Here is a handy run-through of the possible timetable for the Sky bids, courtesy of Jefferies analyst Jerry Dellis:

Comcast’s Rule 2.7 announcement of 25 Apr outlined its intention to make a Takeover Offer for Sky subject to pre-conditions being met. Competition clearance from the EU is now the final pre-condition. A decision will be made by 15 June according to the EC Competition website. Comcast has said that it will issue an Offer Document within 28 days all pre-conditions being met (implicitly by 13 July). Within 60 days of this, Sky must convene the shareholder meeting at which the Comcast proposal is to be voted on (by 11 Sep).

Assuming it is not blocked by the Culture Secretary, Fox would announce a firm offer around 19 June. High Court approval would then be sought and the Scheme of Arrangement document would be posted out within 28 days of the offer announcement (around 17 July). Sky’s shareholder meeting would need to take place within 21 days (7 Aug) with court approval after that. In reality, Sky’s board will need to manage timetables such that shareholders are able to give adequate consideration to both offers.

Elsewhere the US tech boom continues:

A bidding war for Sky is now on the cards but it is hard to judge how much higher the offers will go, says Neil Wilson, chief market analyst for Markets.com:

Sky shares traded up about half a per cent [on the day] at £13.55 as the Fox and Comcast bids were effectively waved through by culture secretary Matt Hancock. The commitment by Fox to let go of Sky News always looked like it be sufficient to assuage the media plurality concerns. For Comcast there were never any media plurality worries as it’s got little European presence.

A bidding war looms of course. The bid on the table from Comcast is an all-cash offer worth £12.50 per share, so an increased offer is priced in already. But the fact that the shares are not roaring higher suggests investors are displaying some hesitation about whether Murdoch will significantly increase his offer. He may not have to - the option for Fox is to switch from the current Scheme of Arrangement to a Takeover Offer, which would allow it to use its 39% of shares in the vote.

Then it’s up to Comcast and we’ll see just deep the pockets are - how badly does it want to diversify from the US and get exposure to Sky’s attractive recurring revenues in Europe? The fact it thinks the deal would be accretive to free cash per share from year one suggests it can. And all this is muddied by the fact that Comcast has admitted it is in advanced stages of preparing an offer for the businesses that Fox has agreed to sell to Disney.

A bidding war seems on the cards but we just don’t know how far either side will push this. Comcast shares are down a touch and are around 25% lower from their highs this year, indicative of investor fears about it paying over the odds. Disney shares were also a shade lower and are around 10% off their 2018 highs. Either way it’s shaping up to be a battle royale between Comcast and Disney this summer and Sky shareholders will be winners now the deals have been cleared by the government.

Ben Bird, media sector specialist at management consultancy Vendigital, said:

The culture secretary’s decision to allow the 21^st Century Fox bid to go ahead, subject to a request that Sky News is divested, is essentially good news for the consumer as the consolidation is all about safeguarding content.

It will be especially heartening for others in the media sector that the CMA is not intending to block the bid. This could be a sign that the organisation has recognised that there is a real need for medium and large-scale companies in the sector to leverage their scale.

Sky is not immune to the disruption facing the industry, with the rise of agile competitors such as Amazon and Netflix. Attracting the attention of consumers has become more difficult and the business needs to reduce costs where it can, whilst continuing to produce quality content.

Other media companies will be willing the bid to complete successfully – particularly with the outcome of the CMA’s investigation into Trinity Mirror’s proposed takeover of Northern & Shell still pending.

More from the CMA:

The full CMA report is available here.

From the 414 page Competitions and Markets Authority report on the possible Sky bids, here is its view on the timetable for a Sky News sale:

Sky shares have done little since Hancock unveiled his decision on both the Comcast and 21st Century Fox bids.

They stood at £13.53 when Hancock stood up, and are now almost imperceptibly higher at £13.56. That compares with the £10.75 a share on offer from Fox, and the better offer from Comcast of £12.50 a share.

Here’s a link to the full statement from Matt Hancock on both bids for Sky:

Here’s the key section from Matt Hancock’s statement -- outlining why 21 Century Fox must sell off Sky News in return for the government approving its takeover for Sky.

I agree with the CMA that divesting Sky News to Disney, as proposed by Fox, or to an alternative suitable buyer, with an agreement to ensure it is funded for at least ten years, is likely to be the most proportionate and effective remedy for the public interest concerns that have been identified.

The CMA report sets out some draft terms for such a divestment, and Fox has written to me to offer undertakings on effectively the same terms.

The proposals include significant commitments from Fox. But there are some important issues on the draft undertakings which still need to be addressed.

