|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 15:00:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 30, 2014 15:03:45 GMT
Good to move ahead of those clowns although I'm not yet fully subscribed to the idea that the world began in 1992
|
|
|
Post by gummidgestokie on Sept 30, 2014 15:35:29 GMT
'Interestingly' - If you rate it on a points per game basis we jump up to 15th (WBA drop to 38th!). Obviously the Shit are top on 2.14 points per game, but we're looking good on 1.21, well ahead of the likes of Forest, Saints, Brum etc. The Dingles are right down in 41st on 0.89 points per game!
Basically we're ace....
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Sept 30, 2014 15:42:12 GMT
If we stick around a few more seasons we might make it out of the 'relegation spaces' in that league, and then there'd be no arguing about whether we really are a premiership grade club. Five more seasons at 50 points each and then we could be ahead of Sunderland in theory.
And there's a few clubs ahead of us who have long since dropped out of the league and show no signs of return any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 30, 2014 15:47:48 GMT
I'd like to see an all time league.
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Sept 30, 2014 15:59:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Whitmore on Sept 30, 2014 16:08:51 GMT
'Interestingly' - If you rate it on a points per game basis we jump up to 15th (WBA drop to 38th!). Obviously the Shit are top on 2.14 points per game, but we're looking good on 1.21, well ahead of the likes of Forest, Saints, Brum etc. The Dingles are right down in 41st on 0.89 points per game! Basically we're ace.... Based on home form, 11th best on points per game basis 1.641 ppg Away.... 34th! 0.778 ppg
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 16:28:28 GMT
Ribbet
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Sept 30, 2014 16:36:41 GMT
Five more seasons at 50 points each and then we could be ahead of Sunderland in theory. Only if Sunderland are relegated and don't come back
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 1, 2014 6:40:30 GMT
This type of statistic is meaningless IMO. Teams in the top 5 have all been in PL since it started so are bound to be where they are. Points per game much more reflects performance of PL clubs relative to each other. Also can't make any sense of the "All Time Table". For example have Liverpool, Everton and Villa really played almost twice as many games as us bearing in mind they are some 30 years younger than us. How have Sunderland played 1000 games more than us? Am I being thick? Can anybody fathom out this table and explain it please?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 6:53:42 GMT
Meaningless stats but has anyone noticed our goal difference on the all time league table...
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 1, 2014 7:10:48 GMT
This type of statistic is meaningless IMO. Teams in the top 5 have all been in PL since it started so are bound to be where they are. Points per game much more reflects performance of PL clubs relative to each other. Also can't make any sense of the "All Time Table". For example have Liverpool, Everton and Villa really played almost twice as many games as us bearing in mind they are some 30 years younger than us. How have Sunderland played 1000 games more than us? Am I being thick? Can anybody fathom out this table and explain it please? Sunderland have played many more seasons than us in the top flight; 84 vs 59 according to this table. I make that 25 seasons difference which at an average of 40 games a season works out at a round 1,000. Our 20+ years in the wilderness from 1985 explains most of this! Edit - check Villa's position in that table; #2!
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 1, 2014 7:18:37 GMT
These stats are meaningless, but I like stats. Our GD this season at zero is looking like a new potential record Should overtake Portsmouth and Birmingham this season... up to 26th in the all time. Anyway, I consider us already established and so I think the past 10 year stats are more applicable, in which case we're 16th. Over the past 5 years we're 9th, not far behind Newcastle.
|
|
|
Post by tiemetothemast on Oct 1, 2014 7:22:33 GMT
'Interestingly' - If you rate it on a points per game basis we jump up to 15th (WBA drop to 38th!). Obviously the Shit are top on 2.14 points per game, but we're looking good on 1.21, well ahead of the likes of Forest, Saints, Brum etc. The Dingles are right down in 41st on 0.89 points per game! Basically we're ace.... Based on home form, 11th best on points per game basis 1.641 ppg Away.... 34th! 0.778 ppgHughes out
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Oct 1, 2014 7:35:18 GMT
This type of statistic is meaningless IMO. Teams in the top 5 have all been in PL since it started so are bound to be where they are. Points per game much more reflects performance of PL clubs relative to each other. Also can't make any sense of the "All Time Table". For example have Liverpool, Everton and Villa really played almost twice as many games as us bearing in mind they are some 30 years younger than us. How have Sunderland played 1000 games more than us? Am I being thick? Can anybody fathom out this table and explain it please? Sunderland have played many more seasons than us in the top flight; 84 vs 59 according to this table. I make that 25 seasons difference which at an average of 40 games a season works out at a round 1,000. Our 20+ years in the wilderness from 1985 explains most of this! Edit - check Villa's position in that table; #2! Thanks for clearing that up PP. It's all games played in the top flight..... Your link is interesting Everton, Villa and Liverpool being in top flight longer than Arsenal. That's some achievement considering Arsenal have never been out of the top flight have they?
