|
|
Post by greyman on May 23, 2016 11:13:30 GMT
No, wait. I forgot about the cost of pies. I think this should be right, now.  |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 23, 2016 13:57:39 GMT
No, wait. I forgot about the cost of pies. I think this should be right, now. Everyone knows Pythagoras didn't discover pie, it was Wright's!  |
|
|
|
Post by oslostokie1 on May 23, 2016 14:41:59 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? Sorry mate, but I think you have lost the plot. If someone spent the weeks of research required to satisfy your purist view of how this table should be constructed, then I still doubt whether the outcome would be that much different. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 23, 2016 15:15:49 GMT
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? Sorry mate, but I think you have lost the plot. If someone spent the weeks of research required to satisfy your purist view of how this table should be constructed, then I still doubt whether the outcome would be that much different. No, I've not lost the plot! You've consistently failed to answer how there is a correlation between money spent and points when Leicester spent little and got the most whereas Newcastle spent £80m on transfer and got the third least points? As for the correlation between money spent and money gain i.e, return on investment this is distorted by the Prem's allocation of monies and the gain from CL football and the losses due to relegation. That's why clubs overspend to get CL football and to avoid relegation! Ashley didn't spend £80m out of the goodness of his heart but to avoid the financial losses relegation brings. It's not a case of being a purist, just being accurate, that's all!  |
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 23, 2016 15:44:01 GMT
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? Sorry mate, but I think you have lost the plot. If someone spent the weeks of research required to satisfy your purist view of how this table should be constructed, then I still doubt whether the outcome would be that much different. Just imagine what he's like at splitting a bill. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 23, 2016 15:51:35 GMT
Sorry mate, but I think you have lost the plot. If someone spent the weeks of research required to satisfy your purist view of how this table should be constructed, then I still doubt whether the outcome would be that much different. Just imagine what he's like at splitting a bill. Simples, I divide any bill by the number of present except when it is my Brazilian Arsenal supporter friend and I pay. Easy. I wonder how you two divide a bill? |
|
|
|
Post by daveuppercut on May 23, 2016 23:55:03 GMT
What the fuck have i just read?
|
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 24, 2016 0:06:58 GMT
Value for money - my foot! So if a team had a binary season and ended up let's say 11th on a very cheap squad, would you as a fan, feel you had good value for money? No thanks, I'd rather come 11th with Chelsea's squad and have recorded some smashing wins along the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyman on May 24, 2016 5:14:56 GMT
Value for money - my foot! So if a team had a binary season and ended up let's say 11th on a very cheap squad, would you as a fan, feel you had good value for money? No thanks, I'd rather come 11th with Chelsea's squad and have recorded some smashing wins along the way. Good point. Rather than a simple measure of points per pound invested as a vaguely interesting and rough way of looking at just one thing we also need to add fans opinions in to the equation alongside the entire contents of the club's balance sheet over a period of years. So instead of a/b we get this:  |
|
|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on May 24, 2016 5:40:19 GMT
Value for money - my foot! So if a team had a binary season and ended up let's say 11th on a very cheap squad, would you as a fan, feel you had good value for money? No thanks, I'd rather come 11th with Chelsea's squad and have recorded some smashing wins along the way. Good point. Rather than a simple measure of points per pound invested as a vaguely interesting and rough way of looking at just one thing we also need to add fans opinions in to the equation alongside the entire contents of the club's balance sheet over a period of years. So instead of a/b we get this: Now THAT'S what I call value for money. Is there a pie in amongst that somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on May 24, 2016 11:43:52 GMT
Value for money and relegation don't mix. Even if you spent only a quid, the fact that you've been spanked most weeks and been relegated means that they got zero value for money.
As someone else says above, it should be based on league standing v money spent and also consider prize money and revenue generated from sales and marketing / merchandising based on new players.
In fact, there are so many other factors not considered and so many flaws with this that it means fuck all really. It's a load of bollocks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Foster on May 24, 2016 11:46:34 GMT
Just imagine what he's like at splitting a bill. Simples, I divide any bill by the number of present except when it is my Brazilian Arsenal supporter friend and I pay. Easy. I wonder how you two divide a bill? Taking the piss? |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on May 24, 2016 11:56:32 GMT
No, wait. I forgot about the cost of pies. I think this should be right, now.  |
|
