Yes, and I've said, it would really help your argument if you made it in a less knob-jockey way.Originally Posted by RathfarnhamHoop
That's all.
Give it a go.
It is worth pointing out that in game rules cant be changed to accommodate a return to football under FIFA rules despite what Gordon Taylor would have you believe. Unless of course FIFA change their rules which isn't impossible but not likely to happen.
In the scenario that the 2020 season cannot be completed (good chance) what will happen to the 2002/2021 euro reps?
1/ Look at the coefficient over 5 years ?
The would put DFC in as CL rep, Rovers in EL, then Cork could be back in the frame, and one from Derry / Pats also for EL.
2/ Heard it mentioned somewhere else, but there was mention of a play off between Rovers (3 points with 6 games only played) and Dundalk for the 2021 CL spot.
I can't see that happening.
#DundalkFC - First Irish club to win an away game in Europe (1963), first Irish club to win points in a group stage in Europe (2016).
Maybe the teams who qualified for the 2020/21 competitions will get rolled over into 2021/22 if/when the 2020/21 competitions are cancelled?
They're due to start next month. That's a long way off happening.
https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2020...vaccine-found/
Wouldn’t be shocked if this becomes an EU wide policy when they eventually decide to involve themselves in the current crisis. I wouldn’t say the likes of the US or the UK would go for it.
I hear some american sports channels (ESPN being the one i can remember) are throwing money at leagues that are resuming to secure the rights, wonder if that's related to the american company interested in our streaming rights
Have you actually read the Pat's statement or just gone mad on Google finding links?I actually dont think I can be civil in reply to what you've said. You're just so far wrong you're either on the wind up or, well I wont say the alternative mods.
Look at the pats statement is all I'll say, if they've followed them as you're claiming, well I'll let you figure that out for yourself.
https://www.gov.ie/en/service/be74d3...yment-payment/
https://www.stpatsfc.com/news.php?id=8689
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...trictions.html
"Thanks to the agreement of our players and staff who agreed adjustments to their contracts, we have up to now maintained everyone in employment. However, it is impossible for us to continue to do this when it is now uncertain that football, and our budgeted income stream, will resume at any time this year. It would be imprudent for us to attempt to do so and would jeopardise the survival of our club. We cannot take that chance.
"When there is greater clarity on this, and on the arrangements for completing the current season, we will be in a position to address our commitments to all our stakeholders to include Players, Management, Coaching Staff, Volunteers, Patrons, Season Ticket Holders, Sponsors, our Academy and all the St Pat's community."
Their players are laid off. Don't be hanging on this word "temporarily". If the LOI resumes this year, the statement suggests Pat's may be happy to resume their contracts with the players ("in a position to address our commitment" isn't clear though).
Players can still go elsewhere if they want to though. They can get their registration released by the FAI so that they are a free agent and not tied to their old club when the July transfer window passes.
Most of the league's contracts will have to the end of season 2020 on them, so "temporarily" is irrelevant if the season is cancelled, which is the most likely outcome at this stage.
We have no rights to sell for streaming, according to Neil O'Riordan's article today, which would kill off generating any money from that avenue this year.
The source said: “You cannot just start streaming games with a new partner if you have contracts in place. You would have to buy them out, at least in part.
“But why would those companies give up their rights at a time like this when everyone wants live content? They would surely want to show those matches themselves under the terms of the existing deals."
In fairness, there's a difference between a temporary lay-off and a full lay-off.
A company is entitled to temporarily lay staff off for up to 8 weeks in the case of adverse trading conditions such as this (or if a company is in examinership and may be about to be bought out). That doesn't mean they can tear up the contracts though.
If the temporary lay-off goes on beyond 8 weeks, the employee can claim redundancy, but otherwise I think it would be considered that there is still a contract in place if/when the company resumes trading. Certainly the employee still has some statutory rights - see here. Specifically - "A lay-off does not involve the termination of your contract of employment, whereas a redundancy does"
Making the entire first-team squad redundant and then hiring different players later in the season could also be tricky. You make a position redundant, not a person - so you can't make your goalkeeper redundant and then sign a new one.
it's a tricky situation, and I suspect the reality is that a lot of contracts are going to have to be mutually re-agreed given these are clearly exceptional circumstances.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 07/05/2020 at 3:49 PM.
If you truly believe what you've just said then words fail me.
Also they'll actually have, until the conclusion of the season or a minimum of x weeks whichever is the longer term. Shows how much you know.
