England's 14 money league representatives (revenues for 2013-14 season, in euros) 2. Manchester United (518m) 20. Everton (144.1m) 6. Manchester City (414.4m) 21. West Ham United (137.4m) 7. Chelsea (387.9m) 22. Aston Villa (133m) 8. Arsenal (359.3m) 25. Southampton (126.9m) 9. Liverpool (305.9m) 27. Sunderland (124.8m) 13. Tottenham Hotspur (215.8m) 29. Swansea City (118m) 19. Newcastle United (155.1m) 30. Stoke City (117.6m)
Why not put them up numerically or alphabetically? That's just a ****ing jumbled mess and very upsetting.
All 20 EPL clubs are in the top 40 richest clubs in the world. West Ham bigger financially than Roma, Stoke bigger than Lazio, and Sunderland bigger than Porto. I know we've been predicting a bubble bust for a while - but I think this next Premier League bidding round might be the last at these levels - Sky will break the bank to keep the packages because live sport is their only remaining USP - everyone is using the likes of Netflix for movies and TV shows - and 70 quid a month Sky bill vs 7 quid for Netflix is a joke. If they do bid for their lives they will have to raise that bill from £70 to keep margins the same, or shareholders will revolt - and I think they will start to lose subscribers if that price goes upwards. If they don't go bust I certainly don't see how the growth can continue like this.
Why Celtic can't compete financially: Other clubs have ****loads more money than us and we play in a diddy league. Thread neutered.
Aye, it's no really a debate and more a statement of fact. As evidenced by the figures posted by Pudding
My wife's bro played for Stoke and we did their new training facility back in 2011. Big Crouchy washes in a shower I bought, it gives me a hardon to think that he's shagged Abbey Clancy in the morning and washes her minge juice off in my showers. That's how I roll
will they though? sky is dependent on football, as without it no **** would dream of having a subscription. the only way they guarantee revenue is by constantly outbidding every other ****er to epl rights
US companies recently reported a 12% drop in cable subscriptions this year due primarily to Netflix - they've managed to bring live sports online legally in the US as well. Sky has to rent space on the Astra satellites, put subsidised hardware in your house and employ an army of contracted satellite engineers - while Netflix delivers content to a million different devices (which you have to buy), over an internet service provider which has to pay for their own infrastructure. Meanwhile every **** torrents movies and shows, and buys Netflix and Amazon streaming for less than a tenner a month - while Sky is moving towards 80 quid a month - and as you say, all they have is live football... How Sky can pay 80%+ more for the package this time, with all the threats to their model. I'm absolutely convinced they will be in trouble, I'll bump this thread in a few years - guaranteed
