[🌎 Universal GB] General Discussion

[Quantum]

Netflix may have issues with anti trust laws with this takeover, it's far from a done deal

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Netflix may have issues with anti trust laws with this takeover, it's far from a done deal

We're straying off topic here, but out of the potential buyers Netflix is the least likely to cause antitrust concerns.

Unlike Comcast and Paramount, Netflix doesn't own or operate a news channel and doesn't propose buying CNN as part of their deal.

Unlike Comcast, Netflix doesn't operate a cable / ISP business, and also doesn't propose buying that part of the business as part of their deal either.

Unlike Comcast and Paramount, Netflix doesn't own and operate existing television networks and doesn't have much of a footprint within cinematic releases.

Antitrust laws are designed to promote and protect free and fair competition in the marketplace, to benefit consumers, businesses and the overall economy. Netflix is the least likely to actually cause these concerns.

There's no guarantee of course that the Trump administration won't get their mucky paws involved, as it's widely rumoured that Trump's preferential buyer was Paramount. I think we can safely say that Comcast are out of the picture, however, which means that the constraints with The Wizarding World IP remain.

 

[Hid]

Actually went to the site of Universal Studios Great Britain it was huge plenty of room to build.

Plus Journey is pretty simple will only get easier when Black Cat Roundabout junction is sorted.

Was wondering what happened to the old Brickworks and Quarry where the park is being built

 

[Blackrock]

We're straying off topic here, but out of the potential buyers Netflix is the least likely to cause antitrust concerns.

Unlike Comcast and Paramount, Netflix doesn't own or operate a news channel and doesn't propose buying CNN as part of their deal.

Unlike Comcast, Netflix doesn't operate a cable / ISP business, and also doesn't propose buying that part of the business as part of their deal either.

Unlike Comcast and Paramount, Netflix doesn't own and operate existing television networks and doesn't have much of a footprint within cinematic releases.

Antitrust laws are designed to promote and protect free and fair competition in the marketplace, to benefit consumers, businesses and the overall economy. Netflix is the least likely to actually cause these concerns.

There's no guarantee of course that the Trump administration won't get their mucky paws involved, as it's widely rumoured that Trump's preferential buyer was Paramount. I think we can safely say that Comcast are out of the picture, however, which means that the constraints with The Wizarding World IP remain.

I disagree, they’ll kill cinemas and that is a big enough reason alone for these organisations to cause problems.

Netflix is genuinely the worst option.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I disagree, they’ll kill cinemas and that is a big enough reason alone for these organisations to cause problems.

Netflix is genuinely the worst option.

I respect your opinion, but because of the way antitrust legislation works, the fact that Netflix doesn't currently operate within the cinema market, in any meaningful way, means that they are the most acceptable proposed buyer. Their position is strengthened by their commitment to keep cinematic releases for Warner Bros. already agreed slate, through to the end of 2029.

The potential pulling out of the cinema market doesn't matter as much as consolidation within a single player.

With the purchase of Warner Bros. comes HBO Max, which is likely to be a potential sticking point. Netflix's ownership of HBO Max would give them roughly 50% of the domestic US streaming market, so it is possible it may face some difficulty there. In the UK the deal will sail through as HBO Max doesn't currently have a presence here. In contrast, if Comcast had been the buyer the deal would have faced stronger scrutiny in the UK due to the ownership of Sky.

Swings and roundabouts.

 

[jon81uk]

I'd be surprised if Netflix showed any interest in the theme park industry.

Netflix are already in the themed attraction industry with an attraction in Philadelphia, one opening in Dallas next week and in Vegas in 2027.

Netflix House – Netflix Just Got Real

Netflix House is your chance to step into Netflix. Explore immersive experiences, taste your favorite shows and movies, shop the story, and more.

www.netflix.com

 

[TedShatner10]

It's pretty nightmarish that the US mass media entertainment industry has drastically bloated and ossified into basically two or three megacorporations.....

 

[DiogoJ42]

I've been saying to workmates for years: It's only a matter of time before we all work for Disney.

 

[SuperMuscleMan]

I tawt I saw another bid, I did, i did! -

Well let's see, paramount is seen as the preferred new bidder by the trump administration and they have offered alot more and to make things easier by swallowing the linear stuff up as well.

