Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Kristin Amiot.
Speaker 1: It's Thursday March nineteen, twenty twenty six. Jim Chalmers says
Speaker 1: the conflict in the Middle East could push inflation above
Speaker 1: five percent and in a major speech in Melbourne today,
Speaker 1: the Treasurer will warn the economic after shock may be
Speaker 1: felt for the rest of the decade. That story is
Speaker 1: live right now at the Australian dot com dot au.
Speaker 1: The future of one of Australia's most well paid media
Speaker 1: personalities is up in the air after his contract was
Speaker 1: torn up, but Kyle Sandalans says he won't go down
Speaker 1: without a legal fight and claims he'll take his former employer,
Speaker 1: the radio network ARN, to court for breaching their agreement. Today,
Speaker 1: media editor James Madden wades into the legal drama and
Speaker 1: places his bets on what the outer work Shock DOOC
Speaker 1: does next. James Madden is The Australian's Media editor, James.
Speaker 1: Kyle Sandalan said on Wednesday morning, as news of his
Speaker 1: contract termination by ARN broke that he didn't accept that
Speaker 1: decision by ARN and that it wasn't legally valid for
Speaker 1: them to do that. Does he actually have a credible
Speaker 1: legal claim here.
Speaker 2: Well, the early narrative out of the Sandalance camp is
Speaker 2: that they're not for turning. It's all or nothing, and
Speaker 2: they intend to pursue this through the courts if a
Speaker 2: satisfactory outcome isn't reached by negotiation. Now it appears that
Speaker 2: this is destined for the courts at this stage, because
Speaker 2: there's no way known that arn is going to pay
Speaker 2: the balance of that ten year contract, which is give
Speaker 2: or take eighty eight million dollars to Sandalance, So if
Speaker 2: there is a negotiation to be had, it'll be no
Speaker 2: any of that figure. But Sandalans is certainly saying that's
Speaker 2: the money I want. I've been wrongfully terminated and you
Speaker 2: know you haven't held up your end of the bargain.
Speaker 1: Kyle was given fourteen days to patch things up with
Speaker 1: his longtime co host to Jackie Henderson, who's known as
Speaker 1: Jackie O on air. That hasn't happened. Was there an
Speaker 1: attempt by Kyle to rectify the situation before Wednesday?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I mean, Kyle's been quite open about the
Speaker 2: fact that he regrets what he said to Jackie O
Speaker 2: on air.
Speaker 1: You're off with the fairies with you where you no, no, no,
Speaker 1: tell me where I've been off with the fairies during
Speaker 1: the show. I don't have to, I don't have to
Speaker 1: prove it.
Speaker 2: He claims that he apologized in fact over the phone
Speaker 2: on that night, and it seems that after a calling
Speaker 2: off period following their argument, if you want to call it, that,
Speaker 2: that they have been actually speaking reasonably regularly over the phone,
Speaker 2: and I'm told it's been quite amicable. That said, it
Speaker 2: seems impossible now that there'll ever be an on air
Speaker 2: reunion between Kyle and Jackie O. For starters, Jackie is
Speaker 2: also out of a job as we speak, given that
Speaker 2: her contract was also torn up by AARN in the
Speaker 2: wake of that on air spat. Of course, JACKIEO has
Speaker 2: received an offer, an informal offer by ARN for a
Speaker 2: quote unquote new show. What that might look like is
Speaker 2: still up in the air, because, as I understand it,
Speaker 2: Henderson is not engaging with ARN at present, which suggests
Speaker 2: that legal action from her camp is also afoot.
Speaker 1: Since this all blew up on air, she has since
Speaker 1: come out and said I didn't resign, I didn't quit
Speaker 1: before her part of this two hundred million dollar contract
Speaker 1: was terminated. She is, as you say, now, mulling over
Speaker 1: her own legal action. What do we know about Kyle
Speaker 1: and Jackie O's contracts? Of course, the two hundred million
Speaker 1: dollar number is the one that everybody knows that is
Speaker 1: split down the middle between the two of them. But
Speaker 1: what do we know about the actual contracts that are
Speaker 1: at the center of this dispute in both camps? Are
Speaker 1: they the same or are their differences in those contracts
Speaker 1: that might put them on a different footing legally even
Speaker 1: when these matters do come to court.
Speaker 2: Part of Kyle's confidence since this saga began has been
Speaker 2: his claim that it's in his contract that he's basically
Speaker 2: given free reign to say whatever he likes on air,
Speaker 2: obviously with the caveat that he can't say anything illegal.
