British_Empire 9,648 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said: The very definition of Null and Void . ’ being or amounting to nothing; nil; lacking; nonexistent.‘ With the season “curtailed” you’re paying ST’s and TV companies Pro Rata. Null and void they’re claiming back money for a season that would be “non existent” in a legal sense. I get that. But you're still doing that (paying them back) if you call the season early. Is the monies due really that much more? at the end of the day, the same amount of games are missing from the TV companies, sponsors etc's quota's regardless of how it ends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEPPS BOY 74,010 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 minute ago, British_Empire said: I get that. But you're still doing that (paying them back) if you call the season early. Is the monies due really that much more? at the end of the day, the same amount of games are missing from the TV companies, sponsors etc's quota's regardless of how it ends. If null and void you’re paying them back for full season not just a quarter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,755 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 13 minutes ago, The Dude said: One is considered complete, the other isn't. And this is relevant due to the different cost implications of the two conclusions. That we have for the EPL, but only some for the spfl which have been leaked and appear to show what the clubs were sold on the face if it wasnt accurate ie 10m risk. It's only a valid argument if both outcomes are known. If the spfl gave the 2 figures to clubs, what are they. If the clubs weren't given the 2 cost implications to compare, why not. At present it seems like the chosen method is costlier than clubs were led to believe by the spfl, and any attempt to compare it to n&v is deterred without financials given. Very strange. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
British_Empire 9,648 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 Just now, STEPPS BOY said: If null and void you’re paying them back for full season not just a quarter. and if you call it as it for sporting reasons, but don't issue out any prizes on the back of it as nothing has been won? If the TV companies are due the full season back, then are they not liable to refund their subscribers and companies who have advertised at premium-rates during the matches? Because I'd argue that they've still got their value of it at the time - everyone has. That's why I'm not sure this narrative stands up the way some want it to, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: And this is relevant due to the different cost implications of the two conclusions. That we have for the EPL, but only some for the spfl which have been leaked and appear to show what the clubs were sold on the face if it wasnt accurate ie 10m risk. It's only a valid argument if both outcomes are known. If the spfl gave the 2 figures to clubs, what are they. If the clubs weren't given the 2 cost implications to compare, why not. At present it seems like the chosen method is costlier than clubs were led to believe by the spfl, and any attempt to compare it to n&v is deterred without financials given. Very strange. Why do you think no clubs wanted N&V? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 minute ago, STEPPS BOY said: If null and void you’re paying them back for full season not just a quarter. That did not happen in those countries (Holland and Gibralter spring to mind) who did declare null and void. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Rangers_no1 said: Should have finished the season BCD. SPFL were desperate to end the season. .How does that work when clubs cant return until June 11th and players contracts were up on May 31st? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, GersInCanada said: That did not happen in those countries (Holland and Gibralter spring to mind) who did declare null and void. Holland didn't actually declare null and void. Ajax finished ahead of AZ Alkmaar in the league and AZ aren't happy.# https://www.firstpost.com/sports/az-alkmaar-writes-to-uefa-after-losing-automatic-champions-league-place-to-ajax-on-goal-difference-8410331.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 Just now, Rangers_no1 said: Said it time and time again, in a legal sense they wouldn't be able to argue they did not receive the agreed terms from all the previous games completed. Would mean every customer could 'in a legal sense' get refunds for subscription as games were non existent. Your subscription with Sky is that they'll provide a TV service, not that they'll provide you any specific content. I can't sue sky if Nat Geo decides to stop showing something I like. As long as they continue to provide the package I paid for, theyve done their end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, The Dude said: Holland didn't actually declare null and void. Ajax finished ahead of AZ Alkmaar in the league and AZ aren't happy. Holland did declare null and void. Ajax are not champions but have been awarded the CL group stage place with AZ in the qualifiers. That's what AZ were unhappy about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 Just now, Rangers_no1 said: Maybe do what the EPL is doing... 🙄 Resuming the season before players' contracts expire and having a literal multi-billion pound TV deal to subsidise them? The team finishing last in the EPL gets more in TV cash than the entire SPFL combined. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 Just now, Rangers_no1 said: You pay for Sky Sports as an add on subscription. How hard is that to grasp with you? And I still received Sky Sports all the way through. It never went off the air. Sky fulfilled their end of the contract with me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEPPS BOY 74,010 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, Rangers_no1 said: Said it time and time again, in a legal sense they wouldn't be able to argue they did not receive the agreed terms from all the previous games completed. Would mean every customer could 'in a legal sense' get refunds for subscription as games were non existent. You watch the games as part of your sky or BT package. It’s not like you pay a subscription only for these games that didn’t happen.