just seen details about the tv money for this season.
bear in mind. man u got £60.8M tv money last season for winning the league
How the Premier League payments will be calculated:
:: £1.2million paid for every place a club finishes in the league, up to £24million for the champions.
:: facility fees of £750,000 for every time a club appears on a live TV match, with a minimum of £7.5million.
:: equal share from domestic broadcast deals - not yet confirmed but expected to be around 60% increase to £23million per club.
:: equal share from overseas broadcast deals - not yet confirmed but expected to be around 70% increase to £32million per club.
I've checked, we had 26 matches televised, so that's £19.5M for live tv, £22.8M if we stay in second place. plus £55M in share of broadcast deals.
that's £97.3M this season for us. plus we'll have champion's league money for next season. plus all our new sponsorship deals, and some rival fans on here are claiming we'd struggle to comply with ffp regs
tv money
posted on 7/5/14
"thing is the bigger clubs should be paid more, they have the more fans, more subscribers to sky I bet etc too, don't see why its unfair really the bigger clubs contribute more."
the bigger clubs get a lot more through gate receipts, sponsorship deals, global merchandise.
Anything got through participation in the football comps (including 'prize money', TV money, and CL money) should be at a minimum distributed evenly as it's the fairest way and if you want to promote competition then you should even consider inverting some of it to promote competition.
posted on 7/5/14
How far do you go with that though kaisers?
The current amount the lowest teams get is making the championship less competitive, from this season that will only increase, the funds a club receive, for one season in the premier league, invested wisely will start causing 6-10 teams to yo-yo between the top two divisions. This would only get worse with broader sharing of the tv rights.
What really needs addressing in football is parachute payments. the money allocated to the football league when a team goes up before the end of the "parachute" is not cumulative I.e. If qpr came back up this season they wouldn't need two years of their parachute payments, this money is then split right down the league structure each year, if Fulham come back up next season they won't need their parachute either, but the lower league clubs will not receive two payments the following year (second year of qpr payment, first year of Fulham) they just receive the higher (as the parachute is a split of the tv revenue it increases as the tv rights do) if these payments were cumulative, (often more than one team is re-promoted as well as promotions.in subsequent years) then it would perhaps prevent this (and a lot of clubs going bust) and make the lower leagues more competitive (as would a good b team structure)
posted on 7/5/14
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/5/14
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 7/5/14
Redmond?
posted on 7/5/14
wrong article
posted on 7/5/14
Parachute payments are essential, i just think the pl should show more solidarity with the football league and stop grabbing the majority of it back..
It would really benefit the infrastructure of clubs in the football league, you then give them the chance to invest it cleverly to build the club. Especially if it could be ringmarked for infrastructure/youth projects.
posted on 7/5/14
TKT. While your suggestion has merit, it is based on the premise that the owners of such club who would benefit would act wisely in their endeavours, and that's where your suggestion crashes and burns. Look how panic sets in towards the end of a season, and in an effort to stay in the game, the owners (Tan? And he is definitely not alone) spend like there no tomorrow, with no guarantee of success.
JimmyTheRed
posted on 7/5/14
How is that any different to now though Jimmy?
My suggestion just spreads the cash more evenly
posted on 7/5/14
Like I said, I don't disagree with your suggestion. Bring it on.
JimmyTheRed