Notice how I said a company enquired about them and not something else. I, like you haven't a clue what the FAIs TV deals entail but we know an American company enquired about them which is all I said...
Just wondering where is that written about "up to 8 weeks"?
Irrelevant in this conversation but you have to be employed by the company for 104 weeks continuously to claim a redundancy payment.
Agree it's a tricky situation, but Pat's have left it open to maybe resume contracts if the 2020 season restarts if the players wish, which is fair enough in that case.
That's between the clubs and players, they may agree to continue as they were or with some adjustments, but if the season is cancelled then the contract (stating end of 2020 season) does not come into effect if the company resumes trading in 2021.
If Waterford don't play again in 2020, they don't owe a penny to players or staff whose contracts end this year.
Why do you just shoot down what people say without actually making your own point.
Notice how I said the rights are already sold for 2020 so it doesn't really matter who enquired about it, does it?
Clubs should be allowed to sell their own games for streaming if they want to, but that's something that will have to be agreed with the FAI and RTE/eir Sport when the rights deals are renewed.
I have done nothing but make counter points, I've even linked government information making distinctions between permanent and temporary lay offs. There's not much more I can do, you simply refuse to get it.
Again you've missed the point, the reason I pointed it out was that American companies are looking for sports to cover during the pandemic so the enquiry may have been out of desperation for content and as a result not sustainable once their normal content resumes, and thus not as good as it first seemed.
No, you didn't. Stu posted a link with that info and explained why. You randomly posted links about the pandemic payment. Temporary lay offs are irrelevant for contracts that end at the end of season 2020 anyway, hence why I said don't get hung up on the word "temporarily".
That's brilliant, but the rights aren't available for sale so why do you keep going on about it.
Clearly it's just not going to get through to your head so slán
Hallelujah. Onto the ignore list you go.
Well, that's how it was when I was on temporary layoff back in 2011; that's all I'm going on really. Certainly a company can't "temporarily" indefinitely lay you off.
Yes, that is irrelevant here really. You still have statutory rights and can only be made redundant if the position (footballer, say) is being done away with.
Of more relevance is your probationary period - you can be let go at any time in the first year of your contract for no reason at all. The old "It's just not working out" trick. Given most LoI employments are quite short-term, that might apply - and yet I have to imagine the fixed-term nature of LoI contracts precludes it, otherwise you'd have heard of it happening. (A contract can be mutually terminated of course, but that's not the same thing; it requires the player to agree).
Thats where FIFA come in
Article 13 states that a contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated upon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement.
However, under Article 14, a contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is ‘just cause’. Just cause is not defined but would cover, for example, where a player has not been paid for months.
Article 15, allows an ‘established professional’ to terminate his contract on the grounds of ‘sporting just cause’ if he has appeared in fewer than 10% of the official matches in which his club has been involved during the season. If a sporting just cause is found, sporting sanctions (see below) won’t be imposed, though compensation may be payable. A player can only terminate his contract on this basis in the 15 days following the last official match of the season of the club with which he is registered.
Article 16 states that a contract cannot be unilaterally terminated during the course of a season.
Also by the way Article 16 proves that Waterford and Pats have indeed temporarily laid off players, not permanently
Galway United are currently preparing their DVD.
In terms of TV rights, precendence has been set with multiple deals already in place for broadcast rights in Ireland. There's no 'exclusive' rights to games.
What essentially could happen, is that another company could come in for additional broadcast rights, allowing RTE or Eir Sport their pick of the games in which they want to show, and the other company then streams the rest of them, or someone like Virgin Media, with multiple Sports channels, could show the rest of the games there. (Rumoured incoming CEO being the outgoing Virgin Media boss)
As the Trackchamp deal doesn't air on any TV stations, only via betting websites, and for club use in analysis, I'm sure another loophole will be found there in terms of actually broadcasting games.
Alternatively, in the scenario that RTE or Eir Sport could block this move, if an American company wanted the 'American rights' to LOI football, they are well within their rights to seek that, as such a deal doesn't exist. Likewise, there's no current 'UK rights'. That list could go on until someone bulk buys the rights to any given countries rights to show LOI games. Niall Quinn might get that Chinese TV deal after all.
https://kesslereffect.bandcamp.com/album/kepler - New music. It's not that bad.
LoI now likely off until September - from today's Mirror. Mentions the Super Cup idea for clubs in Europe as well - if there is a Europe.
The league being postponed until Sept raises obvious questions as to what format it's going to take. But realistically, given timelines are being pushed out with regularity, it's pretty much impossible to make a real call until we know when football can resume.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks