|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
I'll just point put one thing...
In the past 20 years we have been amongst the highest paying clubs in terms od wages and agent fees in the EPL. Where are the titles?
We have nearly always been 4th or 5th, those who have won it have always been higher. So again silly point if you put it into context. You are making stuff up now...we have been 2nd and 3rd for the best part of those 20 years in terms of spending on wages. So what you are saying is not correct. I really would have thought you would have at least checked some figures before you rolled in here so vehemently with the result of embarrassing yourself. To help I'll include a links that is very easy to find. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TA-8JcPKP9J4uSIv_yQY9olClw5X5J2yoy7OEjtgqX8/edit#gid=0The above is very good but you need a google account to access. It gives a fantastic breakdown since 2000 I think, according to published results in several papers inc. guardian and FFP published papers. Liverpool are 3rd outright only once I believe, and then manage the dizzying heights of joint 3rd/4th in 2 or 3 other occasions. Are mainly 4th, as I said, and sometimes 5th as well. Check your facts if you're going to call someone incorrect on something which has a factual answer, how embarrassing for you. So to use your words, you are making stuff up now, so what you are saying is not correct, nor has it been throughout this conversation.
Last edited by bigredkop; 09/01/15 01:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
http://abehnisch.com/comparing-big-club-spending/This one is in colourful graphs for you, and also an interesting read on why sport economists have "frequently shown" that wages account for 90 percent of your final league position at season's end. Note that it leaves out Everton who, on something like 2 occasions, have bested us on wages which would make us 5th instead of 4th in those respective years. The bar chart scale makes it less obvious but we are 4th just behind them on the average wage spend since 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
Would you like me to upload some stats for you in an excel spreadsheet to Google docs?
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
Also, the data you posted is from 2000/2001 onwards. I said 20 years. Leaving put 5 years where we ere in the top 3 spenders amongst wages or top 4 significantly affects the average. As you should know leaving out 25% od a data set significantly affects the outcome od any calculations. However since this suits your agenda, you choose to omit these facts.
You take a very patronizing tone but it does not affect me, you are simply showing your character traits, not mine.
Taking a data set where out of 20 years you choose to concentrate on 15 of which we have spent 5 trying to significantly lower the wage bill will obviously skew results. However if you look in to the wage bill from 1994 you will realise the average moves considerably.
Just saying...take it or leave it. We don't have to agree.
As i said, i agree that to win titles continuously you have to be amongst the top spenders in terms of wages. However for a once off title win, i do not agree. I feel a club with much lower wage spending CAN win the title as has been proven on numerous occasions across numerous leagues.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
|
MyKneeGrows
Unregistered
|
|
MyKneeGrows
Unregistered
|
Last 10 years only United, City and Chelsea have won the Title - it will remain that way for years to come.
Even when we had the perfect opportunity to claim it last season we failed to do so. I don't know why you need to go back 20 years when the money in football has drastically changed and we've been in a slow decline since then. Maybe that doesn't suit your agenda, ninja?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
I don't have an agenda...i clearly state, I am in agreement with you that we have to spend big if we want to win titles on a regular basis.
However, if i was the owner and wanted to win it once off and then sell up, i don't think spending huge is the only way to do it.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,381 |
Also, the data you posted is from 2000/2001 onwards. I said 20 years. Leaving put 5 years where we ere in the top 3 spenders amongst wages or top 4 significantly affects the average. As you should know leaving out 25% od a data set significantly affects the outcome od any calculations. However since this suits your agenda, you choose to omit these facts.
You take a very patronizing tone but it does not affect me, you are simply showing your character traits, not mine.
Taking a data set where out of 20 years you choose to concentrate on 15 of which we have spent 5 trying to significantly lower the wage bill will obviously skew results. However if you look in to the wage bill from 1994 you will realise the average moves considerably.
Just saying...take it or leave it. We don't have to agree.
As i said, i agree that to win titles continuously you have to be amongst the top spenders in terms of wages. However for a once off title win, i do not agree. I feel a club with much lower wage spending CAN win the title as has been proven on numerous occasions across numerous leagues. haha this is hilarious, stop embarrassing yourself. I didn't add anything to spreadsheets, these are done by the telegraph and FFP results and I shared them with you. Also you stated quite clearly that we have been in the top 2 or 3 spenders in the best part of the past 20 years, those stats FACTUALLY prove otherwise and now you are trying to worm out of embarrassing yourself by suggesting that a few years missing to which weren't included by those independent Newspapers and a governing body would make a difference? No they wouldn't, as even if every single one of those years we were second, which we weren't if you bothered to check again before embarrassing yourself, it still wouldn't add up to being the majority of 20 years being 2nd or 3rd. So you are factually incorrect as those results prove. Also, it was categorically stated that we were talking about the modern era, going back to 1994 before Chelsea and Man City changed the face of EPL football would make that not the modern era, so again your desperate worming betrays you. You came in here and spouted nonsense like it was fact about our position in the league table, you got shown up to be incorrect by FACTS, so you deserved a patronizing tone as it met your character traits that you portrayed. You should just take it on the chin rather than trying to worm out of it. Your opinion on a singular title win is more than valid and I have no problem with it. You rolling in here spouting nonsense about our wage position relative to others, declaring other people wrong, when you clearly didn't even look yourself will get yourself shown up however, as it has done here.
Last edited by bigredkop; 09/01/15 12:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,679
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,679 |
Also, the data you posted is from 2000/2001 onwards. I said 20 years. Leaving put 5 years where we ere in the top 3 spenders amongst wages or top 4 significantly affects the average. As you should know leaving out 25% od a data set significantly affects the outcome od any calculations. However since this suits your agenda, you choose to omit these facts.
You take a very patronizing tone but it does not affect me, you are simply showing your character traits, not mine.
Taking a data set where out of 20 years you choose to concentrate on 15 of which we have spent 5 trying to significantly lower the wage bill will obviously skew results. However if you look in to the wage bill from 1994 you will realise the average moves considerably.
Just saying...take it or leave it. We don't have to agree.
As i said, i agree that to win titles continuously you have to be amongst the top spenders in terms of wages. However for a once off title win, i do not agree. I feel a club with much lower wage spending CAN win the title as has been proven on numerous occasions across numerous leagues. haha this is hilarious, stop embarrassing yourself. I didn't add anything to spreadsheets, these are done by the telegraph and FFP results and I shared them with you. Also you stated quite clearly that we have been in the top 2 or 3 spenders in the best part of the past 20 years, those stats FACTUALLY prove otherwise and now you are trying to worm out of embarrassing yourself by suggesting that a few years missing to which weren't included by those independent Newspapers and a governing body would make a difference? No they wouldn't, as even if every single one of those years we were second, which we weren't if you bothered to check again before embarrassing yourself, it still wouldn't add up to being the majority of 20 years being 2nd or 3rd. So you are factually incorrect as those results prove. Also, it was categorically stated that we were talking about the modern era, going back to 1994 before Chelsea and Man City changed the face of EPL football would make that not the modern era, so again your desperate worming betrays you. You came in here and spouted nonsense like it was fact about our position in the league table, you got shown up to be incorrect by FACTS, so you deserved a patronizing tone as it met your character traits that you portrayed. You should just take it on the chin rather than trying to worm out of it. Your opinion on a singular title win is more than valid and I have no problem with it. You rolling in here spouting nonsense about our wage position relative to others, declaring other people wrong, when you clearly didn't even look yourself will get yourself shown up however, as it has done here. Thats pretty shockin I always thought we would be higher up the wages league table same as ninja but we havent been above 3rd since before 2000? Maybe even longer??? No wonder we havnt won a league trophy, had owners scared to attract top talent. You could do with toning down the hand ringing tho, yeah you proved him wrong but there such a thing as being the bigger person as well. Have you read the papers by the economists mentioned in the 2nd link? Be interestin to kno how often the the wage table matches the end of season table
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
Wow...get excited much. Learn to read before criticising others. I have repeatedly stated i agree with you when reffering to winning titles on a continuous basis, however that fact slipped you. I also stated we have been amongst the top spenders for the past 20 years and being in the top 4 spenders would suggest that is the case.
I never suggested you modified any of the data i purely suggested i don't find the telegraph to be a respectable source for such data. Also you are well aware that if we were in the top 3 spenders for those years it would significantly affect our average position, spending wise.
You can carry on with your insults, fact remains though, i never claimed anything other than the fact that we have been amongst the top spenders in the past 20 years and and even being 5th amongst 20 pl clubs puts us in the top 25%.
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 8,791 |
On a side note, since the premier league has started, we are the 3rd highest spenders overall. Here's a talk sport link..another "reliable" source... http://talksport.com/magazine/features/1...tory-190785?p=7
Sign Reus
|
|
|
|
|
