a terrific business. It was blocked by the regulators, and John quickly formed the view that he was no longer the best person to lead the company. It was not in shareholders best interests.

And this is key. He was getting paid $2M a year and The Board were not asking for him to resign. He could have stayed on if he just wanted to line his own pockets.

John Fellet was not perfect and made mistakes for sure (show me a leader anywhere who hasn't). You can acknowledge his errors but still give credit where credit is due though.

Ah Christ, I think I just became a FELLET FANBOY!

Good post mistaTea. I had admiration for Fellet too. Once upon a time i considered him to be the best CEOs in the NZX, alongside Geoff Babbage and Russel Creedy.

[mistaTea]

Just saw an ad on The Herald for TV One - tonight at 20:30 they are airing the first episode of 'Bodyguard'.

Bodyguard as a Netflix Original starring Richard Madden (Rob Stark in GoT).

TVNZ have done a deal with Netflix to broadcast their content?

[k14]

Just saw an ad on The Herald for TV One - tonight at 20:30 they are airing the first episode of 'Bodyguard'.

Bodyguard as a Netflix Original starring Richard Madden (Rob Stark in GoT).

TVNZ have done a deal with Netflix to broadcast their content?

Pretty sure it is produced by BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodygu...ish_TV_series) Netflix look to have the rights (same as TV1).

Great series BTW.

[mistaTea]

Pretty sure it is produced by BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodygu...ish_TV_series) Netflix look to have the rights (same as TV1).

Great series BTW.

Ah ok, I am just confused because when I search the title on Netflix, the big read 'N' appears on the thumbnail which I thought was only used to indicate a Netflix Original.

[mikeybycrikey]

Ah ok, I am just confused because when I search the title on Netflix, the big read 'N' appears on the thumbnail which I thought was only used to indicate a Netflix Original.

Yeah, Netflix Original seems to mean "something that Netflix made", but it also means "something they have exclusive rights to". I was always confused about The Good Place which was made by NBC but described as a Netflix Original.

[Ogg]

Disgusting that the likes of Blair (who owned 0 shares beforehand) is allowed to come in and buy @12c.

There was no need for it.

Agreed.

Very poor taste. Management should know better. Very sensitive time for current shareholders.

I don't have a problem with employees buying shares but the method of which they are obtained is important.

They should have waited until after the results of the retail entitlement.

The shares should be voluntary escrowed for 24 months.

[Ogg]

NBR reporting that NZ Rugby stake in Sky originally worth $20 m is now worth $3 m. Ouch. Not taking up any of their rights. Ouch again. Must feel like they have been at the wrong end of a king hit.

Brutal for sure.

However, shares were only a sweetener. They screwed over Sky by playing them off with Spark. So a little bit of karma.

If they hold the shares until the end of the 6 year SANZAAR deal then I'm sure they will be worth a lot more than $3m.

[stoploss]

NBR reporting that NZ Rugby stake in Sky originally worth $20 m is now worth $3 m. Ouch. Not taking up any of their rights. Ouch again. Must feel like they have been at the wrong end of a king hit.

Auckland City council were down $200 mio on not taking up their share of the recent AIA issue .... hate to think what it would be now.

[Ogg]

Auckland City council were down $200 mio on not taking up their share of the recent AIA issue .... hate to think what it would be now.

Cash is King.

And people still question why Warren Buffet holds 140B of it.