Just spied this at The Joint...
Interesting story in The Press this morning titled RDU sale upsets students...
"Canterbury University's student radio station has been sold for $1 without the knowledge of its student body.
According to confidential documents and emails given to The Press, the University of Canterbury Students' Association (UCSA) decided to sell the student station's RDU brand to newly formed private company RDU 98.5FM Ltd for $1 earlier this month. Its office and equipment have also been sold to the company for $1, while its frequency will be sub-licensed.
The decision has not yet been made public and was made behind closed doors in a secret ballot."
UPDATED -Please read the comments for the statement from RDU's station manager, to get the full picture...
UPDATE 2 : From the Joint...
Radio New Zealand report: "Student radio station sold for $1"
Amusing discussion here and here
from the LJ comments mentioned above (and also in the comments below, hat tip to Bob Daktari)... "When this happened at Waikato, they sublet the frenquency and it was used as commercial station. When the student association tried to start a new student station they got told that they had one already so they couldn't get a new one. Problem was the deal they signed meant they effectively lost control of the licence forever. RDU's old debts (From the Canterbury Student Broadcasting days) have been written off, and at the moment it was being run direct by the UCSA, not as a separate company so it doesn't really have any separate losses to transfer."
19 comments:
Hey Peter
Hat from RDU here. To balance the story, here's our statement:
Monday, November 27, 2006
NEWS RELEASE
The University of Canterbury Students’ Association (‘UCSA’) has entered into an agreement that secures RDU’s long term future. A newly formed company, RDU98.5FM Ltd, has agreed to sub-licence the frequency from the UCSA. This outcome is a very positive one for the students and all of the stakeholders in RDU.
The responsibility for RDU98.5FM will remain with station manager Andrew Meier and the sales team of James Meharry and Karyn South.
“RDU will continue to be what it is and what it always has been – intelligent, vibrant, energetic, independent broadcaster in Christchurch. The music, the hosts, the culture will stay exactly the same,” Meier said. “We will remain dedicated and focused on the student audience that gave birth to the station 30 years ago, as well as all our other listeners.”
The new operators will take over the day-to-day running of the station from February 1, 2007.
UCSA President Warren Poh said this decision had come after many years of having to subsidise the station and uncertainty over RDU’s future.
“The UCSA has paid a substantial amount every year to keep RDU going,” Poh said. “We had to look at this from a long term perspective.”
The station will now pay a small annual sum to the UCSA for the broadcast sub-licence.
“UCSA is delighted that RDU’s new operators come from within RDU ranks. They bring a wealth of radio and promotional experience to RDU as well as an understanding of the station’s core values and its community,” Poh said.
“The new arrangement will mean a lot more access to RDU by the student body and more presence of RDU at student events.”
Poh said the question of consultation with the student body had been a difficult one, but the commercial sensitivity of the arrangement had made it impossible.
“The public discussion that would have occurred after asking our student body what they thought about it would have severely damaged the business and its reputation.” he said.
“There is nothing in our constitution or anything else that says we have to discuss this sort of thing with the student body. After much deliberation, an overwhelming majority of the executive who were voted in to make decisions in the best interests of the student body were in complete support of this solution.” Poh said.
“A succession of UCSA executives have been discussing this issue for a number of years and there’s been plenty of people who’ve had all the information. We’ve never had any thing to hide. This is definitely in the best interests of the student body.”
Cheers for that, Hat. Good luck!
Lies. $1?
http://therealrdu.blog.co.nz/
“The new arrangement will mean a lot more access to RDU by the student body and more presence of RDU at student events.”
this line makes no sense at all - as if a student owned station would be less accessable than a privately owned one ???
the divestment by student bodies of their radio assets made long term sense many years ago and is slowly becoming the reality for our 'student' broadcasters and for the programming side of things this makes mucho sense as most students prefer commercial radio and generic music, just like non students strangely enough
anyways, good luck Hat & RDU, if anyone can make it work Hat can :)
If you want to see Hat again, meet our demands. If you don't...
http://therealrdu.blog.co.nz
We are reasonable people, but do not push us.
“There is nothing in our constitution or anything else that says we have to discuss this sort of thing with the student body. "
Actually there is.
Your annual budget, including RDU's planed subsidy/surplus, must be approved by members each year. Significant changes to to budgetted figures require an SGM....
From the Joint...
Radio New Zealand report: "Student radio station sold for $1"
Amusing discussion here and here
hah pylon eh ??? Big poppa z !!!
what a dodgy fucker and now he owns the station...
...priceless crack up
Commercially I can understand the $1 price tag - it is enough to be legal "consideration."
But - WHAT commercial sensitivity? Just because it's a business deal doesn't mean it has to be secret. Would any of the commercial stations really feel threatened by RDU changing hands? Do they even see RDU as competition (not because RDU is poor quality, but because they don't target the alternative/student niche)?
It's not as if RDU is planning on changing its format, playlist, brand or style. That would alarm a competitor. If it's going to be business as usual (apart from ownership and profitability), then there's no commercial sensitivity. No upset staff, no upset advertisers.
