13 for 6 against 1 dissenter

[JF 694]

Apparently 1st time today that the clubs discussed not finishing the season. They were also told that broadcasters want a rebate even if its finished behind closed doors

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 minutes ago, JF said:

Apparently 1st time today that the clubs discussed not finishing the season. They were also told that broadcasters want a rebate even if its finished behind closed doors

well if they want their rebate anyway then what's the point in finishing it?

I would love to see the contract with these broadcasters. It just seems to be taken as a given that they are entitled to a rebate, They've supposedly paid their monies due to rugby league and have not asked for anything back even though the season ended. 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

Couldn't make it up could you. I thought it was the evil "rebel 6" who were sinking the neutral grounds proposal?

As for Greg Clarke he can f**k right off. 

To be fair, Jim, I don't disagree with the principle of someone outside the EPL having a say in its decision-making, rather than just being able to do whatever it likes.

As to what Clarke is saying about the EPL having to relegate teams if the season isn't finished I think the relevant question there is whether he will demand that the same applies in the Championship, League One and League Two.

[ricardo 7,381]

16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

To be fair, Jim, I don't disagree with the principle of someone outside the EPL having a say in its decision-making, rather than just being able to do whatever it likes.

As to what Clarke is saying about the EPL having to relegate teams if the season isn't finished I think the relevant question there is whether he will demand that the same applies in the Championship, League One and League Two.

They appear to be getting in a right old pickle over this.

[JF 694]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

well if they want their rebate anyway then what's the point in finishing it?

I would love to see the contract with these broadcasters. It just seems to be taken as a given that they are entitled to a rebate, They've supposedly paid their monies due to rugby league and have not asked for anything back even though the season ended. 

Rebate the broadcasters want back is on the region of £340 million apparently 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by JF

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Why the hell are the clubs worrying about £17M each when most of them (not us) pay way, way more than that for a player?

Its just another stupid obstacle in the way of them not finding common ground. Tell SKY they can have vouchers instead. That is what the public get told when they want a refund.

Delia, tell them to get lost. That will have to be translated for some of the owners of course. We don't want them anymore. We used to spank the cheeks off Chelsea when they were just another team with history. ManC couldn't beat a carpet until a country bought them. Liverpool had to buy from the lower leagues and Scotland, it was all they could afford. Manu were the only team who could waste money. Spurs haven't won the title for nearly 60 years. Arsenal were tighter than nuns nudger. And still are.

Put us down in the Championship.  Leeds can have our place and the EPL can have their lovely fans who like to spit on you.

[JF 694]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Why the hell are the clubs worrying about £17M each when most of them (not us) pay way, way more than that for a player?

Its just another stupid obstacle in the way of them not finding common ground. Tell SKY they can have vouchers instead. That is what the public get told when they want a refund.

Delia, tell them to get lost. That will have to be translated for some of the owners of course. We don't want them anymore. We used to spank the cheeks off Chelsea when they were just another team with history. ManC couldn't beat a carpet until a country bought them. Liverpool had to buy from the lower leagues and Scotland, it was all they could afford. Manu were the only team who could waste money. Spurs haven't won the title for nearly 60 years. Arsenal were tighter than nuns nudger. And still are.

Put us down in the Championship.  Leeds can have our place and the EPL can have their lovely fans who like to spit on you.

That’s the rebate they want if the season is completed behind closed doors, so whatever happens we’re massively out of packet and facing the financial uncertainty of the championship 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

That’s the rebate they want if the season is completed behind closed doors, so whatever happens we’re massively out of packet and facing the financial uncertainty of the championship 

With a head start on most of the Championship, which has many clubs in dire need, and they must pay part of the rebate as well, because we will have two years parachute money and a better team than any of them.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I think the SKY subscribers should stump up half...

[sgncfc 1,227]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I'm not sure 14 clubs will vote for PPG though either.

I don't think that matters - I believe the FA have a "golden veto" on matters of promotion and relegation and size of league so if they say it has to happen, it has to happen.

