I agree - insisting that the stations should be shut down and simply replaced as metro relays, and saying that the efforts of the newsroom staff won’t be good enough for viewers when they are doing their best. Great inspiration for the staff who I’m sure are doing their best
And while I’m here, good luck with the transition @Techster - wish you and the staff all the best for the future
Speculation… More speculation and then you decide to edit a Wikipedia page without knowing the full context.
Well done.
I wish everyone at SCA the best for this transition 
So few in the weeds logistical things from my knowledge of the media regulations.
This is clearly a trigger event - this means that ADH cannot own the half of TDT/CDT/DTD, nor own the supplemental stations attached to GTS/BKN.
Other than a tiny loophole that they could in theory surrender the supplemental licenses as SCA and apply for them again after the transaction closes, which might be viable in the GTS/BKN market, I think it’s pretty clear cut that it would be a legislative breach of the 1 TV station per market rule in all cases.
ADH would have to onsell their portion of those Ten joint ventures, and sell or close the GTS/BKN supplemental licenses. They could in theory just multiplex the 3 networks on one frequency in that market, a cost cutting measure they’d probably be happy to do.
On to my general thoughts,
First, this sucks. SC Tasmania’s news product has long been a class leader, and a beacon of regional news standards and journalistic integrity - not following the tabloid muck of Seven’s metro attempts, just a quality bulletin. They earned the respect of Tasmanians, and ADH ownership and editorial influence might poison the well - you don’t become a Newsmax affiliate to be a neutral media operator.
I really hope these moves offer WIN, especially with potential for closer ties to Nine following the NRN deal, can let them make a play to go back to a full 7 night a week local news service, and provide an offramp to current SCA employees to continue making a product with integrity and balance.
I wouldn’t want to see any of the journalists with SCA being forced to start following right wing talking points to keep their jobs at an ADH operated network, and hope anyone who is worried at that prospect can find a position elsewhere before needing to put their reputation on the line.
The other hope, I would assume the JV agreements would give the other owner first dibs on the rest of the ownership stake - it potentially offers a path where Seven might be able to purchase TDT/DTD, and affiliate it with themselves, to end run around ADH. That’s pretty unlikely, but if I were Seven and at all worried about my position in the Tasmanian market, I would be making representations to the ACMA to make sure this is seen as a trigger event, and start talking to WIN for a sale price.
I just don’t believe you’d buy the full network, just to add Newsmax as a multichannel and leave the rest running as normal.
I don’t understand this though. When Seven bought out Prime it maintained Prime’s half share of MDT? Or is this a different scenario?
Same for 10. Get 10 markets to swap Sky News Regional for Newsmax and be done with it.
Don’t mess with the regional affiliate. And get 10 to be the full owners to align it with NSW/QLD regionals owned by 10.
Wouldn’t shock me if SCA have taken this deal half-hoping SWM come back to the table.
If SCA and ADH have signed a binding agreement i don’t think Seven can butt in now?
Seven bought Prime in its entirety, so basically it just became a division of Seven. SCA are selling these stations, not themselves being acquired.
The point of ownership changing through acquisitions/mergers was dealt with in court with the previous Macquarie Media Group acquisition, where the ACMA wanted to force a sale of TDT, only winning on appeal that it wasn’t consequential enough of an ownership change to require divesture.
I’d say it’s especially clear cut because they are parting them out - you could maybe have spun off “SCA Television Holdings” and had ADH purchase that whole - but I would hope that would be blatant enough that the ACMA with a bid of prodding by the other commercial stations might grow a spine. The MDT thing probably could have been challenged - the fact they eventually came around to forcing Seven to do Mildura local news implies they do agree it was a trigger event, just looked the other way on an inconsequential tiny station, I think it’s clear as daylight here.
So will Tasmania get Newsmax Nightly News?
Could it be a possibility though that they are legally selling the stations individually but for practical purposes are saying it’s all one sale?
From what I can find, the licence holder for GTS is “Spencer Gulf Telecasters Pty Limited”, the licence holder for TNT9 is Southern Cross Television (TNT9) Pty Ltd, the licence for QQQ is Regional Television Pty Limited, the licence for BKN is Broken Hill Television Pty Limited.
Theoretically, if they did it this way, could they get around the possible legal issues you have presented
Either way it would still (likely) be a trigger event for the reasons listed above.
How would it affect Darwin and NT? Would it lead to a new Darwin based 7 news bulletin or not?
