Sky TV-TV3 deal: Why Sky TV bought Three – and what's next
In more traditional or 'linear' TV terms, pundits see Three's greater audience reach than Sky's free-to-air channel, Sky Open, as a key element in securing the next round of rugby rights, expected to be finalised in the coming weeks.
An insider said that despite proliferating digital options, many viewers remain fixated on the first three buttons on their remote.
'The rugby discussions continue to be really constructive,' Moloney said.
'I don't think that this changes the nature of those discussions, but we're really excited about the diversity of reach that we'll get through Three and ThreeNow.'
'No layoffs at this stage', Stuff not stuffed
The transaction will close on August 1, but Moloney told the Herald the merger of the two broadcasters' operations would take 12 to 18 months.
'Detailed planning starts from now,' she said.
Over the next few months, Moloney said viewers will see 'no change to Sky Open or Three channels and content'.
Sky is committed to Three being part of Freeview, she said.
The Stuff-produced 6pm news bulletin, ThreeNews, will remain. There were no plans to extend news to Sky Open (formerly Prime), which has had no local bulletin since its 5.30pm news, produced by Three, was dropped last year at the same time Warner Bros Discovery outsourced its news to Stuff.
'There is no discussion about any layoffs or anything at this stage,' Warner Bros Discovery Australia-New Zealand managing director Michael Brooks said.
New digs, old digs
In a few days' time, some 130 Discovery NZ staff will still move from Three's long-time home at Flower St, Eden Terrace to a building in Freeman's Bay, where Warner Bros International Television Production New Zealand also has an office.
But Brooks now frames the shift as transitional. The plan is for them to move in with Sky, which maintains a corporate office in the CBD and its main operations in light-industrial Mt Wellington, 'in a few months' time, once details are worked out'.
There aren't any immediate plans to merge any Sky or Three online services. There will be no change to the location of any Warner Bros Discovery content, Brooks said.
Dividend hook remains in place
A key lure for investors in recent times – Sky's 2023 promise to double its dividend to 30c per share by 2026 – remains firmly in place, Moloney said.
Sky says the transaction will add to free cashflow immediately and add 'at least $10m' to operating earnings by 2028.
How did the deal get watchdog's green light?
The deal got a regulatory green light, or at least an assurance of no investigation, after it was confidentially shared with the market regulator before the announcement.
'The Commerce Commission was made aware of this merger from the parties involved and doesn't currently intend to consider it further,' Commerce Commission general manager, competition Vanessa Horne told the Herald.
Sky TV chief executive Sophie Moloney (right) and Warner Bros Discovery Australia and New Zealand managing director Michael Brooks. Photo / Cameron Pitney
How did the deal get the okay from the same regulator that raked the proposed Sky-Vodafone NZ and NZME-Stuff mergers over the coals, ultimately incinerating both?
The Herald understands that Warner Bros Discovery (WBD) told the regulator that it would fold its tent in New Zealand if the Sky deal was not approved – lessening competition.
But Brooks said that was 'not at all' the case. Sky and WBD had begun talks late last year then 'leaned into' the process after they realised it was mutually advantageous.
The Commerce Commission had no comment specific to the Sky-WBD deal. The spokeswoman said every merger was assessed on the basis of whether there would be substantial lessening of competition.
Brooks said the deal was not tied to Warner Bros and Discovery's decision to unwind their 3-year-old mega-merger. Sky-WBD New Zealand talks had pre-dated the announcement of that conscious uncoupling by months.
What's different from 2022?
Sky circled Three in 2022, when it was part of MediaWorks, only to end talks after large shareholders raised concerns over its financial sense.
What's different today?
'It's a totally different context,' Moloney said.
'These [Three and ThreeNow] are complementary assets. There's no stretch in terms of out-of-home [outdoor advertising] or radio'.
The state of Warner Bros Discovery's New Zealand finances was laid bare last July – a massive $138 million loss in 2023, including a $79.5m impairment.
Its 2024 financials are due to be released in the coming weeks.
