Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: Josquius on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM

Title: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josquius on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2016, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

Probably. But that is pretty incredible. Certainly nothing like that in major College or Professional sports in the US comes to mind.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 12:18:50 PM
Its a great rare story, but there are others in other sports that went from worst to first.

But I think what makes those stories less significant is that those other leagues have drafts which allow the worst teams to get first chance at the best prospects.  Those other leagues also have salary caps and other restrictions.  It is truly an amazing story that a lowly team is able to rise without that kind of assistance.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 12:21:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2016, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

Probably. But that is pretty incredible. Certainly nothing like that in major College or Professional sports in the US comes to mind.

The Twins of the early 90s
The Rams and Saints
The Celtics recently
Perhaps even Cleveland in the NBA this year.   But as I said in my earlier post those teams had assistance to get off the ground floor.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2016, 12:21:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

I thought about that, but it was just one game not a whole season. I was not sure it was comparable :hmm:
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 12:22:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

Meh, one off game.  Leicester won out over a whole season.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2016, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 12:21:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2016, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

Probably. But that is pretty incredible. Certainly nothing like that in major College or Professional sports in the US comes to mind.

The Twins of the early 90s
The Rams and Saints
The Celtics recently
Perhaps even Cleveland in the NBA this year.   But as I said in my earlier post those teams had assistance to get off the ground floor.

Or the 1985 Villanova team. But none of those squads were so bad they were true bottom dwellers. Heck in that Twins series their opponents had also finished last the year before. But being last in a US pro sports division and being among the last in the Premier League are two different things. The Premier League regularly has truly outmatched clubs that have no business being there.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Zanza on May 03, 2016, 12:29:09 PM
Kaiserslautern won the Bundesliga in the late 90s after getting promoted before the season.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 12:41:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2016, 12:23:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 12:21:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2016, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

Probably. But that is pretty incredible. Certainly nothing like that in major College or Professional sports in the US comes to mind.

The Twins of the early 90s
The Rams and Saints
The Celtics recently
Perhaps even Cleveland in the NBA this year.   But as I said in my earlier post those teams had assistance to get off the ground floor.

Or the 1985 Villanova team. But none of those squads were so bad they were true bottom dwellers. Heck in that Twins series their opponents had also finished last the year before. But being last in a US pro sports division and being among the last in the Premier League are two different things. The Premier League regularly has truly outmatched clubs that have no business being there.

I agree  :)
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: DGuller on May 03, 2016, 12:42:26 PM
Alan Kulwicki in 1992 in NASCAR was a pretty big long shot, and that was back in the days when to win the championship all 30+ race results counted equally.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Grey Fox on May 03, 2016, 12:48:56 PM
Stupid sport system.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

As mentioned, short tournaments like the Olympics can always mean something strange can happen.  Look at March Madness as well.

I would have said the Royals winning the World Series, but looking back they were 50-1 odds at the start of the season in 2014 (which they then lost in game 7), which came down to 30-1 last year when they did win.

Thinking about it though, 5000-1 is fairly stupid odds to give.  There are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 01:03:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

As mentioned, short tournaments like the Olympics can always mean something strange can happen.  Look at March Madness as well.

I would have said the Royals winning the World Series, but looking back they were 50-1 odds at the start of the season in 2014 (which they then lost in game 7), which came down to 30-1 last year when they did win.

Thinking about it though, 5000-1 is fairly stupid odds to give.  There are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

The number of teams who have won is small.  While it is possible for any team to win it is very highly improbable for any but the top teams to win.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Maladict on May 03, 2016, 01:09:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 12:56:16 PM
There are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

edit: As CC said, only 5 or so teams are supposed to have a shot at winning in most European leagues.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: alfred russel on May 03, 2016, 01:10:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 12:56:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

As mentioned, short tournaments like the Olympics can always mean something strange can happen.  Look at March Madness as well.

I would have said the Royals winning the World Series, but looking back they were 50-1 odds at the start of the season in 2014 (which they then lost in game 7), which came down to 30-1 last year when they did win.

Thinking about it though, 5000-1 is fairly stupid odds to give.  There are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

MLB is tough to consider because results are so random. Small market teams are routinely rather competitive. There is also a soft salary cap and revenue sharing. The NFL should not be considered because teams have dramatic amounts of turnover season to season, there is a level setting draft, extensive revenue sharing, and a salary cap.

I think in a US setting, with the way professional leagues are set up, the only comparables really exist in college athletics. I don't think football can provide one because the system excludes giving really small schools any hope (perhaps if Vanderbilt won the championship this year that might be a comparable), and basketball can't either because it funnels the championship into a short tournament where small schools have guaranteed access.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: celedhring on May 03, 2016, 01:30:25 PM
Forest getting promoted in the late 70s and winning the league and back-to-back European Cups.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 01:36:29 PM
Fun story on Leicester.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/leicester-citys-stunning-rise-in-two-charts/

Points out that not only did the team come from the bottom of the EPL last year to win it this year, but that they were in soccer's third tier league just seven years ago.  And says the only other team to have risen so dramatically was Ipswich Town in the late 50s to win it all in 1962.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: DGuller on May 03, 2016, 01:41:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 12:56:16 PM
Thinking about it though, 5000-1 is fairly stupid odds to give.  There are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.
Agreed.  Even people who put odds on things for a living are pretty bad at putting odds on unlikely events.  Whether it's 500-1 or 5000-1, it looks pretty long to us, but there is a 10-fold difference.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2016, 02:05:34 PM
Lord Burghley, much of the time.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josquius on May 03, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
I think odds like 5000 to 1 are less of a realistic analysis of odds and more a combination of that plus encouraging people to bet money on almost certain to lose low odds events

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.
Isn't the US one of the top ice hockey teams?
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: DGuller on May 03, 2016, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
I think odds like 5000 to 1 are less of a realistic analysis of odds and more a combination of that plus encouraging people to bet money on almost certain to lose low odds eve td
Mis-pricing the bet to encourage people to take it would be a very idiotic strategy for a bookie to follow. 
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2016, 03:43:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
Isn't the US one of the top ice hockey teams?

Well if we beat Russia NOW in the winter olympics that would be no big deal. But back then we were playing college kids, amateurs, since pros were not allowed back then. The USSR was cheating and pretending like their professional hockey players were employees in some factory someplace that they never even visited. So it was a bunch of kids, not even the top US talent, beating some of the best professionals in the world. Completely absurd. Needless to say we never came close to beating them any other time we played :lol:
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: frunk on May 03, 2016, 03:44:12 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
Isn't the US one of the top ice hockey teams?

At the time only amateur players were allowed to play, which means none of the pro US players competed in the Olympics.  In the USSR the "amateur" players all played together regularly and were fully funded by the state to compete in international competitions.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 03:44:21 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 03:40:17 PM
I think odds like 5000 to 1 are less of a realistic analysis of odds and more a combination of that plus encouraging people to bet money on almost certain to lose low odds eve td

Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.
Isn't the US one of the top ice hockey teams?

Not in 1980.

Back then the Olympics did not allow professional athletes.  So all the best American players were disqualified because they played in the NHL.

The USSR got around this by giving its best hockey players fake day jobs, usually with the Red Army, so technically they were still amateurs.

So in 1980 you had the creme of the crop from Russia playing a bunch of college students from the US.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2016, 04:21:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

That's one game, doesn't compare to a whole season's worth of games.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: The Larch on May 03, 2016, 04:40:30 PM
Denmark winning 1992's Euro Cup is a pretty big upset, same as Greece in 2004.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josephus on May 03, 2016, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 12:56:16 PMThere are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

Not an even shot, no.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josephus on May 03, 2016, 04:58:16 PM
Yeah, if you're gonna include the US hockey win, then Denmark and Greece's wins in the Euros count, but as has been said countless times, winning a short tourney is not like winning a 9-month league.