[Essjayess 307]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

They appear to be getting in a right old pickle over this.

A pickle is putting it mildly.  After 2 months of messy nothingness, another nothingless meeting. This is why, personally, with everything  football related  here is  in shambles, i dont care a hoot about promotion, relegation etc etc...i just want to see our club come thru this, what will be a long escapade...in one piece.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

14 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

To be fair, Jim, I don't disagree with the principle of someone outside the EPL having a say in its decision-making, rather than just being able to do whatever it likes.

As to what Clarke is saying about the EPL having to relegate teams if the season isn't finished I think the relevant question there is whether he will demand that the same applies in the Championship, League One and League Two.

Purple I don't deny the FA has a say in this, potentially quite a big say as its status as a special shareholder in the premier league means it has to approve any changes to the rules relating to promotion/relegation or the number of clubs. However, it remains a shareholder in a company. A company has to act lawfully. If the premier league resolve, for example, to expand the premier league to 22 teams next season and have no relegation then the FA will have to consider whether or not it wishes to approve that decision or not.

In the alternative if the premier league takes a decision that results in 3 clubs taking legal action against them then the FA will need to decide whether to approve that decision. Even if it does it would not prevent a Court from finding the decision is unlawful IF that is what the Court decides. As the FA has two high profile sports lawyers on its executive board it would be interesting to know if Clarke took legal advice before making his comments yesterday or it was simply yet another measure aimed at exerting pressure on the clubs to complete the season and does not reflect the stance the FA would take if the season ending prematurely actually became reality.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

13 hours ago, sgncfc said:

I don't think that matters - I believe the FA have a "golden veto" on matters of promotion and relegation and size of league so if they say it has to happen, it has to happen.

No they have to approve whatever happens. Not the same as them just saying what will happen. It may be a different kettle of fish if they are presented with a resolution made by the shareholders in the premier league and asked to approve it especially if its been unanimously agreed.

[ricardo 7,381]

Looks like ending the season would have been raised if clubs hadn't agreed to throw out the neutral ground idea. To me this signals that a government rejection of playing home and away will likely terminate the season. In this case any attempt to contrive final league positions and force relegation will certainly trigger litigation.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11986833/premier-league-clubs-facing-summer-of-chaos-without-season-restart-says-club-owner

Edited May 12, 2020 by ricardo

[dylanisabaddog 4,906]

16 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Looks like ending the season would have been raised if clubs hadn't agreed to throw out the neutral ground idea. To me this signals that a government rejection of playing home and away will likely terminate the season. In this case any attempt to contrive final league positions and force relegation will certainly trigger litigation.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11986833/premier-league-clubs-facing-summer-of-chaos-without-season-restart-says-club-owner

I have no legal knowledge whatsoever but common sense suggests that we would have a compelling legal case if the EPL tried to relegate us based on an incomplete season.  I would guess that the claim would be based on the number of years on average it takes for a club to be promoted back to the EPL after it has been relegated. 

If you multiply that figure by 3 it is an enormous amount of money. No one can be certain what a court would decide but the EPL would be crazy to take the risk. The cost could potentially dwarf the amount Sky are looking for. 

The fact that this is taking so long displays a breathtaking degree of arrogance and incompetence on behalf of the football authorities. They are starting to look completely out of touch with reality 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

27 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Looks like ending the season would have been raised if clubs hadn't agreed to throw out the neutral ground idea. To me this signals that a government rejection of playing home and away will likely terminate the season. In this case any attempt to contrive final league positions and force relegation will certainly trigger litigation.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11986833/premier-league-clubs-facing-summer-of-chaos-without-season-restart-says-club-owner

Government will probably back down though Ricardo and allow teams to play at their own stadiums. I think the biggest threat to Project Restart is now the players who seem to be coming out in larger numbers against it this week, particularly black players. If they start training and we get cases then I can see a revolt by the players. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The owner who does not want to be named Ricardo.