Only upset student union members (also known as owners or shareholders)... and you've still got them by being secretitive. Here ends the PR 101 lesson.
I know a few DJ's who won't like working for pZ for free if it's his commercial station now...
...and surely the gear was worth more than $2 ???
prolly cheapest set of 12 hundies ever and the CD collection alone was worth a bit i reckon...
so what's the dilly ???
cos from the other chats boards it seems they defaulted on the small print making all deals null...
shitty, shitty deal.
No credit to anyone involved.
DAVE / Radio U DJ 1983
lost in the UK for many years
The point that has been lost is that rdu was owned by a student association with charitable status. The student executive, which was elected by the student body, has a duty to consult that student body.
The UCSA has as the primary object of its constitution '...to remain student owned and controlled..."
Warren has removed student control and certainly student ownership of rdu. It is certain that kiwi citizen's expect consultation on the sale of state owned assets or rate payers on stadia. How can UCSA consider the commercial sensitivity of a charitable service, that apparently makes no money, to over ride its fundamental responsibilities of its own constitution?
Earlier in the year Warren, the student president, castigated the University for proposed fee setting without student consultation. It seems painfully ironic that he fails to apply that same passionate ethos to himself or the organisation from with his office stems. The result of the rdu sale is neither here nor there but the process is concerning. Rdu, as a journalistic source, should be as concerned as anyone over such closed processes.
The whole issue looks fishy as an organisation that subsidises many student services (including the office of the presidency) has plucked and singled out rdu alone and sold it behind closed doors. This begs further questions; why has the same management been re-employed to run the station privately, and presumably profitably which is so miserably failed at the task before? One would ask the question if they can do it now without subsidy for private ownership then why not before for students?
Furthermore, rdu has a significant asset base and likely a priceless student music collection. The sale of the assets without student consultation or even an attempt to gather market value is irresponsible.
Many of my queries may have simple answers.... it just seems as if students should have had the opportunity to ask them before the sale took place.
UCSA presumably acts as the critic and conscience of a University that itself, under the Education Act, acts as critic and conscience of the nation. A student executive should be taking the lead in this ethos, not treading the thin line of minimal legal responsibility.
Well, we sold the stupid Arts Centre for $1, and no one regrets that, right?
when ContactFM (hamilton student station) was sold in a similar manner no one thought that would change much either
where is that staion now....
I hope and RDU fairs better (as Active seems to) - I think it will, the motivations here are vastly different I would wager and hope
"Earlier in the year Warren, the student president, castigated the University for proposed fee setting without student consultation. It seems painfully ironic that he fails to apply that same passionate ethos to himself or the organisation from with his office stems."
My thoughts exactly. Given that Poh demanded a statement of regret from the Vice-Chancellor over the fee setting incident, I'd like to see him provide the same to the student body that elected him to represent them.
My context for approaching this issue is as an exRDU employee, shareholder, and UCSA life member (President 98-99).
I went and saw Warren Poh and he, obviously without breaking any confidentiality, explained the broad outline of the concept of the deal.
I am sceptical on some points, possibly because Warren couldn't get into the detail, but the concept seems reasonable enough, although there are other concepts that could also be reasonable – I’m quite relaxed about the outcome, it is the process I care deeply about.
(Btw I haven't seen any of the confidential documents/ documents released under the Official Information Act so my thoughts are not guided by them)
The rdu/ UCSA media release didn't show any reason why rdu will be better run under the same management but with new ownership – this needs to be explained to students. All the changes suggested in the media release are able to be done without a shift in ownership arrangements.
I believe it is in the best interests of the UCSA to allow the concept to be tested with students in some public way - probably not all the gory business plan detail, but certainly the concept and basic financial information (the last few years audited accounts and probably some kind of current audit).
The reason the concept needs to be tested with students is because they own it – not just current students but future students and ex-students. I will never forget that students saved and went without for twenty years to buy us the Ilam Road building. When Steeds Hut in Arthur’s Pass was sold in 1999 the idea was tested with the Tramping Club (the main users), wrote about it in Canta, and discussed it in open meetings (the agenda for meetings is published in advance).
I don’t yet understand why discussion of rdu’s financial position is commercially sensitive. Rdu was always financially precarious in the decade I knew it better. It survived because of a few enduring commercial relationships (Thanks Dux), government support, dedicated staff and volunteers.
The UCSA endures because of the legitimacy it creates through student engagement.
It is time to re-construct the process to include student engagement in the New Year.
Darel Hall
If pylon couldn't generate sales and promotion in the capacity for which he was hired to do yet still sees himself as having the skills to save the station if he owns it, then why couldn't he do it before ???
...it just opens up the possiblity that he is crap at his job or deliberately didn't do it to the best of his ability to put the station in the position where he could step in and buy it then save it
hmmmmmm...just way too fucking dodgy to even think about
The UCSA exec has been a figurehead for management for some years - apparently a document was signed by the exec one year that gave management broad discretion, and because each year's exec takes a while to figure this out, there's no ability to undo it legally. Note that the exec are taking the public fall for this, while there's no mention of UCSA management.
This deal was timed nicely to occur over exams, too, while students are distracted.
Post a Comment