UK
His argument being somewhat undermined by this...
Dear Massimo Cellino, your league attendances have been HIGHER at Elland Road for SKY games this season, on average, then when TV not there.
— Nick Harris (@sportingintel) December 29, 2015
TL
Toby Lerone
Probably less happy that his fixtures are being rearranged / times/dates changed to suit TV audiences rather than fans etc. See recent FC Utd / Monday night BBC FA Cup row.
Your quite right and in one sense it is good to see the clubs fighting back but it seems to be cutting off their nose to spite their own face but that was moved by BT Sport to a Monday night not BBC Sport. I think tv rules the roost now and will continue for the foreseeable future
DV
.... tea cup storm stabilised
Leeds United lift Sky TV ban to broadcast #DCFC match.
— BBC Sport (@BBCSport) December 29, 2015
Full story: https://t.co/Nr0Mlr2LxN #LUFC #Cellino pic.twitter.com/ERxn2aE7L0
UK
A spokesperson said:
A spokesperson did not carry on to say:
Quote:
"Recent good results have been achieved despite the alterations to the fixture list, but at great cost to the players' fitness and a substantial injury list. The festive plans of supporters have also been entirely ruined by Sky's live TV selections."
A spokesperson did not carry on to say:
Quote:
We aren't so committed to the cause as to be prepared to face a sanction. We also are very keen on keeping Sky's money as we've just realised how high a percentage of our operating income it makes up. We have now placed our owners toys back into the pram until the next time he wishes to throw them. We'd like to apologise to the people at the TV facilities companies who we've messed around and have now made their job even more stressful because our owner wanted to make a point in a ham fisted way.
Our aim is, of course, promotion to the Premier League where we are confident we will never face this particular issue.
Our aim is, of course, promotion to the Premier League where we are confident we will never face this particular issue.
UK
This from Radio Leeds' Adam Pope is interesting:
So, all a smokescreen?
Bottom line for me on the Sky/FL dispute with Cellino is that he wants to negotiate TV rights for #lufc individually not as a collective.
— Adam Pope (@apopey) December 29, 2015
His attitude is that 'you buy food, tickets and radio commentary rights from him so why not TV?' #lufc
— Adam Pope (@apopey) December 29, 2015
So, all a smokescreen?
JA
lol 
Cellino was stupid to ever consider locking them out, quite frankly.
A spokesperson said:
A spokesperson did not carry on to say:
Quote:
"Recent good results have been achieved despite the alterations to the fixture list, but at great cost to the players' fitness and a substantial injury list. The festive plans of supporters have also been entirely ruined by Sky's live TV selections."
A spokesperson did not carry on to say:
Quote:
We aren't so committed to the cause as to be prepared to face a sanction. We also are very keen on keeping Sky's money as we've just realised how high a percentage of our operating income it makes up. We have now placed our owners toys back into the pram until the next time he wishes to throw them. We'd like to apologise to the people at the TV facilities companies who we've messed around and have now made their job even more stressful because our owner wanted to make a point in a ham fisted way.
Our aim is, of course, promotion to the Premier League where we are confident we will never face this particular issue.
Our aim is, of course, promotion to the Premier League where we are confident we will never face this particular issue.
Cellino was stupid to ever consider locking them out, quite frankly.
TV
You can easily argue that Sky will generally pick a club's highest profile games (i.e. opening game of the season, local derbies) to broadcast live, which of course will have higher attendances.
His argument being somewhat undermined by this...
Dear Massimo Cellino, your league attendances have been HIGHER at Elland Road for SKY games this season, on average, then when TV not there.
— Nick Harris (@sportingintel) December 29, 2015
You can easily argue that Sky will generally pick a club's highest profile games (i.e. opening game of the season, local derbies) to broadcast live, which of course will have higher attendances.
RO
According to one tweet, seemingly the owner is wanting to negotiate LUFC tv deals separately from the rest of the league.
Well, here's how I see it. LUFC are members of a "club", in this case, the club being the Football League. When you're a member of a club, anything you do under the jurisdiction of the club must be to the rules of the club. Basically, you accept the rules that are in place, and if you want to change them, it has to be voted on at a meeting, where other members can/must be present or represented.
There used to be a club here in Cardenden, Bowhill War Memorial Club. It closed its doors in 2013, but members were required to pay annual fees, and were also entitled to discounts on drink. But members, and during the early part of the week visitors, when it was also open to non members, were required to conduct themselves to the rules of the club. That applied to everyone, no matter who they were, what their job was, or where they came from. It was not a case of "One rule for one and one for another.".