I need to be confident that the final undertakings ensure that Sky News:

• remains financially viable over the long-term;
  
• is able to operate as a major UK-based news provider;
• and is able to take its editorial decisions independently, free from any potential outside influence.

As a result, I have asked my officials to begin immediate discussions with the parties to finalise the details with a view to agreeing an acceptable form of the remedy, so we can all be confident Sky News can be divested in a way that works for the long term.

Under the legislation, I am required to consult formally for 15 days on the undertakings.

Subject to the willingness of the parties to agree the details, I aim to publish this consultation within a fortnight.

I am optimistic that we can achieve this goal, not least given the willingness 21st Century Fox has shown in developing these credible proposals.

However, if we can’t agree terms at this point, then I agree with the CMA that the only effective remedy now would be to block the merger altogether. This is not my preferred approach.

Here’s a clip of Chris Bryant suggesting that Kay Burley will drive Matt Hancock out of parliament if Sky News hits the buffers.

Anything Martin Bell can do, Kay can do too.....

Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine says her party has concerns about Fox’s proposed takeover of Sky.

She welcomes the plan for Sky News to be divested... but wonders if rival bidder Comcast will give similar reassurances about media independence if it wins the battle for Sky.

Matt Hancock replies that Comcast has given undertakings and assurances.

By law, he looked at its bid for Sky because of its material size. He concluded that Comcast’s bid did not raise public interest concerns, so the government will not issue an intervention notice.

Hancock adds that he hopes the Sky takeover battle will reach a conclusion that “demonstrates with confidence” that Sky News will be independent and viable, so parliament can be content with the state of media plurality in future.

Back in parliament, Labour MP Chris Bryant has criticised the proposal for Sky News to be sold off if 21st Century Fox wins the takeover battle for Sky.

He warns that Sky News could be starved of money by whoever buys it (either Disney or another owner). So, in a few years they’ll come back to the government and ask to be subsumed back into Fox.

To laughter, Bryant suggests that Matt Hancock could even find himself facing a TV news veteran at the polling booth.

Kay Burley will be out of a job, and she’ll stand in West Sussex and defeat him, because most people in this country would prefer a diversity of ownership of media and we want to keep Sky as independence as possible.

Hancock replies that he relishes the prospect of a contest in West Sussex with anyone (!) but doesn’t accept that Sky News will be starved of funds in the future.

Here’s a clip of Tom Watson telling parliament that Labour has serious concerns about the proposed sale of Sky News, and that the channel’s ‘independent and rigorous’ independence must be protected.

Shadow culture secretary Tom Watson is responding to Hancock now.

He warns that selling Sky News to Disney could backfire, if the planned takeover of 21 CF by Disney should collapse. This could leave Sky News vulnerable.

The CMA’s and Hancock have concluded that that the takeover would not threaten broadcasting standards. Watson, though, queries this view.

He suggests that upcoming court cases brought against The Sun could show maladministration by Fox, which might make the minister change his view.

Heathrow questions are finally over.

Matt Hancock has descended from his holding pattern and is giving his statement on the Sky takeover now.

Matt Hancock will give his decision on the Sky takeover once transport secretary Chris Grayling finishes answering questions from MPs about Heathrow Airport.

The government has decided to back plans to build a third runway at Heathrow, after years of prevarication.

Plenty of MPs want their say. Some support the plan -- as do unions and business groups. But other MPs (especially with constituencies in or near West London) are very worried about the environmental impact.

It’s also ironic that London is getting another runway while the railways network in the North of England suffers severe disruption after decades of under-investment.

Our Politics Live blog has the details:

The Financial Times predicts that both Sky takeover offers will get the green light from the government today.

The FT’s Matthew Garrahan explains:

The fate of competing bids for Sky by 21st Century Fox and Comcast will become clear today when culture secretary Matt Hancock delivers the UK government’s verdict on whether to block or clear each offer.

Fox, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, has been embroiled in regulatory scrutiny for 18 months with its bid to take full control of Sky, offering £10.75 a share, valuing the company — which was founded by Mr Murdoch — at about £18.5bn. Comcast made a competing offer earlier this at £12.50 a share, which valued Sky at about £22bn.

Mr Hancock is expected to clear both bids — possibly with some conditions attached — setting the scene for a bidding war for Sky.

Separately, Fox and Comcast are embroiled in another takeover tussle: Walt Disney is attempting to buy Fox’s entertainment assets — including its 39 per cent stake in Sky — in a deal worth $66bn including debt.

More here.

Laith Khalaf, Senior Analyst, Hargreaves Lansdown, reminds us JUST HOW BIG Royal Bank of Scotland had become after years of dealmaking under the leadership of Fred Goodwin.

