I doubt €110m between 40 clubs is going to send anyone under - especially as it says the elite get a bigger chunk.
Actually I think there's two payments but I could be mistaken. Nevertheless, French football is heavily reliant on TV money but not as much as England.
It may seem like a small amount but the (smaller)clubs still cannot do without their share and will be unable to meet their operating costs. Its a lot of money to some of the clubs.
Question is why the animosity? It only complicates things for French football. This is not a time to be claiming legal rights, its a time to come together and find solutions.
Every man for himself I guess.
I think CanalPlus are unhappy that future rights were given to MediaPro.
With regards the obvious contractual disputes between TV companies and various leagues, would there ever cine a point where governments stepped in to intervene?
Genuine question as politics will never be my strong suit, it just seems logical to me that finding a way to keep both parties happy would be far more beneficial in an economical sense for any country. That said, I know just enough about politics to know that it doesn't always mix well with logic!
IMO, Governments would only be able to give advice, recommendations and suggestions. Persuasive but not binding.
Unless it gets so bad that football is relying on the government to stay afloat in which case you could argue the government would have a say in how their money is spent.
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
With regards the obvious contractual disputes between TV companies and various leagues, would there ever cine a point where governments stepped in to intervene?
Genuine question as politics will never be my strong suit, it just seems logical to me that finding a way to keep both parties happy would be far more beneficial in an economical sense for any country. That said, I know just enough about politics to know that it doesn't always mix well with logic!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is more of an issue that a precedent would then be set. The core purpose of contract law is that it represents security for both parties. The terms of the contract are set and of there is a breach of contract then both sides know what happens and what they can expect.
Were a government to step on a effectively declare an otherwise legitimate contract void then it sets a precedent that they have the power to do it. Other companies in contractual trouble will demand the government do the same for them, or they might threaten to sue the government for unfair practice.
Contracts would essentially become worthless and it would be extremely difficult for companies to do business together
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
With regards the obvious contractual disputes between TV companies and various leagues, would there ever cine a point where governments stepped in to intervene?
Genuine question as politics will never be my strong suit, it just seems logical to me that finding a way to keep both parties happy would be far more beneficial in an economical sense for any country. That said, I know just enough about politics to know that it doesn't always mix well with logic!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is more of an issue that a precedent would then be set. The core purpose of contract law is that it represents security for both parties. The terms of the contract are set and of there is a breach of contract then both sides know what happens and what they can expect.
Were a government to step on a effectively declare an otherwise legitimate contract void then it sets a precedent that they have the power to do it. Other companies in contractual trouble will demand the government do the same for them, or they might threaten to sue the government for unfair practice.
Contracts would essentially become worthless and it would be extremely difficult for companies to do business together
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that makes sense. I wasn't inferring that a contract should be voided though. I meant more along the lines of insisting some kind of agreement between both parties is met, as it wouldn't be in the national interest to have the top football division put in a perilous position because of a contract breach nobody could have predicted when the terms of the contract was agreed.
I could be way off the mark on this, obviously. Don't underestimate my lack of knowledge about politics
The problem is what would the government be expecting from the parties involved? Not finishing the season is guaranteed to leave a hole the size of Jupiter in somebody's accounts. The TV companies have shreaholders and owners, no one will be ready to take the hit.
There will be PSG and PSG reserves left and that it.
The TV company just shafted every small club.
Dont think for one second that theres a queue outside the EPL and UEFA's door looking to cut fees or get money back
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 21 hours, 15 minutes ago
Question is why the animosity? It only complicates things for French football. This is not a time to be claiming legal rights, its a time to come together and find solutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That'd be a lovely world to live in.
out here its every dog for himself.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 3 hours, 32 minutes ago
The problem is what would the government be expecting from the parties involved? Not finishing the season is guaranteed to leave a hole the size of Jupiter in somebody's accounts. The TV companies have shreaholders and owners, no one will be ready to take the hit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it though? The TV companies will have made their money back and then some on this season already I imagine. Sure it would affect profits, but it wouldn't exactly send them into administration.
Plus, and I've said it before, Sky and BT are no longer the only fish in an ever growing pond. Any lawsuit for damages would be short term gain for long term pain. I doubt the PL would even entertain them bidding in future, will sell the next rights to Amazon or Facebook, and Sky and BT Sport will go bust within the next decade. Long term, the TV companies need the Premier League far more than it needs them.
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 3 hours, 32 minutes ago
The problem is what would the government be expecting from the parties involved? Not finishing the season is guaranteed to leave a hole the size of Jupiter in somebody's accounts. The TV companies have shreaholders and owners, no one will be ready to take the hit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it though? The TV companies will have made their money back and then some on this season already I imagine. Sure it would affect profits, but it wouldn't exactly send them into administration.
