comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 49 seconds ago
See the issue here is that you’re expecting the Daily Mail to be accurate with their numbers. Something we know they aren’t known for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But still, there is no way the rebate and the last tranche are the same as you claimed and also claimed the article says. If that was the case, there's no way the article wouldn't mention it.
So the last tranche will not be paid.
However, if TV companies were to claim their rebate, perhaps the league would pay the rebate less the final tranche, which was never paid in the first place.
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more.
Your interpretation of the article is clearly wanting going by your assumption that the rebate is the final tranche. After that, your assessment and attitude towards the article cannot be taken seriously, with all due respect.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 14 minutes ago
We don't know how that figure of £762m is made up. It could be the total prizeoney plus some due for games.
-----
Let's cut it short.
How does the rebate sum, which has arisen out of a completely unforeseeable event, be exactly the same as the payment due in May 2020, which was written into the contract over a year ago?
Its impossible. Come off it. I was right all along.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God you are hard work. No-one has said the figures match. As the article says, it is up to £762m. And we don't know exactly how that figure is made up, just that it isn't split evenly. Because some of it is prize money dependant on final position.
You both claimed the rebate is the final tranche. You claimed that's what the article says. Another claim was I don't know what rebate means, I saw the word rebate and jumped to conclusions etc.
All wrong.
I told you it was against the rules of financial physics.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more.
Your interpretation of the article is clearly wanting going by your assumption that the rebate is the final tranche. After that, your assessment and attitude towards the article cannot be taken seriously, with all due respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rebate is the final tranch (pro rata) plus the prize money. It doesn't exactly match what was still left to pay by the broadcasters after their last payment.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
You both claimed the rebate is the final tranche. You claimed that's what the article says. Another claim was I don't know what rebate means, I saw the word rebate and jumped to conclusions etc.
All wrong.
I told you it was against the rules of financial physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know what rebate means. You have demonstrated that on two seperate occasions.
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
You both claimed the rebate is the final tranche. You claimed that's what the article says. Another claim was I don't know what rebate means, I saw the word rebate and jumped to conclusions etc.
All wrong.
I told you it was against the rules of financial physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know what rebate means. You have demonstrated that on two seperate occasions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I haven't. Been spot on here if you want to be honest.
Again, it's you that doesn't understand what a rebate is. You think its a refund of games not played FFS.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
You both claimed the rebate is the final tranche. You claimed that's what the article says. Another claim was I don't know what rebate means, I saw the word rebate and jumped to conclusions etc.
All wrong.
I told you it was against the rules of financial physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know what rebate means. You have demonstrated that on two seperate occasions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I haven't. Been spot on here if you want to be honest.
Again, it's you that doesn't understand what a rebate is. You think its a refund of games not played FFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't once said that. You arw too stupid to debate with. Goodnight
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 7 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more.
Your interpretation of the article is clearly wanting going by your assumption that the rebate is the final tranche. After that, your assessment and attitude towards the article cannot be taken seriously, with all due respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rebate is the final tranch (pro rata) plus the prize money. It doesn't exactly match what was still left to pay by the broadcasters after their last payment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in the article does it say this?
You're pulling this outta your ass and if turns out to be correct it would only be by pure luck.
The final tranche is just the final tranche.
The rebate is the amount that becomes payable to the TV companies if the season isn't finished.
Two separate things.
If the season is 1.6 billion and you said it's three payments per year how can the last tranche be worth nearly half the total value? Very unlikely.
A rebate must be a percentage of the principal sum so if 762m is the rebate for the May payment only, then what is the principal sum for the May payment?
You're IQ is too low to understand this saan.
You're IQ is too low to understand this saan
————
Your
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 7 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more.
Your interpretation of the article is clearly wanting going by your assumption that the rebate is the final tranche. After that, your assessment and attitude towards the article cannot be taken seriously, with all due respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rebate is the final tranch (pro rata) plus the prize money. It doesn't exactly match what was still left to pay by the broadcasters after their last payment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in the article does it say this?
You're pulling this outta your ass and if turns out to be correct it would only be by pure luck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The total amount that could be paid is according to the article is £762m.
The winners of the PL get £38m, with the team finishing bottom getting about £2m.
