This basically.Project Pissflaps, more like.
One of the arguments I've just read is: "If you make it free to air the notion of having to go somewhere to watch the game will be gone."
But will Sky and BT accept this? There's a stark difference between broadcasters accepting that we're unable to play the games and removing their TV rights.
"Sorry broadcasters, we're taking the rights from you, but you'll still need to pay up." No chance, so how would that then financially benefit the game as a whole?
The clubs wouldn't be able to get gate revenue, and you're then risking the likes of the major broadcasters taking a much firmer stance on their obligations.
That's a lot of RS Media kiss-ass cheerleaders "Seeing their arse"
The players 1 is the most telling.
Exactly. I suspect there'll already be compromises with the broadcasters if the season isn't voided as they will expect some form of compensation package.Can you honestly imagine that discussion with the broadcaster? "Yea errm, you know that exclusivity thing that you've built your business on, thats gone".
I'm also hearing Germany may go back in to lockdown, which would really put the Kabosh on the whole plan, as that seemed to be the moral justification for this.
Wonder what random date they will come up with at Friday's meeting.
I'll go for a vague "the premier league remain wholly united in seeking to finish the current season at the earliest opportunity, in accordance with government guidance."
Didn't you know - they're exemptBy the way, for people who think that social-distancing is purely guidance I recommend reading the below. I've highlighted some key parts.
Exactly. I suspect there'll already be compromises with the broadcasters if the season isn't voided as they will expect some form of compensation package.
This could quite easily be extra games added to their packages next season, which itself isn't perfect but it would help maintain the balance of cash per game.
If the FA/PL were to actually take those games away from them and air them free, you'd be expecting a much firmer stance and that could mean less money.
The 12th of Never?Wonder what random date they will come up with at Friday's meeting.
I'll go for a vague "the premier league remain wholly united in seeking to finish the current season at the earliest opportunity, in accordance with government guidance."
It's hilarious their little motto of "This means more", to be honest, especially in the context of thousands of people dying across the country each week. If and when they win the title will they really have the audacity to claim it means more? lol Obviously they will attach their little YNWA tagline and dedicate the victory to all those killed by covid-19.Didn't you know - they're exempt
because...
This means more
Alegedlly
One of the arguments I've just read is: "If you make it free to air the notion of having to go somewhere to watch the game will be gone."
But will Sky and BT accept this? There's a stark difference between broadcasters accepting that we're unable to play the games and removing their TV rights.
"Sorry broadcasters, we're taking the rights from you, but you'll still need to pay up." No chance, so how would that then financially benefit the game as a whole?
The clubs wouldn't be able to get gate revenue, and you're then risking the likes of the major broadcasters taking a much firmer stance on their obligations.