|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 8:17:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 21, 2016 8:20:29 GMT
Stoke are just ahead of Norwich who are fifth. Look what good value Norwich are..they have been relegated. "Lies, damned lies and statistics!".
|
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 8:22:25 GMT
Stoke are just ahead of Norwich who are fifth. Look what good value Norwich are..they have been relegated. "Lies, damned lies and statistics!". Not really. All that measures is how well clubs invested in players. What that suggests is that Norwich should have spent more because their manager did OK/all he could with his budget. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 8:41:21 GMT
Totally meaningless without any weighting applied for actually league position
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 21, 2016 8:47:16 GMT
Stoke are just ahead of Norwich who are fifth. Look what good value Norwich are..they have been relegated. "Lies, damned lies and statistics!". Not really. All that measures is how well clubs invested in players. What that suggests is that Norwich should have spent more because their manager did OK/all he could with his budget. It's a value for money index which doesn't take into account the millions Norwich have lost being relegated. Even teams that invest nothing would pick up a few points. This would put them first in the table! |
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on May 21, 2016 8:57:53 GMT
Definitely VFM over the Christmas period, makes up for a potential refund due to damaged goods elsewhere.
Overall; I got value for money, unlike my car, absolutely ripped off there.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 9:00:10 GMT
Totally meaningless without any weighting applied for actually league position FFS. All it shows is how well the clubs and managers have done with their budgets. |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 9:01:56 GMT
Not really. All that measures is how well clubs invested in players. What that suggests is that Norwich should have spent more because their manager did OK/all he could with his budget. It's a value for money index which doesn't take into account the millions Norwich have lost being relegated. Even teams that invest nothing would pick up a few points. This would put them first in the table! Obviously not when you look at the table. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. All it measures is return on investment. |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 21, 2016 9:02:07 GMT
I wonder if Baggies fans think they're pushing for Europe in the VFM stakes  |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 9:09:04 GMT
I wonder if Baggies fans think they're pushing for Europe in the VFM stakes I think everybody should ignore a very simple measure of ROI and instead endlessly quibble about their own equations and variables. That's the Oafcake way these days Here you go: VFM = (x/y-z+a)xd Where x = league points y = budget z = a number out of my arse a = a number out of somebody else's arse d = Pulis |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 21, 2016 9:14:16 GMT
It's a value for money index which doesn't take into account the millions Norwich have lost being relegated. Even teams that invest nothing would pick up a few points. This would put them first in the table! Obviously not when you look at the table. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. All it measures is return on investment. No, the last thing it measures is a return on investment! There is no measure of the income received from player investment. Take Stoke's outlay and look at the money we've received ca. £70m. Now, dividing income by player costs is a better measure of value for money. Indeed, also looking at wage costs and league position is a good VFM. Stoke are 9th in wage costs and 9th in league position. So, we're doing well to hit our outlays. And I think Mr Coates fully appreciates how well we're doing in this regard! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 9:15:22 GMT
Totally meaningless without any weighting applied for actually league position FFS. All it shows is how well the clubs and managers have done with their budgets. FFS, that's the point , it doesnt |
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 21, 2016 9:19:42 GMT
I wonder if Baggies fans think they're pushing for Europe in the VFM stakes I think everybody should ignore a very simple measure of ROI and instead endlessly quibble about their own equations and variables. That's the Oafcake way these days Here you go: VFM = (x/y-z+a)xd Where x = league points y = budget z = a number out of my arse a = a number out of somebody else's arse d = Pulis I think what it shows more than anything is what rancid seasons the traditional big teams have had. When van Gaal gets sacked later this weekend, it means that 7 of the bottom 8 have or will be having a managerial change. Yet the ‘specialist in failure’ at the Emirates unfathomably keeps pulling the wool over peoples eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 9:20:11 GMT
FFS. All it shows is how well the clubs and managers have done with their budgets. FFS, that's the point , it doesnt Err, yes it does. It's exactly that. As I said above, feel free to dream up your own equation and pull some figures out of your arse. |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 9:21:24 GMT
I think everybody should ignore a very simple measure of ROI and instead endlessly quibble about their own equations and variables. That's the Oafcake way these days Here you go: VFM = (x/y-z+a)xd Where x = league points y = budget z = a number out of my arse a = a number out of somebody else's arse d = Pulis I think what it shows more than anything is what rancid seasons the traditional big teams have had. When van Gaal gets sacked later this weekend, it means that 7 of the bottom 8 have or will be having a managerial change. Yet the ‘specialist in failure’ at the Emirates unfathomably keeps pulling the wool over peoples eyes. Yep. That's the main thing I get from it too. Along with the shit returns for Villa and Newcastle |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2016 9:25:20 GMT
FFS, that's the point , it doesnt Err, yes it does. It's exactly that. As I said above, feel free to dream up your own equation and pull some figures out of your arse. We'll agree to disagree , but less of the abuse |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 21, 2016 9:28:50 GMT