This is one of those rare and unlikely occurences and will likely not happen again for 20-30 years. It will be business as usual next year.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: FunkMonk on May 03, 2016, 05:00:50 PM
Wonder what the odds are for Leicester winning the Champions League next year :hmm:
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 05:09:42 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2016, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 12:56:16 PMThere are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

Not an even shot, no.

I never said an even shot.  I said they had "a shot".  And it's not that 's unheard of - Ipswich Town did the same thing back in 1962.  It's just the kind of thing that happens every 50 years or so, apparently.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 03, 2016, 05:40:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 03, 2016, 04:21:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 12:20:27 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 03, 2016, 12:10:37 PM
Has there ever been a bigger sporting shock than Leicester, narrowly avoiding relegation last year and being one of the favourites to go down this year, winning the premier league title at 5000-1 odds?

US beats USSR, mens ice hockey comes to mind.

That's one game, doesn't compare to a whole season's worth of games.

Which suggests Leicester was hugely underrated rather than outmatched.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Archy on May 03, 2016, 05:48:34 PM
What odds do I get for Dover athletic getting in premier league. The next 10 years?
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 05:55:25 PM
How many matches in a Premier League season?
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2016, 05:59:39 PM
Looks to be 36
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Sophie Scholl on May 03, 2016, 06:02:36 PM
Richard III buried with dignity in Leicester.  Very next season, Leicester City wins.  Coincidence?  :ph34r:
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: PDH on May 03, 2016, 06:36:23 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 05:55:25 PM
How many matches in a Premier League season?

20 teams so 39 games.  Leicester won with 2 games left.

Whoops - history math!  38 games
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: FunkMonk on May 03, 2016, 07:55:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2016, 05:55:25 PM
How many matches in a Premier League season?

Play home and away versus each team, so 19 times 2; 38.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Richard Hakluyt on May 04, 2016, 02:02:39 AM
It is a long season and the prize rarely goes to an outsider. I'm assuming that somehow the Leicester team somehow became greater than the sum of its parts. Apparently the entire team is valued at £30m (in terms of transfer fees, source : bloke on the BBC), teams like ManU and Chelsea have individual players more expensive than that.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Gups on May 04, 2016, 02:22:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 05:09:42 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2016, 04:55:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2016, 12:56:16 PMThere are only 20 teams competing, and each one of them has a shot at winning it every year.

Not an even shot, no.

I never said an even shot.  I said they had "a shot".  And it's not that 's unheard of - Ipswich Town did the same thing back in 1962.  It's just the kind of thing that happens every 50 years or so, apparently.

No, it was a much more level playing field financially in the 1960s and even up to the early 90s. There was no TV money, no sponsored shorts, hardly any merchandise, no billionaire foreign owners, very few foreign players and even a maximum wage until 1963.

In the 1960s, 8 different teams won the League with lots of other teams making it into the top 3.   

In the 2000s,  only Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal did and only three other teams broke into the top 3 in any of those seasons

Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josquius on May 04, 2016, 03:02:11 AM
We should be careful not to imagine the 60s as pre war. Money did matter in the 60s and big teams did often buy up the best players.
But yeah. Nowhere near to the extent of today.

One particularly bizzare thing about this season that not many are pointing out is that Leicesters win coincided with Chelseas implosion :hmm:

An interesting theory I've read is that due to english teams doing so badly in europe of late they've been unable to sign the top top players. Merely the top players.  This has levelled the playing field a little..

I'm excited for the future. With the new Premier league deal European money has really dropped in importance. I doubt we will get a turn around like Leicester again but I do think we are due for a bit more variety in title fights.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Valmy on May 04, 2016, 08:41:56 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 03, 2016, 06:02:36 PM
Richard III buried with dignity in Leicester.  Very next season, Leicester City wins.  Coincidence?  :ph34r:

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of...Leicester?
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josephus on May 04, 2016, 08:56:09 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 03, 2016, 05:00:50 PM
Wonder what the odds are for Leicester winning the Champions League next year :hmm:

Not sure. But just read in Globe, Canadian newspaper, that it's unlikely bookies will ever give such long odds again.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josephus on May 04, 2016, 09:00:00 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2016, 03:02:11 AM
We should be careful not to imagine the 60s as pre war. Money did matter in the 60s and big teams did often buy up the best players.
But yeah. Nowhere near to the extent of today.