‘It’s now clear the losses sustained by the taxpayer on the RBS bailout are going to be substantial, though this really reflects the price paid for financial stability in the depths of the global banking crisis. In essence the RBS bailout cushioned the blow of the financial crisis, and spread the pain across many years, a decision which is now beginning to become more measurable.

We will never know what the outcome would have been if RBS had been allowed to fail, though it’s important to recognise the scale of RBS at the time. The bank may have its roots in the cobbled streets of Edinburgh, but it became one of the world’s biggest banks, with a £2.4 trillion balance sheet at the height of its power.

To put that number in context, it’s bigger than the annual output of the whole UK economy and compares with the $639 balance sheet of Lehman’s Brothers just before it filed for bankruptcy. It’s just possible therefore that the collapse of RBS could have taken all the other dominos with it. Clearly the losses that are now being sustained on the government shareholding are deeply unwelcome, but the alternative to a bailout might have been far worse.’

My colleague Richard Partington has been crunching the numbers...

The Unite union have blasted the government over today’s share sale.

Rob MacGregor, Unite national officer, says Philip Hammond and colleagues should use their power as majority shareholders to improve the bank, not sell out at a loss:

“The government is attempting to wash its hands with Royal Bank of Scotland at the expense of the taxpayer. This bargain basement sale of over seven per cent of the bank’s shares is a betrayal of public finances and represents a total loss of over £3 billion for taxpayers since the original bail-out in 2008.

Staff are clear that the government should be focusing its attentions on keeping RBS bank branches open and improving the corporate governance of this institution.

“The catalogue of failures across the bank ranging from thousands of staff cuts, closing hundreds of bank branches and also the sale of financial products which resulted in the $4.9 billion US fine demonstrates the systematic failures by the management to effectively run this organisation. Staff across the business are continuing to pay for the mistakes at the top whilst the government merely looks the other way.”

Labour’s shadow City minister, Jonathan Reynolds, argues that the government is selling up at precisely the wrong moment:

He’s referring to the $4.9bn (£3.6bn) penalty which the US Department of Justice hit RBS with last month, for misselling toxic securities in the run-up to the financial crisis.

That fine was smaller than expected, so one of the biggest clouds over RBS has finally lifted. That should give the bank’s shares a lift in the coming months.

Then again.... there’s still the risk that the UK economy falls into recession, especially if Brexit turns out badly.

Jane Sydenham, Investment Director at City firm Rathbones, argues that Philip Hammond is wise to sell some shares while he can:

With the economy in relatively good shape and interest rates likely to rise in the not-too-distant future, it’s a good time for the government to start selling the RBS stock.

Although the sale of stocks is still loss-making for the tax payer, it’s important that the government gets as much back as possible while they can, instead of waiting too long and potentially seeing the economy move into trouble again. With this risk in mind, there is no point waiting even if it does mean accepting a loss.

I’ve just realised that the true break-even price of the RBS bailout is even higher than I thought.

The 625p break-even point was set by the National Audit Office last summer, when it assessed the government’s first sale of RBS shares in 2015.

It is based on the cost of the government borrowing £45bn to fund the RBS bailout (the NAO estimated that UK bonds were being sold at 3.7% per year at the time.)

So, that figure includes the financial cost of the rescue. But, it doesn’t cover the additional cost of repaying the debt since 2015.

As this NAO chart shows, the true cost of the bailout keeps rising the longer the taxpayer holds onto its shares. So the break-even price could already be closer to £7....

In City jargon, the government sold part of its stake in RBS through an “accelerated bookbuilding process to institutional investors”

In practice, that means 925m shares were sold to banks, hedge funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and other organisations who manage our money.

Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan all acted as ‘bookrunners’ for the placing, which means they persuaded the institutional investors to take part (readers can speculate why it takes THREE investment banks to handle this sort of thing.....).

Economics journalist Dharshini David points out that the buyers will probably make a profit (once RBS’s shares rise above 271p).

Some critics say the government is wasting a great opportunity by simply selling their stake in Royal Bank of Scotland.

Labour MP Gareth Thomas argues that the Treasury could turn the bank into a building society with a remit to help the UK economy:

Positive Money, a group which campaigns for a fairer banking system, argues that RBS should be broken up.

Fran Boait, executive director of Positive Money, says today’s share selloff is a ‘colossal wasted opportunity’.

As well as losing the taxpayer billions of pounds, the government is also losing the ability to reshape Britain’s banking system.

“Instead of selling off its majority stake, the government should use its position to break up RBS into smaller, regional banks, with alternative business models that emphasise lending to SMEs and productive industry.

