Question on Peter V'landys

[Storm80]

Who said the TV deals need to be renegotiated?

They are being re-negotiated right now with Nine. V’Landys even said it after the meeting with Nine - "We're a little bit apart, and that's what you do in negotiation and you try and get to the position where everyone's happy with”.

https://www.portnews.com.au/story/6721820/nine-and-nrl-seek-crucial-foxtel-meeting/?cs=12968

If the NRL legal position was rock solid about this “Act of God” term why wouldn’t you turn the screws and hold them too it? There would be nothing to negotiate if your legal position was secure.

 

[unforgiven]

They are being re-negotiated right now with Nine. V’Landys even said it after the meeting with Nine - "We're a little bit apart, and that's what you do in negotiation and you try and get to the position where everyone's happy with”.

https://www.portnews.com.au/story/6721820/nine-and-nrl-seek-crucial-foxtel-meeting/?cs=12968

If the NRL legal position was rock solid about this “Act of God” term why wouldn’t you turn the screws and hold them too it? There would be nothing to negotiate if your legal position was secure.

So you are guessing?

 

[Storm80]

So you are guessing?

Guessing? As to what?

It pretty clear NRL and Nine are either negotiating a new contract or negotiating amendments to the current 2018-2022 deal.

If the Act of God clause put the NRL in the stronger position they’d be telling Nine to comply with the terms of the contract wouldn’t they?

So clearly, if the NRL isn’t telling Nine to toe the line and comply with the contract - there must be doubt about whether:

- whether the Act of God clause would hold up in court; and
- whether the 2018-2022 contract is now void or Nine can terminate the agreement due to the Act of God clause being triggered.

I think the above if pretty obvious.

Otherwise, it makes no sense for the NRL to enter in negotiations with Nine. They would just be forcefully reminding Nine about complying with their contractual obligations until the end of 2022.

 

[unforgiven]

Guessing? As to what?

It pretty clear NRL and Nine are either negotiating a new contract or negotiating amendments to the current 2018-2022 deal.

If the Act of God clause put the NRL in the stronger position they’d be telling Nine to comply with the terms of the contract wouldn’t they?

So clearly, if the NRL isn’t telling Nine to toe the line and comply with the contract - there must be doubt about whether:

- whether the Act of God clause would hold up in court; and
- whether the 2018-2022 contract is now void or Nine can terminate the agreement due to the Act of God clause being triggered.

I think the above if pretty obvious.

Otherwise, it makes no sense for the NRL to enter in negotiations with Nine. They would just be forcefully reminding Nine about complying with their contractual obligations until the end of 2022.

No you stated that if an act of god clause was triggered, the contract would be void, that may not be the case. It is quite possible they are discussing the makeup of the season, and each parties responsibilities towards that. While 9 may be trying to get amendments to the current contract, that doesn't mean that the contract will be renegotiated, the NRL and Fox may just say no.

 

[Cactus]

Guessing? As to what?

It pretty clear NRL and Nine are either negotiating a new contract or negotiating amendments to the current 2018-2022 deal.

They are holding discussions.

- whether the 2018-2022 contract is now void or Nine can terminate the agreement due to the Act of God clause being triggered.

I think the above if pretty obvious

There is a contract. Due to the pandemic the contract is now not being fulfilled by either party. As to who wins a legal dispute (if there is one) in this instance you do not know. That is because its more complicated than you realize.

What we do know is you keep saying the contract can be voided and 9 terminate etc. It is not obvious and not correct. No offense but its just BS.

 

[Storm80]

No you stated that if an act of god clause was triggered, the contract would be void, that may not be the case. It is quite possible they are discussing the makeup of the season, and each parties responsibilities towards that. While 9 may be trying to get amendments to the current contract, that doesn't mean that the contract will be renegotiated, the NRL and Fox may just say no.

Yes it was my guess based on Nines aggressive approach last week and the apology from NRL - that the act of God clause would essentially amount to a void contract. My terminology and grasp of contract law was off the mark.

As others have pointed out the Act of God clause doesn’t usually void a contract, yet it could give Nine the right to terminate after the Act of God clause is triggered.

And my overall point - which was to respond to a post that said Nines position had been weakened by Channel 7 - remains valid.

Nine are in a position of strength which is why the NRL has agreed to negotiate the terms of the media deal.

If the NRL were in a position of strength here they’d simply point to the contract and tell Nine “comply with the terms or we will sue you for every cent you own us”.

Nine will only allow Channel 7 the opportunity to have have games if its in their best interests. You seriously think Nine will allow the NRL to sell the rights to Seven with out going to court and challenging the validity of the Act of God and termination clauses? With millions of dollars at stake, there is no chance Nine would let that happen.

 

[Storm80]

They are holding discussions.



There is a contract. Due to the pandemic the contract is now not being fulfilled by either party. As to who wins a legal dispute (if there is one) in this instance you do not know. That is because its more complicated than you realize.

What we do know is you keep saying the contract can be voided and 9 terminate etc. It is not obvious and not correct. No offense but its just BS.

Haha holding discussions. Now who’s speaking BS, no offence? They are re-negotiating the deal. The NRL chairman even uses the word “negotiation”.

I do understand complexity of the matter much more now I’ve been corrected on the voided vs termination aspect of an Act of God clause. I admit I was incorrect in assuming it would automatically be voided.

Nonetheless, having conceded it is complex as u say - how are you so confident the contract is in NRL’s favour? If you’ve not seen the fine print how can you advocate for the NRL going to rival free to air networks to undermine Nine?

And if you are right in assuming the Art of God clause is rock solid, why isn’t the NRL enforcing it against Nine?

Id suggest, its cause the contract isn’t rock solid and allows Nine to be in a very strong position to renegotiate the terms of the 2018-2022 agreement and get better value for money - which was the overall theme of my original comments

 

[Babyface O'reilly]

Haha holding discussions. Now who’s speaking BS, no offence? They are re-negotiating the deal. The NRL chairman even uses the word “negotiation”.

I do understand complexity of the matter much more now I’ve been corrected on the voided vs termination aspect of an Act of God clause. I admit I was incorrect in assuming it would automatically be voided.

Nonetheless, having conceded it is complex as u say - how are you so confident the contract is in NRL’s favour? If you’ve not seen the fine print how can you advocate for the NRL going to rival free to air networks to undermine Nine?

And if you are right in assuming the Art of God clause is rock solid, why isn’t the NRL enforcing it against Nine?

Id suggest, its cause the contract isn’t rock solid and allows Nine to be in a very strong position to renegotiate the terms of the 2018-2022 agreement and get better value for money - which was the overall theme of my original comments

Maybe they will once they get the green light to hold a competition. Until then, there’s nothing to force I would’ve thought.

 

[Cactus]

Yes it was my guess based on Nines aggressive approach last week and the apology from NRL - that the act of God clause would essentially amount to a void contract. My terminology and grasp of contract law was off the mark.

As others have pointed out the Act of God clause doesn’t usually void a contract, yet it could give Nine the right to terminate after the Act of God clause is triggered.

And my overall point - which was to respond to a post that said Nines position had been weakened by Channel 7 - remains valid.

Nine are in a position of strength which is why the NRL has agreed to negotiate the terms of the media deal.

If the NRL were in a position of strength here they’d simply point to the contract and tell Nine “comply with the terms or we will sue you for every cent you own us”.

Nine will only allow Channel 7 the opportunity to have have games if its in their best interests. You seriously think Nine will allow the NRL to sell the rights to Seven with out going to court and challenging the validity of the Act of God and termination clauses? With millions of dollars at stake, there is no chance Nine would let that happen.

The issue here is that neither the NRL or 9 can be sure of EXACTLY where they stand on the issue of who is contractually right or who is wrong in terms of the contract. Only a legal challenge will find the answer, and who wants that, right ?

Lets suppose one of the parties (NRL or 9) decide they no longer want to participate in the contract. Everything hinges upon what the contract says in terms of breach and in terms of termination. In other words each party must act in a way that faithfully pursues the satisfaction of the contract until such time as the contract is completed or one or both of the parties decides they will enact a clause that enables termination.

It isnt always simple black and white to decide. Noone wants to get lawyers and then spend exorbitant amounts of money & time finding out which way a Judge will decide things.

Breach of contract has a great deal to it that makes it too complicated to go into here. I will say though that the NRL, in contractual breach terms would seem to be on better gound than 9 purely based upon the governments enacting legislation to prevent public gatherings due to C-19. That would lend itself to any force majeure clause.

While 9 however, have publicly stated that they are somewhat unwanting (unwilling?) to fulfill the terms of the contract, which lends itself to being a breach of contract in and of itself.

Then it becomes a matter in which a judgement might look at who breached first.

In terms of "negotiations" 9 might hold a few good cards. In terms of the "contract" maybe the NRLs hand is a fair bit better.

 

[Cactus]

Haha holding discussions. Now who’s speaking BS, no offence? They are re-negotiating the deal. The NRL chairman even uses the word “negotiation”

If you want to be combative I am just not interested.

I do understand complexity of the matter much more now I’ve been corrected on the voided vs termination aspect of an Act of God clause. I admit I was incorrect in assuming it would automatically be voided.

Good on you

Nonetheless, having conceded it is complex as u say - how are you so confident the contract is in NRL’s favour? If you’ve not seen the fine print how can you advocate for the NRL going to rival free to air networks to undermine Nine?

I am not trying to advocate on behalf on the NRL. I am trying to discuss the pros cons of where this is heading. I do want to see footy back on and I do believe 9 has made grave errors in how its handled this thing.

And if you are right in assuming the Art of God clause is rock solid, why isn’t the NRL enforcing it against Nine? Id suggest, its cause the contract isn’t rock solid and allows Nine to be in a very strong position to renegotiate the terms of the 2018-2022 agreement and get better value for money - which was the overall theme of my original comments

See post 149

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Who wrote the newspaper stories playing the blame game and place all of this front & centre in the mainstream media ? The NRL or 9 ?

This question seems to be ignored by some .
How can you blame the NRL when Fairfax/. 9 went into overdrive doing a hatchet job on RL .

 

[Storm80]

The issue here is that neither the NRL or 9 can be sure of EXACTLY where they stand on the issue of who is contractually right or who is wrong in terms of the contract. Only a legal challenge will find the answer, and who wants that, right ?

Lets suppose one of the parties (NRL or 9) decide they no longer want to participate in the contract. Everything hinges upon what the contract says in terms of breach and in terms of termination. In other words each party must act in a way that faithfully pursues the satisfaction of the contract until such time as the contract is completed or one or both of the parties decides they will enact a clause that enables termination.

It isnt always simple black and white to decide. Noone wants to get lawyers and then spend exorbitant amounts of money & time finding out which way a Judge will decide things.

Breach of contract has a great deal to it that makes it too complicated to go into here. I will say though that the NRL, in contractual breach terms would seem to be on better gound than 9 purely based upon the governments enacting legislation to prevent public gatherings due to C-19. That would lend itself to any force majeure clause.

While 9 however, have publicly stated that they are somewhat unwanting (unwilling?) to fulfill the terms of the contract, which lends itself to being a breach of contract in and of itself.

Then it becomes a matter in which a judgement might look at who breached first.

In terms of "negotiations" 9 might hold a few good cards. In terms of the "contract" maybe the NRLs hand is a fair bit better.

In terms of contract. If you claim the Act of God clause. Then the NRL have to deliver on the rest of terms of the contract. They have to provide a 25 game season, 3 State of Origin Games, Internationals and Women’s NRL etc. The NRL just can’t yell “Act of God” click it’s fingers and change the terms of the contract.

I’m not advocating or hoping for litigation. I’m sure it will be avoided. My issue was with someone trying to claim Nine’s position is weakened by interest from another FTA network. It is not. Which is why NRL are happy to enter negotiations.

Nine have as yet not breached any contractual terms at all. They’ve not yet failed to broadcast a game. They are in the position of power.

NRL has failed to deliver its product, albeit with a reasonable excuse. But it is far more arguable to assert the NRL will breach the terms of the contract if it resumes and only provides a 15 game season.

NRL can’t change the boundaries of a contract like that because of a ‘so called’ Act of God. They still have to deliver the same 25 rounds of football etc. Any if they don’t, I would think they’d breach the 2018-2022 deal and Nine is never gonna sign off on that unless they are compensated accordingly.

An Act of God gives no party the ability to just dictate new terms of a contract once things return to normal.

And that is the reason why Nine is in an extremely powerful position right now to re-negotiate a new or amended contract for the remainder of 2020 and beyond.

 

[Storm80]

This question seems to be ignored by some .
How can you blame the NRL when Fairfax/. 9 went into overdrive doing a hatchet job on RL .

It’s called stakeholder engagement.

Before deciding to unilaterally amend the terms of the 2018-2022 media contract by publicly committing to a 15 game season I guess the NRL probably should have negotiated with their contractual partner and no.1 stakeholder (Nine).

I mean Nine is only the media company that pays about $200m a year for at least 25 rounds of NRL a year. Just arbitrarily changing the perimeters of the media contract like that is appalling business sense and never a good idea.

Guess this oversight kinda hits on my point that NRL should get things done professionally and quietly. Their decision to have press announcements every two minutes and shoot from the hip has clearly backfired in this scenario.

A scenario that could have been avoided if they negotiated with Nine and other stakeholders prior to announcing 28 May and 15 Round season.

Sadly, the AFL is running rings around them at the moment on this front.

 

[Cactus]

In terms of contract. If you claim the Act of God clause. Then the NRL have to deliver on the rest of terms of the contract. They have to provide a 25 game season, 3 State of Origin Games, Internationals and Women’s NRL etc. The NRL just can’t yell “Act of God” click it’s fingers and change the terms of the contract.

I’m not advocating or hoping for litigation. I’m sure it will be avoided. My issue was with someone trying to claim Nine’s position is weakened by interest from another FTA network. It is not. Which is why NRL are happy to enter negotiations.

Nine have as yet not breached any contractual terms at all. They’ve not yet failed to broadcast a game. They are in the position of power.

NRL has failed to deliver its product, albeit with a reasonable excuse. But it is far more arguable to assert the NRL will breach the terms of the contract if it resumes and only provides a 15 game season.

NRL can’t change the boundaries of a contract like that because of a ‘so called’ Act of God. They still have to deliver the same 25 rounds of football etc. Any if they don’t, I would think they’d breach the 2018-2022 deal and Nine is never gonna sign off on that unless they are compensated accordingly.

An Act of God gives no party the ability to just dictate new terms of a contract once things return to normal.

And that is the reason why Nine is in an extremely powerful position right now to re-negotiate a new or amended contract for the remainder of 2020 and beyond.

You have no farkin idea about contract law

You have no farkin idea about anything to do with contracts

You have no farkin idea about common sense

You are a very very stooopid person.

I will not waste anymore of my time with you. You are an idiot.

 

[unforgiven]

In terms of contract. If you claim the Act of God clause. Then the NRL have to deliver on the rest of terms of the contract. They have to provide a 25 game season, 3 State of Origin Games, Internationals and Women’s NRL etc. The NRL just can’t yell “Act of God” click it’s fingers and change the terms of the contract.

I’m not advocating or hoping for litigation. I’m sure it will be avoided. My issue was with someone trying to claim Nine’s position is weakened by interest from another FTA network. It is not. Which is why NRL are happy to enter negotiations.

Nine have as yet not breached any contractual terms at all. They’ve not yet failed to broadcast a game. They are in the position of power.

NRL has failed to deliver its product, albeit with a reasonable excuse. But it is far more arguable to assert the NRL will breach the terms of the contract if it resumes and only provides a 15 game season.

NRL can’t change the boundaries of a contract like that because of a ‘so called’ Act of God. They still have to deliver the same 25 rounds of football etc. Any if they don’t, I would think they’d breach the 2018-2022 deal and Nine is never gonna sign off on that unless they are compensated accordingly.

An Act of God gives no party the ability to just dictate new terms of a contract once things return to normal.

And that is the reason why Nine is in an extremely powerful position right now to re-negotiate a new or amended contract for the remainder of 2020 and beyond.

Again you are completely wrong!

 

[Perth Red]

No problem with nrl and nine renegotiating this years contract. The season is screwed and the product is inferior to what nine paid for so no problem with reaching a lower price agreement. Presuming we are back to normal next season then the last two years of the contract should stand. Nrl should not be renegotiating the final two years or what happens afterwards now. Save that until next year and go through a proper open competitive rights process like we did for this contract. At the moment all I can see is nine demanding a heap of things that are bad for the nrl and offering nothing good other than an extra couple of years after this contract.

It’s interesting that the last two contracts nrl has brought in specialists to lead the tv rights negotiations, at the moment it seems Vlandys thinks he can do it on his own!

 

[Cactus]

The best option IMO would be to stick at this point. Let 9 & Fox pay per game as each game is provided. If it truly is a partnership then all parties must move forward with their own losses.

Next off season, look at each contract, evaluate and then choose the best path possible.

 

[no name]

It’s called stakeholder engagement.

Before deciding to unilaterally amend the terms of the 2018-2022 media contract by publicly committing to a 15 game season I guess the NRL probably should have negotiated with their contractual partner and no.1 stakeholder (Nine).

I mean Nine is only the media company that pays about $200m a year for at least 25 rounds of NRL a year. Just arbitrarily changing the perimeters of the media contract like that is appalling business sense and never a good idea.

Guess this oversight kinda hits on my point that NRL should get things done professionally and quietly. Their decision to have press announcements every two minutes and shoot from the hip has clearly backfired in this scenario.

A scenario that could have been avoided if they negotiated with Nine and other stakeholders prior to announcing 28 May and 15 Round season.

Sadly, the AFL is running rings around them at the moment on this front.

You don’t think the announcement of the return wasn’t calculated? I mean the NRL have done some stupid shit in their time, but they did this for a reason.
Do you think the NRL didn’t know that 9 would rather the footy didn’t return?
The NRL announced the return to put pressure on 9 to come to come to the party.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

Guessing? As to what?
- whether the Act of God clause would hold up in court; and
- whether the 2018-2022 contract is now void or Nine can terminate the agreement due to the Act of God clause being triggered.
.

- maybe they just dont want to drag one of their biggest partners through the courts when they could just talk through it.

 

[Storm80]

You have no farkin idea about contract law

You have no farkin idea about anything to do with contracts

You have no farkin idea about common sense

You are a very very stooopid person.

I will not waste anymore of my time with you. You are an idiot.

Haha am I really? Haha your response says it all. I make an extremely valid legal point. And your response is to throw a tantrum and call me names.

A party that claims an Act of God has prohibited them from performing their contract obligations must still abide by the full terms and conditions of the original contract when said Act of God no longer remains a factor.

No party has the ability to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of a contract without the express consent of the other party, regardless of an Act of God or not.

So due to our discussion we’ve ascertained the following facts haven’t we Cactus:

1. The 2018-2022 media contract was clearly entered into by Nine and Foxtel on the presumption that the NRL would provide 25 rounds, 3 SOO, internationals, Women’s NRL etc each year.

2. On 24 March 2020, the NRL announced it was suspending its season indefinitely. They claimed an “Act of God” prohibited them from meeting its contractual obligations to players and media partners.

3. On 9 April 2020, NRL announced it planned to restart the game on 28 May 2020. Despite at least a week of media speculation about a 15 round competition and split conferences etc, the NRL made no commitment to fulfil its legal obligation to provide Nine and Foxtel 25 rounds of football etc.

4. After the NRL failed to engage stakeholders prior to the announcement to resume on 28 May, Nine issued a very public rebuke about the the NRL’s poor stakeholder management and previous poor financial management of the game. A day later the Chairman of the NRL publicly apologised to Nine and confirmed he would repair the ill will.

5. In the last 5 days, the Chairman NRL confirmed he was negotiating with both Nine and Foxtel regarding the 2018-2022 media contract.

6. Media reports now suggest negotiations centre around a shortened season, with 3 SOO games to take place in three consecutive weeks after the end of the comp. Both Nine and Foxtel want to have the current 2018-2022 media deal extended two years until 2024. Both Nine and Foxtel are yet to inform the NRL what they are willing to pay for the remainder of the 2020 season. Negotiation on new terms and conditions of the 2018-2022 media deal will continue next week.

So Cactus please engage me in an intellectual discussion about how contracts work. Provide me your expert legal argument about the following:

1. Tell me how Nine are in breach of the 2018-2022 media contract when it is the NRL that has failed to fulfil its contractual obligations since 24 March 2020?

2. Tell me how an Act of God can allow a party to unilaterally decide to change the terms and conditions of a contract without the express permission and consent of the other contractual party?

I’m happy for you to prove me wrong with rational legal argument. Point me to the case law and legislation that backs up your position.

There is one main reason why the NRL are entertaining Nine and not opening up bids from other networks. And that reason is because they contractually and legally have no option. Nine and Foxtel hold all the cards because the NRL have to fulfil ALL its legal obligations under the 2018-2022 deal once the season resumes on 28 May 2020.

And this is why Nine is saying it’s willing to take a financial hit this year in broadcasting the season if they get rewarded with an additional two years on the 2018-2022 media deal.

I may have been initially misinformed and jumped the gun on my claim that triggering the Act of God clause voided the contract. But having amended my thinking, I’m pretty sure my position is rock solid.

I’ll refrain from childish insults toward you Cactus. But you’d be a fool to think I’m stooopid and have no f**king idea about contract law.

Engage me on the merits of my legal argument all you want. Just don’t carry on like a chimp flinging crap at visitors at the zoo. It’s very unbecoming of you Cactus old buddy old pal.