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Oct 1, 2014 7:36:14 GMT
Nice thread. I love a table. It would be nice to be:
a) In the top 20 for the all-time table. Can't believe we are below Boro. b) Top half in the points per game table since 1992. Who is above in that one?
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 1, 2014 7:37:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Oct 1, 2014 8:10:39 GMT
This type of statistic is meaningless IMO. Teams in the top 5 have all been in PL since it started so are bound to be where they are. Points per game much more reflects performance of PL clubs relative to each other. Also can't make any sense of the "All Time Table". For example have Liverpool, Everton and Villa really played almost twice as many games as us bearing in mind they are some 30 years younger than us. How have Sunderland played 1000 games more than us? Am I being thick? Can anybody fathom out this table and explain it please? If you read our early history there's a good deal of dropping out of what was then a one or two division football league system and playing in various midland and northern leagues. So assuming Liverpool Everton and Villa retained their league status for those years they'd have played more football league / premier league games than us.
|
|
|
Post by eddy on Oct 1, 2014 8:18:23 GMT
Bardo sneaking into the top 10 defenders too. Not surprising really considering we have conceded less than anyone else bar Everton
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Oct 1, 2014 8:28:37 GMT
This type of statistic is meaningless IMO. Teams in the top 5 have all been in PL since it started so are bound to be where they are. Points per game much more reflects performance of PL clubs relative to each other. Also can't make any sense of the "All Time Table". For example have Liverpool, Everton and Villa really played almost twice as many games as us bearing in mind they are some 30 years younger than us. How have Sunderland played 1000 games more than us? Am I being thick? Can anybody fathom out this table and explain it please? If you read our early history there's a good deal of dropping out of what was then a one or two division football league system and playing in various midland and northern leagues. So assuming Liverpool Everton and Villa retained their league status for those years they'd have played more football league / premier league games than us. And our early years of glory (finishing bottom usually) were in a league of 22 games per season. So we were: a) shit anyway b) not playing enough games to get more than a few measly points
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 1, 2014 9:55:33 GMT
The planning permission for the big screen corner is for 1,800 seats approx. which would take the theoretical capacity to just over 30,000. Years ago I saw the draft plans for the corners at the ends of the Main stand and they were for about 2,500 each - slightly different for each as one would have the players tunnel and the other has the ambulance and vehicle access - which would be in a larger tunnel. So, as planned, a completed (all seated) stadium would be about 35,000 PLUS the option of, say, building the Boothen End higher - as it is on the North end it would not deprive the pitch of sunlight.
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Oct 1, 2014 10:18:17 GMT
The planning permission for the big screen corner is for 1,800 seats approx. which would take the theoretical capacity to just over 30,000. Years ago I saw the draft plans for the corners at the ends of the Main stand and they were for about 2,500 each - slightly different for each as one would have the players tunnel and the other has the ambulance and vehicle access - which would be in a larger tunnel. So, as planned, a completed (all seated) stadium would be about 35,000 PLUS the option of, say, building the Boothen End higher - as it is on the North end it would not deprive the pitch of sunlight. Do you have any sense for the level of disruption which would be caused by filling in on of the corners? Are we talking about a job which could be started and completed over the course of a closed season summer or are we looking at a building site in that part of the ground for a whole season with perhaps adjacent seating areas temporarily closed too or even a ground share with the Vale for a season? (Joking about the last one!) But this detail matters, if we are to throw ourselves in to a construction project for which I would imagine the business case is at best highly marginal then the level of disruption and risk in getting there really matters. Just curious...
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 1, 2014 10:53:36 GMT
The planning permission for the big screen corner is for 1,800 seats approx. which would take the theoretical capacity to just over 30,000. Years ago I saw the draft plans for the corners at the ends of the Main stand and they were for about 2,500 each - slightly different for each as one would have the players tunnel and the other has the ambulance and vehicle access - which would be in a larger tunnel. So, as planned, a completed (all seated) stadium would be about 35,000 PLUS the option of, say, building the Boothen End higher - as it is on the North end it would not deprive the pitch of sunlight. Do you have any sense for the level of disruption which would be caused by filling in on of the corners?
Are we talking about a job which could be started and completed over the course of a closed season summer or are we looking at a building site in that part of the ground for a whole season with perhaps adjacent seating areas temporarily closed too or even a ground share with the Vale for a season? (Joking about the last one!) But this detail matters, if we are to throw ourselves in to a construction project for which I would imagine the business case is at best highly marginal then the level of disruption and risk in getting there really matters. Just curious... I've no idea. I wasn't expressing any opinion, I was just giving a few facts on the capacity of the various options in response to the somewhat inaccurate information in the post to which I was replying.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 1, 2014 11:02:51 GMT
The planning permission for the big screen corner is for 1,800 seats approx. which would take the theoretical capacity to just over 30,000. Years ago I saw the draft plans for the corners at the ends of the Main stand and they were for about 2,500 each - slightly different for each as one would have the players tunnel and the other has the ambulance and vehicle access - which would be in a larger tunnel. So, as planned, a completed (all seated) stadium would be about 35,000 PLUS the option of, say, building the Boothen End higher - as it is on the North end it would not deprive the pitch of sunlight. Do you have any sense for the level of disruption which would be caused by filling in on of the corners? Are we talking about a job which could be started and completed over the course of a closed season summer or are we looking at a building site in that part of the ground for a whole season with perhaps adjacent seating areas temporarily closed too or even a ground share with the Vale for a season? (Joking about the last one!) But this detail matters, if we are to throw ourselves in to a construction project for which I would imagine the business case is at best highly marginal then the level of disruption and risk in getting there really matters. Just curious... No idea how long a project like that would take, but when the time comes it will have to be done regardless. Hopefully it can be started towards the end of the season with minimal disruption and then completed during the summer.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Oct 1, 2014 11:17:05 GMT
Sunderland have played many more seasons than us in the top flight; 84 vs 59 according to this table. I make that 25 seasons difference which at an average of 40 games a season works out at a round 1,000. Our 20+ years in the wilderness from 1985 explains most of this! Edit - check Villa's position in that table; #2! Thanks for clearing that up PP. It's all games played in the top flight..... Your link is interesting Everton, Villa and Liverpool being in top flight longer than Arsenal. That's some achievement considering Arsenal have never been out of the top flight have they? It seems they didn't establish themselves in the top flight until 1920. Much of the time before then were in the second tier. Since 1920 I don't believe they've been relegated. Sadly I don't see relegation for them as even a remote possibility!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 1, 2014 11:19:50 GMT
Do you have any sense for the level of disruption which would be caused by filling in on of the corners? Are we talking about a job which could be started and completed over the course of a closed season summer or are we looking at a building site in that part of the ground for a whole season with perhaps adjacent seating areas temporarily closed too or even a ground share with the Vale for a season? (Joking about the last one!) But this detail matters, if we are to throw ourselves in to a construction project for which I would imagine the business case is at best highly marginal then the level of disruption and risk in getting there really matters. Just curious... No idea how long a project like that would take, but when the time comes it will have to be done regardless. Hopefully it can be started towards the end of the season with minimal disruption and then completed during the summer. The scoreboard corner should be fairly quick as a lot of it can be done during the season. The footings are in place so the screen would need to be moved and a large part of the steel frame could be erected before the season ends. Then the roof and the concrete work and the cladding could probably be done over the summer and completed (or virtually completed) before the season starts.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 1, 2014 11:34:17 GMT
No idea how long a project like that would take, but when the time comes it will have to be done regardless. Hopefully it can be started towards the end of the season with minimal disruption and then completed during the summer. The scoreboard corner should be fairly quick as a lot of it can be done during the season. The footings are in place so the screen would need to be moved and a large part of the steel frame could be erected before the season ends. Then the roof and the concrete work and the cladding could probably be done over the summer and completed (or virtually completed) before the season starts.
|
|
|
Post by Kenilworth_Stokies on Oct 1, 2014 12:56:55 GMT
The planning permission for the big screen corner is for 1,800 seats approx. which would take the theoretical capacity to just over 30,000. Years ago I saw the draft plans for the corners at the ends of the Main stand and they were for about 2,500 each - slightly different for each as one would have the players tunnel and the other has the ambulance and vehicle access - which would be in a larger tunnel. So, as planned, a completed (all seated) stadium would be about 35,000 PLUS the option of, say, building the Boothen End higher - as it is on the North end it would not deprive the pitch of sunlight. Do you have any sense for the level of disruption which would be caused by filling in on of the corners? Are we talking about a job which could be started and completed over the course of a closed season summer or are we looking at a building site in that part of the ground for a whole season with perhaps adjacent seating areas temporarily closed too or even a ground share with the Vale for a season? (Joking about the last one!) But this detail matters, if we are to throw ourselves in to a construction project for which I would imagine the business case is at best highly marginal then the level of disruption and risk in getting there really matters. Just curious... As stated, the corners could be done during the season for sure. With regards to adding extra tiers to existing stands if you check out for example when they did this at Old Trafford, you can add the new tier over the existing roof whilst the stand remains in use. You only have to shut the stand for the duration of taking out the old roof and completing the finishing touches.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Oct 1, 2014 13:26:28 GMT
I wonder if we shouldn't just start over.
Knock the Brit down and build the New Brit with a 60k capacity.
During which time we could share Vale Park.
|
|