Here’s the legal case - Macquarie Media Holdings Limited (ACN 116 024 536) v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2009] FCAFC 1 (12 January 2009)
The winning argument on appeal boils down to this:
49 The appellants’ construction in contrast is less obvious, more complex and is policy and purpose driven. Importantly, the appellants do not contend that they, themselves, are persons to whom the s 73A exemption applies. In this they acknowledge that they were not in a position to exercise control of either of two additional licences at the time each was allocated. Nonetheless they say they now are related to persons who were respectively in such a position at the times the additional licences were allocated. These persons were (a) the two joint venture companies who became and still remain the respective licensees of the additional licences and (b) the Southern Cross companies (now Macquarie Group owned) which are in positions to exercise control of the joint-venture companies via the 50 per cent shareholdings in those companies. It is these companies that provide the links between the appellants and the licences. What, it is said, s 73A does on its proper construction is to remove those links for the purposes of any inquiry undertaken for the purposes of Part 5, Divisions 2 and 3 in relation to the s 38B licences that have been allocated. It does this because s 73A directs that the licence is to be disregarded in relation to each such person as was in a position to exercise control of the respective licences at the time each was allocated. Once the licences are disregarded the joint venture companies are not to be regarded as licensees: cf Schedule 1 cl 2(1)(b)(i); nor are the Southern Cross companies to be regarded as persons in a position to exercise control of the licensee: cf Schedule 1, cl 2(1)(a); in any control inquiry into whether the appellants were in breach of s 53(2) or their directors were in breach of s 55(3): see s 7 and Schedule 1.
The Southern Cross group were the owner at the time of the allocation of the joint venture license (as were Prime Media re: MDT), and the acquisition by Macquarie Group represented a restructuring of ownership shares, but not a discontinuity of control. The “Southern Cross” companies were in control, and Macquarie inherited those after their investment.
Given SCA will continue to exist as a company before and after this purchase, and those in control of these licenses at SCA will lose that once the acquisition is complete, the link between the original Southern Cross exception is extinguished.
The interpretation that would allow things to proceed would be that basically the “person” is the owner of TNT (etc) and whoever that person is has the exemption to owning the part of the supplemental license, but the existance of the relevant section of the law at all would suggest to me it’s not intended to survive being separately sold, just to not be impacted by shareholdings changing hands in typical merger/acquisition behaviour.
I’m guessing even the buyer doesn’t know the answer to that, yet. Wait till they at least get handed the keys to the place. Then we might know
Same advice could also apply to any further Wikipedia edits
I don’t believe so. A trigger event for television is different from radio. For television, a trigger event is defined in section 61CV of the BSA, and a trigger event only takes place if the purchaser owns or controls licences covering more than 75% of the population once the transfer is complete. The licences being bought by ADH would cover far less than that.
Yes, but there’s other holding companies, and the 50% shares of the digital only licences are held in the companies which own the original analogue licence. See the chart below.
With the sale of the first lot of licences to TEN about to settle, the options are:
Ten setup a new company(ies) to hold the VIC, NSW and QLD licences, which are transfered from the existing licencee companies.
VIC(BLV/GLV) and QLD (TNQ) are transferred to Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd, which is then sold Ten (and possibly, but not necessarily, renamed).
That then clears the way for ADH to just buy Southern Cross Communications Pty Ltd to keep everything grouped together and minimise the amount of paperwork needed changing leases etc.
Alternatively, ADH may setup their own subsidiary company to take all the licences, leaving SCA with a bunch of empty dormant companies.
There’s various commercial and tax benefits to each option, so it will be interesting to see what happens.
No doubt - I presume given some the issues explained by @Moe that there might have to been some regulatory approval.
All very interesting indeed
Yeah, trigger event is the wrong wording - the 75% rule with the increased quotas for local news won’t apply to the ADH stations - so no requirements for local news in any of their markets other than Tasmania.
I just believe it clearly constitutes invoking section 73A, 1)B, which would end the exemption for them to owning the portion of the S38b licenses, and thus require the sale of them.
Maybe this is instead resolved with clauses in the ownership structure of the joint venture companies, and it doesn’t get that far.
I believe this would remain the case if SCA sell Southern Cross Broadcasting (Australia) Pty Ltd to ADH. It seems is the Southern Cross companies (ie. those shown on my chart above) which are to be considered, regardless of who the owner is further up the chain.
The ruling goes on to say.
I believe this supports the above, interpreting it to mean that where the ultimate ownership is through a chain of companies (as these licences are), only part of that chains needs to meet the continuous ownership/control test.
However… in my opinion, the judgement in the appeal is a little on the generous side. While it will remain a binding precedent for another situation with identical facts, there may some small parts of ADH’s structure which are different enough that it could get tested in court again. If that were the case, I think this ruling was borderline and I’d be nervous about getting the same result again.
That said, in the current landscape, there’s no feasible alternative to keep these licences on air. It’s a miracle that ADH want any of them other than Tasmania even. Since Tasmania is big enough to make a difference politically, I think if a court ruled that the ownership rules were breached, the Government would be forced to change the BSA (probably the wording of s73) to allow the status quo to continue.