“Such innovation is needed to direct lending to the real economy, which has been been starved of investment in recent years.”

Graham Spooner, investment research analyst at The Share Centre, recommends that RBS investors hold onto their shares.

Spooner argues that the bank’s financial performance is improving, so it should resume paying dividends to investors soon.

Spooner says:

“Institutional shareholders paid more or less the market price [in today’s sale] so they must have some confidence in the banks longer-term recovery. As well as this, the bank could be a step nearer to paying a dividend.

“The negative is that the government still have a large holding of 62.4% which is set to overhang the market for some time; the government cannot sell any more for 90 days.

“While shares are up slightly from a year ago off the back of improved performance and improved confidence leading to a change in our recommendation from a ‘sell’ to a ‘hold’, shares in early trading this morning have fallen by 3.4%. We maintain our ‘hold’ recommendation due to the increased likelihood of a dividend payment and the CEO’s restructuring plans.”

Nearly 10 year ago, there were suspicions that taxpayers would never recover the tens of billions of pounds that were injected into Britain’s banks as the world’s financial system was shaking at its foundations.

The Labour government announced the bailout of RBS, Lloyds and HBOS on 13 October 2008 - one of many dramatic days during the crisis.

Prime minister Gordon Brown declared that taking stakes in the banks would create a ‘rock of stability’ to help Britain through the unfolding crisis.

But George Osborne, then the shadow chancellor, warned that the financial consequences would be severe, telling parliament:

But, of course, the scale of what the taxpayer is on the hook for is only just starting to dawn on the British people: this is the biggest bail out in the world so far, paid for by the biggest increase in debt by any peacetime Government and funded by the £11,000 of extra borrowing that will now be heaped on every family in the country.

Chancellor Alastair Darling insisted that the government would sell its shares ‘in due course’:

In relation to ordinary shares, we will get a dividend when dividends are payable, and when we sell our shares the money will come back to the taxpayer.

There was no suggestion then that Britain would still be a majority shareholder in RBS a decade later....

Newsflash: The British economy is showing signs of having come through the worst of its recent slowdown triggered by bad weather, as the dominant services sector grew more quickly than expected.

The reading on the Markit/CIPS UK Services PMI rose to 54.0 in May from 52.8 a month earlier. Economists had forecast 53.0 on a scale where anything above 50 indicates expansion.

The pound has jumped by half a percent against the US dollar to $1.337, on expectations that the Bank of England might raise interest rates in August.

But growth at eurozone companies has slowed to its lowest rate in one-and-a-half years, Markit reports.

More on this later....

Gordon Brown’s government invested £45bn into Royal Bank of Scotland to maintain financial stability following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, not in search of a quick profit.

But there’s no argument that RBS has proved a disappointing investment.

The bank’s shares haven’t traded above the 502p (the taxpayers’ purchase price) since 2010.

And they’ve never hit the NAO’s 625p break-even price since the bailout was finalised at the end of 2008.

Back in 2015, the government sold its first tranche of RBS shares at 330p each (creating a loss of £1.9bn according to the National Audit Office).

The NAO also concluded that the 2015 sale achieved value for money - and indeed, it looks like a steal compared to today’s share price.....

Philip Hammond is “moving to cash in his chips” by selling some Royal Bank of Scotland shares before the Brexit negotiations reach their climax, says analyst Neil Wilson of Markets.com.

Wilson also points out that RBS looks to be in ‘decent shape’, compared to a few years ago.

Crucially, it has also settled its long-running legal problems in America (over misconduct in the run-up to the financial crisis.

He explains:

RBS has come a long way in recent years. From racking up c£50bn in losses in ten years due in large part to mega restructuring charges and impairment charges, the bank has turned a corner. As noted a month ago, the settling of the DoJ case was key, removing the last big overhang and paving the way for the government to sell off its stock and for dividends to return.

Attributable profits in the last quarter tripled to £792m, versus £259m in the same period in 2017, whilst the pre-tax operating profit was up 70% at £1.2bn.

The government’s critics will look at these figures, and conclude that we’re selling up at the wrong time.

Shares in Royal Bank of Scotland have fallen by 3.3% in early trading to 271p -- matching the price which the government sold its shares this morning.

Ross McEwan, the chief executive of RBS, is pleased that his largest shareholder has cut its stake:

McEwan says:

“I am pleased that the government has decided the time is now right to re-start the share sale process This is an important moment for RBS and an important step in returning the bank to private ownership.

It also reflects the progress we have made in building a much simpler, safer bank that is focussed on delivering for its customers and its shareholders.”