Finance

386 posts
SCIAG
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4852
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Finance

by SCIAG » 05 May 2020 12:25

Notts Royal
SCIAG
Hound
Yeah but you are going down a rabbit hole with that discussion really. Compared to other areas of society who earn plenty - I dunno Bankers maybe - they should be earning a lot more

I mean they have tons of pressure, need to be super talented, short career, and indirectly probably employ an awful lot of people

I just find the footballer bashing a bit dull really. Obvs some of the wages have got ridiculously inflated but it’s bloody tough to get where they are

Bankers get an unfair reputation. That job absolutely takes over your life and is incredibly high stress. They get paid so much because they do essential, high-skilled work that nobody would choose to do otherwise.

The people who are really stealing a living:

- Most agents, including estate agents.
- Any landlord whose profit outweighs the maintenance and improvements they make to their properties.
- Patent trolls.
- Inheritors of intellectual property.
- Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.
- The recruitment industry.
- Lobbyists.

Essentially, people who, rather than adding value of their own, leech off the value created by others, or profit by stopping other people from adding value.

Footballers, on the other hand, get paid a lot because lots of people will pay to watch them. Capping their wages would just worsen the deadweight loss as that money gets redirected to owners, agents, and broadcasters and advertisers.


I think you’re missing the point here. Money won’t be redirected as it’s going to be considerably lower than it has been. We’re going to have to wait and see what the TV deals are going to be first and then it’ll filter down

I don’t think there’s much reason to think that there will be less money in the game in the long run. It’s like 2008. Major global recession, but in 2009 Real Madrid broke the world transfer record twice and still spent enough on other transfers to break it a third time. This summer will be tough, but 2022 will probably be back to business as normal.

People are still going to want to watch football. If TV deals are smaller (and I don’t think that’s likely, but possible) then the TV companies are effectively pocketing that money from getting a quality product at a discount.

Hound
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 14638
Joined: 27 Sep 2016 22:16
Location: Simpleton

Re: Finance

by Hound » 05 May 2020 12:32

SCIAG
Notts Royal
SCIAG Bankers get an unfair reputation. That job absolutely takes over your life and is incredibly high stress. They get paid so much because they do essential, high-skilled work that nobody would choose to do otherwise.

The people who are really stealing a living:

- Most agents, including estate agents.
- Any landlord whose profit outweighs the maintenance and improvements they make to their properties.
- Patent trolls.
- Inheritors of intellectual property.
- Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.
- The recruitment industry.
- Lobbyists.

Essentially, people who, rather than adding value of their own, leech off the value created by others, or profit by stopping other people from adding value.

Footballers, on the other hand, get paid a lot because lots of people will pay to watch them. Capping their wages would just worsen the deadweight loss as that money gets redirected to owners, agents, and broadcasters and advertisers.


I think you’re missing the point here. Money won’t be redirected as it’s going to be considerably lower than it has been. We’re going to have to wait and see what the TV deals are going to be first and then it’ll filter down

I don’t think there’s much reason to think that there will be less money in the game in the long run. It’s like 2008. Major global recession, but in 2009 Real Madrid broke the world transfer record twice and still spent enough on other transfers to break it a third time. This summer will be tough, but 2022 will probably be back to business as normal.

People are still going to want to watch football. If TV deals are smaller (and I don’t think that’s likely, but possible) then the TV companies are effectively pocketing that money from getting a quality product at a discount.


I think Sky subs to sport actually went up in the last recession. And if we are made to stay at home more, their viewing figures will go up, not down. And thats what kicks off the whole money train

User avatar
Zip
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 9376
Joined: 30 Dec 2017 16:39

Re: Finance

by Zip » 05 May 2020 12:34

Forbury Lion
Zip
Hound Yeah but come on - to be a champ footballer takes a hell of a lot more effort than a 27k p/a year generally. They are basically employed for the age of 8, deal with all sorts of pressure and disappointments, play in front of 30k knobheads calling your a pcunt and criticising your every move etc

Fine but then ensure every person who is elite in their field only earns that


When you think a carer probably earns about £15k a year I reckon a footballer playing at Championship level is well rewarded at £350k per annum. Besides they should be paid what a football club can pay them without getting into debt. Just maybe this virus will bring some much needed common sense into the game and society as well.
If any of us compare our salaries to that of a carer then chances are we are, by comparison well rewarded - Does that mean we can afford to offer our employers some of it back? - probably not.

Remember, this isn't the players being asked to donate to the NHS or charitable causes (which I'm sure some of them have done/do regularly), This is about giving back to a business owned by a billionaire at the request of someone who is also on a comparably high salary who may well be paying some of them below market rate as it is..... instead of comparing their salaries to that of a carer, try comparing it to the income of other players/the club owners etc etc.

I personally don't think the situation was explained clearly enough to the players, Perhaps they will be financially at a loss by deferring payments? - Basically, this is the club trying to borrow money from players wages for free, Perhaps they are worried they may never see that money again, Maybe the owner can personally guarantee it, maybe even offer them an incentive to do it? Maybe not force everyone to do it/not do it/part do it (players are on different salaries and have different financial commitments, when you earn big money you might not want your parents working their selves to an early grave)

The James Harper BBC Berks podcast was an eye opener - How little they were earning and the fact his accountant was investing almost every penny of his for his pension/life after football leaving him with almost nothing in his pocket each week. This was a player who played for us in the Premier League. I imagine quite a few higher wages now though, but not all.


Re Harper he was taken advantage of for being who he was. He finally got rewarded with a decent contract but he was surely an outlier as most players are switched on and will have an agent who will know their worth.

For too long football has lived beyond the normal rules of how to run a successful business. It’s now catching up with clubs. Bury went, Bolton very nearly did too. This current crisis has forced clubs to rethink. It should not be tenable for any business to pay their employees nearly double the incoming revenue. Your employers don’t work like that and nor do mine.
It means clubs are totally beholden to their owners and left incredibly vulnerable.
Football has to change and become more business focused and that starts with clubs living within their means.

Bonzodog
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 20 Apr 2014 11:45

Re: Finance

by Bonzodog » 05 May 2020 12:47

Hound
SCIAG
Notts Royal
I think you’re missing the point here. Money won’t be redirected as it’s going to be considerably lower than it has been. We’re going to have to wait and see what the TV deals are going to be first and then it’ll filter down

I don’t think there’s much reason to think that there will be less money in the game in the long run. It’s like 2008. Major global recession, but in 2009 Real Madrid broke the world transfer record twice and still spent enough on other transfers to break it a third time. This summer will be tough, but 2022 will probably be back to business as normal.

People are still going to want to watch football. If TV deals are smaller (and I don’t think that’s likely, but possible) then the TV companies are effectively pocketing that money from getting a quality product at a discount.


I think Sky subs to sport actually went up in the last recession. And if we are made to stay at home more, their viewing figures will go up, not down. And thats what kicks off the whole money train


Not sure you are correct. I have cancelled Sky as have many others, everyone subscribed to Sky Sports has their memberships paused. Sky aren’t going to be able to rake in advertising revenue and Pubs, social clubs who pay extortionate fees are likely to remain shut or with reduced customers and unlikely to renew satellite subscriptions.

Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 7304
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://urlzs.com/ZVLjH

Re: Finance

by Forbury Lion » 05 May 2020 12:53

Snowflake Royal I doubt many of us are earning many multiples of carer's salary Forbes,so tbh that whole post is hooey
Average salary in the Reading area is around £40k.... sure some big earners (including footballers) push that upwards, but also plenty of careers/nurses/cleaners etc pushing it downwards.

Dave Kitson, he was asked to take a pay cut when we were relegated from the premier league - He comes across as a sensible person but he said he was unable to take a pay cut as he had over committed himself and was open and honest about that and tried to negotiate a lower salary that also allowed him to cover those overheads. Ultimately that's why he went to Stoke, to pay the bills.

I imagine a number of players at the club do not have a plan in place to cope financially with a pay cut, some may already be in trouble due to no appearance/win bonuses. They are in the same position as the club who did not have a plan in place for this so maybe Nigel Howe and co should offer some support to them and help them with advice/guidance so they maybe can help the club in return?

Footballers salaries are too high, Clubs can not afford to pay them at the best of times and something needs to happen but, you can't expect people to willingly take a pay cut just because you think they are being paid too much. The club need to look at other avenues, sell a few players to balance the books and pay less going forward. I also think the club(s) should open a dialogue now with the FA over financial fair play and allow investment from willing owners to cover the shortfall in match-day revenue and salaries of non playing staff.


