Will this have any impact on offers we had last in the PL? Some games were 16 quid. Will clubs look at 30 quid as a bench mark and not offer below that?
New membership scheme & Thirty's Plenty...
- Thread starter originallambrettaman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
It leads to a massive ****er-fuelled argument. I've heard.
Earlier in the season people would've said 'it would never happen' that a club owner would ban paymasters Sky TV from filming scheduled televised games at its stadium.
You asked what would happen.
OLM told you that, obviously, it's a bit of a waste of time discussing it as it'll never happen because there will obviously be consequences that'll make clubs want to stick to the rules.
It happened because it's how rules and regulations work.
Don't break the rules because you'll be punished. Except this isn't like being put into detention. The Premier League is a multi billion pound business. Why would clubs risk winding up the big wigs to make a few extra quid (in the grand scheme of things) when;
1) there is no way they can get away with it.
2) they will be punished for it.
Don't get mad when people explain things to you in future, unless (as I suspect) you're mental.
It's good news really, provided we charge the £30. Clubs have to charge £30 or under to be in the prem, so if on game one, someone charges £40, and tries to claim the surplus is for a voucher that gives a pie and a programme, they're no longer allowed in the prem for the rest of the season.
The rest get a refund on season pass prices due to their being less games and safety from relegation.
It's win/win.
Mental would be thinking that ^^^^^^ answered the question he asked.
The question was, as far as I can tell, what form will any punishment take?
The answer people seem to be avoiding is, "**** knows".
Thanks for the nutshell.
As in our lives in general... there is no law against breaking the law, just the likely outcome of punitive consequences.
I was going to say it doesn't matter because it will never happen.
Then I remembered one club ( who may be in the Premier League next season ) owner who thinks outside the box and interprets agreements differently to the other 19 as shown with the ASI fund. The punishment for those who manage to shaft their own fans and aid the visiting supporters is open for discussion.
Nobody knows exactly what the punishment will be because they've not been announced, but half educated guesses will lead to words like "fines" and "points deductions".
But the point is that no club will break these rules because it would be a completely pointless thing to do.
Which games were not televised because a club owner banned Sky filming at his stadium?
If you could tell me which game was cancelled because of this that would be good.
Leeds threatened it, but they clearly had a rethink and thought "yeah this isn't worth it, we will be in a lot of trouble" and let the cameras in.
But like I say, which scheduled Sky game wasn't shown because a club owner kicked up a fuss?
Nobody on here explicitly knows what the punishment will be but everyone with a bit of sense can work it out. It's not like they'll get a wooden spoon across their knuckles.
I've been answering the question of (paraphrasing) "What stops clubs from saying no" and the answer is that there will be punishment that will put clubs off the idea.
That's all that was needed to answer the question several pages ago. Why the **** he's got grief for asking it is best left to speculation.
But people do know the answer to the question he posed.
Clubs won't say no because there will be consequences. As there are with every rule ever made.
If you don't do X then Y will happen to you.
It's common sense and he got grief for arguing for arguments sake.
