chinna Posted 16 May 2016 Posted 16 May 2016 The big money is going to come from new commercial deals for the club.. Being associated with the champions. The brand is massive..the club could live off this win for the next few years. What a story it is. Could easily be worth £100 million plus on top of the above mentioned figures.
Soar Fox Posted 16 May 2016 Posted 16 May 2016 How much would the club be worth now if the owners were to sell it next week?
Thracian Posted 16 May 2016 Posted 16 May 2016 Traditional' big sides benefit from being on TV more often Simon Rice @simonrice Leicester City celebrate with the Premier League trophy Getty Leicester City will receive less prize money than four other Premier League sides, despite finishing the season 10 points clear at the top of the table as champions. Arsenal, who leapfrogged rivals Tottenham to finish the season second in the league, are the highest earners thanks to being shown on TV more than any other side. The Gunners will receive £101m from the TV deal this season while Claudio Ranieri's Leicester side will take £93.3m despite their stunning campaign producing arguably the most fascinating season in English football history. Every Premier League side takes a flat £55m from the TV deal which is then boosted by merit payments for where they finish in the league plus money for every time they've been appeared on either BT Sport or Sky Sports. Each league position is worth £1,236,083, meaning Leicester collected £25m for winning the title with Arsenal scooping £23.7m. Arsenal however were screened live a staggering 27 times to boost their income by £21.8m to take their total earnings to £101m.Every time a club is shown on TV they receive £750,000 plus a small additional revenue for being shown on Match of the Day. Leicester appeared on screen 15 times over the course of the season, providing them with £12.8m to take their total earnings to £93.3m. In addition to Arsenal receiving more prize money than Leicester, Manchester City (£96.8m), Tottenham (£95m) and Manchester United (£96.3m) will also collect more. Prize money league... 1. Arsenal - £101m 2. Manchester City - £96.8m 3. Manchester United - £96.3m (if they finish fifth by either drawing or beating Bournemouth on Tuesday) 4. Tottenham - £95m 5. Leicester - £93m 6. Liverpool - £90.4m 7. Chelsea - £87.1m 8. West Ham - £85.6m 9. Southampton - £84.5m 10. Everton - £82.9m 11. Stoke City - £79m 12. Swansea City - £75.3m 13. Watford - £74.1m 14. West Brom - £73m 15. Newcastle United - £72.7m 16. Crystal Palace - £72.4m 17. Sunderland - £71.7m 18. Bournemouth - £70.4m (if they remain 16th by losing to Manchester United) 19. Norwich City - £66.7m 20. Aston Villa - £66.2m Not bothered - it might save em griping if we beat 'em again next season.
bluesbrothers Posted 16 May 2016 Posted 16 May 2016 Who cares. Besides, the amount of money that's going to pour into the city and county over the next however many years as people try to get a slice of the story will more than make up for it.Just ask any bartender in the city centre right now... Okay, not right now - he's busy serving folks down for the parade!
Number 6 Posted 16 May 2016 Posted 16 May 2016 Probably helped us being on TV less during first half of season. Kept us under the radar a little more.
possiblygeorge Posted 16 May 2016 Posted 16 May 2016 Well, the difference is minimal when you consider that we'll profit hugely from the six Champions League group stage matches (or the Europa League, if we should finish third in our CL group) and the qualification bonus presented by UEFA. Not to mention just for turning up for the ICC
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 16 May 2016 Posted 16 May 2016 The big money is going to come from new commercial deals for the club.. Being associated with the champions. The brand is massive..the club could live off this win for the next few years. What a story it is. Could easily be worth £100 million plus on top of the above mentioned figures. This. We shall make some BIG money through commercial deals.
jim5000 Posted 16 May 2016 Posted 16 May 2016 What's weird about this is every single Leicester match has been televised. Just not in the UK due to licensing issues. The article must be adding prize money to TV money, so the headline is actually 'Arsenal got paid more money than Leicester this season', rather than won more.
Sol thewall Bamba Posted 17 May 2016 Posted 17 May 2016 Who cares if the 'big' teams get a bit more cash than us? They spend millions on absolute guff, let them waste their money on the usual shite while we let Walshy do his thing and pick up gems for peanuts
Fox92 Posted 17 May 2016 Posted 17 May 2016 There's an arabic maxim - 'praise be to Allah but make sure the camel's leg is tied up'. It's not pointless. Sky fvck about with the schedules to satisfy their customers. I suspect that the majority of the subscribers to the Sports want to watch the 'good' sides or want to watch their teams - 'their teams' being Man U etc, etc, etc. I went down to my local 'Sky' pub on Sunday knowing that Man U playing Bournemouth was the prime-time match. Now Sky could have done the decent and sensible thing by showing City and Chelsea play. All the circumstances pointed to that being the obvious and best choice. The back-up, after the shambolic scenes at the Theatre of Shitemares was Man C. v. Swansea. That's my idea of 'pointless' No words can describe the contempt I have for Sky. I didn't have much time for them and Murdoch before, but I'm even more disgusted by that than by the plonkers they employ who give their 'expert' opinions. So, I take it as a slight that they can manipulate the Premier and avoid giving City their due remuneration just to to suit subscribers who follow Man U. The Club will be very aware of the pennies they do and don't receive. £3m ain't peanuts and we ain't monkeys any more. So thanks for informing us, DavieG. I don't understand what you're getting at, like you're missing my point totally? As for selecting games, why should they have put us and Chelsea on? It was a nothing game. Not that I'm too bothered, as I went Chelsea away on Sunday, but for the neutral both Manchester games were rightly selected as both had something to play for.
Fox92 Posted 18 May 2016 Posted 18 May 2016 No, I don't get your point at all. As a City fan I'd never consider any game they played as a "nothing game". Fair play to you that you managed to watch it but , if you thought it was a "nothing game", why bother going at all? However I suspect that the criteria you use to evaluate the relative worth of a game is way different to mine. It could be said that, for the neutral, watching Leicester City is far more of a draw than watching two teams whose ability to play entertaining football is unreliable. Good games to watch for the statisticians and professional pundits but we all knew Man U would win so why not show Man City instead as first choice? That would seem to be the key game - by your parameters, anyway. I'm bemused why you, as a City fan, wouldn't agree with my take on this. I'd elect to watch City over most any other match. Well, perhaps I'd stretch a point to watch Atletico v. Real Madrid in the European Cup Final (or whatever it's called nowadays) - but Atletico are a favourite club of mine anyway. We'll have to agree to disagree. I said as a neutral, not as a Leicester City fan. I went because we'd already won the league and it was a sort of celebration, still a nothing game though and that reflected in our performance... You've got to realise Sky build every little thing up and people fall for it - and both Manchester clubs had something to play for. I understand what you're getting at so will agree to disagree.
Wymsey Posted 24 May 2016 Posted 24 May 2016 Can't believe Villa received £66 million. Newcastle shouldn't get their amount due to their odd transfer policy. Very sure we'll spend some of the amount wisely.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.