Plus, and I've said it before, Sky and BT are no longer the only fish in an ever growing pond. Any lawsuit for damages would be short term gain for long term pain. I doubt the PL would even entertain them bidding in future, will sell the next rights to Amazon or Facebook, and Sky and BT Sport will go bust within the next decade. Long term, the TV companies need the Premier League far more than it needs them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, the financial industry doesn't work like you say in your first paragraph. TV companies have owners and shareholders, budgets and projections, balance sheets to balance, debts and bills to pay etc.
They won't just take the hit so that football can continue as it is. You don't know if it would put them in administration because you're only thinking about football. ALL sport has stopped, not just football saan. Subscriptions are being dropped like hot stones and they can't keep up with refund requests.
They'll be desperate to complete the season as that will allow them to survive. It will allow everyone to survive actually.
Furthermore, the rebates kick in automatically if the season isn't finished. They're in the contract so TV companies will automatically be owed this money if the season isn't finished by July 16. They won't have to go to court.
I assure you their shareholders will not want their annual dividends to be touched.
Try as you may, I can't see a way around this in which the season isn't finished unless it is to protect human life.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 3 hours, 32 minutes ago
The problem is what would the government be expecting from the parties involved? Not finishing the season is guaranteed to leave a hole the size of Jupiter in somebody's accounts. The TV companies have shreaholders and owners, no one will be ready to take the hit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it though? The TV companies will have made their money back and then some on this season already I imagine. Sure it would affect profits, but it wouldn't exactly send them into administration.
Plus, and I've said it before, Sky and BT are no longer the only fish in an ever growing pond. Any lawsuit for damages would be short term gain for long term pain. I doubt the PL would even entertain them bidding in future, will sell the next rights to Amazon or Facebook, and Sky and BT Sport will go bust within the next decade. Long term, the TV companies need the Premier League far more than it needs them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, the financial industry doesn't work like you say in your first paragraph. TV companies have owners and shareholders, budgets and projections, balance sheets to balance, debts and bills to pay etc.
They won't just take the hit so that football can continue as it is. You don't know if it would put them in administration because you're only thinking about football. ALL sport has stopped, not just football saan. Subscriptions are being dropped like hot stones and they can't keep up with refund requests.
They'll be desperate to complete the season as that will allow them to survive. It will allow everyone to survive actually.
Furthermore, the rebates kick in automatically if the season isn't finished. They're in the contract so TV companies will automatically be owed this money if the season isn't finished by July 16. They won't have to go to court.
I assure you their shareholders will not want their annual dividends to be touched.
Try as you may, I can't see a way around this in which the season isn't finished unless it is to protect human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do quite like talking with you on these subjects as you're quite knowledgeable, but can I ask one favour should our paths cross again?
Can you stop saying 'saan'? You keep on using it and I'm assuming it's some annoying southerner way of saying 'son', but I don't like being patronised with the word son when I'm 40 years old, and I don't really want to feel like I'm talking to Danny f-cking Dyer.
Other than that, its a good, informative post.
Actually saan is a JA606 inside joke thing. Not meant to be offensive at all but hey, if you don't like it I don't see why I can't oblige.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 6 hours ago
Actually saan is a JA606 inside joke thing. Not meant to be offensive at all but hey, if you don't like it I don't see why I can't oblige.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha fair dos, this place baffles my head sometimes
Looks like we've finally got the best and most fair solution all round anyway, at least one where everyone knows where they stand and knows they'll be getting some funds to tide them over.
Still hope the FA open discussions with the semi pro clubs as they seem fairly unanimous in wanting to finish their leagues as well. If they can do that I don't think I could ask for any more than what's been put on the table.
It's so close you can taste it, saan
I'm happy that the Prem is bailing out some of the lower leagues. To me it was a no brainer, looking at all the facts then this was the only decision they were going to make at this time.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 38 minutes ago
I'm happy that the Prem is bailing out some of the lower leagues. To me it was a no brainer, looking at all the facts then this was the only decision they were going to make at this time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Always wanted the thing to continue, just always seemed the hurdles got higher to jump the further down the leagues you went. Thankfully they've addressed the funding issue. The Bolton issue goes away regardless now as we either get going before June and their squad is intact or it goes longer and the onus is on them now they'll have funds.
It's a great result.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52161561
Televised 3pm kick offs in the UK on the horizon.
Paving the way for behind closed door matches?
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
CanalPlus vs French Football
Page 1 of 1
posted on 1/4/20
I doubt €110m between 40 clubs is going to send anyone under - especially as it says the elite get a bigger chunk.
posted on 1/4/20
Actually I think there's two payments but I could be mistaken. Nevertheless, French football is heavily reliant on TV money but not as much as England.
