comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 8 minutes ago
Elvis
You ate ignoring the material info into he article. It doesn't matter the source.
Does the league have to provide games by 16th of July or possibly have to pay 762m in rebates? Some of the points are absolute facts that suggest completing the season is paramount.
The league would be better off asking for the TV companies to extend the July 16th deadline rather than paying that money which will bankrupt many clubs and leave many many players without wages or a job. Its a double whammy.
The last payment from TV companies will not be payed, which will mean unpaid wages and sheet. In addition to this, the league would be liable to pay back 762m in rebates.
The Premier league would probably be so ridden in debt it would be wound up.
Get a grip FFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a fact that the government is keen to see the season finished? I am sure they will assist it if possible. But they have already made it clear that the players, managers and staff safety is the priority. You need to take these articles with a pinch of salt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article itself says the Government is probably in support of this plan.
Read it again.
We will see whether it will all be possible.
It’s a poorly written article. But you’ve suggested the tv companies will withhold the final payment of £762bn and then claim a £762bn rebate from the premier league, it doesn’t say that and it cannot happen.
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 30 seconds ago
It’s a poorly written article. But you’ve suggested the tv companies will withhold the final payment of £762bn and then claim a £762bn rebate from the premier league, it doesn’t say that and it cannot happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what it says saan. Whether it will happen is. Another question.
Rebates of 762m means refunds of 762m that's already been paid.
There was supposed to be a final payment this season which cannot be paid if games are not being played and clubs might start going bust immediately
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 8 minutes ago
Elvis
You ate ignoring the material info into he article. It doesn't matter the source.
Does the league have to provide games by 16th of July or possibly have to pay 762m in rebates? Some of the points are absolute facts that suggest completing the season is paramount.
The league would be better off asking for the TV companies to extend the July 16th deadline rather than paying that money which will bankrupt many clubs and leave many many players without wages or a job. Its a double whammy.
The last payment from TV companies will not be payed, which will mean unpaid wages and sheet. In addition to this, the league would be liable to pay back 762m in rebates.
The Premier league would probably be so ridden in debt it would be wound up.
Get a grip FFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a fact that the government is keen to see the season finished? I am sure they will assist it if possible. But they have already made it clear that the players, managers and staff safety is the priority. You need to take these articles with a pinch of salt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article itself says the Government is probably in support of this plan.
Read it again.
We will see whether it will all be possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say that? I read that they are keen for football to return once it isn't considered a public risk or a drain on resources.
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
You tell me, that’s what you suggested.
The last payment from TV companies will not be payed, which will mean unpaid wages and sheet. In addition to this, the league would be liable to pay back 762m in rebates.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 20 seconds ago
You tell me, that’s what you suggested.
The last payment from TV companies will not be payed, which will mean unpaid wages and sheet. In addition to this, the league would be liable to pay back 762m in rebates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Rebates(refunds) of 762m will be payable for money which the league has already received. Otherwise it wouldn't be a refund
As for the final payment in May, it won't happen and therefore no rebates/refunds can be claimed thereof
This is what happens when you read the Daily Mail.
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am awate of this but let's limit the context to the matter at hand. What does rebate mean in this instance?
Instead of splitting hairs over its dictionary definition
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 30 seconds ago
This is what happens when you read the Daily Mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, perhaps its all crap then. What do I know?
But nowhere in the article does it state that. The subject is the £762bn final payment. There’s nine league games to play for nearly every team, by your reckoning the tv companies will be withholding a quarter of the payments and asking for a further quarter back, despite three quarters of the season already being carried out.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am awate of this but let's limit the context to the matter at hand. What does rebate mean in this instance?
Instead of splitting hairs over its dictionary definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you obviously weren't aware of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said that payment has to have been made or that a rebate is a refund.
I didn't really focus too much on that part of the article.