User avatar
Zip
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 9376
Joined: 30 Dec 2017 16:39

Re: Finance

by Zip » 05 May 2020 13:02

It’s definitely a minefield expecting players to take a pay cut when they have what is presumably a legally binding contract in place.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13517
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Finance

by Snowflake Royal » 05 May 2020 13:59

SCIAG
Snowflake Royal
SCIAG Bankers get an unfair reputation. That job absolutely takes over your life and is incredibly high stress. They get paid so much because they do essential, high-skilled work that nobody would choose to do otherwise.

The people who are really stealing a living:

- Most agents, including estate agents.
- Any landlord whose profit outweighs the maintenance and improvements they make to their properties.
- Patent trolls.
- Inheritors of intellectual property.
- Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.
- The recruitment industry.
- Lobbyists.

Essentially, people who, rather than adding value of their own, leech off the value created by others, or profit by stopping other people from adding value.

Footballers, on the other hand, get paid a lot because lots of people will pay to watch them. Capping their wages would just worsen the deadweight loss as that money gets redirected to owners, agents, and broadcasters and advertisers.

Not if you introduce an agency to administer transfers and make players pay any private agents directly for services. Reverse the decision to allow money to be taken out of clubs and mandate certain spending levels on grass roots and return it to a proper football league without the evil PL stealing everything for itself.

We have tribunals setting fees for U24s who are out of contract. There seems to be a consensus that they set the fees far too low. Maybe you could address that with better rules but you’ll never have a better way of determining fees than the open market.

I'm not talking about setting the fee. I'm talking about managing the admin of negotiations and payments. Ie no opportunity for all the brown paper bags, image rights and lying by agents.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13517
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Finance

by Snowflake Royal » 05 May 2020 14:01

Forbury Lion
Snowflake Royal I doubt many of us are earning many multiples of carer's salary Forbes,so tbh that whole post is hooey
Average salary in the Reading area is around £40k.... sure some big earners (including footballers) push that upwards, but also plenty of careers/nurses/cleaners etc pushing it downwards.

Dave Kitson, he was asked to take a pay cut when we were relegated from the premier league - He comes across as a sensible person but he said he was unable to take a pay cut as he had over committed himself and was open and honest about that and tried to negotiate a lower salary that also allowed him to cover those overheads. Ultimately that's why he went to Stoke, to pay the bills.

I imagine a number of players at the club do not have a plan in place to cope financially with a pay cut, some may already be in trouble due to no appearance/win bonuses. They are in the same position as the club who did not have a plan in place for this so maybe Nigel Howe and co should offer some support to them and help them with advice/guidance so they maybe can help the club in return?

Footballers salaries are too high, Clubs can not afford to pay them at the best of times and something needs to happen but, you can't expect people to willingly take a pay cut just because you think they are being paid too much. The club need to look at other avenues, sell a few players to balance the books and pay less going forward. I also think the club(s) should open a dialogue now with the FA over financial fair play and allow investment from willing owners to cover the shortfall in match-day revenue and salaries of non playing staff.

I'm not asking for volunteers, I'm talking about industry wide regulated change.

Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 7304
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://urlzs.com/ZVLjH

Re: Finance

by Forbury Lion » 05 May 2020 17:01

SCIAG Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.
If I wrote a book over 20 years ago and it was still selling reasonably well, wouldn't that just mean the publishers pocket what would have otherwise gone to me as a royalty?

I'm more inclined to go the otherway and suggest royalties should remain in place for at least the life of the person who wrote the book/song


muirinho
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1681
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 12:10

Re: Finance

by muirinho » 05 May 2020 17:16

Snowflake Royal
Forbury Lion
Zip
When you think a carer probably earns about £15k a year I reckon a footballer playing at Championship level is well rewarded at £350k per annum. Besides they should be paid what a football club can pay them without getting into debt. Just maybe this virus will bring some much needed common sense into the game and society as well.
If any of us compare our salaries to that of a carer then chances are we are, by comparison well rewarded - Does that mean we can afford to offer our employers some of it back? - probably not.

Remember, this isn't the players being asked to donate to the NHS or charitable causes (which I'm sure some of them have done/do regularly), This is about giving back to a business owned by a billionaire at the request of someone who is also on a comparably high salary who may well be paying some of them below market rate as it is..... instead of comparing their salaries to that of a carer, try comparing it to the income of other players/the club owners etc etc.

I personally don't think the situation was explained clearly enough to the players, Perhaps they will be financially at a loss by deferring payments? - Basically, this is the club trying to borrow money from players wages for free, Perhaps they are worried they may never see that money again, Maybe the owner can personally guarantee it, maybe even offer them an incentive to do it? Maybe not force everyone to do it/not do it/part do it (players are on different salaries and have different financial commitments, when you earn big money you might not want your parents working their selves to an early grave)

The James Harper BBC Berks podcast was an eye opener - How little they were earning and the fact his accountant was investing almost every penny of his for his pension/life after football leaving him with almost nothing in his pocket each week. This was a player who played for us in the Premier League. I imagine quite a few higher wages now though, but not all.

Still don't believe that Harper story and if it is true it can only be because he was incredibly stupid and we took advantage.

I doubt many of us are earning many multiples of carer's salary Forbes,so tbh that whole post is hooey


I've seen some amazing stories - there was an interview with Stephen Ireland a few months back, he was earning absolute peanuts with Man City while playing in the PL with them, club totally took advantage of the fact that he was a single father with two young kids and would have found it very difficult to move clubs. He was relying on team mates to help him out with money, and second hand clothes for the kids and so on.

https://punditarena.com/football/mcorry ... -man-city/

But even outside of extreme examples - in 2005 the average Championship salary was about £2 to 2.5K a week. So, say 120K a year - 80K after tax. Out of which he'd have to pay his blooming accountant! You can easily see how you'd need to put away most of that if you're trying to make career earnings of 800K last 40 years.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13517
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Finance

by Snowflake Royal » 05 May 2020 17:32

muirinho
Snowflake Royal
Forbury Lion If any of us compare our salaries to that of a carer then chances are we are, by comparison well rewarded - Does that mean we can afford to offer our employers some of it back? - probably not.

Remember, this isn't the players being asked to donate to the NHS or charitable causes (which I'm sure some of them have done/do regularly), This is about giving back to a business owned by a billionaire at the request of someone who is also on a comparably high salary who may well be paying some of them below market rate as it is..... instead of comparing their salaries to that of a carer, try comparing it to the income of other players/the club owners etc etc.

I personally don't think the situation was explained clearly enough to the players, Perhaps they will be financially at a loss by deferring payments? - Basically, this is the club trying to borrow money from players wages for free, Perhaps they are worried they may never see that money again, Maybe the owner can personally guarantee it, maybe even offer them an incentive to do it? Maybe not force everyone to do it/not do it/part do it (players are on different salaries and have different financial commitments, when you earn big money you might not want your parents working their selves to an early grave)

The James Harper BBC Berks podcast was an eye opener - How little they were earning and the fact his accountant was investing almost every penny of his for his pension/life after football leaving him with almost nothing in his pocket each week. This was a player who played for us in the Premier League. I imagine quite a few higher wages now though, but not all.

Still don't believe that Harper story and if it is true it can only be because he was incredibly stupid and we took advantage.

I doubt many of us are earning many multiples of carer's salary Forbes,so tbh that whole post is hooey


I've seen some amazing stories - there was an interview with Stephen Ireland a few months back, he was earning absolute peanuts with Man City while playing in the PL with them, club totally took advantage of the fact that he was a single father with two young kids and would have found it very difficult to move clubs. He was relying on team mates to help him out with money, and second hand clothes for the kids and so on.

https://punditarena.com/football/mcorry ... -man-city/

But even outside of extreme examples - in 2005 the average Championship salary was about £2 to 2.5K a week. So, say 120K a year - 80K after tax. Out of which he'd have to pay his blooming accountant! You can easily see how you'd need to put away most of that if you're trying to make career earnings of 800K last 40 years.

Bizarre,because I recall seeing the average champ wage as about 11k a week back in 2005. Unless yours is including all youth players. Even then.

How on earth do you get wage bills of £15m in the championship with an average salary of £2k a week?

That would mean a club would need to have 140 players on the books.

Don't believe it for a second.

muirinho
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 1681
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 12:10

Re: Finance

by muirinho » 05 May 2020 20:05

Snowflake Royal
muirinho
But even outside of extreme examples - in 2005 the average Championship salary was about £2 to 2.5K a week. So, say 120K a year - 80K after tax. Out of which he'd have to pay his blooming accountant! You can easily see how you'd need to put away most of that if you're trying to make career earnings of 800K last 40 years.

Bizarre,because I recall seeing the average champ wage as about 11k a week back in 2005. Unless yours is including all youth players. Even then.

How on earth do you get wage bills of £15m in the championship with an average salary of £2k a week?

That would mean a club would need to have 140 players on the books.

Don't believe it for a second.


Take a look at the table in this article;

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... rs-301002/

Average annual salary in 2005/2006 in the Championship - £127,192. Which is - 2.446K a week. And i thought in those days we were among the lower payers?
However, it doesn't include appearance money and bonuses, which would probably be quite a lot for a player playing a lot of games in a team doing well.

I guess if players regarded those as part of their normal salary, they are already taking a cut these days, as presumably they get none of that if no games are being played.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 4852
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Finance

by SCIAG » 05 May 2020 20:38

Forbury Lion
SCIAG Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.
If I wrote a book over 20 years ago and it was still selling reasonably well, wouldn't that just mean the publishers pocket what would have otherwise gone to me as a royalty?

I'm more inclined to go the otherway and suggest royalties should remain in place for at least the life of the person who wrote the book/song

If it's in the public domain then anyone can access it for free.


Westwood52
Member
Posts: 600
Joined: 08 Oct 2010 16:46

Re: Finance

by Westwood52 » 05 May 2020 20:56

Forbury Lion
Snowflake Royal I doubt many of us are earning many multiples of carer's salary Forbes,so tbh that whole post is hooey
Average salary in the Reading area is around £40k.... sure some big earners (including footballers) push that upwards, but also plenty of careers/nurses/cleaners etc pushing it downwards.

Dave Kitson, he was asked to take a pay cut when we were relegated from the premier league - He comes across as a sensible person but he said he was unable to take a pay cut as he had over committed himself and was open and honest about that and tried to negotiate a lower salary that also allowed him to cover those overheads. Ultimately that's why he went to Stoke, to pay the bills.

I imagine a number of players at the club do not have a plan in place to cope financially with a pay cut, some may already be in trouble due to no appearance/win bonuses. They are in the same position as the club who did not have a plan in place for this so maybe Nigel Howe and co should offer some support to them and help them with advice/guidance so they maybe can help the club in return?

Footballers salaries are too high, Clubs can not afford to pay them at the best of times and something needs to happen but, you can't expect people to willingly take a pay cut just because you think they are being paid too much. The club need to look at other avenues, sell a few players to balance the books and pay less going forward. I also think the club(s) should open a dialogue now with the FA over financial fair play and allow investment from willing owners to cover the shortfall in match-day revenue and salaries of non playing staff.


The secret footballers mortgage was £14k a month !!! Presumably he was paying off a large mortgage pdq.Down the line he discovered the Lender was overcharging him £7 k a month.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 13517
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Finance

by Snowflake Royal » 05 May 2020 20:58

muirinho
Snowflake Royal
muirinho
But even outside of extreme examples - in 2005 the average Championship salary was about £2 to 2.5K a week. So, say 120K a year - 80K after tax. Out of which he'd have to pay his blooming accountant! You can easily see how you'd need to put away most of that if you're trying to make career earnings of 800K last 40 years.

Bizarre,because I recall seeing the average champ wage as about 11k a week back in 2005. Unless yours is including all youth players. Even then.

How on earth do you get wage bills of £15m in the championship with an average salary of £2k a week?

That would mean a club would need to have 140 players on the books.

Don't believe it for a second.


Take a look at the table in this article;

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/201 ... rs-301002/

Average annual salary in 2005/2006 in the Championship - £127,192. Which is - 2.446K a week. And i thought in those days we were among the lower payers?
However, it doesn't include appearance money and bonuses, which would probably be quite a lot for a player playing a lot of games in a team doing well.

I guess if players regarded those as part of their normal salary, they are already taking a cut these days, as presumably they get none of that if no games are being played.

No, at the time we were always towards the top of the wage payers. But everyone claimed we spent nothing because we didn't spend tens of millions on transfer fees.

I just don't buy it unless it's massively skewed by including non-first team youth professionals and ignoring all add ons and maybe after tax. In which case it's utterly meaningless.

Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 7304
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://urlzs.com/ZVLjH

Re: Finance

by Forbury Lion » 06 May 2020 09:39

SCIAG
Forbury Lion
SCIAG Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.
If I wrote a book over 20 years ago and it was still selling reasonably well, wouldn't that just mean the publishers pocket what would have otherwise gone to me as a royalty?

