So your name is Murdoch...the job's yours

BY common consent, the only person who can tell Rupert Murdoch where to go is his chauffeur, so it appeared a racing certainty that his son James would succeed Tony Ball as chief executive of BSkyB if that was what the old man wanted.

But now it seems the Murdochs face a battle. Lord St John of Fawsley claims to have found the backbone that eluded him for years and has announced his determination that, in his capacity as chairman of the nominations committee, he will uncover the best man for the job.

At first glance, the committee looks a strong one. Its members include John Thornton, the former boss of Goldman Sachs who now teaches economics in China and would regard his £54,000 annual fee as loose change; Allan Leighton, the serial non-executive director currently fighting militant postmen in his role as chairman of Royal Mail; and Gail Rebuck, chairman and chief executive of publisher Random House. They bridle with indignation at the suggestion that they are mere Murdoch patsies. And certainly, the oleaginous Lord St John is not quite the baron of Fawnsley that he once seemed, though it is hard to believe that he has not gone native after 12 years on the same board.

The National Association of Pension Funds certainly believes he has. But the four do not have an easy task. It will be difficult to persuade potential candidates to pitch for the job with the spectre of Rupert Murdoch as chairman and the spirit of his son haunting the chair. To date, few if any other candidates have put their names forward.

The ideal candidate will have substantial experience in pay television, but most of these companies are already owned by Murdoch's News Corporation, and his redoubtable wrath could deter executives from applying. So it may well be that, despite all the public statements, the nominations committee decides that James is indeed the best man for the job.

His track record running Star TV in Asia is impressive - and he will certainly have the best answer to that favourite interview question: Where do you see yourself in ten years' time?

ELIOT Spitzer may have lacked the firepower of his predecessor Elliot Ness, but the New York State Attorney General has been every bit as successful in sorting out The Untouchables on Wall Street. His investigation into the hugely well-paid analysts who study companies for a living exposed many shocking examples of double-speak and conflicts of interest.

They may have been employed to advise about the prospects of companies, but Spitzer discovered that their real role was to push any stocks on offer from their colleagues in the investment banking division. This conflict has cost US investment banks heavily.

Apary from the hefty fines and public flagellation, these Wall Street giants agreed to conduct business differently. An investment banker from an American financial services group will now pitch for new business by himself. The analyst who previously accompanied him stays in the office. So the prospect of blinding a chief executive with bullish comments about price/earnings ratios and prospective earnings is eliminated.

But it is a different story for European investment bankers. They continue to turn up mob-handed. And their analysts play a valuable part, dangling the prospect of a positive stock market report in the eyes of a bedazzled chief executive.

The problem is that the European Union has yet to announce what should be done about the relationship between investment bankers and analysts. Rather than trouble its overworked staff, the EU appointed a Forum Group of investment bankers, analysts and company executives to study the problem.

The group concluded that nothing should change. Surprisingly, it found no evidence of the conflicts of interest that have so troubled Wall Street. But as Sir Howard Davies, retired chief executive of the Financial Services Authority, points out, it was rather like allowing prisoners to vote for their own security measures.

The group is responsible for recommendations, not legislation, but its latest report has been seized on by European bankers because it suits their purpose - and leaves their counterparts (and often betters) at US investment banks at a disadvantage. They urge the EU to accept the advice.

Wall Street used to lead the way on regulation, but its reputation has been sullied in recent years by scandals such as Enron and WorldCom and European peers no longer dance to its tune. It is easy to see why. Such recalcitrance gives European investment banks a distinct advantage. Playing dirty is the only way they can beat their US counterparts.

It is no wonder that they love the game so much.