The article literally says that the £762m is not split equally as it depends on where the team finishes. So we know that it involves prize money:
A restart in May is seen as vital as that is when the clubs are due to receive their final tranche of television money for the season, without which many will struggle to pay the players' wages. The £762m of combined income under threat is not divided equally and would range from £57m for the Premier League winners to £20m for the team who finish bottom.
So if the league winners are due to get £57m in May (which is when the league finishes) and the team finishing bottom £20m, but the prize money is only £38m and £2m respectively, it stands to reason the the rest of the money they are due is made up of the final tranche payment. As the payment they are due is greater than the prize money. Its not rocket science.
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 16 minutes ago
The final tranche is just the final tranche.
The rebate is the amount that becomes payable to the TV companies if the season isn't finished.
Two separate things.
If the season is 1.6 billion and you said it's three payments per year how can the last tranche be worth nearly half the total value? Very unlikely.
A rebate must be a percentage of the principal sum so if 762m is the rebate for the May payment only, then what is the principal sum for the May payment?
You're IQ is too low to understand this saan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was pished last night. My figures on the value of the TV deal were wrong I think. I was getting mixed up with the UK TV deal and the overall deal including international payments (which the article does mention).
Fair enough Elvis, you're a gentleman.
Truth is we are just speculating and none of us knows what will actually happen.
I won't pretend not to be biased. Obviously I want the season completed but if it gets to a point where that can't happen I will accept it in view of the circumstances. We haven't reached that point yet though.
Elvis, yeah the total tv deal is £3bn a year. With a lot of that set aside for parachute payments.
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
Elvis, yeah the total tv deal is £3bn a year. With a lot of that set aside for parachute payments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think about 2.5bn goes to the clubs in the pl from what I recall.
Yeah I remember reading it was something like that.
Sign in if you want to comment
Could a double season be the answer?
Page 9 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 49 seconds ago
See the issue here is that you’re expecting the Daily Mail to be accurate with their numbers. Something we know they aren’t known for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But still, there is no way the rebate and the last tranche are the same as you claimed and also claimed the article says. If that was the case, there's no way the article wouldn't mention it.
posted on 31/3/20
So the last tranche will not be paid.
However, if TV companies were to claim their rebate, perhaps the league would pay the rebate less the final tranche, which was never paid in the first place.
posted on 31/3/20
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more.
Your interpretation of the article is clearly wanting going by your assumption that the rebate is the final tranche. After that, your assessment and attitude towards the article cannot be taken seriously, with all due respect.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 14 minutes ago
We don't know how that figure of £762m is made up. It could be the total prizeoney plus some due for games.
-----
Let's cut it short.
How does the rebate sum, which has arisen out of a completely unforeseeable event, be exactly the same as the payment due in May 2020, which was written into the contract over a year ago?
Its impossible. Come off it. I was right all along.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
God you are hard work. No-one has said the figures match. As the article says, it is up to £762m. And we don't know exactly how that figure is made up, just that it isn't split evenly. Because some of it is prize money dependant on final position.
posted on 31/3/20
You both claimed the rebate is the final tranche. You claimed that's what the article says. Another claim was I don't know what rebate means, I saw the word rebate and jumped to conclusions etc.
All wrong.
I told you it was against the rules of financial physics.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more.
Your interpretation of the article is clearly wanting going by your assumption that the rebate is the final tranche. After that, your assessment and attitude towards the article cannot be taken seriously, with all due respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rebate is the final tranch (pro rata) plus the prize money. It doesn't exactly match what was still left to pay by the broadcasters after their last payment.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
You both claimed the rebate is the final tranche. You claimed that's what the article says. Another claim was I don't know what rebate means, I saw the word rebate and jumped to conclusions etc.
All wrong.
I told you it was against the rules of financial physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know what rebate means. You have demonstrated that on two seperate occasions.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
You both claimed the rebate is the final tranche. You claimed that's what the article says. Another claim was I don't know what rebate means, I saw the word rebate and jumped to conclusions etc.
All wrong.
I told you it was against the rules of financial physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know what rebate means. You have demonstrated that on two seperate occasions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I haven't. Been spot on here if you want to be honest.
Again, it's you that doesn't understand what a rebate is. You think its a refund of games not played FFS.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
You both claimed the rebate is the final tranche. You claimed that's what the article says. Another claim was I don't know what rebate means, I saw the word rebate and jumped to conclusions etc.
All wrong.
