That’s helps Kyle’s case. The court will find that if he hasn’t been advised how to remedy the breach, then he hasn’t actually been given the opportunity to remedy it.
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Random Radio
This thread is as painful as hearing the never ending cycle of articles about the two.
Love how once again everyone is a legal expert in this forum. You don’t know their contract. What it was written as, what is it written on, what is written in it. Can we all stop claiming to be an expert on it? ARN as a business need to sort it out and are the only ones who know.
There’s a difference between knowing facts and having an opinion.
Side to that, I had never heard of Craig prior to this and he’s getting just as much airtime at the moment as the whole saga. I’m over the lot of them.
13 Likes
Much like those who didn’t like the K&J Show, you could just not listen (or participate in this conversation). You know that, right?
1 Like
I don’t think anyone here is claiming to be an “expert” on this or any other contract. People are just putting forward their opinions based on their experience and individual knowledge…that’s kind of the point of a forum, right?
5 Likes
Both Mix 106.3 and Hit 104.7 are simulcasting the Canberra SkyFire soundtrack this Saturday
1 Like
Yeah, they’ve done that for a while I believe
The saga (or articles) continues 
According to news.com.au, Jackie contacted Kyle after reading reports he was feeling ‘betrayed’ by ARN.
After connecting, both Sandilands and Henderson apparently realised ARN had told them separately that both parties didn’t want to be contacted by the other.
Agreed Brianc68, and some people actually do have experience with contracts and HR matters. Like you said, I don’t recall anyone claiming to be an expert.
With an anonymous forum, no one knows anyone else’s experience (unless they share that information freely).
It’s obvious that some of the people whose job-roles (or prior roles) are known, do think they’re experts on anything and everything.
2 Likes
It’s becoming not David vs. Goliath, it’s more like Goliath vs. Goliath.
K&J are probably almost as strong as ARN.
2 Likes
Actually they are (combined) almost twice as strong as ARN. If their contracts were to go full term at the mooted $100m each, that’s $200m to pay versus ARN’s stock market capitalisation value today of $112m. That right there shows ARN is fighting for its very survival in this contract stoush.
3 Likes
Don’t think we really we can relate a government contract with one that is a $200 million dollar deal for x2 people in a entertainment position…
Would love to know how many people on this forum are on that amount of money. A lot of people are making legal assumptions that unless you can read their contract it’s all unknown. You can discuss based on experiences, but it all comes down to the fine print in their contract.
This contract they have was one of its own and not really experienced in Australian media, so I don’t think many can claim to know what their clauses are .
1 Like
In some ways this is a classic Trumpian situation in which misinformation spreads: the reality that is right in front of us makes no sense, so we’re coming up with all these theories to try to make it make sense.
The fact K&J are popular is itself baffling. Also K&J have constantly cried wolf over the years and blurred the distinction between truth and fiction. The $200M contract made no sense and was simply a bad deal. The reasons ARN have given for terminating Jackie don’t make sense. The articles coming out in the media don’t fully make sense either. But someone must know what they’re doing. There must be a plan. Right?
2 Likes
Correction: Terminating both of them.
There was a plan building up some time ago, I think. And the outburst moment was a convenient excuse to pull it off.
It is incredibly simple to understand but all these articles coming out largely muddle the water more than provide clarity.
6 Likes
Kyle’s contract has not been terminated (yet), only Jackie’s has.
But what does he have to do to avoid termination?
ARN never said. They only put restrictions on him.
Because their ultimate goal is to terminate him as well. March 17 will be the window enddate, and I’d not be surprised if there is another ASX statement.
They told him “You have 14 days to rectify this” - which he apparently has done, by apologising and talking to her about it. But also she’s been terminated completely, and they seem to not actually want him to rectify it so they can get rid of him too. It doesn’t make sense because ARN don’t actually know what they’re doing. That’s my current theory; wouldn’t that explain a lot? We’re trying to put logic onto something that isn’t logical
I think if Kyle doesn’t “remedy” the situation, his contract may be terminated.
They know what they’re doing. And that’s to get rid of both of them to remove the financial albatross around their neck.
If you’ve set that as your ultimate goal, would you want to consider whatever he’s done to “remedy”?
No. Of course not. You’ll just stick fingers on ears and hope the clock can run out before something happens.
1 Like
So why did they terminate Jackie’s contract but not Sandilands