PL season to restart 19th june

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,613]

Just now, The Dude said:

Clubs aren't going to show commercial contracts to random journalists (especially not when said journalists can't actually get to clubs to see the documents in person). I can ask every club in the country to provide me copies of their sponsorship agreements and every single one will refuse.  They'll only let out what they want to get out.

Same with the SPFL and their broadcast deals. I've been VERY limited in what I've been able to do as I've been furloughed since April 1st so haven't even been able to access my work email account etc.

Let me put it this way to you, if the N&V stuff was all just made up bollocks to rush through awarding the title to celtic, do you think Rangers would have used the likes of 4lads or H&H to back that up and blow the SPFL's story out the water?

Yeah that's why I hoped someone could investigate, rather than go on what we all generally are being fed.

Or someone with clout could get an interview with a BT / Sky to ascertain their general views.

Just seems no one is bothered tbh.

Re 4lads etc. I honestly dont know. Little got out on the dossier prior to its release, perhaps on such non football matters the club doesnt want to go down that road yet. Again, guesswork, given no one is asking questions let alone getting answers. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,613]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It would cause issues either way but truncating would be to a much lesser degree than N&V.

Based on unseen contracts.  Hmmm, wonder if they're fucked because they wrote 38 games into those contracts and are shafted as that counts legally in favour of sponsors but not for spfl clubs when it comes to the spfl.

[RFC55 108,728]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It would cause issues either way but truncating would be to a much lesser degree than N&V.

Thats one I can't get my head round tbh. Don't understand the difference or why calling it would be any better. 

Surely wether it was won or cancelled they've all lost out. The sponsors logos have been shown on TV, the TV have shown their adverts during the games at ht etc on all the games played. So it does confuse me quite a bit. 

 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Yeah that's why I hoped someone could investigate, rather than go on what we all generally are being fed.

Or someone with clout could get an interview with a BT / Sky to ascertain their general views.

Just seems no one is bothered tbh.

Re 4lads etc. I honestly dont know. Little got out on the dossier prior to its release, perhaps on such non football matters the club doesnt want to go down that road yet. Again, guesswork, given no one is asking questions let alone getting answers. 

I've contacted Sky and BT several times (as far back as March) with no response. It appears they are only willing to talk directly with leagues at the minute.

IF the SPFL were making all this up it would be a massive story if someone could confirm it so the idea that nobody is bothered is laughable tbh. Especially just now as sites struggle to generate ad revenue. The traffic that would create for sites would be massive and very welcome just now for virtually every publisher around.

IIRC there was nothing in the dossier that wasn't already in the public domain before it was handed over to clubs.

[DMax399 3,685]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

The cost of testing was just one of the barriers. There's also the matter of players contracts ending, the complete uncertainty over when there would be any likelihood of playing games again and trying to avoid being battered by claims from sponsors/broadcasters etc.

There are three teams who have used the furlough scheme to retain players. By the very nature of the players being furloughed, they can't take part in any games. Thats the entire purpose of furlough. They can't have players furloughed and continue to play them in games. If the scheme runs until October and those players remain furloughed until then, they can't kick a ball until it's over.

My point was that they could retain the players by using the furlough scheme until they were ready to return to playing.  That would nullify the contract extension problem, assuming the league returns before October.  I don’t see the issue.  Funding thereafter is a different issue.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Rfc52 said:

Thats one I can't get my head round tbh. Don't understand the difference or why calling it would be any better. 

Surely wether it was won or cancelled they've all lost out. The sponsors logos have been shown on TV, the TV have shown their adverts during the games at ht etc on all the games played. So it does confuse me quite a bit. 

 

I think more than anything it's a case of semantics/the specific language used in contracts more than anything else.

Think the best way to put it is sort of like an abandoned game. If the game is abandoned, it never technically took place and your original ticket is still valid for the rearranged one - unless its those cunts Dundee United. Even if you watched Morelos score a hat-trick before it was abandoned, those goals no longer exist.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, DMax399 said:

My point was that they could retain the players by using the furlough scheme until they were ready to return to playing.  That would nullify the contract extension problem, assuming the league returns before October.  I don’t see the issue.  Funding thereafter is a different issue.

Then we have a whole different set of problems arising with the new Sky deal which takes effect from August 1st. If we 'restarted 19/20' in August would Sky have exclusive rights or would BT still be entitled to broadcast games?

[ger4life_1872 29,445]

Why  would clubs need to pay back ticket money for games that ppl attended ? 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ger4life_1872 said:

Why  would clubs need to pay back ticket money for games that ppl attended ? 

Same reason that (most) clubs give refunds if a game is abandoned.

[RFC55 108,728]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Same reason that (most) clubs give refunds if a game is abandoned.

But the games played to a finish? 

[ger4life_1872 29,445]

Just now, The Dude said:

Same reason that (most) clubs give refunds if a game is abandoned.