Crazy to think bugs and the gang are moving!

 

[Benjsh]

Selfishly im hoping Paramount wins the race as I dont believe Netflix getting its hands on WB will get good for the movie industry at all.

It also opens up the possibility of the major IP draw for the park not being Potter again too which im hoping for. As much as I enjoy Potter.....its already been done and replicated multiple times.

Give me MIDDLE EARTH!!!!!!

 

[DiogoJ42]

I don't care who buys them, as long as I still get paid.

 

[Blackrock]

My preference would have been Apple tbh but hey ho, failing that Comcast

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

My preference would have been Apple tbh but hey ho, failing that Comcast

Apple notoriously hates purchasing other companies' baggage, preferring instead to build their own walled gardens from scratch. Buying Warner Bros. Discovery would saddle them with roughly $40 billion in debt and a legacy cable network infrastructure (CNN, TNT, etc.) that is antithetical to their business model. They sit on a cash pile large enough to buy Disney outright if they wanted to, but they don't buy decline. Apple buy technology and talent.

I find it rather amusing that you cite Netflix as the "worst option" for cinemas, while championing Apple as the saviour. Apple has just aggressively pivoted away from wide theatrical releases. They pulled the wide cinema release for Wolfs at the eleventh hour, relegating George Clooney and Brad Pitt to a streaming tile, and have signalled a major retreat from the box office for their future slate. They run a streaming service, just like Netflix; they are not the guardians of the picture house.

Once again though, we are in danger of waddling too far off the path.

The relevance to Universal Great Britain remains the same. A Netflix purchase of WBD makes securing the Harry Potter theme park rights for the UK significantly more complex, if not impossible. Universal would be negotiating with a direct rival who is now actively entering the location based entertainment space (as noted by @jon81uk regarding Netflix House), and who would inherit a Wizarding World themed attraction of their own within relative spitting distance of the UK development.

It seems increasingly likely that the Bedford project will have to rely on Nintendo, Illumination and DreamWorks to do the heavy lifting, rather than a certain boy wizard.

Away from the fantasy of IP acquisitions and back to the cold hard reality of Westminster, it is worth remembering that Parliament rises for the Christmas recess on 18th December. The SDO cannot be laid before the House until the Ministry has finished reviewing the consultation responses, and it is likely that this is very much still ongoing.

The consultation only closed on 31st August. We are barely three months post-consultation. A project of this magnitude, involving a massive Environmental Impact Assessment, will have the Civil Service painstakingly cross-referencing every objection to bulletproof the decision against a potential Judicial Review. As an SDO bypasses local democracy, it is legally fragile. If they miss a single procedural step, a local resident (or a rival operator *cough* Merlin *cough) could have the whole order quashed in the High Court. They are not going to rush this phase.

If you need a reference for how slowly the wheels of infrastructure planning turn, look no further than the Lower Thames Crossing. That decision alone was delayed multiple times by the Department for Transport, stretching the post-examination decision phase to well over a year. Expecting MHCLG to process a massive theme park application in twelve weeks is optimistic in the extreme... Sorry to put a downer on the festive cheer.

With fewer than ten days of the legislative session remaining, there is pretty much zero chance of the Statutory Instrument being processed before the turkeys are carved. We are looking at January 5th, at the very earliest, for any movement on the planning permission... Though I'd be happy to have egg on my face with this prediction, as it would be nice to have something to look forward to. Even if it is going to cost us at least £500m of tax payer's money.

 

[John_P]

From a rights perspective I wonder how many creators (such a Rowling) may have contracts with break clauses in the event of the studio changing hands.

 

[Bert2theSpark]

From a rights perspective I wonder how many creators (such a Rowling) may have contracts with break clauses in the event of the studio changing hands.

Pretty sure this is the case with the Spider-Man film rights, if Sony Pictures changed hands then the movie rights revert to Marvel (aka Disney). Sony is the next speculated studio to be brought too, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Paramount or Comcast go for them now they have that Warner Bros capital sitting around.

