[Neil Jones]

Having looked into this further, the entire IBA archive has ended up in Bournemouth University's care - should anyone have the time and inclination to go searching through it.
libguides.bournemouth.ac.uk 

Wow, 20 working days notice.

8 files a day, 21,632 files that's...2704 days, or nearly 7 and a half solid years (although with weekends and bank holidays and what not its probably closer to a time frame of ten years), assuming its all present and correct, which it probably isn't.

[Humphrey Hacker]

There was a page from CPV's proposal on TV Forum about its news output. Their flagship programme was to called "The Capital Hour" which sounds like a phrase a 1970's tv series!

[Milkshake]

There was a page from CPV's proposal on TV Forum about its news output. Their flagship programme was to called "The Capital Hour" which sounds like a phrase a 1970's tv series!

The plan for CPV was to broadcast from TVAM studio, however it made NO plans if TVAM lost..

[WillPS]

The plan for CPV was to broadcast from TVAM studio, however it made NO plans if TVAM lost..

Much has been made of this but it is not necessarily the big deal it has been made out to be.

TV-am plc was not shuttered by the ITC's decision, it could have continued as a content producer (ala Thames) or facilities provider (more like TVS - except I think Maidstone Studios was actually spun off in a management buyout such was the mess TVS were in financially).

The studios in Camden provably had a future without ITV Breakfast. If TV-am plc had a contract to provide studio services to CPV then they would have been contractually obliged to provide those services; even if the directors at TV-am still decided the best outcome for shareholders was to break up the company there are still ways of selling assets which have contractual obligations against them.

Also worth remembering that CPV were not alone in suggesting they would use another incumbent franchise's facilities. Sunrise/GMTV were committed to using LWT's facilities; they weren't eliminated from the bidding for that. AIUI Carlton had only a vague commitment to use their publisher-broadcaster model when it came to providing a 5 day local news service (i.e. "we'll pay some other lot to do it"); again that wasn't a dealbreaker.

[Milkshake]

Of course CPV which I failed to mention also was planning on using TVAM staff and its new operations to cover the local news output. It was pretty much the same as Carlton but they failed to say what the Plan B was if TVAM lost, I believe there were given a chance to give the ITC its plan B, which they never did. They could have said if TVAM had lost they would take on some of the staff etc but im surprised they didnt suggest such a thing. It was more like renting of TVAM.

Im sure Carlton wanted to work with WHO ever want the weekend service to provide a 7 day news service.

[WillPS]

Of course CPV which I failed to mention also was planning on using TVAM staff and its new operations to cover the local news output. It was pretty much the same as Carlton but they failed to say what the Plan B was if TVAM lost, I believe there were given a chance to give the ITC its plan B, which they never did. They could have said if TVAM had lost they would take on some of the staff etc but im surprised they didnt suggest such a thing. It was more like renting of TVAM.

I'm pressing 'doubt' on this one I'm afraid. It doesn't ring true that a decision maker would offer a chance to clarify something then an applicant in this situation decline to. It just doesn't make sense - the investment in the process of getting a bid to the ITC was huge, why squander the opportunity?

I also doubt the ITC would have been able to do this as it would have broken the sealed bid system as defined by the Broadcasting Act; it was not a 2 way process.

Finally, unless they asked literally every applicant who's bid relied somewhat on other bidder's staff/facilities, it'd have effectively indicated to David Frost (a shareholder in TV-am plc) that TV-am's bid was failing/had failed.

Im sure Carlton wanted to work with WHO ever want the weekend service to provide a 7 day news service.

This doesn't make sense either, IMHO. Carlton wouldn't write a blank cheque for another company, they don't know which, to fill in the numbers on. What if no deal was agreeable? It's an even worse scenario than the one which supposedly scuppered CPV.

[Stooky Bill]

I seem to remember that the application said something like they'd try and work with the weekend company to share news and facilities. If that didn't work out then they wouldn't have been in breach of their license of course. They couldn't have been punished for not having a crystal ball.

I seem to recall that LWT were keen to do the same thing, maybe Thames too

Thing is that it was in the interest ls of all 3 London based ITV companies to share things like news and playout. They're very expensive setups to have sitting around not being used for several days a week or 20 hours a day.

In the end it worked out with a very efficient solution as all 3 ended up in the same building all sharing playout and 2 sharing news provider.


Going back to CPV, If things had been different and they'd won but TVam hadn't then actually it would still be a win for them. TVam's studio centre was arguably much more than they needed for the hours it broadcast (GMTV proved this of course) particularly as technology improved in the 90s and 2000s. Having a weekday license and not sharing with the other two would still be a massive improvement in efficiency. Also a lot quicker to set up as a lot of what they needed technically and operationally they already had

[WillPS]

I seem to remember that the application said something like they'd try and work with the weekend company to share news and facilities. If that didn't work out then they wouldn't have been in breach of their license of course. They couldn't have been punished for not having a crystal ball.

This is precisely my point. There are further examples of collaboration between 1993 license bidders too - didn't Westcountry outsource their playout to HTV?

It's oft quoted that the reason CPV failed to meet the quality threshold was because of their reliance on TV-am, but that doesn't scan with the reality when you consider the successful bids - Carlton in particular.

[Stooky Bill]

This is precisely my point. There are further examples of collaboration between 1993 license bidders too - didn't Westcountry outsource their playout to HTV?

They did, but I don't think it was what they planned when they applied. TSW took their license win to judicial review and delayed Westcountry being able to start. So they ended up moving to a cheaper smaller building on the outskirts of Plymouth and playout came from Cardiff.

Of course they wouldn't have promised that in their application, there's not exactly a lot of facility or TV companies down that way who'd do it. But then the ITC wouldn't have cared where it was played it from, the only factor was financial - if being able to afford the bid was down to promises of outsourcing then if they didn't there'd be a problem.

Although companies not being able to afford their bids wasn't a problem in the end

[Humphrey Hacker]

I'm pressing 'doubt' on this one I'm afraid. It doesn't ring true that a decision maker would offer a chance to clarify something then an applicant in this situation decline to. It just doesn't make sense - the investment in the process of getting a bid to the ITC was huge, why squander the opportunity?

I also doubt the ITC would have been able to do this as it would have broken the sealed bid system as defined by the Broadcasting Act; it was not a 2 way process.

Finally, unless they asked literally every applicant who's bid relied somewhat on other bidder's staff/facilities, it'd have effectively indicated to David Frost (a shareholder in TV-am plc) that TV-am's bid was failing/had failed.

This doesn't make sense either, IMHO. Carlton wouldn't write a blank cheque for another company, they don't know which, to fill in the numbers on. What if no deal was agreeable? It's an even worse scenario than the one which supposedly scuppered CPV.

Greg Dyke wrote that Carlton and LWT were engaged in talks over a combined news operation under the codename of Lions and Tigers.