Speaker 2: But there's also an argument to be made that aarn
Speaker 2: knew that he was offensive, or at least many people
Speaker 2: knew that some of the content that he produced was
Speaker 2: likely to offend, and it could be argued that that's
Speaker 2: the reason they hired him and paid him as much
Speaker 2: as they did. Because sensational radio leads to ratings, leads
Speaker 2: advertising revenue. Whether or not Jackie O has the same
Speaker 2: free reign as Kyle is unknown because their contracts haven't
Speaker 2: been made public for good reason at this point. But
Speaker 2: as the contract itself suggests and the split of the money,
Speaker 2: as you say, it's very much a partnership Kyle and
Speaker 2: Jackie Oh. So, Yes, they're paid equally, and as co
Speaker 2: contributors to the show and co hosts of the show,
Speaker 2: you would expect that both of them are covered for
Speaker 2: any offensive conduct or material that they may or may
Speaker 2: not produce.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it could be argued that even if Jackie O
Speaker 1: doesn't have a clear provision in her contract, that would
Speaker 1: put her on that same footing as Kyle in a
Speaker 1: legal circumstance that she has been the beneficiary of that
Speaker 1: very successful format for a very long time. In his
Speaker 1: statement on Wednesday morning, Kyle Sandalan's characterized that on ASPAT
Speaker 1: as a blue something that has happened countless times over
Speaker 1: the last twenty five years that they've been working together,
Speaker 1: and something that has come to characterize their brand, their
Speaker 1: show on the air. In the immediate aftermath of that moment,
Speaker 1: Jackie Henderson actually called it an attack. She said that
Speaker 1: she was hurt by it, and ARN the parent company,
Speaker 1: said that she had come to them and said that,
Speaker 1: in fact, she could no longer work with Kyle. A
Speaker 1: RN itself characterized that moment as serious misconduct. So all
Speaker 1: of that terminology brought together. What's Kyle Sandalan's doing here?
Speaker 1: Is he attempting to minimize that specific moment in twenty
Speaker 1: five years of radio in order to put himself in
Speaker 1: the best possible position for.
Speaker 2: Legal action possibly. I mean that clip of the exchange
Speaker 2: between Kyle and Jackie Oe and February twenty has been
Speaker 2: played at nauseum in the past three or four weeks.
Speaker 1: Going on Am Kyle that I totally am offended by
Speaker 1: you saying something.
Speaker 3: Bad if you are, because that's the reality of what
Speaker 3: we're dealing with here.
Speaker 1: That is so unfair.
Speaker 2: I have been and anybody who's listened to that show
Speaker 2: or even other FM radio shows would surely not see
Speaker 2: that as the most offensive or even acerbic exchange between
Speaker 2: two on air hosts. Clearly Jackie O was upset by it.
Speaker 2: I think it did sting her personally. But as we've
Speaker 2: reported in the Australian last week, there was an almost
Speaker 2: identical exchange twelve months ago in which Kyle chided Jackie
Speaker 2: over her fixation with astrology, and at the time it
Speaker 2: was laughed off.
Speaker 3: Okay, I'll take your word for her. I don't mean
Speaker 3: to be combat it with you. That's just the way
Speaker 3: it is. Okay, bye bye.
Speaker 1: Constantly getting in gas lit around here, go pulling.
Speaker 3: Up those fine statements. You can't mention anything to you ever, ghastline,
Speaker 3: can you believe it?
Speaker 2: So for whatever reason, she took offense on February twenty,
Speaker 2: and then the saga began. Kyle certainly isn't trying to
Speaker 2: suggest that he did the right thing by berating her. Indeed,
Speaker 2: he's apologized and has expressed regret for what he did.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, in that apology is a
Speaker 2: I suppose admission that it doesn't go close to some
Speaker 2: of the other things he said on radio. And indeed
Speaker 2: he's made the point that the radio show on KISSFM,
Speaker 2: owned by ARN, is promoted as Radio Gone rogue. So
Speaker 2: the expectation by the listeners but also by the company
Speaker 2: itself is that Kyle and Jackie O would push the envelope,
Speaker 2: and that's what they do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what's the calculus do you think that's going on
Speaker 1: in the conference rooms of ARN For the last couple
Speaker 1: of weeks end today as we're talking, did they, as
Speaker 1: Kyle Sandlans again has suggested in the statement he released
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, take this opportunity to get out of what
Speaker 1: is a very expensive contract when they saw and frankly
Speaker 1: everybody saw that it wasn't working. Or is this for
Speaker 1: them a cut and dry workplace dispute and they are
Speaker 1: backing an employee who expressed concern over the way that
Speaker 1: she was treated by a colleague.
Speaker 2: Obviously, the way they're like the public to see it
Speaker 2: is that they are defending jack Yo's right to operate
Speaker 2: in a safe work environment, as they should. But numerous
Speaker 2: media commentators have observed that, as you say, this contract
Speaker 2: was bloated to the point of face. Really, the idea
Speaker 2: that anyone on radio could be worth ten million dollars
Speaker 2: a year they're alone over the course of a decade
Speaker 2: is real yesteryear's stuff. So yes, they are putting it
Speaker 2: out there that their primary can con is for Jackie
Speaker 2: Oh and her right to not be bullied and to
Speaker 2: feel safe in the workplace was their paramount concern. However, realistically,
Speaker 2: there is no planet on which ARN thinks that they
Speaker 2: can sustain this contract over a decade or eight in
Speaker 2: a bit years, that being the remainder of the contract.