If there was any major IP that has a break clause, then I’m sure we would have heard the caveats in the news. Considering how most UK news outlets have led the story with Harry Potter, then I don’t see issues with that IP specifically. However, if Netflix started insisting that they wanted direct-to-streaming movies, then JK Rowling might demand a theatrical release, especially if she got a cut of the box office. Similar to the Disney/Scarlett Johanson fallout with Black Widow.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

From a rights perspective I wonder how many creators (such a Rowling) may have contracts with break clauses in the event of the studio changing hands.

Considering how most UK news outlets have led the story with Harry Potter, then I don’t see issues with that IP specifically. However, if Netflix started insisting that they wanted direct-to-streaming movies, then JK Rowling might demand a theatrical release, especially if she got a cut of the box office. Similar to the Disney/Scarlett Johanson fallout with Black Widow.

If there were a break clause then it would have been activated when Warner Bros. was spun off from AOL in 2009, or when it was sold to AT&T in 2018, or when it merged with Discovery Networks to become Warner Bros. Discovery.

Honestly, Warner Bros. has more owners, partners and suitors, since they acquired the rights to The Wizarding World, that it's hard to keep track!

So, erm, Universal... Anyone seen a traffic cone move recently?

 

[Night Watchman]

Apple notoriously hates purchasing other companies' baggage, preferring instead to build their own walled gardens from scratch. Buying Warner Bros. Discovery would saddle them with roughly $40 billion in debt and a legacy cable network infrastructure (CNN, TNT, etc.) that is antithetical to their business model. They sit on a cash pile large enough to buy Disney outright if they wanted to, but they don't buy decline. Apple buy technology and talent.

I find it rather amusing that you cite Netflix as the "worst option" for cinemas, while championing Apple as the saviour. Apple has just aggressively pivoted away from wide theatrical releases. They pulled the wide cinema release for Wolfs at the eleventh hour, relegating George Clooney and Brad Pitt to a streaming tile, and have signalled a major retreat from the box office for their future slate. They run a streaming service, just like Netflix; they are not the guardians of the picture house.

Once again though, we are in danger of waddling too far off the path.

The relevance to Universal Great Britain remains the same. A Netflix purchase of WBD makes securing the Harry Potter theme park rights for the UK significantly more complex, if not impossible. Universal would be negotiating with a direct rival who is now actively entering the location based entertainment space (as noted by @jon81uk regarding Netflix House), and who would inherit a Wizarding World themed attraction of their own within relative spitting distance of the UK development.

It seems increasingly likely that the Bedford project will have to rely on Nintendo, Illumination and DreamWorks to do the heavy lifting, rather than a certain boy wizard.

Away from the fantasy of IP acquisitions and back to the cold hard reality of Westminster, it is worth remembering that Parliament rises for the Christmas recess on 18th December. The SDO cannot be laid before the House until the Ministry has finished reviewing the consultation responses, and it is likely that this is very much still ongoing.

The consultation only closed on 31st August. We are barely three months post-consultation. A project of this magnitude, involving a massive Environmental Impact Assessment, will have the Civil Service painstakingly cross-referencing every objection to bulletproof the decision against a potential Judicial Review. As an SDO bypasses local democracy, it is legally fragile. If they miss a single procedural step, a local resident (or a rival operator *cough* Merlin *cough) could have the whole order quashed in the High Court. They are not going to rush this phase.

If you need a reference for how slowly the wheels of infrastructure planning turn, look no further than the Lower Thames Crossing. That decision alone was delayed multiple times by the Department for Transport, stretching the post-examination decision phase to well over a year. Expecting MHCLG to process a massive theme park application in twelve weeks is optimistic in the extreme... Sorry to put a downer on the festive cheer.

With fewer than ten days of the legislative session remaining, there is pretty much zero chance of the Statutory Instrument being processed before the turkeys are carved. We are looking at January 5th, at the very earliest, for any movement on the planning permission... Though I'd be happy to have egg on my face with this prediction, as it would be nice to have something to look forward to. Even if it is going to cost us at least £500m of tax payer's money.

Our expectations that the SDO will be approved in December aren’t fanboy hopes and dreams. It came from the local MP following a meeting with Universal execs, stating there were a couple more points to iron out, but approval was on track for ‘early December’.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Our expectations that the SDO will be approved in December aren’t fanboy hopes and dreams. It came from the local MP following a meeting with Universal execs, stating there were a couple more points to iron out, but approval was on track for ‘early December’.