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STEPPS BOY 74,010 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, GersInCanada said: Holland did declare null and void. Ajax are not champions but have been awarded the CL group stage place with AZ in the qualifiers. That's what AZ were unhappy about. No they didn’t. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 minute ago, GersInCanada said: Holland did declare null and void. Ajax are not champions but have been awarded the CL group stage place with AZ in the qualifiers. That's what AZ were unhappy about. And on what basis were Ajax awarded the CL group stage place? Was it based on their results in 2019/20? Because that's not null and void. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomger 874 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 12 minutes ago, The Dude said: Why do you think no clubs wanted N&V? Because scum fc wouldn't get the title. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,755 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 16 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said: The very definition of Null and Void . ’ being or amounting to nothing; nil; lacking; nonexistent.‘ With the season “curtailed” you’re paying ST’s and TV companies Pro Rata. Null and void their claiming back money for a season that would be “non existent” in a legal sense. But not claiming back full amounts as if it never happened. We're not giving full refunds on STs, we're not even contracted to give anything but are giving pro data for games lost. Would be the same if nul and void. Sponsors had their brand displayed for the games played and may seek refunds for the games unfulfilled. Cant see them getting more than pro rata, and that wouldnt likely change if conclusion by PPG or nul and void as they did benefit. Figures for the EPL serm to show a bigger cost from a n&v outcome than by playing games or concluding by PPG. But not a full refund as if the season never existed, not £3bn or whatever, so it's not like erasing it and paying back all monies is likely. Out of everything written no one seems to have clarified what more financial cost would come to the spfl from n&v than by PPG. Should be quite easy to provide given we're continually told clubs are only interested in their bottom line. So clubs must have been told the comparable costs at the time Budge says the n&v option was swiftly removed from the table for PPG. Yet no one says what the worse % or £££ cost to the spfl (and hence clubs) was estimated at. Almost secretive, or not even known. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 minute ago, The Dude said: And on what basis were Ajax awarded the CL group stage place? Was it based on their results in 2019/20? Because that's not null and void. I have no idea why they were awarded it. The Dutch FA simply following UEFA instructions to submit teams for next seasons competitions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, GersInCanada said: I have no idea why they were awarded it. The Dutch FA simply following UEFA instructions to submit teams for next seasons competitions. Their league results. AZ are unhappy because Ajax are ahead on goal difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Rangers_no1 said: Its a short term contract and I'm sure the 10m tv figure would have decreased when finishing the season. So funds clubs would not lose out on. No they didn't because the agreement is live football and other live sports. There's a reason they allowed people to pause the subscription and gave credits. What do clubs pay the players with? You're conflating a goodwill gesture to save customers getting rid in their droves to what they are contractually obligated to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Rangers_no1 said: You know what is comical.. On one hand you have posters saying broadcasters legally can ask for rebate even though the games are BCD. So the product they pay for is STILL occurring live and is being broadcast on their tv channel as per contractual agreement for viewing. HOWEVER the same does not apply with Sky Sports and their customers. You pay for LIVE sports, that's what they advertise the subscription on, which has been missing. Sky has fulfilled the contract apparently as the tv channel is still on... Marketing legislation anyone... So which bit is comical? That the terms of a commercial agreement between a broadcaster and football league has different terms to it than the one you agree with Sky to provide a TV service? If Sky One stops showing the Simpsons can I sue them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Rangers_no1 said: You know what is comical.. On one hand you have posters saying broadcasters legally can ask for rebate even though the games are BCD. So the product they pay for is STILL occurring live and is being broadcast on their tv channel as per contractual agreement for viewing. HOWEVER the same does not apply with Sky Sports and their customers. You pay for LIVE sports, that's what they advertise the subscription on, which has been missing. Sky has fulfilled the contract apparently as the tv channel is still on... Marketing legislation anyone... Valid points. I don't see broadcasters being able to reclaim money for behind closed doors. They paid for a game and they got one. They paid for a game but did not get any crowd ? See how that flies in court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 22 minutes ago, tomger said: Because scum fc wouldn't get the title. Most clubs couldn't give a fuck less about them or us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 Just now, GersInCanada said: Valid points. I don't see broadcasters being able to reclaim money for behind closed doors. They paid for a game and they got one. They paid for a game but did not get any crowd ? See how that flies in court. The PL are paying back 170m for exactly that reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, The Dude said: The PL are paying back 170m for exactly that reason. I don't believe that for a minute. Much more like 'we are bunging your league billions but audiences and advertising will be down bcd. Cough up 170M and we will continue to throw billions your way in the future' A much more likely scenario than any legal (contract) nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.