Speaker 2: If you were wargaming this inside the Arn boardroom, and yes,
Speaker 2: I wish I was a flying a wall on that wall,
Speaker 2: but I'm not. But if you were wargaming it, surely
Speaker 2: the idea is we owe both these parties eighty eight
Speaker 2: million dollars, so one hundred and seventy six mil over
Speaker 2: the next eight and a lot years. If we can
Speaker 2: somehow negotiate our way out of that for half or
Speaker 2: more likely less than half, is that a win for
Speaker 2: our shareholders? Answer? Yes? On the face of it. Does
Speaker 2: it look like a loss if you're paying two parties,
Speaker 2: let's say, sixty seventy million to walk away and do nothing, Yes,
Speaker 2: that looks like a loss. But of things, when your
Speaker 2: obligation is to the shareholders, if you're saving maybe close
Speaker 2: to one hundred mil over a decade, then you could
Speaker 2: probably justify that to shareholders and within the boardroom.
Speaker 1: Coming up, So what next for Kyle Sandalans, Perhaps in
Speaker 1: a case of divine timing. The radio ratings are out
Speaker 1: today as we're talking. There's been a rotating roster of
Speaker 1: hosts filling in the breakfast s lot ever since Kyle
Speaker 1: and Jackie O came off the air. Do you think
Speaker 1: ARN will suffer from a ratings perspective and from a
Speaker 1: listenership perspective in the coming months and years or is
Speaker 1: this kind of a blip and things will sort themselves
Speaker 1: out down the line.
Speaker 2: There's no doubt that in Sydney at least, there is
Speaker 2: no way they will be able to replicate the ratings
Speaker 2: of Kyle and Jackio in the short term. Today's ratings
Speaker 2: will be I think from a six week period up
Speaker 2: until February twenty seven, so Kyle and Jackio will be
Speaker 2: registered in that rating survey for five of those six weeks,
Speaker 2: and their ratings in Sydney have been outstanding for a
Speaker 2: long time and they have held the FM ratings crown
Speaker 2: for years and years and years. ARM will lose that
Speaker 2: as of next survey because you can't just drop in
Speaker 2: an untested team and expect them to garner an audience
Speaker 2: straight off the bat. So in a way, it's careful
Speaker 2: what you wish for situation for ARN, because if you
Speaker 2: don't have a solid breakfast team and this goes across
Speaker 2: FM and AM, it's a golden rule of radio. If
Speaker 2: you don't have a solid breakfast team, the rest of
Speaker 2: your content slate for the rest of the day suffers
Speaker 2: because you don't have a strong lead in So breakfast
Speaker 2: is everything in radio and there's going to be some
Speaker 2: headaches for arn as to who can possibly fill that void.
Speaker 2: Quite simply the audience that listens to Jackie O. In
Speaker 2: the short term, we'll go elsewhere.
Speaker 1: You've mentioned the Sydney audience there. Kyle and JACKIEO, as
Speaker 1: you said, have been incredibly successful in this market for
Speaker 1: a very very long time. But we know that Kyle
Speaker 1: Sandalans in particular doesn't hold the same appeal in other
Speaker 1: markets across Australia as he does in Sydney. So legal
Speaker 1: disputes aside, what does Kyle Sandalanz do next?
Speaker 2: Well, it's true the show failed in Melbourne, but Jackie
Speaker 2: O and Kyle have a curious kind of celebrity in
Speaker 2: Australia whereby they are very Sydney figures, and yet they
Speaker 2: have reasonable profile celebrity profiles at least in other states
Speaker 2: and cities. So it wouldn't be out of the realms
Speaker 2: of possibility for Kyle to try and tap other markets
Speaker 2: either through a podcast or some other form, and Jackie
Speaker 2: O too because they are known. Certainly might not work
Speaker 2: in Melbourne, but they haven't really been tested in Brisbane
Speaker 2: where it could be successful. But I do think he does,
Speaker 2: as he says himself, have options because he is a
Speaker 2: readily identifiable radio personality, not by any means widely loved,
Speaker 2: but widely recognized and that has its own cachet.
Speaker 1: This is what Kyle had to say about his future
Speaker 1: employment plans on an episode of the TV talent show
Speaker 1: Australian Idol this Week, where he's a judge.
Speaker 3: Yes today, Ricky, I've got nothing else on my mind
Speaker 3: except for the excitement of the vote and look at you.
Speaker 3: I also am dressed on this because I have a
Speaker 3: job interview at Low's after the show. Those radio guys,
Speaker 3: once you're out of radio, all you can do is
Speaker 3: sell socks at Low's at Low's. No savior, not you can.
Speaker 1: James Madden, thank you very much, Thank you, Christen. James
Speaker 1: Madden is The Australian's Media editor. You can read all
Speaker 1: his reporting and analysis on this brewing legal drama right
Speaker 1: now at The Australian dot com dot au