I never said that your expectations were fanboy hopes and dreams. I merely pointed out that the parliamentary timetable is a cruel mistress who waits for no theme park, regardless of what a local MP might have been told over coffee and biscuits.

Local MPs are essentially glorified cheerleaders in this process. They are not the decision makers, nor are they privy to the grinding gears of the Civil Service drafting the legislation. They repeat what they are told by Universal's PR team, who are naturally optimistic, or what they hope will happen to look good to their constituents.

The "points to iron out", that the MP referred to, are likely the specific legal conditions attached to the SDO. Once those negotiations conclude, the MHCLG effectively approves the application by drafting the Special Development Order, but I would be surprised if we're at that stage yet, given the requirement for legal robustness this application will require.

The Minister signing the order isn't the end of the road either though, sadly. The SDO is a Statutory Instrument. It has to be laid before Parliament to become law. It has to be scheduled on the Order Paper. It has to physically go through the House. This is the bottleneck.

Even if the Minister signs the SDO this afternoon, the administrative machinery of Parliament has to process it before the 18th of December recess. If it misses that window, it sits in limbo until the House returns in January.

Given that today is the 10th of December, and we have arguably waddled past the definition of "early December", the window is closing rapidly for 2025.

 

[SeeSharpy]

I never said that your expectations were fanboy hopes and dreams. I merely pointed out that the parliamentary timetable is a cruel mistress who waits for no theme park, regardless of what a local MP might have been told over coffee and biscuits.

Local MPs are essentially glorified cheerleaders in this process. They are not the decision makers, nor are they privy to the grinding gears of the Civil Service drafting the legislation. They repeat what they are told by Universal's PR team, who are naturally optimistic, or what they hope will happen to look good to their constituents.

The "points to iron out", that the MP referred to, are likely the specific legal conditions attached to the SDO. Once those negotiations conclude, the MHCLG effectively approves the application by drafting the Special Development Order, but I would be surprised if we're at that stage yet, given the requirement for legal robustness this application will require.

The Minister signing the order isn't the end of the road either though, sadly. The SDO is a Statutory Instrument. It has to be laid before Parliament to become law. It has to be scheduled on the Order Paper. It has to physically go through the House. This is the bottleneck.

Even if the Minister signs the SDO this afternoon, the administrative machinery of Parliament has to process it before the 18th of December recess. If it misses that window, it sits in limbo until the House returns in January.

Given that today is the 10th of December, and we have arguably waddled past the definition of "early December", the window is closing rapidly for 2025.

Statutory Instruments normally go via the negative resolution pathway, once its laid before parliament it becomes law automatically unless either house puts forward a motion to annul it, If it got laid today by convention the implementation date would be 21 days later.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Statutory Instruments normally go via the negative resolution pathway, once its laid before parliament it becomes law automatically unless either house puts forward a motion to annul it, If it got laid today by convention the implementation date would be 21 days later.

You are technically correct regarding the mechanism, which is often the best kind of correct, but you are overlooking the administrative reality.

If we assume the negative resolution procedure applies (which it typically does for SDOs), and we adhere to the 21 day convention you mentioned, if the Instrument were laid today (10th December), it wouldn't come into force until 31st December at the absolute earliest.

Even in your best case scenario, the local MP's promise of "approval in early December" is already dead in the water. We are looking at a 2026 start date for the legal framework, regardless.

But...

The negative resolution procedure only kicks in after the piece of legislation is laid. My point remains that it cannot be laid until the Ministry has finished marking its own homework. The Civil Service is currently wading through a mountain of consultation responses to ensure the SDO is bulletproof against a Judicial Review. They aren't going to lay a half baked Statutory Instrument before the House just to meet an arbitrary deadline set by a backbencher.

Whilst a negative resolution doesn't require a vote to pass, the 40 day "prayer period" (the time in which MPs can table a motion to annul it) pauses during recess.

Laying a controversial SDO right before Christmas, knowing the scrutiny period will drag out disjointedly over the break, is a political tactic that usually invites accusations of burying bad news. Given Starmer's government is trying to project transparency on planning reform, they would, in all likelihood, prefer a clean start in January.