Football and the Coronavirus

Shamikebab said:
It doesn't say that anywhere in that article.
Click to expand...
“However, the figure is not split evenly between each club and Liverpool are leading a dispute against the current proposal.

Rather, because of how the rights terms are divided - 50 percent of money is divided equally with 25 percent awarded for live appearances and the other 25 percent dependent on league finishing position - the top six clubs face potentially paying back TREBLE the other 14 sides.

If they are leading a dispute against the current proposal then clearly all the teams against it want to pay the same as everyone else

listen if i am not reading it right then sorry but that’s the way I’m am reading that article
 
Woppy, the article states that West Ham (among others) are in agreement with Liverpool. West Ham currently sit 16th and if rebate was paid as a proportion of a clubs TV income, they would be paying the lower end figure. Why would West Ham be supporting Liverpool if the argument was about the way the rebate is being split? They would end up paying more back :confused:

The argument is that clubs don't want to pay anything, or at least not nearly as much as broadcasters are demanding.

Just quickly on the possibility of top sides paying treble what the sides at the bottom would pay, I'd be interested to find out how they've calculated that. Liverpool received the most PL money last season with £152m and Huddersfield received the least with £96m. That's only 50% more, so why should they repay 300% more?
 
BaZ87 said:
Woppy, the article states that West Ham (among others) are in agreement with Liverpool. West Ham currently sit 16th and if rebate was paid as a proportion of a clubs TV income, they would be paying the lower end figure. Why would West Ham be supporting Liverpool if the argument was about the way the rebate is being split? They would end up paying more back :confused:

The argument is that clubs don't want to pay anything, or at least they not nearly as much as broadcasters are demanding.

Just quickly on the possibility of top sides paying treble what the sides at the bottom would pay, I'd be interested to find out how they've calculated that. Liverpool received the most PL money last season with £152m and Huddersfield received the least with £96m. That's only 50% more, so why should they repay 300% more?
Click to expand...
Fair enough but that’s not the way I read it, shows how everyone’s perception is different.

With regards to paying back money I think that clubs should pay back some money, sky and BT and no doubt overseas broadcasters had to reduce customers bills and packages for the period of no live sport, money which they won’t get back and which they would have budgeted to receive. So it’s only fair that clubs pay some back, the way I would have done it though is I would have requested more from the teams that had been selected for live tv during that period(if I remember correctly all the live games had been selected to the end of the season anyway) broadcasters are always going to ask for more in negotiations but would most likely settle for less.
 
They are now saying that it wouldn’t have made any difference playing at neutral grounds as playing in front of empty stadiums in the bundesliga has taken away most of the home advantage
 
Last edited:
I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting my sporting fix just watching the two sides go at each other in this debate. It's great. When are the half-time oranges?
 
I've just read that testing capacity has now increased to 60 tests per club. Hopefully this will allow all clubs to test everybody that enters the training ground, no matter how involved they are.
 
I wish we could just get a bloody date. It’s dragging on and on.

I’m interested in seeing the broadcast plans as well. I cannot believe for one second we’ll get premier league on freeview.
 
BaZ87 said:
Woppy, the article states that West Ham (among others) are in agreement with Liverpool. West Ham currently sit 16th and if rebate was paid as a proportion of a clubs TV income, they would be paying the lower end figure. Why would West Ham be supporting Liverpool if the argument was about the way the rebate is being split? They would end up paying more back :confused:

The argument is that clubs don't want to pay anything, or at least not nearly as much as broadcasters are demanding.

Just quickly on the possibility of top sides paying treble what the sides at the bottom would pay, I'd be interested to find out how they've calculated that. Liverpool received the most PL money last season with £152m and Huddersfield received the least with £96m. That's only 50% more, so why should they repay 300% more?
Click to expand...
robfosters said:
I wish we could just get a bloody date. It’s dragging on and on.

I’m interested in seeing the broadcast plans as well. I cannot believe for one second we’ll get premier league on freeview.
Click to expand...
That could actually be the reason Sky and BT are wanting a rebate on payments made, if live football is to be broadcast on free to air for the remainder of the season.
 
Sky and BT's contracted games will almost certainly not be free to air. The majority of games that haven't been sold will also be given to both Sky and BT. Whether these are made available for free remains to be seen but these are additional games, not the ones they have paid for so it shouldn't be a reason for requesting rebate. Reportedly as little as 8 games will be shared between Amazon and the BBC - these shouldn't have a huge negative effect on Sky/BT.

The rebate is almost certainly linked to the timing of these games taking place. Sky and BT have budgeted for these games taking place over a 10 week period from March to May with Cricket etc to be shown over the summer months. The PL games will now be played within a 6 week period between mid June and the end of July. At the very least Sky and BT will have lost around a months worth of content as a result of the PL being delayed and that assumes that Cricket doesn't resume in these months. If Cricket restarts around the same time then broadcasters could argue that they've lost a full 10 weeks of content.
 
BaZ87 said:
Sky and BT's contracted games will almost certainly not be free to air. The majority of games that haven't been sold will also be given to both Sky and BT. Whether these are made available for free remains to be seen but these are additional games, not the ones they have paid for so it shouldn't be a reason for requesting rebate. Reportedly as little as 8 games will be shared between Amazon and the BBC - these shouldn't have a huge negative effect on Sky/BT.

The rebate is almost certainly linked to the timing of these games taking place. Sky and BT have budgeted for these games taking place over a 10 week period from March to May with Cricket etc to be shown over the summer months. The PL games will now be played within a 6 week period between mid June and the end of July. At the very least Sky and BT will have lost around a months worth of content as a result of the PL being delayed and that assumes that Cricket doesn't resume in these months. If Cricket restarts around the same time then broadcasters could argue that they've lost a full 10 weeks of content.
Click to expand...
I got a feeling amazon will get those remaining games.

After all, BT and SKY already have a set amount of games to broadcast. The other remaiing games have no broadcast plans and this is where AMAZON or another provider can pick those up?
 
No. If another broadcaster picked up a significant number of these additional games then Sky and BT would absolutely be asking for their money back. How many viewers would Sky lose if their games were clashing with games being shown elsewhere, especially if that broadcaster charges significantly less or even offers them for free?

It's being reported that the games that weren't sold will be distributed based on how many games the broadcaster purchased. Sky own the rights to the majority of games so will get the most, BT next and then a handful for Amazon. There will then be some token gesture games given to the BBC to satisfy the government.

The only way Amazon (or anybody else) could get a significant number of the remaining games was if they paid for them and paid enough so that Sky and BT would be compensated for their loss..
 
BaZ87 said:
No. If another broadcaster picked up a significant number of these additional games then Sky and BT would absolutely be asking for their money back. How many viewers would Sky lose if their games were clasing with games being shown elsewhere, especially if that broadcaster charges significantly less or even offers them for free?

It's being reported that the games that weren't sold will be distributed based on how many games the broadcaster purchased. Sky own the rights to the majority of games so will get the most, BT next and then a handful for Amazon. There will then be some token gesture games given to the BBC to satisfy the government.

The only way Amazon (or anybody else) could get a significant number of the remaining games was if they paid for them and paid enough so that Sky and BT would be compensated for their loss..
Click to expand...
OK fair enough.

BTW, does BT show all the bundesliga games live?
 
It's being reported that the PL will restart on the 17th June with the games in hand for Arsenal, City, Sheffield Utd and Villa and then the first full round of fixtures on the weekend of the 20th & 21st.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom