• Participation within this 'World Football' is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Project restart discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.

arminisgod said:
One owner says they are determined to finish the season, as most clubs will go bust if they don't.

On Skysports now.

So unless the Government forces them not to play.. they will finish it
Click to expand...
Funny that, might be the owners and staff playing the games as many of the players don't seem to keen to play until it's medically safe.
 
arminisgod said:
One owner says they are determined to finish the season, as most clubs will go bust if they don't.

On Skysports now.

So unless the Government forces them not to play.. they will finish it
Click to expand...

Why would they go bust? Losing 5 home games of gate money, or repaying the Sky/BT money?
 

This is why they cant take the curent standings. Villa would be relegated but having played a game less. They would rightly kick off. So does somebody decide if they win, lose or draw that game? If so, who.

15 Brighton 29 -8 29
16 West Ham 29 -15 27
17 Watford 29 -17 27
-----------‐-------------------------------------
18 Bournem 29 -18 27
19 Aston Villa 28 -22 25
20 Norwich 29 -27 21
 
hirons11 said:
I don't think "null and void" would totally negate the possibility of legal action but if I was the the EPL/FA's legal adviser I'd be saying its certainly the easiest position to defend if anyone was brave enough to do it.
Click to expand...
It’s going to be very difficult to pin liability on any organisation due to a global pandemic though. I just don’t see any angle they could go down legally... but I’m not a legal expert at all
 
Toast said:
Going 'bust' seems odd in this scenario

Most teams have a couple of players they could sell if push came to shove to save the business.
It's not like they have been mismanaged by shady sorts like Pompey and Saints were when they went into administration.
Click to expand...

If they are worried about repaying TV money, dont repay it. What are Sky going to do? Sue their main reason for existence?

Void, start next season, lob a few more games at Sky/BT, and jobs a goodun.
 

roydo said:
If they are worried about repaying TV money, dont repay it. What are Sky going to do? Sue their main reason for existence?

Void, start next season, lob a few more games at Sky/BT, and jobs a goodun.
Click to expand...

Don't sky pay the money at the end of the season? seem to remember we always borrow against future tv deals. I'd think most clubs do.
 
Kurt said:
It’s going to be very difficult to pin liability on any organisation due to a global pandemic though. I just don’t see any angle they could go down legally... but I’m not a legal expert at all
Click to expand...
It is a strange one indeed, more due to the fact that the actual entity of the Premier League is really no more than the twenty clubs who make it up. The clubs are the actual shareholders of this corporate body. It would essentially be a club taking themselves (and others) to court.
 
arminisgod said:
Don't sky pay the money at the end of the season? seem to remember we always borrow against future tv deals. I'd think most clubs do.
Click to expand...

I havnt a clue mate. But either way, Sky need the PL. PL need Sky.

Its in both their interests to have a product next season.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top