2019 - 2020 Football Thread - Page 168

On March 28 2020 17:54 Acrofales wrote:

No. Either you misunderstood or your source did. They proposed a pay cut of 30%, or in other words, players will receive 70% of their salary.

I don't know I agree with willywanker either. The players don't trust Bartomeu, but it seems like their reasons for not accepting the pay cut are economic rather than political. Having a trusted president could have overcome that, while Bartomeu can't as the players don't accept promises or reassurances from him. But their underlying reasons are still economic, not some dream of glorious rebellion.

On March 29 2020 15:09 WillyWanker wrote:
If the company bankrupts, all those employees will be out of a job. I know those companies don't necessarily care about employees, but they care about not going bankrupt so the result is the same.

For football clubs it's even more complicated because not only it affects employees but also the fans. If Messi and co. don't take a pay cut, they'll damage the club, hence the fans. On top of that Barça, Madrid, etc. are owned by the socios, they're not run by billionaires.

On March 31 2020 10:43 WillyWanker wrote:
Well, Barça players are giving 70% now and Messi's statement confirms what I mentioned about the war against the board. They're not that entitled. I wonder how they're going to make it work with Bartomeu from at least one more year... They should call elections ASAP.

On April 01 2020 07:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Seems that the bubble has popped in terms of Clubs/Leagues being able to determine prices etc. Also Canal+ said the same thing 3 days ago.

It has been estimated that the 20 clubs combined could be forced to pay back as much as £762million if the 2019-20 is declared null and void as a result of the coronavirus spread.

Representatives from each club are due to meet via video conference tomorrow, with some hopeful of a mid-May resumption of the season, while others fear it will not be possible to return to action until the summer at the earliest.

It emerged yesterday that French TV station Canal+ has informed France’s Professional Football League that it will not pay its next instalment of rights monies due on Sunday, totalling 110m euros (£95.3m), as the French divisions remain suspended due to Covid-19.

And Lois Langton, partner at Howard Kennedy, claims broadcasters are starting to consider launching legal challenges in the event the Premier League does not finish.

“We have had enquiries from overseas broadcasters, who have paid a lot of money to broadcast Premier League matches in their respective jurisdictions and currently have no matches to show,” she told Standard Sport.

“They are looking at potentially suing the Premier League for the absence of content on their TV channels and it is that you can see having a catastrophic knock-on effect to various layers of football, because it is those TV deals that have been a game-changer in terms of clubs being able to afford astronomical wages and huge staffs.”

Joel Leigh, another partner at Howard Kennedy, believes it is unlikely clubs would have any applicable insurance to protect them against such a turn of events.

“Most contracts don’t provide for something as specific as Covid-19,” he said. “Instead, what’s happening is people are re-familiarising themselves with slightly out-of-date or ethereal legal concepts, like force majeure clauses, that cover events that are unavoidable. You’ve got issues like material adverse change, clauses that are available to cover unforeseen events. There’s also ‘frustration’, where you can discharge a contract on the ground of frustration because something happens that significantly changes the rights and obligations of a party who cannot possibly have anticipated at the time the contract was entered into.

“That’s three examples. There are many others. But there are a wide range of potential arguments to be had in all areas in all sports, not just football.

“What every club is doing, I’m sure, is checking the wording of their applicable policies. If they have them, they are going to have tight notification clauses they will have to stoically observe. And insurers, in this particular economic climate, will be trying to void policies wherever they can. That wouldn’t be the end of the matter, of course, as there could be litigation beyond that.”

Administrators in all sports continue to be guided by Government advice on social distancing, with many Premier League clubs thought to be pinning their hopes on a quick resumption behind closed doors.

However, Alexandra Mizzi, a senior associate at Howard Kennedy specialising in employment law, believes even playing matches in empty stadia is fraught with legal complications.

“As an employer you have an obligation to provide a safe workspace,” she said. “Where there is the risk of transmission in a contact sport, then it is really very difficult to see how players could play safely and in line with current public health guidance if the games are resumed.

“One can see all sort of potential for disputes if it were the case that games were resumed while there was a high risk of infection. It is difficult to foresee how Premier League games could go ahead if the Government guidance on social distancing remains in place.”