Batman Posted 13 June, 2013 Share Posted 13 June, 2013 according to this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2340941/Liverpool-Chelsea-Manchester-City-Premier-leagues-biggest-money-wasters.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 13 June, 2013 Share Posted 13 June, 2013 The whole idea behind how they've interpreted the data and the conclusions they have made is like a 14 year old has done something for their homework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katalinic Posted 13 June, 2013 Share Posted 13 June, 2013 The whole idea behind how they've interpreted the data and the conclusions they have made is like a 14 year old has done something for their homework. This. As pointless as one of those league tables doing the rounds the other week about who would have finished where if the ball hadn't hit the post/bar but gone in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 13 June, 2013 Author Share Posted 13 June, 2013 The whole idea behind how they've interpreted the data and the conclusions they have made is like a 14 year old has done something for their homework. is what they are saying with regards to cost per point. On the face of it, wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 13 June, 2013 Share Posted 13 June, 2013 is what they are saying with regards to cost per point. On the face of it, wrong? Well without descending into an illegible rant, here are my main issues: 1. The 'cost per point' only recognises transfer fees, which are quite clearly only one aspect of a cost of a player (wages the other). So a player signed for £5m earning 30k a week is going to cost less in his first season than a player signed for £2m but earning 100k a week - but that isn't reflected in the table. 2. Transfer fees are guessed as many clubs don't disclose them - so immediately the data is guess work. 3. The stupid *****s have the club who paid the 'most per point' at the top of the table - shouldn't they be at the bottom or is the objective to spend the most money for least return? 4. And the most stupid thing of all is that pathetic table which shows apparent difference in value of players in the squad vs. the amount of money spent. How on earth can people who came up with this nonsense attribute a figure to what a player is worth? It is completely subjective and means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now