No reduction in shekker?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Just wondering why the money from broadcasting companies has been cut since more people would have signed up to watch on Sky Sports during lock down, or am I missing something? I guess people also stopped their subscriptions during the period where no games were on and maybe didn't renew.
 



Just wondering why the money from broadcasting companies has been cut since more people would have signed up to watch on Sky Sports during lock down, or am I missing something? I guess people also stopped their subscriptions during the period where no games were on and maybe didn't renew.

Something I don't understand either.
 
Just wondering why the money from broadcasting companies has been cut since more people would have signed up to watch on Sky Sports during lock down, or am I missing something? I guess people also stopped their subscriptions during the period where no games were on and maybe didn't renew.
Because the PL clubs didn’t deliver the number of games by the date stipulated in the contract.
If you don’t deliver what you promised then there are clauses to protect the TV companies. They have to deliver x number of games by a certain date and they didn’t. Not sure what’s confusing people here.
 
Last edited:
Because the PL clubs didn’t deliver the number of games by the date stipulated in the contract.
If you don’t deliver what you promised then there are clauses to protect the TV companies. They have to deliver x number of games by a certain date and they didn’t. Not sure what’s confusing people here.

Ok Bob, thanks for clarifying but I'm one of them that's still unsure as to why it costs so much even if there is a breach of contract. As I said before we played out the games still and many more people, surely, were watching on TV since none of us could get in?
 
Because the PL clubs didn’t deliver the number of games by the date stipulated in the contract.
If you don’t deliver what you promised then there are clauses to protect the TV companies. They have to deliver x number of games by a certain date and they didn’t. Not sure what’s confusing people here.

Surely, supplying more game should more than satisfy the breach in contract, though as that's earned Sky/BT more money overall..
 
Ok Bob, thanks for clarifying but I'm one of them that's still unsure as to why it costs so much even if there is a breach of contract. As I said before we played out the games still and many more people, surely, were watching on TV since none of us could get in?
The extra games were outside the contract so would have been negotiated as part of a separate deal. As I mentioned above it would seem this was agreed with domestic suppliers to limit their losses by giving them extra and I think the total they could have been hit for was much much higher. The TV companies are simply enforcing their rights as part of the very expensive contracts the PL agree to and it’s a two way street.
 
Surely, supplying more game should more than satisfy the breach in contract, though as that's earned Sky/BT more money overall..
See NGEs comments. Both Sky and BT could have looked to claim some back but opted to pay in full. We can come to our own conclusions as to why that maybe the case.
 
And apparently they are still in talks with overseas TV to work out how much of a rebate is going to be needed to be paid.
 
But we are skint and our top earning player is on £20,000 a week (or £1,000,000 a year) meaning we have a wage bill of under £30m a year.

Where's the rest gone?
I blame the South Stand....Should never have built it.
 



All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom