SuperSport International Limited has obtained temporary orders stopping the 
“The damage to the reputation and standing of the plaintiff (SuperSport) cannot be quantified or compensated in monetary terms and in any event, the plaintiff’s substantial monetary investment and expenditure in Kenyan rugby based on the existence of the licence agreement are about Sh299 million,” the firm’s advocate, Mr Anthony Njogu, said.
He informed the judge that SuperSport and KRU were parties in an exclusive licence agreement dated April 4, 2010, in which the firm had acquired rights for transmission of audio visual or audio signals of matches.
According to the agreement, SuperSport was to distribute all content and programmes exclusively in respect of the pay broadcasting platform for certain rugby matches to be broadcast throughout Sub-Saharan
SuperSport claims KRU has proceeded to breach the terms of the licence agreement by appointing a third party to transmit the match between Kenya and Zimbabwe (Victoria Cup) held at Nyayo Stadium on July 23, 2011.
It seems that in the coming weeks KRU will be scrimmaging more in the corridors of justice as other parties intend to take them to court on more rugby related matters and conflict of interest cases that touch on the conduct of some of the new KRU directors.
"Impossible is a word only found in the Dictionary of Fools. Napoleon Bonaparte"
10 Comments:
Finally someone with Balls as big as sharemans..... ....
DJ its time to adjust your books.....You will not eat our Safari 7s money ....
the flood gates have opened Rombo better camp at The high court as sabwa,auka and club chairmen are about to also seek legal redress ,shareman you have suceeded where no other chairmanhas well done , rumour is manuel okoth is about to be rewarded with the Kenya XV coaching ob bila papers and having been out for the last 6 years God please save kenya rugby
Edward Rombo
Supersport are a waste of time and exploiting KRU. They give nothing to the sport. A contract was signed where they give nothing to KRU. So what if Zuku are their competitors did KRU give Zuku any deal to air games? Its plain blackmail by Supersport and we lose nothing at all. Let them go and concentrate on GorMahia and Sofapaka.
20 July at 23:53 · Like · 1 person
Edward Rombo
there is no need to get abusive. I know you and your likes view things in terms of the spectators point of view and don't look at the underlying issues perhaps because you may not be aware of the proper facts. KRU had no reason to suspect that Supersport would interfere or show disapproval at the fact that we got a sponsor for a match. Zuku merely offered to sponsor and market the Zimbabwe game with Nyayo Stadium as the focal point as the stadiums management are trying to market the stadium for possible rugby matches. It had nothing to do with infringing on Supersports rights after all Zuku are not broadcasting the game or anything of the sort. This is a clear case of a party trying to dictate to KRU on what other sponsor it can get even when it doesn't in any way impinge on their contract. Zuku have not interfered with Supersport on any way. They are only marketing one game for Nyayo Stadium and giving KRU much needed income. You mauls argue that broadcasting the game worldwide is good for the fans and the world but is it good for us KRU or the teams involved when we get nothing from it not even a single cent? The alternative view is that Supersport are getting free content and exploiting Kenyan rugby. They ought to have at least given back something to the sport. Is not as if Supersport airs the games for free. Its clients pay for the services so why not channel some of that money to the sport? Yes Bell i am educated enough to see and understand some of the issues critically and unlike you i do not view things like a spectator. Supersport had no reason to take the action they did and that is my personal view not KRUs.
21 July at 10:09 · Like · 1 person
Edward Rombo
nobody has waged any war on sponsors we value them and as I've stated KRU is always looking for more including Zuku! But when one sponsor attempts to block others does the game stop because of that? If Safaricom or Kenya Airways pull out it will not be because KRU has fought any of them. We all know Kenya Airways have not been happy at the latest results with the 7s team. That is why changes have been made in the team with a view to obtaining better results and if possible get even more sponsors on board. As for Safaricom i don't know what beef there could be to make them pull out but one thing i.know the ordinary boy and girl that aspires to play rugby will continue to do so where the corporates are there or not. That ambition to play rugby and keep the clubs going is the core objective of the union. Corporates come and go and we've seen many come and go. What is important is that rugby be continued at the clubs and schools. Over and out
Ojiambo once again let me repeat Zuku are only marketing the game for Nyayo Stadium. They have not in any way encroached on Supersports mandate to broadcast the match. Please do not intertwine or mix the two. Broadcasting and marketing are two separate issues. KRU has not breached any agreement with Supersport. Why Supersport would choose to act that way only because Zuku are al alleged competitor is beyond me. Zuku are not broadcasting the game. Yes Constant the people making the most noise about this have a low regard to the players and game in general. They are fans who are worried their convenience of watching matches in pubs as they drink the evening away is being eroded! Its nothing to do with the love of the sport or the players. Its their own interests. They have put a low value to the players and the game and will pander to the corporates at every whim. Corporates do not make the game. They instead jump on its back and take a ride when things are going well! In this instance we have one corporate trying to fight another using KRU. They don't care that we need the money they are only interested in their own corporate values which is not rugby.
Edward Rombo
Believe it or not Obondy someone signed a contract with Supersport where they give not a single cent to KRU!
21 July at 13:21 · Like · 2 people
Ncruba Ojiambo If the problem was the contract, then it may have been in good taste to let the contract run to its conclusion while continuing to hype up the kenyan game, so that there would be greater bargaining power at the point of renegotiation! That's usually how things are done! This approach may not get the game very far! Just my two cents!
21 July at 14:04 · Like · 3 people
Edward Rombo Ojiambo once again let me repeat Zuku are only marketing the game for Nyayo Stadium. They have not in any way encroached on Supersports mandate to broadcast the match. Please do not intertwine or mix the two. Broadcasting and marketing are ...
See more
21 July at 17:02 · Like · 2 people
Edward Rombo And now that Zuku has taken up the challenge to cover the game and feed it to any interested terrestrial station for broadcasting for free isn't this what taking the game to the people is all about rather than where its limited to the few rich that can afford satellite dishes?
21 July at 21:24 · Like · 1 person
1) Money is good but the deal with SS was worthwhile even with zero money because they provided exposure. In Africa, SS reaches a larger audience than Zuku.
2)While Zuku did not intend to broadcast the game, they is a clear conflict of interest with SS as they are in the same business. Its the equivalent of NTV marketing at an event covered by KTN. Its simply bad business.
3)To say that KRU had no reason to suspect that Supersport would interfere or show disapproval at the fact that we got a sponsor for a match shows incompitence at whoever is in charge of sponsorship at KRU. It is their job to avert these kinds of embarrasments.
4) Zuku paying and broadcasting is all well and good however as we noted during the broadcast, there were several glitches. If they can get their act together then it will be a step in the right direction.
Ss are a waste of time they are the ones in breach of the agreement by refusing to air the game
as to whether its good or bad business that should have been covered in the agreeement which was not KRU was right how much are these odieros making from us
they either pay up or pack up and bolt
legallly speaking they stand a 5 % chance of sucess with the case.
money vs exposure? Thats the question. Bt i believe ss wants to control the industry and create a monopoly while it claims its reach is much more wider bt its only fair that they should pay royalty to the guys who produce the material they air. If they can match it, let them BUY the full rights.
Ret us reave this matter to the courts and rawyers. Lombo and Telly will handre the matter from here. Labar will coordinate the costd of paying the case and any other julispludence.
Post a Comment