FFS, that's the point , it doesnt Err, yes it does. It's exactly that. As I said above, feel free to dream up your own equation and pull some figures out of your arse. It may well measure how well a manager does with his budget but a Return of Investment has to deduct cost from gain in monies. As relegation involves more cost than gain, Norwich are in negative territory. Do you think Uncle Peter has set MH a target to be in the bottom three because he wants to see a good return on investment? Somehow, I think not! |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 10:18:49 GMT
Err, yes it does. It's exactly that. As I said above, feel free to dream up your own equation and pull some figures out of your arse. We'll agree to disagree , but less of the abuse I'd agree to disagree if it were a matter of opinion but it's not. |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 10:21:48 GMT
Err, yes it does. It's exactly that. As I said above, feel free to dream up your own equation and pull some figures out of your arse. It may well measure how well a manager does with his budget but a Return of Investment has to deduct cost from gain in monies. As relegation involves more cost than gain, Norwich are in negative territory. Do you think Uncle Peter has set MH a target to be in the bottom three because he wants to see a good return on investment? Somehow, I think not! Not it doesn't. RoI is just a simple ratio which businesses use alongside lots of other measures to gauge how they're doing. You don't need to make it any more complicated than that. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 21, 2016 10:58:14 GMT
It may well measure how well a manager does with his budget but a Return of Investment has to deduct cost from gain in monies. As relegation involves more cost than gain, Norwich are in negative territory. Do you think Uncle Peter has set MH a target to be in the bottom three because he wants to see a good return on investment? Somehow, I think not! Not it doesn't. RoI is just a simple ratio which businesses use alongside lots of other measures to gauge how they're doing. You don't need to make it any more complicated than that. From an Investment guide: RoI = Gain from Investment-Cost of investment/ Cost of Investment [as a % multiply by 100] As Norwich will lose money not gain it from relegation they have a negative RoI! Fact! Of course, unless some daft Midlands club spends a fortune on Redmond? You are right RoI is a ratio amongst many others but this does not support your argument. Norwich demonstrates that it is possible to use a limited budget well but still lose money. Countless posters warned 'the family' turning the transfer fund tap off could cost us more than it saved. Aston Villa are living proof of this. At the other extreme, Newcastle have spent £80m and lost a fortune being relegated. They demonstrated incompetence both ways round! |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 21, 2016 11:19:27 GMT
They're not measuring financial return though. They're measuring points. It's really not this fucking complicated
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 21, 2016 11:28:19 GMT
They're not measuring financial return though. They're measuring points. It's really not this fucking complicated But, it is you in one of your posts above who says it is a return on investment! No, it is not a return on investment as I have demonstrated categorically! I agree, it is a good measure of how well a manager/club has spent on a limited budget. But, that says as much about the limited budget as it does about points gained! |
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on May 21, 2016 12:25:19 GMT
They're not measuring financial return though. They're measuring points. It's really not this fucking complicated But, it is you in one of your posts above who says it is a return on investment! No, it is not a return on investment as I have demonstrated categorically! I agree, it is a good measure of how well a manager/club has spent on a limited budget. But, that says as much about the limited budget as it does about points gained! Sorry I am totally with Greyman on this one. It is just a rough and ready return (expressed in points, not money) relative to the outlay on players. Ideally you would prefer the net outlay but I guess that is harder to come by and the results using the gross outlay look logical enough. You can't introduce the money they have made based on their finishing position as that is already reflected in the points tally so, for example, you would be punishing Norwich twice with this formula if you included both their low tally of points and the lower Prem revenues associated with that position. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 21, 2016 12:39:01 GMT
But, it is you in one of your posts above who says it is a return on investment! No, it is not a return on investment as I have demonstrated categorically! I agree, it is a good measure of how well a manager/club has spent on a limited budget. But, that says as much about the limited budget as it does about points gained! Sorry I am totally with Greyman on this one. It is just a rough and ready return (expressed in points, not money) relative to the outlay on players. Ideally you would prefer the net outlay but I guess that is harder to come by and the results using the gross outlay look logical enough. You can't introduce the money they have made based on their finishing position as that is already reflected in the points tally so, for example, you would be punishing Norwich twice with this formula if you included both their low tally of points and the lower Prem revenues associated with that position. Well, it is right that Norwich's position and loss due to relegation should be taken into account. I'm sure owners when they set the transfer budget take this into account except Randy Lerner of course! Any attempt to divorce the league position from additional knock-on losses following relegation would be false as I don't know a bank manager who says i'm only going to count some of your overdraft but not the rest of it. I wish I had a bank manager who did! I don't dispute the general nature of the ratio but it is definitely not a return on investment! In fact, the concept is entirely financial and doesn't involve football points and not points on a Costa coffee card either! |
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on May 21, 2016 15:44:16 GMT
