Businesses **** up all the time Monaco, ask Edge I could say the Tv deal would not have such a clause as Celtic would have welcomed the chance to sell their own tv product but didn't Anyway, it's easy to be smart with hindsight
I know businesses **** up all the time, but generally the business that is supplying the product are the ones who get ****ed(ask Edge), no business buying a product does not put in a clause in the event of the supplying business not being able to supply the product. It has been like that from year dot, especially when the business supplying the product is desperate for somebody to buy their product. If you don't understand this, then I don't believe you are capable of feeding yourself let alone using a computer.
How can you have a clause insisting on 4 old firm games when only 3 are guaranteed? Do sky have a clause that says man u must be in the league?
Generally a business supplying a product don't have to pay someone to take it If the draw is Celtic or a Rangers why did they have to be paid to take these games? If there was a breach of contract why is there not a new contract at a discount instead of this? And how can a tv company decide who should be in the top six of a competition? Old Firm games do not make or break tv companies. Loss of viewers because they used a clause, which I don't believe exists, to dump all Scottish games would imo be worse for the company. They pay a pittance for what they receive. The points I've made and the actions of Doncaster etc over putting newco into league 1 and tales of Armageddon show they have previous in regards to keeping ibrox busy So far I've not been shown the Old Firm clause :-/
No, you are dribbling pish now, I said surely they would have some sort of clause in it, if the SPL didn't "supply" 4 games. To have a clause, saying "you categorically need to give us 4 games" would be ****ing ridiculous at best.
Firstly, usually a business supplying a product supplys a good product, unlike the SPL. Secondly, the new contract is discounted.
That is saying the same thing. Supply 4 games and categorically give us 4 games are both the same. The fact is you cant have a clause for 4 old firm games only 3, if it even existed.
It is not the same thing in the slightest. There is a big big difference between saying we want 4 games, but if you only give us 3 we want some money back or a blowjob or whatever than saying no matter what happens we are going get our 4 games. To 100% guarantee 4 games is impossible. So, the clause isn't to get the 4 games, it is if they don't get the 4 games. Capiche?
The fee payable is nowt compared to what is being paid out by sky, by and espn... I can see why it's there...a good business deal. A sweetener...a kickback... Don't see the big deal...
So the imagined clause has amendments I like to think that ESPN wouldn't pay for the games because there was no guarantee Newco would be a lasting franchise...makes more sense to me. ****, let's pay you to keep newco relevant...Armageddon, doom etc
You are not making any sense. Now you are saying a rebate clause was added. The fact is no such clause existed as admitted by sky sports at the time.
Supply Demand When the demand isn't great, you need to increase the supply. Scottish football ****ed it by going to sentanta...the longer time vision should have been stick with sky...