What the tweets from Adam Pope are suggesting is, the owner of LUFC wants to be a member of a club, the Football League, but doesn't want to be bound by its rules. He thinks that there should be a separate rule for LUFC from the others. It doesn't work like that. I could be a member of a club, but I can't then say "I want my coca cola to be just 25p as I don't drink, but every other member has to pay 75p for it"
If the tweets are to be correct, it could end up something similar to the RFU 5 nations dispute in 1997, when the RFU controversially negotiated their own TV deal, which not only covered autumn internationals, but also covered their home games in the 5 nations. The upshot of that was, England were initially thrown out the tournament, and were only allowed back in when they made serious financial concessions to the other countries. Needless to say, the RFU never again tried to negotiate their own TV deal for their home 6 nations matches.
Basically, the football league division games are the Football leagues event to sell, not Leeds united's
Well, here's how I see it. LUFC are members of a "club", in this case, the club being the Football League. When you're a member of a club, anything you do under the jurisdiction of the club must be to the rules of the club. Basically, you accept the rules that are in place, and if you want to change them, it has to be voted on at a meeting, where other members can/must be present or represented.
There used to be a club here in Cardenden, Bowhill War Memorial Club. It closed its doors in 2013, but members were required to pay annual fees, and were also entitled to discounts on drink. But members, and during the early part of the week visitors, when it was also open to non members, were required to conduct themselves to the rules of the club. That applied to everyone, no matter who they were, what their job was, or where they came from. It was not a case of "One rule for one and one for another.".
What the tweets from Adam Pope are suggesting is, the owner of LUFC wants to be a member of a club, the Football League, but doesn't want to be bound by its rules. He thinks that there should be a separate rule for LUFC from the others. It doesn't work like that. I could be a member of a club, but I can't then say "I want my coca cola to be just 25p as I don't drink, but every other member has to pay 75p for it"
If the tweets are to be correct, it could end up something similar to the RFU 5 nations dispute in 1997, when the RFU controversially negotiated their own TV deal, which not only covered autumn internationals, but also covered their home games in the 5 nations. The upshot of that was, England were initially thrown out the tournament, and were only allowed back in when they made serious financial concessions to the other countries. Needless to say, the RFU never again tried to negotiate their own TV deal for their home 6 nations matches.
Basically, the football league division games are the Football leagues event to sell, not Leeds united's
BR
Although Premiership Rugby took the same route with the European Cup and essentially got their own way.
Leeds won't get their own way of course - they'd simply be thrown out of the league if they tried to negotiate their own rights. I do think we will see the way rights are sold tested in the near future - traditionally of course some of the European leagues sold rights on a club by club basis but having seen the money the Premier League is making moved towards a collective agreement, although not all clubs are entirely happy about that.
I wouldn't be surprised that if ultimately we get a compromise of the both where clubs can sell the rights to games which aren't covered by any collective deal, although in the UK's case there simply aren't the broadcasters for that market to be lucrative and ultimately it'll be the big clubs who have the most to gain with the ability to sell their games to the biggest broadcasters for the biggest prices. Can't see Made in Leeds being able to cover the costs of covering any unbroadcast Leeds United games, even if there were no rights fees to consider.
If the tweets are to be correct, it could end up something similar to the RFU 5 nations dispute in 1997, when the RFU controversially negotiated their own TV deal, which not only covered autumn internationals, but also covered their home games in the 5 nations. The upshot of that was, England were initially thrown out the tournament, and were only allowed back in when they made serious financial concessions to the other countries. Needless to say, the RFU never again tried to negotiate their own TV deal for their home 6 nations matches.
Although Premiership Rugby took the same route with the European Cup and essentially got their own way.
Leeds won't get their own way of course - they'd simply be thrown out of the league if they tried to negotiate their own rights. I do think we will see the way rights are sold tested in the near future - traditionally of course some of the European leagues sold rights on a club by club basis but having seen the money the Premier League is making moved towards a collective agreement, although not all clubs are entirely happy about that.
I wouldn't be surprised that if ultimately we get a compromise of the both where clubs can sell the rights to games which aren't covered by any collective deal, although in the UK's case there simply aren't the broadcasters for that market to be lucrative and ultimately it'll be the big clubs who have the most to gain with the ability to sell their games to the biggest broadcasters for the biggest prices. Can't see Made in Leeds being able to cover the costs of covering any unbroadcast Leeds United games, even if there were no rights fees to consider.