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
But nowhere in the article does it state that. The subject is the £762bn final payment. There’s nine league games to play for nearly every team, by your reckoning the tv companies will be withholding a quarter of the payments and asking for a further quarter back, despite three quarters of the season already being carried out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think yiure wrong. The article is clear but let's assume you ate correct. So how much will they be asking for and is the difference significant enough to change the situation?
Its pointless because failure to pay the last batch alone will still carry an unimaginable cost in terms of football. That single fact kills the horse before its bolted. The point stands unfettered, even if you were correct.
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am awate of this but let's limit the context to the matter at hand. What does rebate mean in this instance?
Instead of splitting hairs over its dictionary definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you obviously weren't aware of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said that payment has to have been made or that a rebate is a refund.
I didn't really focus too much on that part of the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this scenario and circumstance, I applied the correct definition and characteristics of the particular use of yhe word as intended by the writer. Its other meanings (not intended by yhe writer) have no relavance and thus I did not refer to them.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am awate of this but let's limit the context to the matter at hand. What does rebate mean in this instance?
Instead of splitting hairs over its dictionary definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you obviously weren't aware of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said that payment has to have been made or that a rebate is a refund.
I didn't really focus too much on that part of the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this scenario and circumstance, I applied the correct definition and characteristics of the particular use of yhe word as intended by the writer. Its other meanings (not intended by yhe writer) have no relavance and thus I did not refer to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you? I think the writer meant that the final payment wouldn't be made. Not that it would be a refund. Aren't the payments made in 3 stages per year? The deal is 1.6bn per deal. So a final payment of £756m would make sense to me allowing for the additional for prize money.
It literally says:
A restart in May is seen as vital as that is when the clubs are due to receive their final tranche of television money for the season, without which many will struggle to pay the players' wages. The £762m of combined income under threat is not divided equally and would range from £57m for the Premier League winners to £20m for the team who finish bottom.
Nowhere does it speak of monies already paid, you’ve seen the word rebate and then jumped to the wrong conclusion.
If they withhold the final payment of course it’ll have hugely damaging consequences, that’s never been disputed.
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What was that? This isn't really disagreeing with what I said, is it?
"A refund is usually given when someone returns a defective or unwanted product. The product is received back at the store and the customer receives his or her money back. ... Refund is the full amount you get of what you paid. On the other hand, rebate is not the full amount but somewhat lesser than what you paid."
There was nothing wrong with me equaiying it to a refund and that doesn't mean I am unaware of other ways yhe word can be used.
Are you saying a debate can occur without payment having been made? Please be clear on this
To nip this angle in the bud, what does it change? It changes nothing even if you are correct so basically we're wasting time. This is a legal issue. You assume they will calculate up to the last game played but you don't know how the packages are well.. packaged.
Fact is its lethal in many ways not just for the league but for it's associates like TV companies.
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
It literally says:
A restart in May is seen as vital as that is when the clubs are due to receive their final tranche of television money for the season, without which many will struggle to pay the players' wages. The £762m of combined income under threat is not divided equally and would range from £57m for the Premier League winners to £20m for the team who finish bottom.
Nowhere does it speak of monies already paid, you’ve seen the word rebate and then jumped to the wrong conclusion.
If they withhold the final payment of course it’ll have hugely damaging consequences, that’s never been disputed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't see how a rebate of 762m can be due for money that has not and will not be paid. Its againatbyhe rules of financial physics.
If that's possible then educate me.
If the final tranche was 762m which would then be liable to rebate, then why does yhe article not just say that?
It seems to me that the article makes a separation between the last tranche and the 762m.
But as I said, even if it were not so, it doesn't change yhe point I was making, which I assume you don't object to as you haven't objected to it, only the meaning of a word so far.
The article is suggesting a rebate if the final payment is made but the season isn’t completed by that date. It doesn’t even say anything about it being withheld, nor does it say anything about the instalments already made to the premier league.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 4 minutes ago
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What was that? This isn't really disagreeing with what I said, is it?
