Article addresses WTSA changes

[CrankyYankee]

"The sale and some of (Bill) Corbeil's actions - including the termination of long-time disc jockey John Ashley and former owner John Kilduf, who was known on the air as John Clarke - have not been without controversy, especially among those who are concerned the changes mean WTSA doesn't care as much about the community as the previous owners. "


http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_7682579

 

[Dr.Pepper]

Cranky:

The station without those two oafs has never sounded better. Get over the fact you no longer work there...

Put on a Santa suit, grab a bell and a plastic bucket, and go stand in front of a Wal Mart, and raise some money for Mr(s) Clarke and Ashley. Just don't bet on Clarke paying you back.....

 

[MassMusicMan]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

There's an ad about Imus' return right in the middle of the article! Sick ad placement!

Also, it's one thing for Corbeil to fire the former owner. That's business. Now let's see if he does the right thing, and chooses not to enforce the non-compete.

 

[BenKarlow]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

There's an ad about Imus' return right in the middle of the article! Sick ad placement!

Also, it's one thing for Corbeil to fire the former owner. That's business. Now let's see if he does the right thing, and chooses not to enforce the non-compete.

I think in this case the non-compete is a condition of Kilduf's sale of the station to Corbeil. If he were merely an on-air personality and not a former owner I think he would be free to seek employment in the market (unless he was let go "for cause").

 

[NO DAG]

It's Bill Corbeil's and his wife's station, he has the keys, mortgage, and bills to pay. He has the right to chart his own course with the way he wants them to be. There nothing wrong with a fresh start and a new direction with a new owner for the business. Nobody likes to hear when people lose a job, especially in a high profile situation like radio. Kilduf will be fine, he sold the place. It's John Ashley, we wish good luck in finding employment. I'm sure WTSA will have the fine community involvement the station has always been known for. Sounds like Corbeil has made a huge capital investment technology upgrade into the stations. Good luck Bill !

 

[MassMusicMan]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

There's an ad about Imus' return right in the middle of the article! Sick ad placement!

Also, it's one thing for Corbeil to fire the former owner. That's business. Now let's see if he does the right thing, and chooses not to enforce the non-compete.

I think in this case the non-compete is a condition of Kilduf's sale of the station to Corbeil. If he were merely an on-air personality and not a former owner I think he would be free to seek employment in the market (unless he was let go "for cause").

Are you defending the use of non-compete clauses in radio?

 

[seacrestout]

Wil, I am curious: How is not enforcing a non-compete doing the "right thing?" When you go to work for a station, the station invests a great deal in you. Trust that you will be a good broadcaster, that you will not share secrets with the folks across the street, that you will work your hardest to keep the reputation of the station intact. And they pay you to do a job that many would like to have. In exchange for that trust and salary, you agree to sign a non compete. This protects the value of the product. You are not forced to sign it. But if you, and you get let go, or decide you want to seek greener pastures, you do it with that risk.

So, are you saying that the right thing would be to not worry about the investment in the station, and let a large personality simply take the listeners to another product?? I'm sorry, what school of business did you go to?? Maybe you've been up in VT wearing berks and smoking a little too much lawn...Trust me, I don't like non competes...I have missed on opportunities because I have had one, but I signed it knowingly. Go work for walmart, they don't make you sign one. Business, [EDIT], is business.

Good luck to those who are collateral damage in the WTSA sale, but no matter how "important" the Johns were, I am sure that tomorrow the sign will rise, and there will be sound of the speakers to radio tuned to 96.7.

One more thing...Coffee is still alive and kickin? That dude was like 900 back in 1991!!!

I'm outta here.


[EDIT-off topic baiting]

 

[MassMusicMan]

Wil, I am curious: How is not enforcing a non-compete doing the "right thing?" When you go to work for a station, the station invests a great deal in you.

I don't know your definition of "investing a great deal", but I'd say that a $22,000 a year salary is not a "great deal."

Trust that you will be a good broadcaster, that you will not share secrets with the folks across the street, that you will work your hardest to keep the reputation of the station intact. And they pay you to do a job that many would like to have. In exchange for that trust and salary, you agree to sign a non compete.

Why should that be the concession?

This protects the value of the product.

The value for which the employee is paid embarassingly little.

You are not forced to sign it. But if you, and you get let go, or decide you want to seek greener pastures, you do it with that risk.

I can see where one might apply if somebody leaves voluntarily. But a station can capriciously fire somebody, or lay them off, and then that person can't work in their town? How is that acceptable?

So, are you saying that the right thing would be to not worry about the investment in the station, and let a large personality simply take the listeners to another product??

If a station doesn't want that to happen, DON'T FIRE THE FRICKIN' GUY.

I'm sorry, what school of business did you go to??

I didn't go to business school. I'm just a decent human being.

