The closing for WMPA has already been extended twice. As with much of these other issues, that doesn't look good.MWmetalhead wrote: ↑Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:14 amHow the heck did WGHN not know the publicly owned utility company was sending them the wrong power bill for years on end? They know the rate per kW/h, right? They know the TPO, right? They should've been able to figure out very easily that they were being undercharged.
I guess I'm skeptical of WGHN's plea of being a victim.
The station's refutation of the city's claim that it has been subsidizing WGHN is silly, too. If the city is telling the truth regarding the utility bill situation, it clearly has been providing the station an unintended cash benefit by paying a very significant portion of its power bill.
Did WGHN have a legally binding agreement with the city in writing regarding the $1,000 per month installment arrangement toward paying down the utility arrearage? The station claims a Memorandum of Understanding was signed. It then goes on to say the MoU is unrelated to the lease but the station decided to discontinue making payments when the city claimed the radio station was in violation of the tower lease. Here's the thing - the term "MoU" is generally used to describe a non-binding outline of terms. It generally is not used to describe a legally enforceable agreement, such as a promissory note.
Were the $1,000 monthly payments discontinued because the city made demand for the full outstanding amount? If so, did the city have the right to make such payment demand? Those answers are unclear because the relevant documents have not been shared with the public.
Finally, the statement is not fully transparent regarding WMPA. Yes, WGHN, Inc. still owns it. Yes, LMAs are not uncommon. However, the fact is - a purchase and sale agreement is in place, the closing of which is subject to certain conditions precedent being satisfied (one of which is FCC approval). I suspect WGHN, Inc. would love for that divestiture to occur sooner rather than later.
It is still my belief that allowing the city to have authority over programming decisions on WGHN or WMPA, raises the potential for FCC questions about unauthorized transfer of control to some degree. The city is not a party to any LMA on either station.
The locally owned tower may be their best bet. I've seen how Vertical Bridge maintains (or doesn't) old legacy transmitter sites. Deferred maintenance, and blight are rampant in VB's tower portfolio. I personally know a station owner who's dealing with it right now.
I wonder, does Tieman own the AM site? How old is the AM tower?