It's not even comparable to an abandoned game though , the games were played in full , using that logic clubs could go after staff for wages they received for working games ? It's a daft argument 

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Rfc52 said:

But the games played to a finish? 

If N&V the season wouldnt be finished, which is where the prospect of refunds comes in.

[born a blue nose 90,717]

I’m still looking for a refund for my old firm bonus ball win. Calculated it up using the ‘double bubble’ rule and it’s looking like govan blue owes me roughly £3000

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ger4life_1872 said:

It's not even comparable to an abandoned game though , the games were played in full , using that logic clubs could go after staff for wages they received for working games ? It's a daft argument 

It's not a matter of the games being played in full but the ST held by the fans being honoured in full. If the season is deemed to essentially have been abandoned it hasn't been honoured at all.

 

[ger4life_1872 29,445]

Just now, The Dude said:

It's not a matter of the games being played in full but the ST held by the fans being honoured in full. If the season is deemed to essentially have been abandoned it hasn't been honoured at all.

 

So surely this club is still on the hook then as all home games haven't been provided 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ger4life_1872 said:

So surely this club is still on the hook then as all home games haven't been provided 

Yes. Which is why many have offered pro-rata refunds to fans for the games which will no longer happen.

Rangers' T&Cs say that if the league cancels the games then they are under no obligation to provide a refund.

Ayr United are looking at paying out c£30000 in refunds if everyone takes them up. https://ayrunitedfc.co.uk/club-update-2/

 

[RFC55 108,728]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

If N&V the season wouldnt be finished, which is where the prospect of refunds comes in.

But the season is finished now with games not played?  

I'm no even trying to take the place the season was never played to a finish so why is awarding leagues better than N&V when it's really the same 

[ger4life_1872 29,445]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Yes. Which is why many have offered pro-rata refunds to fans for the games which will no longer happen.

Rangers' T&Cs say that if the league cancels the games then they are under no obligation to provide a refund.

Ayr United are looking at paying out c£30000 in refunds if everyone takes them up. https://ayrunitedfc.co.uk/club-update-2/

 

So null and void isnt any worse in the case of this club? Either way the season has ended early and now they need to pay full refunds ? 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Rfc52 said:

But the season is finished now with games not played?  

I'm no even trying to take the place the season was never played to a finish so why is awarding leagues better than N&V when it's really the same 

It technically is finished, in line with the rules of the league, so reduces the liability clubs would face (20% v 100%)

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, ger4life_1872 said:

So null and void isnt any worse in the case of this club? Either way the season has ended early and now they need to pay full refunds ? 

No they aren't paying full refunds. They are refunding the four games which hven't been played. If null and void they'd have to refund the full whack.

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Rangers_no1 said:

Will say it AGAIN the whole null and void TV argument is flawed.

The games took place, Sky etc benefited from them, to suggest they would be able to claw back money for those games is madness, simple because every single customer would they by precedent be able to get a full refund from the broadcasters as the games according to them never took place.   

See if you buy something but only get 80% of it, did you get what you paid for?

[pollok-bear 7,537]

Just now, Rangers_no1 said:

Will say it AGAIN the whole null and void TV argument is so flawed.

The games took place, Sky etc benefited from them, to suggest they would be able to claw back money for those games is madness, simple because every single customer would they by precedent be able to get a full refund from the broadcasters as the games according to them never took place.   

The only cunts who would have asked for a refund is the taigs if it was null and void.

We should all be pushing for refunds now that someone was gifted a title they didnt win.

Not wanting anything back aff Rangers for season books but bt sports and sky and Rangers should sue the spfl.

[pollok-bear 7,537]

Just now, The Dude said:

See if you buy something but only get 80% of it, did you get what you paid for?

Try 50% still 2 taig games to play which Is all they pay for.

[ger4life_1872 29,445]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

 

According to one club chairman, his club were facing the prospect of having to refund a full season's worth of ST money, sponsorship, hospitality money etc - 

 

 

7 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Yes. Which is why many have offered pro-rata refunds to fans for the games which will no longer happen.

Rangers' T&Cs say that if the league cancels the games then they are under no obligation to provide a refund.

Ayr United are looking at paying out c£30000 in refunds if everyone takes them up. https://ayrunitedfc.co.uk/club-update-2/

 

 

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No they aren't paying full refunds. They are refunding the four games which hven't been played. If null and void they'd have to refund the full whack.

So this unnamed  club were facing paying full refunds for n+v because of an incomplete season but have in their terms and conditions a stipulation that suddenly gets them out of an incomplete season as long as it's not n+v 

[The Dude 20,026]

4 minutes ago, Rangers_no1 said:

Will say it AGAIN the whole null and void TV argument is flawed.

The games took place, Sky etc benefited from them, to suggest they would be able to claw back money for those games is madness, simply because every single customer would then have a precedent set to be able to get a full refund from the broadcasters as the games according to them never took place.   

As long as Sky continue to provide your TV package, you've not a leg to stand on if a programme isn't available.