Sorry I am totally with Greyman on this one. It is just a rough and ready return (expressed in points, not money) relative to the outlay on players. Ideally you would prefer the net outlay but I guess that is harder to come by and the results using the gross outlay look logical enough. You can't introduce the money they have made based on their finishing position as that is already reflected in the points tally so, for example, you would be punishing Norwich twice with this formula if you included both their low tally of points and the lower Prem revenues associated with that position. Well, it is right that Norwich's position and loss due to relegation should be taken into account. I'm sure owners when they set the transfer budget take this into account except Randy Lerner of course! Any attempt to divorce the league position from additional knock-on losses following relegation would be false as I don't know a bank manager who says i'm only going to count some of your overdraft but not the rest of it. I wish I had a bank manager who did! I don't dispute the general nature of the ratio but it is definitely not a return on investment! In fact, the concept is entirely financial and doesn't involve football points and not points on a Costa coffee card either! A "return" does not always have to be expressed in money terms, although it usually is. You sometimes hear managers say that " a point is a good return for their efforts" in a hard fought away game. So it is the points that is expressed as the return in this formula. If you used the money earned from their closing position, then you would get a similar result as there is direct correlation with the points earned. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 22, 2016 6:22:35 GMT
Well, it is right that Norwich's position and loss due to relegation should be taken into account. I'm sure owners when they set the transfer budget take this into account except Randy Lerner of course! Any attempt to divorce the league position from additional knock-on losses following relegation would be false as I don't know a bank manager who says i'm only going to count some of your overdraft but not the rest of it. I wish I had a bank manager who did! I don't dispute the general nature of the ratio but it is definitely not a return on investment! In fact, the concept is entirely financial and doesn't involve football points and not points on a Costa coffee card either! A "return" does not always have to be expressed in money terms, although it usually is. You sometimes hear managers say that " a point is a good return for their efforts" in a hard fought away game. So it is the points that is expressed as the return in this formula. If you used the money earned from their closing position, then you would get a similar result as there is direct correlation with the points earned. No, there is not a correlation between points earned and league position as relegation has a massive loss attached to it? Clearly, you neither understand the concept of return on investment nor correlation! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2016 10:16:56 GMT
It illustrates in very simplistic terms the law of diminishing returns ..but as some clubs will be looking to compete on both domestic & European fronts ..& therefore in theory need higher quality squads meaning a higher spend ..yet their spend for current or future European games isn't covered in the table its therefore surely not a full reflection on the return on investment , merely part of it..nor does it reflect how well a club / manager spent their budget ..as the individual budgets aren't known..merely the spend
It's because of its simplistic approach , never mind the question of accuracy of data , are free transfers with high wages included , are payments for loan players deducted..both Liverpool & Chelsea have gone down the route of buying players to loan at a profit..Liverpool loaned 21 players last season in order to increase their turnover , .that I hold the view that it's a meaningless table..its 1 +1 divided by 2 maths when the figures required are more complex ..
|
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on May 22, 2016 15:34:23 GMT
A "return" does not always have to be expressed in money terms, although it usually is. You sometimes hear managers say that " a point is a good return for their efforts" in a hard fought away game. So it is the points that is expressed as the return in this formula. If you used the money earned from their closing position, then you would get a similar result as there is direct correlation with the points earned. No, there is not a correlation between points earned and league position as relegation has a massive loss attached to it? Clearly, you neither understand the concept of return on investment nor correlation! "there is not a correlation between points earned and league position". Try telling that to Villa and Leicester fans. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 23, 2016 10:28:04 GMT
No, there is not a correlation between points earned and league position as relegation has a massive loss attached to it? Clearly, you neither understand the concept of return on investment nor correlation! "there is not a correlation between points earned and league position". Try telling that to Villa and Leicester fans. There is no correlation between points gained return on investment as CL football for Leicester and relegation for Villa give a massive financial bonus, loss respectively. The argument is whether this VFM table is equivalent to a return on investment. Categorically, it is not! As for the correlation argument, the flat rate element of payments also undermines the direct correlation between points gained and financial gain. Clearly, eating all this whale meat in Oslo has affected your brain? |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 23, 2016 11:07:24 GMT
"there is not a correlation between points earned and league position". Try telling that to Villa and Leicester fans. There is no correlation between points gained return on investment as CL football for Leicester and relegation for Villa give a massive financial bonus, loss respectively. The argument is whether this VFM table is equivalent to a return on investment. Categorically, it is not! As for the correlation argument, the flat rate element of payments also undermines the direct correlation between points gained and financial gain. Clearly, eating all this whale meat in Oslo has affected your brain? Yes, he's also also forgetting the impact on player's salaries, the long term ramifications for fanbases spread over the lifetime of a stadium, overseas merchandise sales, compound interest on accrued debts, club shop stockholdings, share prices and the impact on the club's youth structure, sponsorship deals, naming rights and potentially academy status. So now I agree with you. Rather than using this table as a rough way of gauging how well clubs are investing their transfer budgets, the correct formula should be:  |
|