It may seem like a small amount but the (smaller)clubs still cannot do without their share and will be unable to meet their operating costs. Its a lot of money to some of the clubs.
posted on 1/4/20
Question is why the animosity? It only complicates things for French football. This is not a time to be claiming legal rights, its a time to come together and find solutions.
posted on 1/4/20
Every man for himself I guess.
posted on 1/4/20
I think CanalPlus are unhappy that future rights were given to MediaPro.
posted on 1/4/20
With regards the obvious contractual disputes between TV companies and various leagues, would there ever cine a point where governments stepped in to intervene?
Genuine question as politics will never be my strong suit, it just seems logical to me that finding a way to keep both parties happy would be far more beneficial in an economical sense for any country. That said, I know just enough about politics to know that it doesn't always mix well with logic!
posted on 1/4/20
IMO, Governments would only be able to give advice, recommendations and suggestions. Persuasive but not binding.
Unless it gets so bad that football is relying on the government to stay afloat in which case you could argue the government would have a say in how their money is spent.
posted on 2/4/20
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
With regards the obvious contractual disputes between TV companies and various leagues, would there ever cine a point where governments stepped in to intervene?
Genuine question as politics will never be my strong suit, it just seems logical to me that finding a way to keep both parties happy would be far more beneficial in an economical sense for any country. That said, I know just enough about politics to know that it doesn't always mix well with logic!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is more of an issue that a precedent would then be set. The core purpose of contract law is that it represents security for both parties. The terms of the contract are set and of there is a breach of contract then both sides know what happens and what they can expect.
Were a government to step on a effectively declare an otherwise legitimate contract void then it sets a precedent that they have the power to do it. Other companies in contractual trouble will demand the government do the same for them, or they might threaten to sue the government for unfair practice.
Contracts would essentially become worthless and it would be extremely difficult for companies to do business together
posted on 2/4/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 1 hour, 20 minutes ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 14 hours, 38 minutes ago
With regards the obvious contractual disputes between TV companies and various leagues, would there ever cine a point where governments stepped in to intervene?
Genuine question as politics will never be my strong suit, it just seems logical to me that finding a way to keep both parties happy would be far more beneficial in an economical sense for any country. That said, I know just enough about politics to know that it doesn't always mix well with logic!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is more of an issue that a precedent would then be set. The core purpose of contract law is that it represents security for both parties. The terms of the contract are set and of there is a breach of contract then both sides know what happens and what they can expect.
Were a government to step on a effectively declare an otherwise legitimate contract void then it sets a precedent that they have the power to do it. Other companies in contractual trouble will demand the government do the same for them, or they might threaten to sue the government for unfair practice.
Contracts would essentially become worthless and it would be extremely difficult for companies to do business together
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, that makes sense. I wasn't inferring that a contract should be voided though. I meant more along the lines of insisting some kind of agreement between both parties is met, as it wouldn't be in the national interest to have the top football division put in a perilous position because of a contract breach nobody could have predicted when the terms of the contract was agreed.
I could be way off the mark on this, obviously. Don't underestimate my lack of knowledge about politics
posted on 2/4/20
The problem is what would the government be expecting from the parties involved? Not finishing the season is guaranteed to leave a hole the size of Jupiter in somebody's accounts. The TV companies have shreaholders and owners, no one will be ready to take the hit.
posted on 2/4/20
There will be PSG and PSG reserves left and that it.
The TV company just shafted every small club.
Dont think for one second that theres a queue outside the EPL and UEFA's door looking to cut fees or get money back
posted on 2/4/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 21 hours, 15 minutes ago
Question is why the animosity? It only complicates things for French football. This is not a time to be claiming legal rights, its a time to come together and find solutions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That'd be a lovely world to live in.
out here its every dog for himself.
posted on 2/4/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 3 hours, 32 minutes ago
The problem is what would the government be expecting from the parties involved? Not finishing the season is guaranteed to leave a hole the size of Jupiter in somebody's accounts. The TV companies have shreaholders and owners, no one will be ready to take the hit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it though? The TV companies will have made their money back and then some on this season already I imagine. Sure it would affect profits, but it wouldn't exactly send them into administration.
Plus, and I've said it before, Sky and BT are no longer the only fish in an ever growing pond. Any lawsuit for damages would be short term gain for long term pain. I doubt the PL would even entertain them bidding in future, will sell the next rights to Amazon or Facebook, and Sky and BT Sport will go bust within the next decade. Long term, the TV companies need the Premier League far more than it needs them.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 3 hours, 32 minutes ago
The problem is what would the government be expecting from the parties involved? Not finishing the season is guaranteed to leave a hole the size of Jupiter in somebody's accounts. The TV companies have shreaholders and owners, no one will be ready to take the hit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it though? The TV companies will have made their money back and then some on this season already I imagine. Sure it would affect profits, but it wouldn't exactly send them into administration.
Plus, and I've said it before, Sky and BT are no longer the only fish in an ever growing pond. Any lawsuit for damages would be short term gain for long term pain. I doubt the PL would even entertain them bidding in future, will sell the next rights to Amazon or Facebook, and Sky and BT Sport will go bust within the next decade. Long term, the TV companies need the Premier League far more than it needs them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, the financial industry doesn't work like you say in your first paragraph. TV companies have owners and shareholders, budgets and projections, balance sheets to balance, debts and bills to pay etc.
They won't just take the hit so that football can continue as it is. You don't know if it would put them in administration because you're only thinking about football. ALL sport has stopped, not just football saan. Subscriptions are being dropped like hot stones and they can't keep up with refund requests.
They'll be desperate to complete the season as that will allow them to survive. It will allow everyone to survive actually.
Furthermore, the rebates kick in automatically if the season isn't finished. They're in the contract so TV companies will automatically be owed this money if the season isn't finished by July 16. They won't have to go to court.
I assure you their shareholders will not want their annual dividends to be touched.
Try as you may, I can't see a way around this in which the season isn't finished unless it is to protect human life.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
comment by Champers - Pow! Right in the kisser (U6859)
posted 15 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 3 hours, 32 minutes ago
The problem is what would the government be expecting from the parties involved? Not finishing the season is guaranteed to leave a hole the size of Jupiter in somebody's accounts. The TV companies have shreaholders and owners, no one will be ready to take the hit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would it though? The TV companies will have made their money back and then some on this season already I imagine. Sure it would affect profits, but it wouldn't exactly send them into administration.
Plus, and I've said it before, Sky and BT are no longer the only fish in an ever growing pond. Any lawsuit for damages would be short term gain for long term pain. I doubt the PL would even entertain them bidding in future, will sell the next rights to Amazon or Facebook, and Sky and BT Sport will go bust within the next decade. Long term, the TV companies need the Premier League far more than it needs them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, the financial industry doesn't work like you say in your first paragraph. TV companies have owners and shareholders, budgets and projections, balance sheets to balance, debts and bills to pay etc.
They won't just take the hit so that football can continue as it is. You don't know if it would put them in administration because you're only thinking about football. ALL sport has stopped, not just football saan. Subscriptions are being dropped like hot stones and they can't keep up with refund requests.
They'll be desperate to complete the season as that will allow them to survive. It will allow everyone to survive actually.
Furthermore, the rebates kick in automatically if the season isn't finished. They're in the contract so TV companies will automatically be owed this money if the season isn't finished by July 16. They won't have to go to court.
I assure you their shareholders will not want their annual dividends to be touched.
Try as you may, I can't see a way around this in which the season isn't finished unless it is to protect human life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I do quite like talking with you on these subjects as you're quite knowledgeable, but can I ask one favour should our paths cross again?
Can you stop saying 'saan'? You keep on using it and I'm assuming it's some annoying southerner way of saying 'son', but I don't like being patronised with the word son when I'm 40 years old, and I don't really want to feel like I'm talking to Danny f-cking Dyer.
Other than that, its a good, informative post.
posted on 3/4/20
Actually saan is a JA606 inside joke thing. Not meant to be offensive at all but hey, if you don't like it I don't see why I can't oblige.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 6 hours ago
Actually saan is a JA606 inside joke thing. Not meant to be offensive at all but hey, if you don't like it I don't see why I can't oblige.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha fair dos, this place baffles my head sometimes
Looks like we've finally got the best and most fair solution all round anyway, at least one where everyone knows where they stand and knows they'll be getting some funds to tide them over.
Still hope the FA open discussions with the semi pro clubs as they seem fairly unanimous in wanting to finish their leagues as well. If they can do that I don't think I could ask for any more than what's been put on the table.
It's so close you can taste it, saan
posted on 3/4/20
I'm happy that the Prem is bailing out some of the lower leagues. To me it was a no brainer, looking at all the facts then this was the only decision they were going to make at this time.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 38 minutes ago
I'm happy that the Prem is bailing out some of the lower leagues. To me it was a no brainer, looking at all the facts then this was the only decision they were going to make at this time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Always wanted the thing to continue, just always seemed the hurdles got higher to jump the further down the leagues you went. Thankfully they've addressed the funding issue. The Bolton issue goes away regardless now as we either get going before June and their squad is intact or it goes longer and the onus is on them now they'll have funds.
It's a great result.
posted on 3/4/20
posted on 3/4/20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52161561
Televised 3pm kick offs in the UK on the horizon.
Paving the way for behind closed door matches?
Page 1 of 1