Michael Byrnes

And ARN said, no, we are under no obligation

to offer you such an alternative show.

And you've indicated you can't work with Kyle.

And indeed, you've not said, I can work with Kyle under these conditions or I might be able to work with Kyle again in the future.

There's nothing conditional like that.

It was unequivocal.

It was emphatic.

Never again, I won't be working with Kyle.

And ARN says, well, that's a repudiation agreement and we had a right to terminate.

So that's their position.

In both situations, in both instances, the contract is front and centre to the primary matter that is going to be in dispute.

Of course.

Yes.

So I think, Tash, it's a case on one view, one level, theoretically, that's in some ways screaming out for a settlement.

Because I wouldn't say it's entirely clear who's going to win or who's going to lose.

There's risks, enormous risks for all parties.

And so that being the case, it's best that the parties, rather than chance their arm in court, look for a resolution.

But as you say, there's so much money involved here.

The contracts were $100 million each, $10 million a year over 10 years.

The damages claims are, I think, for Jackie, $82 million, for Carl, $85 million.