Five weeks ago we wrote that Charles Allen had six weeks left as chief executive of ITV and that his departure would be announced at the company's interim results on 9 August.
ITV's ratings, revenues and share price have slipped alarmingly - but Allen, the great ITV survivor, has spun the story so that it now looks like he is jumping before he is pushed.
When the BBC Ten O'Clock News finally caught up with the ITV story last night, the BBC was confidently declaring that it "has learned" that Allen will announce his departure next week. (An interesting use of the phrase "has learned...." because this story has been written several times by this website and in many other places too, not least Dan Sabbagh in the Times and trade mag Broadcast last week).
Allen clearly does not want to be turfed out. By suggesting that he will announce his departure at next week's interim results and that a search for his successor to be in place by the time of his 50th birthday in January, he is attempting to remain master of his destiny. While we are on this subject, isn't it about time that this was formally said to the city rather than leaked through the media?
ITV will say that it is appointing headhunters to seek his successor. Names being touted now include Sky's Dawn Airey, Channel 4's Andy Duncan and former Sky boss Tony Ball. Last night the BBC's Robert Peston only mentioned Duncan. All of these candidates have merit. But former Ofcom chief executive is seen by many in the know as a shoo-in.
Carter is said to have been spotted meeting with Allen on several occasions recently. The timing of his departure from Ofcom coincides perfectly with Allen's timetable. He has already left Ofcom and will become available for his next employment in December. However, there are several reasons why such a job swap would outrage the TV industry.
1. Carter's "gardening leave" period of unavailability for work began BEFORE HE EVEN LEFT OFCOM - allowing him to fit Allen's January timeframe.
2. While at Ofcom Carter has made many regulatory decisions which directly affect ITV. He has overseen a major loosening of the regulatory strings holding ITV to public service broadcasting commitments on children's, factual and regional programming.
3. Ofcom is now looking at junk food advertising for kids, a major source of income for ITV.
4. While Carter has been a success at Ofcom, is this proof that he would be a good chief executive for ITV? His actual commercial TV experience at NTL was a disaster - during his spell at the cable group, the company sought bankruptcy protection and shareholders lost virtually everything.
If Carter does not take over at ITV now it will be hard (but not impossible) to ascertain whether this is because he was never actually lined up for the job or because the ITV board thought better of it.
The ITV board - and not Allen - should be in charge of the replacement process. Allen has taken most of the flak for ITV's failing fortunes in 2006 but final responsibility should lie with Sir Peter Burt and his board. They were the ones who turned down the Apax/Dyke bid worth 130p per share (although that is a contrived figure that doesn't really take into account the enormous debt that ITV would have been saddled with).
Roger Parry's ITV takeover bid has resurfaced again today. That bid would involve splitting ITV's production, broadcasting and sales arms. A sell-off of one element would help raise funds. There are certainly voices within ITV Productions who would like to be spun-off, allowing them to make some of the millions that they see their former colleagues (such as Steve Morrison) making in the independent sector. But would selling off one of its few assets really benefit ITV? Would the Channel 4 commissioning model work for ITV? Surely ITV must hold on to the production of Coronation Street and Emmerdale at the very least.
Will the ITV board sanction Allen's exit plan if it thinks it makes the company a more likely target for a predator? Will the city, fuming over the collapse of ITV's share price, not bite the hand off any decent offer for the company? Does the ITV board not need to act now before it becomes a laughing stock?
And, amongst all of this maelsrom, what of the poor bloody infantry? The people who actually make the programmes have seen their budgets shrink and a mass changing of the officer corps under Simon Shaps. Shaps' talented new commissioning team have not yet had a chance to put any of their shiny new ideas on the screen. Will the shows being dreamt up by Paul Jackson, Alison Sharman and Nick Elliott's new drama team ever see the light of day?
And what sort of shows should ITV be screening? Corrie and Emmerdale still do the business for the broadcaster. Love Island hasn't, but would most likely have been a success if it had been on Channels 4 or Five. ITV's traditional successes have come with entertainment for the whole family - and that sort of viewing is very, very rare in these days of four TVs per home and kids downloading shows onto their computers. It is not just that TV audiences have fractured in multi-channel homes.
As Barb's 25th anniversary poignantly showed us this week, the days when ITV could regularly command 20 million viewers have long since gone.
It's barbarians at the gates time for ITV. We have witnessed the rapid decline of a once mighty broadcasting empire in the past five years. Are we now about to see it fall? Or can a new emperor save it?