Maybe you've been up in VT wearing berks and smoking a little too much lawn...Trust me, I don't like non competes...I have missed on opportunities because I have had one, but I signed it knowingly.

I'm sorry to hear that.

Go work for walmart, they don't make you sign one. Business, [EDIT], is business.

If I don't like Wal-Mart's policies, I'm free to start my own retail business with nothing more than a lease of a building zoned for retail, which are commonly available.

If I don't like a radio stations' policies, I'm not free to start my own radio station, because I need a license to have one, which are limited, and not generally for sale. That's not a good analogy.

 

[NO DAG]

Non competes tend not to hold up too well in Court.

 

[MassMusicMan]

Non competes tend not to hold up too well in Court.

Good. As scummy as some judges are, they're still better than radio executives.

 

[seacrestout]

Wil, [EDIT] Even NPR makes changes. Having a job is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. A business doesn't owe an employee anything when push comes to shove. We all want to feel secure, and as if our bosses care, but the reality is survival of the fittest. If you choose to wake up each day for $22,000 a year, that is YOUR silly decision. Personally, I wouldn't deal with the BS of radio for 22k, unless you were working in high school trying to break in the biz.

I have never owned a radio station, (nor would I want to), and never been in management beyond OM (by choice), but I understand that at the end of the day, the ONLY thing that matters is the survival of the station. If something is broke you fix it. Sometimes that fix comes from a format change, a crunch of the gold records, and sometimes its cleaning house. Its not personal. Its business.

This is not a friendly warm fuzzy business behind the scenes. It's entertainment. Do you get on the SAG boards and whine when a tv show gets canceled? It's nice that you are a "decent human being." I have no doubt about it, but at the end of the day, that doesn't pay the power bill..[EDIT]

Jo, you are right, the fact is, in most states, courts are opting not to enforce non competes, but it doesn't mean that the stations have to pay severance and whatever other parachutes that were agreed on. State by state are finding them void. As stated in another post, I don't like them, but if I want to work, I have to sign them, and fight the fight later.


[EDIT-off topic baiting]

 

[NO DAG]

It's funny how some radio companies make the 'Non-Com" a condition of employment.. "Sign this, or else". In most cases the non-coms are not even worth the ink they are printed with..And in this day of consolidation, there's not a lot options in a town, and in most cases one group may have almost a monopoly on the marketplace.

 

[Ray D. Oh]

Like an earlier poster said...Bill and his wife put themselves on the line to buy these stations. They have their money and credit tied up here. They have the right to employ anyone they see fit. If they make a mistake they will have to live with the consequences. The parties in question had been a part of the wallpaper at the station for a long time and perhaps it was time for a change. How do we...as outsiders....know? Who are we to second-guess the people who have taken the risk? We don't. Only the listeners do. They will be the final judge. My gut tells me that Bill probably made the right move. He has been running those stations for almost two years now and knows what the pulse of the market is. If one of the parties in question wanted to guarantee he'd have a job he shouldn't have sold the stations in the first place.

 

[MassMusicMan]

I'm not attacking anybody for firing an employee, or for making a business decision. All I'm doing is attacking the use of non-competes.

 

[Dr.Pepper]

The radio has never sounded better in Brattleboro. I am happy for Tim Johnson. One of the hardest working people in this business. The fact that he doesn't have to carry around the Golf Clubs of those two humps(Ashley and Clarke) must feel like heaven to him....

 

[grampagonzo]

Just to let you know.. I'm alive and well, and STILL at TSA

Tim

 

[bsboy]

Big Congrats to Bill and the entire staff at TSA. You can finally move on to bigger and better things now that C and A are gone.
By the way, Ian Kelly sounds great in the morning.

 

[nhradiochild]

You are not forced to sign it. But if you, and you get let go, or decide you want to seek greener pastures, you do it with that risk.

I can see where one might apply if somebody leaves voluntarily. But a station can capriciously fire somebody, or lay them off, and then that person can't work in their town? How is that acceptable?

So, are you saying that the right thing would be to not worry about the investment in the station, and let a large personality simply take the listeners to another product??

If a station doesn't want that to happen, DON'T FIRE THE FRICKIN' GUY.

I tend to agree with Will, at least in part. The benefit of a non-compete clause is to disallow talent to drag listeners to a new forum, BUUUUT... if the talent is that strong, then why fire him/her? Maybe only to reduce the salary being paid?? "In the business world" (as folks refer to here), the company might take a hit on ratings and assumedly revenue, but if the lost revenue balances out with the reduced overhead, isn't that the station's choice? At the risk of complicating the issue, perhaps an adjustment to the non-compete clause could be made, such as only if ratings are higher than the average station in the Arbs.

Just a thought.

Aside from that, I sincerely doubt that a station's "investment" in an inexperienced personality these days is the hardship it once was.