"A refund is usually given when someone returns a defective or unwanted product. The product is received back at the store and the customer receives his or her money back. ... Refund is the full amount you get of what you paid. On the other hand, rebate is not the full amount but somewhat lesser than what you paid."
There was nothing wrong with me equaiying it to a refund and that doesn't mean I am unaware of other ways yhe word can be used.
Are you saying a debate can occur without payment having been made? Please be clear on this
To nip this angle in the bud, what does it change? It changes nothing even if you are correct so basically we're wasting time. This is a legal issue. You assume they will calculate up to the last game played but you don't know how the packages are well.. packaged.
Fact is its lethal in many ways not just for the league but for it's associates like TV companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll spell it out for you. A rebate is a deduction off the total bill. It can be taken off the outstanding balance or refunded if the the rebate amount is greater than the outstanding balance. A rebate is not always a refund.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 22 seconds ago
If the final tranche was 762m which would then be liable to rebate, then why does yhe article not just say that?
It seems to me that the article makes a separation between the last tranche and the 762m.
But as I said, even if it were not so, it doesn't change yhe point I was making, which I assume you don't object to as you haven't objected to it, only the meaning of a word so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep being so matter-of-fact about everything, but none of you or your Liverpool supporting brethren can come close to providing a solution for the contractual issues that will arise on 30th June. It might not hit the Premier League all that badly, though there are still issues, but I've explained numerous times why it could be a massive issue for some clubs between the Championship and the National League. All you say is "there are lots of possibilities...", without actually having come up with a single lawful one yet? 🤷♂️
Sign in if you want to comment
Could a double season be the answer?
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 8 minutes ago
Elvis
You ate ignoring the material info into he article. It doesn't matter the source.
Does the league have to provide games by 16th of July or possibly have to pay 762m in rebates? Some of the points are absolute facts that suggest completing the season is paramount.
The league would be better off asking for the TV companies to extend the July 16th deadline rather than paying that money which will bankrupt many clubs and leave many many players without wages or a job. Its a double whammy.
The last payment from TV companies will not be payed, which will mean unpaid wages and sheet. In addition to this, the league would be liable to pay back 762m in rebates.
The Premier league would probably be so ridden in debt it would be wound up.
Get a grip FFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a fact that the government is keen to see the season finished? I am sure they will assist it if possible. But they have already made it clear that the players, managers and staff safety is the priority. You need to take these articles with a pinch of salt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article itself says the Government is probably in support of this plan.
Read it again.
We will see whether it will all be possible.
posted on 30/3/20
It’s a poorly written article. But you’ve suggested the tv companies will withhold the final payment of £762bn and then claim a £762bn rebate from the premier league, it doesn’t say that and it cannot happen.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 30 seconds ago
It’s a poorly written article. But you’ve suggested the tv companies will withhold the final payment of £762bn and then claim a £762bn rebate from the premier league, it doesn’t say that and it cannot happen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what it says saan. Whether it will happen is. Another question.
posted on 30/3/20
Rebates of 762m means refunds of 762m that's already been paid.
There was supposed to be a final payment this season which cannot be paid if games are not being played and clubs might start going bust immediately
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 8 minutes ago
Elvis
You ate ignoring the material info into he article. It doesn't matter the source.
Does the league have to provide games by 16th of July or possibly have to pay 762m in rebates? Some of the points are absolute facts that suggest completing the season is paramount.
The league would be better off asking for the TV companies to extend the July 16th deadline rather than paying that money which will bankrupt many clubs and leave many many players without wages or a job. Its a double whammy.
The last payment from TV companies will not be payed, which will mean unpaid wages and sheet. In addition to this, the league would be liable to pay back 762m in rebates.
The Premier league would probably be so ridden in debt it would be wound up.
Get a grip FFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a fact that the government is keen to see the season finished? I am sure they will assist it if possible. But they have already made it clear that the players, managers and staff safety is the priority. You need to take these articles with a pinch of salt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The article itself says the Government is probably in support of this plan.
