Sterling Times <2@slewis.biz> said:

Peter G. Millington-Wallace <(Address removed)> said:

Sterling Times <2@slewis.biz> said:

My thought is rather different to that. When the Government invites
tenders, it has the upperhand and it is dominant. It is able to ask for
all sorts of unreasonable provisions.

The competitive tenderees in many respects have no option other than to
be compliant at the time of the tender -- assessed on a points-based
system -- otherwise they will lose.

It means that tenderees will often offer provisions that make no real
sense or are not financially viable.

In time, when the contract doesn't work it is necessary to renegotiate.

Where a licence is issued, OFCOM may interfere and make all sorts of
demands or terminate the licence. The problem is that it is often
enforcing provisions that were never viable in the first place.

As someone who 'donated' a few thousand pounds to the Treasury/R.A./ofcom between 1995 and 2003 asking for commercial radio licences I've got to go with Mr Times on this one. In fact I would go a little further and say that since 1990 the competetive tender process for Local Commercial Radio licences has been a total con and fraud of epic proportions.Politically speaking the gravy train departed under the Tories and 'New' Labour ran with the filthy money making scheme,to the total competetive detriment of a whole newly emerging 'local' service industry.

Of personal experience,the investment group which moved in on Eddie Austin's 'South East Radio' in the Dover/Folkestone area, RSL radio stations 'The Sound' -prior to licence application-complete with petitions/letters of support,including one from the still current Dover MP-all supporting the 'Sound',won the licence(s) and gave the supporters a radio station that they had never heard..'Neptune Radio'.Thats not to mention the High Court rumpus that ensued and that EKR Ltd had much better financial proposals in their application!
This same radio investment group went on to win a further 8 times in the next 2 years... they really did have something that the other 54 groups that applied for the same licences didn't have...like a man who was a former finance director of one of their existing radio companies who had got himself a job with the regulator(R.A.) who just so happened to be in charge of the section 104 decisions(financial viability) so crucial in the award process.
and if financial viability was so crucial how come so many licences were 'sold on' with the stations not having to prove to the regulator the financial distress which had led to this move?..and BTW, where in the Broadcasting Act 1990/Comms Act 2003 is the legal basis for the 'selling on' of a competetively tendered licence? We've all been conned...if you dare to listen to UK commercial radio today...you can hear it! Yours,with a big 'Zero' for Rajar,
Jim