Media thread 2022/23

[SebastianBlue]

Their 79 points in 1999 wouldn't have won the title in any season since.

Funny the points total is never mentioned when discussing the treble…

 

[halfcenturyup]

No, the Spurs value would be the total they spent (as a zero factor would be multiplied by 1 to find true value in the benchmark).

But beyond that analysis accounting, the point of net spend per trophy (which should include wages by common accounting methods, by the way) would be to do exactly what you are referencing: show that clubs like Southampton and Spurs have poor achievement and financial waste at this level.

And the overall link to spending is even stronger than simply wages (capital investment included), so factoring in the many variables makes it a more accurate benchmark.

:) Exactly which common accounting method would add wages to net spend? Amortisation plus wages would be more meaningful, but the result would still be less meaningful on a per trophy basis as a determination of relative performance.

 

[mattcity5]

You can over multiple seasons, that increases the universe to a statistically significant level, and as winning silverware is the point of football at this level, using any other confining factor is just giving people like Levy and the Glazers a means of obfuscating underachievement and waste.

Agree about silverware being what counts, but beyond that, it's mainly the memories. City have given us so many -and not just the great ones since the takeover.

Before that we've got the relegations, the last-gasp promotions...

What have fucking Spurs got? Their highlight of last season was not selling Harry Kane to us and beating us with a nine man defence. Other than that just mediocrity, season after season (with the odd narrow failure thrown in).

 

[SebastianBlue]

:) Exactly which common accounting method would add wages to net spend? Amortisation plus wages would be more meaningful, but the result would still be less meaningful on a per trophy basis as a determination of relative performance.

You’ve just answered your own question. ;-)

Again, relative performance (points or table position) would be the benchmark the likes of Levy would use, as it makes Spurs look like a well run, high achieving club.

 

[Man-chester copperpot]

BT the other week were Bayen Munich Tv

Sky right now are Arsenal Tv - just outside the etihad with the 2 idiots from Arsenal TV then to North London in an Arsenal pub interviewing fans.
Now onto Snooker, and after the break onto Bruno and Uniteds trip to Spurs.
Bollocks to it, i’m getting ready now and into the Townley early
Hate these bawbags!!!

 

[SebastianBlue]

Agree about silverware being what counts, but beyond that, it's mainly the memories. City have given us so many -and not just the great ones since the takeover.

Before that we've got the relegations, the last-gasp promotions...

What have fucking Spurs got? Their highlight of last season was not selling Harry Kane to us and beating us with a nine man defence. Other than that just mediocrity, season after season (with the odd narrow failure thrown in).

Agreed. All of my posts are about *if we must compare finances for purposes of benchmarking performance*, which I have said I don’t think we should.

And you have put perfectly why points and table position over multiple seasons is a very poor means of benchmarking performance.

 

[KPXBLN]

Agreed. All of my posts are about *if we must compare finances for purposes of benchmarking performance*, which I have said I don’t think we should.

And you have put perfectly why points and table position over multiple seasons is a very poor means of benchmarking performance.

What?

It's a sport mate. Success on the pitch is how you measure success. All this relentless calculator effort to "prove" we're the best mathematically is missing the wood for the trees.

 

[SebastianBlue]

What?

It's a sport mate. Success on the pitch is how you measure success. All this relentless calculator effort to "prove" we're the best mathematically is missing the wood for the trees.

I think you’ve missed basically every other post I have made not only in this thread but on the forum. ;-)

This entire discussion is about benchmarking performance within a context of finances, which I have said we shouldn’t really do. But if we are going to do it, we need to do it so it actually assesses what matters at this level: winning trophies.

Everything else is just narrative padding for Levy’s biography and the Glazer’s shareholder report.

 

[bluenova]

No, the Spurs value would be the total they spent (as a zero factor would be multiplied by 1 to find true value in the benchmark).

But beyond that analysis accounting, the point of net spend per trophy (which should include wages by common accounting methods, by the way) would be to do exactly what you are referencing: show that clubs like Southampton and Spurs have poor achievement and financial waste at this level.

And the overall link to spending is even stronger than simply wages (capital investment included), so factoring in the many variables makes it a more accurate benchmark.

I think we're agreeing in part - the post I replied to was talking about net transfer spend. I was that IF we had to compare, wages is a better metric - as it's by far the biggest outlay.

Not sure about Spurs benchmark being 1 - how could you then separate a team with one trophy from those with zero?

And surely Southampton are so far off financially that they can't really be expected to win anything, so are hardly a club which represents financial waste.

 

[halfcenturyup]

You can over multiple seasons, that increases the universe to a statistically significant level, and as winning silverware is the point of football at this level, using any other confining factor is just giving people like Levy and the Glazers a means of obfuscating underachievement and waste.

How many seasons in your view so that it becomes statistically relevant?
Not trying to be tetchy, just interested even though I think your rationale is fundamentally flawed.