The New Zealand media landscape has been extremely dynamic in recent months, highlighted by the board changes at NZME and Trade Me buying 50% of Stuff Digital.
Across the Tasman, global streaming giant DAZN is buying Foxtel in an A$3.4 billion ($3.7b)) deal.
Paul Goldsmith, Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, said he saw the deal as encouraging and an investment in New Zealand media.
'Not the fact that it's one dollar, but the fact we're having an investment in TV Three, and we have a good, sound Sky. I think it's quite exciting. It will make Three stronger and more sustainable.'
The deal in a nutshell
In a statement to the NZX, Sky said the deal to buy 100% of shares in Discovery NZ for $1 was expected to be:
Debt-free with 'a clean balance sheet largely clear of long-term obligations, including property leases'
Deliver Sky revenue $95m extra annual revenue, with about 25% from digital sources
Add to Sky's existing audience a growing digital audience via ThreeNow, a BVOD (broadcaster video on demand) platform that recently recorded its 12th straight quarter of viewership growth
Grow Sky's combined total linear television advertising revenue share to about 35% and total digital television advertising revenue share to about 24%
Deliver material cost synergies primarily across Sky's content and broadcasting infrastructure
Deliver a pathway to achieve incremental, underlying free cash flow from FY26 and sustainable ebitda (interest before tax, depreciation and amortisation) growth of at least $10m from FY28.
Chris Keall is an Auckland-based member of the Herald's business team. He joined the Herald in 2018 and is the technology editor and a senior business writer.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
'Brought to its knees': Why NZ can't shake the recession
Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King New Zealanders were told to "survive til '25" for the economy to pick up - but now one major bank economist says it's probably going to be 2026 before any real improvement happens. Kiwibank's latest Annual Regional Note shows small improvements across the country, but weak scores overall. The national average score has lifted from three out of 10 to four. Southland and Otago top the table at five. Otago was boosted by a recovery in international tourism and improvement in employment. Northland, Taranaki and Gisborne went backwards. Taranaki had the biggest fall in employment of anywhere in the country, at 8 percent. Northland reported a double-digit drop in building consents. Retail sales remain below their average levels over the past decade in most regions, as weak household confidence weighs on consumption. Kiwibank said Wellington recorded the steepest annual decline at a -3.3 percent, while regions like Waikato, Northland and the Bay of Plenty experienced a slight improvement on last year. Wellington's score improved from a two out of 10 to a three out of 10 while Auckland lifted from a three to four. "Wellington is just more pessimistic," Kiwibank chief economist Jarrod Kerr said. "It's gone through a lot in recent years. You can see it in their activity, you can see it in the housing market. You can see it in the economy, the city has been brought to its knees and it's been struggling to shake the pessimistic vibe." He said both Auckland and Wellington were well below average. "If you look across the regions, some of them have gone backwards and others are improving but it's not good. "When you look at the South Island things are better, people are definitely more optimistic in the South Island but even then the top scoring regions get a five out of 10." He said the report helped solidify the view that rate cuts to date had not been enough to turn around the economy. "We're really crawling out of this recession rather than regaining our footing and looking to grow from here. We're still struggling across the entire country." He said Kiwibank customers last year had talked about needing to hold on until this year. "We are halfway through the year and, yes, things are better but only by a little bit." New Zealand was worse off than Australia, he said. "Their economy is much stronger than ours but in their terms it's soft… where everything washes out is the labour market and, you know, the unemployment rate tells you a lot. Our unemployment rate is over 5 percent and theirs is pretty close to 4 percent." Part of the reason was the more aggressive interest rate hikes from the Reserve Bank, he said. "We were much more aggressive in our rate hikes than in Australia. We were much more aggressive on inflation than across the Tasman. "I think both the RBA and RBNZ made mistakes as I think every central bank did through the Covid period, we overstimulated in hindsight but at the time it was the right thing to do. And then we had to deal with the inflation problem." He said the Reserve Bank had kept the official cash rate at 5.5 percent for too long as it worked to tackle inflation. "We had a really bad recession last year, which the Reserve Bank openly orchestrated, they said 'look, we need a recession to get inflation back down'. The Australians didn't orchestrate a recession, they didn't slam the economy into the floor." Kerr said recovery was still coming but he had hoped it would have started more obviously by now. "We're hoping it takes off in the second half of this year as more and more people refix on to lower rates. Then it's more of a 2026 story now."