Lets have a sweep👤

[ricardo 7,381]

German R is still above 1 today (1.07)

There remains plenty of potential for this to all fall apart.

[sonyc 5,509]

34 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I have no legal knowledge whatsoever but common sense suggests that we would have a compelling legal case if the EPL tried to relegate us based on an incomplete season.  I would guess that the claim would be based on the number of years on average it takes for a club to be promoted back to the EPL after it has been relegated. 

If you multiply that figure by 3 it is an enormous amount of money. No one can be certain what a court would decide but the EPL would be crazy to take the risk. The cost could potentially dwarf the amount Sky are looking for. 

The fact that this is taking so long displays a breathtaking degree of arrogance and incompetence on behalf of the football authorities. They are starting to look completely out of touch with reality 

I believe DIABD that actually the delay is because they realise the implications and legal ramifications ....and indeed the potential cost of litigation. Yet, the longer this goes on, the more difficult it becomes.

It either will be someone with immense mediation skill and/or (probably) combined with some creativity / innovative mind to propose new ideas that can gain traction by a large majority or, and probably more likely, we will see an abrupt and wholly unsatisfactory sudden decision because time threatens to run out.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

8 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I believe DIABD that actually the delay is because they realise the implications and legal ramifications ....and indeed the potential cost of litigation. Yet, the longer this goes on, the more difficult it becomes.

It either will be someone with immense mediation skill and/or (probably) combined with some creativity / innovative mind to propose new ideas that can gain traction by a large majority or, and probably more likely, we will see an abrupt and wholly unsatisfactory sudden decision because time threatens to run out.

Absolutely.

They now have to look for the path of least resistance, that also included which PPG to put forward as different ones relegate different teams.

There is no doubt that Villa and Bournemouth would go legal and have the funds to do it, both have flouted the FFP rules to get to the PL and therefore have a lot to lose.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

You do wonder if a club like Bournemouth could come back like we have so many times. Holding on to the EPL is the only way of keeping their coach and top players.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,808]

31 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You do wonder if a club like Bournemouth could come back like we have so many times. Holding on to the EPL is the only way of keeping their coach and top players.

I was always of the belief that Wigan would never get back to the Premier League after relegation and I feel the same about Bournemouth. 

[sonyc 5,509]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

German R is still above 1 today (1.07)

There remains plenty of potential for this to all fall apart.

The former CSA to the government (Sir David King) last night on Newsnight was very strong in his view and confident that the latest moves on relaxation and the way they're being implemented would inevitably (he used the word inevitable) lead to increasing infection levels and therefore necessitate a further round of lockdown. Worth reading if you're interested (or watching).

To me, this would mean it's very likely other parts of the economy and society will be locked away again including football naturally. Strangely, the season may well be ended without a ball being kicked, precisely because of this latest approach. What that means for us I don't know. Yet seeing Germany's R rate is instructive for us so it's good to monitor. Likewise, other countries.

Edited May 12, 2020 by sonyc

[sgncfc 1,227]

2 hours ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Absolutely.

They now have to look for the path of least resistance, that also included which PPG to put forward as different ones relegate different teams.

There is no doubt that Villa and Bournemouth would go legal and have the funds to do it, both have flouted the FFP rules to get to the PL and therefore have a lot to lose.

I still don't see how there can be any legal recourse if the plan is endorsed by at least 14 clubs, whatever the plan is. That is the rule of the organisation. It's like being a member of a club, voting against something and losing to the majority - you can't then sue anyone for your personal losses.

If they can't get 14 clubs to agree, then yes it's a legal free for all if the FA or the EPL make any kind of decision.

If the vote is between PPG which relegates Bournemouth or adjusted PPG which relegates West Ham - which way do Norwich vote? Do we want a Championship with West Ham and Villa in it? Wouldn't it be easier with Bournemouth as competitors rather than West Ham?

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

20 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

I still don't see how there can be any legal recourse if the plan is endorsed by at least 14 clubs, whatever the plan is. That is the rule of the organisation. It's like being a member of a club, voting against something and losing to the majority - you can't then sue anyone for your personal losses.