I'm more inclined to go the otherway and suggest royalties should remain in place for at least the life of the person who wrote the book/song

If it's in the public domain then anyone can access it for free.
For enjoyment/entertainment/personal use purposes that may be reasonable (like none of us ever paying royalties when they sing happy birthday to a family member), but what if they were to profit from it by releasing a cover version of a song written by someone else or by printing and selling copies of someone elses book, maybe selling prints of someone elses artwork?

That sounds like stealing a living if you ask me.

I think Sir Cliff Richard said that he's going to lose ownership of some of his own songs because he wrote them so long ago, Perhaps the rule should be that they become copyright free after something like x years or x years after the artists dies, whichever is the longer.

Emmer Green Royal
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 05 May 2006 11:57
Location: St Johann in Tirol, Austria

Re: Finance

by Emmer Green Royal » 06 May 2020 11:25

Forbury Lion I think Sir Cliff Richard said that he's going to lose ownership of some of his own songs because he wrote them so long ago, Perhaps the rule should be that they become copyright free after something like x years or x years after the artists dies, whichever is the longer.


There are (at least) two types of copyright. Copyright in the song , usually owned by the writer or their publisher, and copyright in a performance of the song, usually owned by the artist or their record label. Both last 70 years after the death of the artist. Cliff may have written some of his songs prior to this being the case.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 5981
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: Finance

by Nameless » 06 May 2020 11:28

Emmer Green Royal
Forbury Lion I think Sir Cliff Richard said that he's going to lose ownership of some of his own songs because he wrote them so long ago, Perhaps the rule should be that they become copyright free after something like x years or x years after the artists dies, whichever is the longer.


There are (at least) two types of copyright. Copyright in the song , usually owned by the writer or their publisher, and copyright in a performance of the song, usually owned by the artist or their record label. Both last 70 years after the death of the artist. Cliff may have written some of his songs prior to this being the case.


Cliff is working on the basis that he’s going to rise again 3 days after he dies....

Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 7304
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://urlzs.com/ZVLjH

Re: Finance

by Forbury Lion » 06 May 2020 12:43

Emmer Green Royal
Forbury Lion I think Sir Cliff Richard said that he's going to lose ownership of some of his own songs because he wrote them so long ago, Perhaps the rule should be that they become copyright free after something like x years or x years after the artists dies, whichever is the longer.


There are (at least) two types of copyright. Copyright in the song , usually owned by the writer or their publisher, and copyright in a performance of the song, usually owned by the artist or their record label. Both last 70 years after the death of the artist. Cliff may have written some of his songs prior to this being the case.
Looks like the story I recalled was over 9 years ago and prompted a change in the law
https://www.nme.com/news/music/cliff-richard-20-1282122
A new EU ruling is set to see copyright for music performers extended from 50 to 70 years. The ruling has been dubbed Cliff Richard's Law, as it will see older musicians such as Richards still able to profit from their music long after it has been recorded and released.

User avatar
Ascotexgunner
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2830
Joined: 07 Jan 2012 16:23
Location: Ascot

Re: Finance

by Ascotexgunner » 06 May 2020 13:33

Forbury Lion
Emmer Green Royal
Forbury Lion I think Sir Cliff Richard said that he's going to lose ownership of some of his own songs because he wrote them so long ago, Perhaps the rule should be that they become copyright free after something like x years or x years after the artists dies, whichever is the longer.


There are (at least) two types of copyright. Copyright in the song , usually owned by the writer or their publisher, and copyright in a performance of the song, usually owned by the artist or their record label. Both last 70 years after the death of the artist. Cliff may have written some of his songs prior to this being the case.
Looks like the story I recalled was over 9 years ago and prompted a change in the law
https://www.nme.com/news/music/cliff-richard-20-1282122
A new EU ruling is set to see copyright for music performers extended from 50 to 70 years. The ruling has been dubbed Cliff Richard's Law, as it will see older musicians such as Richards still able to profit from their music long after it has been recorded and released.


Have I missed something? Has Cliff bought the club?
Team coming out to Wired for Sound, half time guitar solo from Hank, or singalong with Cliff if its raining and theres a threat of Hanks guitar shooting him into row z of 1871?
How did we get to this?

386 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bristol Paul, Google Adsense [Bot], surrounded by saints, WoodleyRoyal and 126 guests

It is currently 12 Jul 2020 08:12