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump says US will sell 'so much' beef to Australia
By Kanishka Singh and Peter Hobson , Reuters US President Donald Trump says his country will sell "so much" beef to Australia. Photo: AFP/NICOLAS TUCAT US President Donald Trump has applauded Australia relaxing import restrictions on United States beef, adding that other countries that refused US beef products were on notice. Australia on Thursday said it would loosen biosecurity rules for US beef, something analysts predicted would not significantly increase US shipments because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower. Australia plans to take US beef for the "first time", Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Thursday, calling it a "very big market". Canberra has restricted US beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Since 2019, it has allowed in meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the US but few suppliers were able to prove that their cattle had not been in Canada and Mexico. Last night, in another Truth Social post, Trump said the US would "sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that US Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World". "The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE," the post continued. Trump has attempted to renegotiate trade deals with numerous countries he says have taken advantage of the United States - a characterisation many economists dispute. "For decades, Australia imposed unjustified barriers on US beef," US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, calling Australia's decision a "major milestone in lowering trade barriers and securing market access for US farmers and ranchers". Australia is not a significant importer of beef but the United States is and a production slump is forcing it to step up purchases. Last year, Australia shipped almost 400,000 metric tons of beef worth $2.9 billion (NZ$4.82b) to the United States, with just 269 tons of US product moving the other way. Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of US biosecurity practices. On Wednesday, Australia's agriculture ministry said US cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States. The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector. "We need to know if (the government) is sacrificing our high biosecurity standards just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with US President Donald Trump," shadow agriculture minister David Littleproud said in a statement. Australia, which imports more from the US than it exports, faces a 10 percent across-the-board US tariff, as well 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to impose a 200 percent tariff on pharmaceuticals. Asked whether the change would help achieve a trade deal, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said: "I'm not too sure." "We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement," he said. "We think that they should do that anyway." - Reuters
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Is there any way to make a pre-nup 100 percent certain?
RNZ's money correspondent Susan Edmunds answers your questions. Photo: RNZ Send your questions to I've heard various people and sources say that there is no sure way to protect your assets from a partner after three years as a partner can claim unfairness or something similar. Is this true? Some people say a trust can sometimes be broken and pre-nups sometimes don't hold up. Is there any 100 percent certain way to protect your assets before going into a relationship over three years? Sorry, it's probably true that there's no 100 percent way to protect your assets. People often sign a contracting out agreement if they want their relationship property to be treated differently to the way that the law directs. But you're right that this is open to challenge, particularly if it can be argued that the arrangement is unfair. Bill Atkin, emeritus professor in Victoria University's faculty of law, said this was true of any contract and would depend on the circumstances. "The test for the court to set aside an agreement is where 'giving effect to the agreement would cause serious injustice'. There are other factors taken into account including the desire for certainty. It is not common for a contract to be set aside unless, for example, there has been some improper dealings in getting a party to sign. On the other hand, a contract entered into many years ago may turn out to be unreasonable in the light of what has happened in the meantime. To allow no leeway for setting contracts aside would be unfair." A contract must follow the formalities set out in the Property (Relationships) Act. Atkin said the main one that must be remembered was that both parties must have independent legal advice. "Failure to do this will of course meant that the contract is on the face of it invalid." Nicola Peart, University of Otago law professor, said a contracting out agreement was still a good way of protecting your assets, even if it was not ironclad. "Assuming the agreement was made with full information and independent legal advice, it can still be challenged if it was seriously unjust at the time or has become seriously unjust at a later point in time." And this is me talking - this is probably a good thing, overall. If you're living together as a couple and your circumstances change, it's reasonable that what was fair at the outset