Read it again.
We will see whether it will all be possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Does it say that? I read that they are keen for football to return once it isn't considered a public risk or a drain on resources.
posted on 30/3/20
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
posted on 30/3/20
You tell me, that’s what you suggested.
The last payment from TV companies will not be payed, which will mean unpaid wages and sheet. In addition to this, the league would be liable to pay back 762m in rebates.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
posted on 30/3/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 20 seconds ago
You tell me, that’s what you suggested.
The last payment from TV companies will not be payed, which will mean unpaid wages and sheet. In addition to this, the league would be liable to pay back 762m in rebates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Rebates(refunds) of 762m will be payable for money which the league has already received. Otherwise it wouldn't be a refund
As for the final payment in May, it won't happen and therefore no rebates/refunds can be claimed thereof
posted on 31/3/20
This is what happens when you read the Daily Mail.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am awate of this but let's limit the context to the matter at hand. What does rebate mean in this instance?
Instead of splitting hairs over its dictionary definition
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 30 seconds ago
This is what happens when you read the Daily Mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, perhaps its all crap then. What do I know?
posted on 31/3/20
But nowhere in the article does it state that. The subject is the £762bn final payment. There’s nine league games to play for nearly every team, by your reckoning the tv companies will be withholding a quarter of the payments and asking for a further quarter back, despite three quarters of the season already being carried out.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am awate of this but let's limit the context to the matter at hand. What does rebate mean in this instance?
Instead of splitting hairs over its dictionary definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you obviously weren't aware of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said that payment has to have been made or that a rebate is a refund.
I didn't really focus too much on that part of the article.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
But nowhere in the article does it state that. The subject is the £762bn final payment. There’s nine league games to play for nearly every team, by your reckoning the tv companies will be withholding a quarter of the payments and asking for a further quarter back, despite three quarters of the season already being carried out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think yiure wrong. The article is clear but let's assume you ate correct. So how much will they be asking for and is the difference significant enough to change the situation?
Its pointless because failure to pay the last batch alone will still carry an unimaginable cost in terms of football. That single fact kills the horse before its bolted. The point stands unfettered, even if you were correct.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am awate of this but let's limit the context to the matter at hand. What does rebate mean in this instance?
Instead of splitting hairs over its dictionary definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you obviously weren't aware of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said that payment has to have been made or that a rebate is a refund.
I didn't really focus too much on that part of the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this scenario and circumstance, I applied the correct definition and characteristics of the particular use of yhe word as intended by the writer. Its other meanings (not intended by yhe writer) have no relavance and thus I did not refer to them.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 35 seconds ago
It doesn’t say that. It’s suggesting they could demand rebates of that sum for the final May payment if the games aren’t played.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This makes no sense. A rebate is a refund. Payment must have been made already. The final payment has not been done and will not be done if games are not being played so how will they end up seeking rebates for money they have refused to pay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am awate of this but let's limit the context to the matter at hand. What does rebate mean in this instance?
Instead of splitting hairs over its dictionary definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well you obviously weren't aware of it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said that payment has to have been made or that a rebate is a refund.
I didn't really focus too much on that part of the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this scenario and circumstance, I applied the correct definition and characteristics of the particular use of yhe word as intended by the writer. Its other meanings (not intended by yhe writer) have no relavance and thus I did not refer to them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you? I think the writer meant that the final payment wouldn't be made. Not that it would be a refund. Aren't the payments made in 3 stages per year? The deal is 1.6bn per deal. So a final payment of £756m would make sense to me allowing for the additional for prize money.
posted on 31/3/20
It literally says:
A restart in May is seen as vital as that is when the clubs are due to receive their final tranche of television money for the season, without which many will struggle to pay the players' wages. The £762m of combined income under threat is not divided equally and would range from £57m for the Premier League winners to £20m for the team who finish bottom.
