ARN will now have to go ‘share laundering’ to buy 14.9% of SCA that doesn’t upset the takeovers panel.
If you value local radio, email the panel before next week’s deadline with your views.
The panel is judging it based on the relevant laws in relation to takeovers, not on whether the proposed transaction has merit or not.
There is a legislative anomaly that needs fixing: For a public company ASIC considers 20% ownership to be the threshold for control of a listed company rather than 50% because with a diverse group of shareholders, usually nobody else has more then 20%. But ACMA considers anyone who holds more than 15% in a broadcasting business to control its licences.
Surely the two thresholds should be the same???
I understand that, it’s simply to submit your thoughts on it in a non binding, unsolicited attempt at activism.
Not necessarily - they exist for different purposes
According to an article on the Adelaide Advertiser (via Mediaweek), sources are saying that ARN’s acquisition of SCA, if it were to still go ahead, won’t happen until sometime in the new year.
Almost certainly won’t be able to proceed for at least six months given the Takeover Board’s stance
ARN are now appealing the declaration.
I’m disappointed ARN and their partners bungled the M&A that they want.
The sooner the razor gang goes through SCA and removes the stale execs, the better.
If you think the execs at arn are better than the SCA ones, you’re kidding yourself
Judging by the ratings, ARN seem to have better idea of how to run a radio station.
They’re not, far from it, see my scathing analysis in the Corporate thread, my point is, hopefully there’d be less of them.
The board at ARN is smaller. Which means less investors that know nothing about radio are influencing what’s happening. Which is the issue at SCA, they have a massive board who make and influence decisions… a lot! They also like to play “safe”
Hear me out here, but what if the grand plan at ARN is to move to a national network, with Kyle & Jackie streamed nationally, eliminating the need for local shows, and potentially doing the same with the Christian O’Connell show (who also recently signed a new contract…) targeted at a slightly different audience?
The thought of losing “local” shows will cause some noise at first, but as long as broadcasts still include half-hourly local news, traffic and weather, is something I think most people will eventually get used to.
And what’s the point? Get rid of all the staff but pay millions more to only two hosts?
Spot on. This will be “local” radio in 20-30 years. As media enthusiasts we need to start getting used to it. At least the radio industry will survive (somewhat) the next few decades but I do lament that true localism will be lost.
Being “local” outside of news and traffic is radio’s point of difference. More and more people are listening to podcasts or their own music choices through spotify etc. So having every show networked is a stupid one. I did notice that you can listen to the traffic report as a separate downloadable item on the 2GB site and app. That’s the only reason why I would listen to traditional radio when I am driving to the office for example. Otherwise it would be Spotify or a podcast.
Local will then mean mornings become the focal point of localism, with just one announcer like Hit does now.
I wonder how long before Triple M tries the same thing with a national breakfast and a single announcer in each regional market to fulfil local requirements in mornings or maybe 12-3pm.