One particularly bizzare thing about this season that not many are pointing out is that Leicesters win coincided with Chelseas implosion :hmm:

An interesting theory I've read is that due to english teams doing so badly in europe of late they've been unable to sign the top top players. Merely the top players.  This has levelled the playing field a little..

I'm excited for the future. With the new Premier league deal European money has really dropped in importance. I doubt we will get a turn around like Leicester again but I do think we are due for a bit more variety in title fights.

Doubt it. This was the "perfect storm" if you will.  Leicester won because coincidentally the big four all collapsed early in the season. Leicester's point total wouldn't have won them the league in previous years.

Leicester won't win next year, even with the same players.

Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josquius on May 04, 2016, 10:58:03 AM
Leicester and the like won't be challenging at the top much.
But Tottenham, West Ham, Liverpool and other big money established teams will.
The money of getting into Europe will become less significant in making up for doing worse in the league.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Grey Fox on May 04, 2016, 11:03:38 AM
What do you mean by "getting into Europe"?
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josquius on May 04, 2016, 11:08:25 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2016, 11:03:38 AM
What do you mean by "getting into Europe"?
Finish in the top 4 and you qualify for the champions league.
5th the europe league (stupid).
Huge amounts of money to he made from international exposure and sponsors and prize money
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Grey Fox on May 04, 2016, 11:34:50 AM
I see.

Can teams be successful & competitive in the Champions/Europe league, the domestic league & the cup?

Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: The Larch on May 04, 2016, 11:39:57 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2016, 11:08:25 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2016, 11:03:38 AM
What do you mean by "getting into Europe"?
Finish in the top 4 and you qualify for the champions league.
5th the europe league (stupid).
Huge amounts of money to he made from international exposure and sponsors and prize money

The Europa League, unless you get to the final stages, is a money sink, the prizes there are rather low.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josephus on May 04, 2016, 11:41:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2016, 11:34:50 AM
I see.

Can teams be successful & competitive in the Champions/Europe league, the domestic league & the cup?

Yes.

Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josquius on May 04, 2016, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2016, 11:34:50 AM
I see.

Can teams be successful & competitive in the Champions/Europe league, the domestic league & the cup?


Yes, because the money from the champions league usually lets them build a squad deep enough to handle the injuries and fatigue that will result.
With the champions league from next year to be less profitable than the league though....
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josephus on May 04, 2016, 01:42:41 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 04, 2016, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 04, 2016, 11:34:50 AM
I see.

Can teams be successful & competitive in the Champions/Europe league, the domestic league & the cup?


Yes, because the money from the champions league usually lets them build a squad deep enough to handle the injuries and fatigue that will result.
With the champions league from next year to be less profitable than the league though....

I keep hearing that. So are BPL payouts larger than Champions Leauge ones next year?

Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josquius on May 04, 2016, 01:53:16 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.totalsportek.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F02%2FPremier-League-TV-rights-money-distribution-final-infograph.jpg&hash=b5aa44b493e1e976720f9c0a8389ffb59b8c48d6)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.totalsportek.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2FChampions-League-Prize-money.jpg&hash=cd9847e555cc0739c4d616614d3b709578e014d7)

Win the champions league and get 'approaching' 100 million.
The team finishing 3rd from bottom in the premier gets more....

edit- thats comparing euros and pounds.
The bottom team safely gets more we can assume.
Title: Re: Bigger than Leicester?
Post by: Josephus on May 04, 2016, 03:49:42 PM
Wow....hope they incorporate this in FM2017