might no longer be. It's a good idea to get your own legal advice about your individual circumstances. We are currently settling an estate. The deceased had a credit card to a third-party lender, a Q Card, not a Q MasterCard. I cannot find any mention of estate obligations should the holder die, which I have seen with other credit cards. Does this mean the estate is not obligated to pay the bill? Michelle Pope, a principal trustee at Public Trust said generally, if a credit card account was held only in the name of the person who died, it would become a debt of the estate, to be paid from their assets. "However, if the account was in joint names, the responsibility for the debt usually passes to the surviving account holder. We're assuming the lender has already been contacted and the terms and conditions have been reviewed. If those terms don't specify what happens when someone dies, then the debt would usually be treated as one that needs to be settled." In 2007, I separated from my ex-husband and started a relationship with my new partner. He said to me that he had put his property and business into a trust so no other partners could get any of his property. I was OK with that because I felt going forward he would look after me if I became his wife and the mother of his children. Fast forward to 2016 I received $135,000 from my mum's inheritance and 2018/2019 $130,000 from dad. We had been renovating this beautiful 100-year-old house and property in which we used my inheritance to renovate it. I was happy as this was our family home and it was lovely, until 2020 when he started an affair and we separated. Do you have any suggestions on how I can get my inheritances recognized in our financial settlement case? Peart says there is a pathway ruling on general equitable principles, in particular the "constructive trust", which has been used to compensate former partners who have made substantial contributions to assets held in a trust where the court is satisfied that she had a reasonable expectation that she would share in the value of her contributions and it is reasonable for the trustees to yield an interest. She said, if you were married, section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act could be a way to get a settlement. This covers the court making orders relating to property. But she said the opportunity for a court to intervene in nuptial settlements and do something for a spouse who was not getting anything was not available to people who were de facto. "She may well be able to rely on general equitable principles, in particular the constructive trust, for an order that the trustees of the trust hold a share of the home on trust for her on the basis of contributions made to the property and a reasonable expectation that those contributions would result in some share of the property. "Aside from that, I wonder whether she was advised by whoever was handling her parents' estates about the risks of losing her entitlements if she used it to renovate the family home. In this case, the risk was even greater, because the family home was in trust. "This highlights the risks involved with commingling an inheritance with relationship property . As discussed last week, to be kept separate, an inheritance needs to be held apart from other property. "An inheritance is separate property under the PRA, but once it is intermingled with relationship property or invested in the family home, it becomes relationship property and is subject to the equal sharing regime," Peart said. "Lawyers advising on distribution of estates commonly give advice about that to the beneficiaries of the estate to make sure they realise the risks of not keeping the inheritance separate." Atkin said any property owned by a trust would not be divided under the act. "There are some exceptions, where the trust ownership may be factored in, for example where the trust is a sham or where one of the parties has so much control under the Act that they are treated as having an interest that can be divided. "Also, in some situations there may be compensation where relationship property, such as the home, has been transferred to a trust during the relationship. There are other points here but, in short, the relevant law where there is a trust is complex and not consistent. The Law Commission has accepted that the law needs to be reformed but the government has shown no signs so far of implementing the Law Commission's recommendations. "Now, what about the inheritance? There is no direct way under the Act of recognising the inheritance. Any claim would be against the trust. If the inheritance money had been packaged as a loan to the trust, then the trust would be in debt to the person who lent the money. However, most people in relationships are unlikely to think about doing this. Another possibility is that the heir can make a claim under laws that apply generally, not just to relationships. A genuine possibility is to claim what the law calls a constructive trust in relation to the formal trust. The latter would have to account for the contribution made by way of the inheritance but success here is by no means guaranteed and what the value of a constructive trust would be is subject to all the factors in the case. Legal advice would be needed and one would hope that a satisfactory negotiated settlement can be reached with the trustees. Trouble is that the ex may well be one of the trustees and may play hard to get."