I told you it was against the rules of financial physics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't know what rebate means. You have demonstrated that on two seperate occasions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I haven't. Been spot on here if you want to be honest.
Again, it's you that doesn't understand what a rebate is. You think its a refund of games not played FFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't once said that. You arw too stupid to debate with. Goodnight
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 7 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more.
Your interpretation of the article is clearly wanting going by your assumption that the rebate is the final tranche. After that, your assessment and attitude towards the article cannot be taken seriously, with all due respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rebate is the final tranch (pro rata) plus the prize money. It doesn't exactly match what was still left to pay by the broadcasters after their last payment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in the article does it say this?
You're pulling this outta your ass and if turns out to be correct it would only be by pure luck.
posted on 31/3/20
The final tranche is just the final tranche.
The rebate is the amount that becomes payable to the TV companies if the season isn't finished.
Two separate things.
If the season is 1.6 billion and you said it's three payments per year how can the last tranche be worth nearly half the total value? Very unlikely.
A rebate must be a percentage of the principal sum so if 762m is the rebate for the May payment only, then what is the principal sum for the May payment?
You're IQ is too low to understand this saan.
posted on 31/3/20
You're IQ is too low to understand this saan
————
Your
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 7 hours, 57 minutes ago
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
But that was debating what it actually claimed, not the validity of the numbers - which my last post does.
Like Elvis says, we don’t know how those payments are made up, and the article states ‘up to £762m’ not the exact amount.
I think the tv companies have already paid the premier league anyway, and the final tranche is what the clubs are due upon completion of the season.
So if the tv companies are wanting rebates due to their packages not being full filled, it could be that the premier league withhold payments, which makes sense if they’re calculated by league position.
The article is poorly written, filled with assumptions and lack of clarity regarding payment structures between the tv companies, the premier league and the clubs. So I wouldn’t take much stock in its accuracy, even if it’s raising possible complications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't disagree more.
Your interpretation of the article is clearly wanting going by your assumption that the rebate is the final tranche. After that, your assessment and attitude towards the article cannot be taken seriously, with all due respect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The rebate is the final tranch (pro rata) plus the prize money. It doesn't exactly match what was still left to pay by the broadcasters after their last payment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in the article does it say this?
You're pulling this outta your ass and if turns out to be correct it would only be by pure luck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The total amount that could be paid is according to the article is £762m.
The winners of the PL get £38m, with the team finishing bottom getting about £2m.
The article literally says that the £762m is not split equally as it depends on where the team finishes. So we know that it involves prize money:
A restart in May is seen as vital as that is when the clubs are due to receive their final tranche of television money for the season, without which many will struggle to pay the players' wages. The £762m of combined income under threat is not divided equally and would range from £57m for the Premier League winners to £20m for the team who finish bottom.
So if the league winners are due to get £57m in May (which is when the league finishes) and the team finishing bottom £20m, but the prize money is only £38m and £2m respectively, it stands to reason the the rest of the money they are due is made up of the final tranche payment. As the payment they are due is greater than the prize money. Its not rocket science.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Scouze Doggie Dog (U22357)
posted 16 minutes ago
The final tranche is just the final tranche.
The rebate is the amount that becomes payable to the TV companies if the season isn't finished.
Two separate things.
If the season is 1.6 billion and you said it's three payments per year how can the last tranche be worth nearly half the total value? Very unlikely.
A rebate must be a percentage of the principal sum so if 762m is the rebate for the May payment only, then what is the principal sum for the May payment?
You're IQ is too low to understand this saan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was pished last night. My figures on the value of the TV deal were wrong I think. I was getting mixed up with the UK TV deal and the overall deal including international payments (which the article does mention).
posted on 31/3/20
Fair enough Elvis, you're a gentleman.
Truth is we are just speculating and none of us knows what will actually happen.
I won't pretend not to be biased. Obviously I want the season completed but if it gets to a point where that can't happen I will accept it in view of the circumstances. We haven't reached that point yet though.
posted on 31/3/20
Elvis, yeah the total tv deal is £3bn a year. With a lot of that set aside for parachute payments.
posted on 31/3/20
comment by Joe The King Exotic (U10026)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
Elvis, yeah the total tv deal is £3bn a year. With a lot of that set aside for parachute payments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think about 2.5bn goes to the clubs in the pl from what I recall.
posted on 31/3/20
Yeah I remember reading it was something like that.
Page 9 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9