Nowhere does it speak of monies already paid, you’ve seen the word rebate and then jumped to the wrong conclusion.
If they withhold the final payment of course it’ll have hugely damaging consequences, that’s never been disputed.
posted on 31/3/20
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What was that? This isn't really disagreeing with what I said, is it?
"A refund is usually given when someone returns a defective or unwanted product. The product is received back at the store and the customer receives his or her money back. ... Refund is the full amount you get of what you paid. On the other hand, rebate is not the full amount but somewhat lesser than what you paid."
There was nothing wrong with me equaiying it to a refund and that doesn't mean I am unaware of other ways yhe word can be used.
Are you saying a debate can occur without payment having been made? Please be clear on this
To nip this angle in the bud, what does it change? It changes nothing even if you are correct so basically we're wasting time. This is a legal issue. You assume they will calculate up to the last game played but you don't know how the packages are well.. packaged.
Fact is its lethal in many ways not just for the league but for it's associates like TV companies.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 11 minutes ago
It literally says:
A restart in May is seen as vital as that is when the clubs are due to receive their final tranche of television money for the season, without which many will struggle to pay the players' wages. The £762m of combined income under threat is not divided equally and would range from £57m for the Premier League winners to £20m for the team who finish bottom.
Nowhere does it speak of monies already paid, you’ve seen the word rebate and then jumped to the wrong conclusion.
If they withhold the final payment of course it’ll have hugely damaging consequences, that’s never been disputed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I don't see how a rebate of 762m can be due for money that has not and will not be paid. Its againatbyhe rules of financial physics.
If that's possible then educate me.
posted on 31/3/20
If the final tranche was 762m which would then be liable to rebate, then why does yhe article not just say that?
It seems to me that the article makes a separation between the last tranche and the 762m.
But as I said, even if it were not so, it doesn't change yhe point I was making, which I assume you don't object to as you haven't objected to it, only the meaning of a word so far.
posted on 31/3/20
The article is suggesting a rebate if the final payment is made but the season isn’t completed by that date. It doesn’t even say anything about it being withheld, nor does it say anything about the instalments already made to the premier league.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 4 minutes ago
Actually a rebate can be applied to a payment at any point. Even at the initial point of/first payment. It doesn't always mean refund..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What was that? This isn't really disagreeing with what I said, is it?
"A refund is usually given when someone returns a defective or unwanted product. The product is received back at the store and the customer receives his or her money back. ... Refund is the full amount you get of what you paid. On the other hand, rebate is not the full amount but somewhat lesser than what you paid."
There was nothing wrong with me equaiying it to a refund and that doesn't mean I am unaware of other ways yhe word can be used.
Are you saying a debate can occur without payment having been made? Please be clear on this
To nip this angle in the bud, what does it change? It changes nothing even if you are correct so basically we're wasting time. This is a legal issue. You assume they will calculate up to the last game played but you don't know how the packages are well.. packaged.
Fact is its lethal in many ways not just for the league but for it's associates like TV companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll spell it out for you. A rebate is a deduction off the total bill. It can be taken off the outstanding balance or refunded if the the rebate amount is greater than the outstanding balance. A rebate is not always a refund.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 22 seconds ago
If the final tranche was 762m which would then be liable to rebate, then why does yhe article not just say that?
It seems to me that the article makes a separation between the last tranche and the 762m.
But as I said, even if it were not so, it doesn't change yhe point I was making, which I assume you don't object to as you haven't objected to it, only the meaning of a word so far.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep being so matter-of-fact about everything, but none of you or your Liverpool supporting brethren can come close to providing a solution for the contractual issues that will arise on 30th June. It might not hit the Premier League all that badly, though there are still issues, but I've explained numerous times why it could be a massive issue for some clubs between the Championship and the National League. All you say is "there are lots of possibilities...", without actually having come up with a single lawful one yet? 🤷♂️
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9