kni Posted November 15, 2013 Report Share Posted November 15, 2013 (edited) This STV story is rather worrying as it could cost the clubs a significant sum. "The Scottish Professional Football League is facing a £1.7m damages claim after it failed in an appeal to prevent a pub from showing live games using a satellite decoder. "As a result of the latest instalment in the long-running legal battle, the football authority is facing the claim from Lisini Pub Management, which is owned by former Celtic player Harry Hood. "Lady Paton referred the case back to Court of Session judges for further action on Friday after turning down the SPFL’s appeal against a previous failed attempt to get the damages claim thrown out." Presumably there are substantial legal costs, likely to be well into six figures, too. So the bill would probably be over £2 million plus any more costs that could be incurred as a result of the referral. Does the SPFL have the money to pay up or would the clubs have to find the money? If there are insufficient reserves, Premiership clubs could receive a bill of £100k or more. Edited November 15, 2013 by kni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stevenson Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Does the SPFL have the money to pay up or would the clubs have to find the money? If there are insufficient reserves, Premiership clubs could receive a bill of £100k or more. I expect the SPFL will have not a lot in the way of reserves. However, there will not be a bill, as such, "just" less cash to be disbursed. It would be typical of course, that it would happen in the first year that we can actually get anything significant at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Harry bloody Hood, eh. A Gypo before he became a Tim player. (Struggling like mad to locate the emoticons on this machine, so will have to do without the thumbs down one). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Seriously annoys me this. If you want Sky in your pub, pay for it. I do. It's expensive, but hey-ho. The folk that don't pay for it & cheat the system are the ones driving the cost up. Sorry Harry, no sympathy here & I seriously hope the Jags don't have to pay for your ego. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Hood by name, hood by nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Knew Harry for many years both socially and thru business. Good guy but certainly nobody's fool. Took too much money off me at golf, so yes the surname is apt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stevenson Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 (edited) Seriously annoys me this. If you want Sky in your pub, pay for it. I do. It's expensive, but hey-ho. The folk that don't pay for it & cheat the system are the ones driving the cost up. Sorry Harry, no sympathy here & I seriously hope the Jags don't have to pay for your ego. But he appears to have won his case. It seems that the bars that subscribed to expensive services under legal threat were the ones stiffed by the SPL. Hood hasn't stiffed anyone. It is the broadcasters and the SPL that have been stiffing bar owners. Edited November 16, 2013 by David Stevenson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Isn't it the case that the SPL as was got a court order to stop them using the Polish transmission? If so what was wrong with that (legally anyway)? It seems that some European law has come in which means they can't block this any more so how can the SPL (now SPFL) be sued as they were in the right at the time? At least by law. If the order was given wrongly then it's the court that should pay up (which I don't see happening). After all the SPL didn't send round a bunch of heavies to remove the pubs' tellies did they? Or did they? I can see how they might be made to pay costs if the judge thought the SPL had been unreasonable but how can they be awarded damages? If this is true there must be a lot more to it than is being reported. One final point who should be sued? The SPL don't exist as a separate organisation any more do they? Can you half-sue someone? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted November 17, 2013 Report Share Posted November 17, 2013 In many ways I'm just a bit surprised that a TV exec in Poland thought it made sense to show te SPL in the first place... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Stevenson Posted November 17, 2013 Report Share Posted November 17, 2013 In many ways I'm just a bit surprised that a TV exec in Poland thought it made sense to show te SPL in the first place... There were a few Polish internationalists playing with Celtic around then and also a lot of Polish ex-pats living in Scotland. Maybe made some economic sense. BBC article on this was a bit more informative than the STV one I think (or maybe I just found it easier to read): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-24958008 Case for Hood still to be heard anyway, so he may well lose or be deemed entitled to far less compensation than he is pushing for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted November 17, 2013 Report Share Posted November 17, 2013 There were a few Polish internationalists playing with Celtic around then and also a lot of Polish ex-pats living in Scotland. Maybe made some economic sense. BBC article on this was a bit more informative than the STV one I think (or maybe I just found it easier to read): http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-24958008 Case for Hood still to be heard anyway, so he may well lose or be deemed entitled to far less compensation than he is pushing for. Those Poles must drink a hell of a lot if Hood is seriously looking for 1.7 million ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Quinn Posted November 18, 2013 Report Share Posted November 18, 2013 he should know to own sky you have to pay for it. Is that not common knowledge? what a cretin. If the spfl gets dun wae this they shid just do what all the current bun teams like hearts, dundee and sevco 5088, and go into administration whenever you get a bill through the door. i'm gonna start it wae my gas, electricity and credit card. It's the way of the world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.