I agree, I think we analysts have over stayed our welcome.My problem isn't what you put in the numerator, it is the relevance of the denominator. We have had, what, 40 clubs in the PL in the last ten years? How many of them have actually won a trophy? 8? 10 maybe? So you will be comparing the performance of the remaining, say, 30 purely on the basis of the amount spent. So Hull, say, would have been more successful than, say, Spurs. Or do you only compare clubs who have been in the PL for each of the last ten years, which weakens the analysis even further?
Interested in your reply but I won't be replying again, it's too boring for everyone, I imagine.
Statistical cunts.
Having looked at the data, you're probably 67.23456% correct.Non-statistical dickheads.
Definitely won’t last then! ;))He's a blue.
Waaaaaaay too low. :)Having looked at the data, you're probably 67.23456% correct.
8. Wigan, Swansea, Leicester, Chelsea, Arsenal, rags, dippers and of course City.I think we probably need to disagree on this, but how many clubs have won one of the four trophies in the last ten years? Would be a pretty short list. With a very long list for those that haven't won any. Again, I don't see the statistical relevancy when most of the population are exceptions.
I can't believe the mighty Spurs aren't on that list.8. Wigan, Swansea, Leicester, Chelsea, Arsenal, rags, dippers and of course City.
Wasn't counting the Audi Cup unfortunately for them.I can't believe the mighty Spurs aren't on that list.
Are you sure they didn't get knocked out of that and dropped into the Lada Trophy?Wasn't counting the Audi Cup unfortunately for them.