If they can't get 14 clubs to agree, then yes it's a legal free for all if the FA or the EPL make any kind of decision.

If the vote is between PPG which relegates Bournemouth or adjusted PPG which relegates West Ham - which way do Norwich vote? Do we want a Championship with West Ham and Villa in it? Wouldn't it be easier with Bournemouth as competitors rather than West Ham?

That may be the case but even then I'm sure there will be some kind of loophole about an unfinished and how they could have survived etc etc.

None of us know the actual contracts involved so only time will tell but cant see it being that simple as whichever PPG is voted for will get agreement from 17 straight away in theory.

[dylanisabaddog 4,906]

54 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

I still don't see how there can be any legal recourse if the plan is endorsed by at least 14 clubs, whatever the plan is. That is the rule of the organisation. It's like being a member of a club, voting against something and losing to the majority - you can't then sue anyone for your personal losses.

If they can't get 14 clubs to agree, then yes it's a legal free for all if the FA or the EPL make any kind of decision.

If the vote is between PPG which relegates Bournemouth or adjusted PPG which relegates West Ham - which way do Norwich vote? Do we want a Championship with West Ham and Villa in it? Wouldn't it be easier with Bournemouth as competitors rather than West Ham?

My understanding is that the EFL is a company and each member has one share. It is therefore covered by company legislation which in general expects shareholders to act in the interests of all. You'd need someone legally qualified for a definitive answer but this link provides some information 

https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/general/guide-to-unfair-prejudice-against-shareholders

[Jim Smith 2,317]

4 hours ago, Rich T The Biscuit said:

Absolutely.

They now have to look for the path of least resistance, that also included which PPG to put forward as different ones relegate different teams.

There is no doubt that Villa and Bournemouth would go legal and have the funds to do it, both have flouted the FFP rules to get to the PL and therefore have a lot to lose.

The path of least resistance does not involve PPG or at least not in respect of the relegation battle anyway. The FA's little interjection yesterday was not helpful or appropriate in my view. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

25 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

My understanding is that the EFL is a company and each member has one share. It is therefore covered by company legislation which in general expects shareholders to act in the interests of all. You'd need someone legally qualified for a definitive answer but this link provides some information 

https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/general/guide-to-unfair-prejudice-against-shareholders

This is what I was alluding to the other day. I'm no corporate lawyer but not hard to envisage a plausible case being put together to argue that any decision by the members of the premier league (including the FA) that arbitrarily relegates 3 of its members on the basis of an unfinished season and a PPG formula which is nowhere in the rules (thus effectively stripping them of their shares) is an act that could be considered unfairly prejudicial to those shareholders, especially if they are replaced by new shareholders who have also been promoted on PPG.

Whether the case would succeed or not I have no idea. The relegated shareholders would clearly suffer prejudice, the question would be whether its "unfair prejudice."

[Making Plans 936]

1 hour ago, sgncfc said:

If the vote is between PPG which relegates Bournemouth or adjusted PPG which relegates West Ham - which way do Norwich vote? Do we want a Championship with West Ham and Villa in it? Wouldn't it be easier with Bournemouth as competitors rather than West Ham?

Don't give a toss who is in the Championship or how easy or difficult it is.

Surely you're not suggesting, especially if we are relegated by PPG or some other dodgy scheme, that we should be in a hurry to rejoin the very organisation (i.e. The EPL) that has just booted us out unfairly.

Personally I wouldn't care if we never went in it again

Edited May 12, 2020 by Making Plans

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,808]

1 hour ago, sgncfc said:

If the vote is between PPG which relegates Bournemouth or adjusted PPG which relegates West Ham - which way do Norwich vote? Do we want a Championship with West Ham and Villa in it? Wouldn't it be easier with Bournemouth as competitors rather than West Ham?

If I'm not mistaken, Bournemouth go down in both circumstances. The difference is Aston Villa (standard PPG) or West Ham (home/away PPG).