Looks like there are big problems at Charlton

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 If a local council runs 30% more efficiently than 10 other very similar councils, do you think the government may look into the reasons for its excellent performance, or should it be dismissed as "meaningless"? 

[/quote]

Glad to see you agree with me finally!

Lets look at the council analogy:

Council A runs 30% less efficiently than 10 other councils (C - L) - it can be meaningfully said that council A is doing a bad job.
Council B runs 30% more efficiently than 10 other councils (C - L) - it can be meaningfully said that council B is doing a good job.

What of councils C-L?  Clearly they are doing average Jobs. 

The goverment should be looking at what is right with B so that it does so well and what is wrong with A so that it does so poorly. 
It should not examine C-L in detail until it knows what it can improve buy looking at B and what is causing problems by looking at A.

All the above is meaningful.

All the below are meaningless comparisons...
They are misleading and as likely to be interpretted wrongly as rightly (where right is "fits what the global data says" ie A bad, B good, C-L neither good nor bad).

ISOLATED FACT: Council B is doing 30% better than council C. 
Should the government be examining the failings of C or the reasons B is doing so well?

ISOLATED FACT: Council D is doing 30% better than council A. 
Should the government be examining the failings of A or the reasons D is doing so well?

Just from the ISOLATED FACTS it would be reasonable to think that councils A and C are failing and that B and D are successful.  Except that, of course, C and D are doing just as well as each other! 
Of course the ISOLATED FACTS support any ranking of the four councils with B>C and D>A such as B=D>C=A, D>B=A>C, D>B>A>C, D>B>A>C not just the real one B>C=D>A.

So the moral of the story: Doing having a high or low ranking in a list of "many" things is meaningful. Having the bottom ranking in a list of length 2 isn''t.

Tell me:  Exactly how many clubs do Preston North End''s 2008 figures represent?  How long is a list contianing their results and ours?


*Exactly how large many has to be is an interesting question.  It depends on many things such as the total population size.  2 is cetainly not enough unless there are only 2 things.
[/quote]

And if the government responds to criticism about councils spending to much by stating that "all councils spend similar amounts" then the opposition have every right to point out the isolated example of council A thereby proving the government wrong.  Understand?

You have read my posts and assumed that i am trying to use one example to make a wider point about all clubs- i haven`t, you`ve made it up.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]You have read my posts and assumed that i am trying to use one

example to make a wider point about all clubs- i haven`t, you`ve made

it up.[/quote]

[quote]If Charlton do go into administration it will be debt for new stands and land which has done it.  Let`s hope Bowkett and McNally have been brought in in time to stop the same happening to us[/quote]Isn''t this the initial sweeping statement you made, that stands and land = administration ?

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="The Butler"]As I said to Doris it depends on what you are after achieving.[/quote]But you will probably never find out what they aim to acheive, the sale of the club will in all likelihood be just as undisclosed as most transfer fees.[/quote]Probably not true. I believe that the terms agreed for the majority holding would have to be offered to all shareholders under the rules governing public companies.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="The Butler"]As I said to Doris it depends on what you are after achieving.[/quote]But you will probably never find out what they aim to acheive, the sale of the club will in all likelihood be just as undisclosed as most transfer fees.[/quote]Probably not true. I believe that the terms agreed for the majority holding would have to be offered to all shareholders under the rules governing public companies.[/quote]Superb, the washing gets hung out to dry for everyone to have one last whinge about it then. [:)]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]You have read my posts and assumed that i am trying to use one example to make a wider point about all clubs- i haven`t, you`ve made it up.[/quote]

[quote]If Charlton do go into administration it will be debt for new stands and land which has done it.  Let`s hope Bowkett and McNally have been brought in in time to stop the same happening to us[/quote]

Isn''t this the initial sweeping statement you made, that stands and land = administration ?
[/quote]

It`s an opinion blah and given that people like T keep telling me that clubs can`t get bank loans to spend on footballers, is it not fair to deduce that clubs debts must have paid for other things?  If i`ve got it wrong, i`m all ears and, unlike alot of people on here, perfectly happy and comfortable with being proved wrong.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]You have read my posts and assumed that i am trying to use one example to make a wider point about all clubs- i haven`t, you`ve made it up.[/quote] [quote]If Charlton do go into administration it will be debt for new stands and land which has done it.  Let`s hope Bowkett and McNally have been brought in in time to stop the same happening to us[/quote]Isn''t this the initial sweeping statement you made, that stands and land = administration ?[/quote]

It`s an opinion blah and given that people like T keep telling me that clubs can`t get bank loans to spend on footballers, is it not fair to deduce that clubs debts must have paid for other things?  If i`ve got it wrong, i`m all ears and, unlike alot of people on here, perfectly happy and comfortable with being proved wrong.

[/quote]It is splitting hairs, but I would argue that not understanding your audience / planning around expected attendances could result in administration, rather than just building stands and land.  We have a sell-out stadium, and have scope for further expansion in attendances, probably even in the Championship.  Ipswich, Southampton, possibly Leicester have had more brittle support if you like when underachieving.  Preston don''t appear to have much of a fan-base at all.  What''s the point of building a beautiful, expensive shop, if you can only expect to sell baked beans to 3 people a week ?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Agreed blah, but it is still debts for infrastructure which send clubs into administration, whatever the extenuating (sp.?) circumstances.  I simply don`t understand football clubs obsession with building new stands when there is often little demand for them.  I find it bizarre and have to confess to being a little suspicious....It didn`t do Darlington much good, and Coventry, Cardiff and Preston (I look forward to someone posting "I thought you said they were the perfect model for us to follow" [8-)]) are just some clubs who have recently spent millions on stands which won`t come close to being filled unless they are in the Prem.  Does it look sensible to you?  Of course, "infrastructure first" was sold to us as the safe option....What would have happened had gates fell back to 17k or so?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Agreed blah, but it is still debts for infrastructure which send clubs into administration, whatever the extenuating (sp.?) circumstances.  I simply don`t understand football clubs obsession with building new stands when there is often little demand for them.  I find it bizarre and have to confess to being a little suspicious....It didn`t do Darlington much good, and Coventry, Cardiff and Preston (I look forward to someone posting "I thought you said they were the perfect model for us to follow" [8-)]) are just some clubs who have recently spent millions on stands which won`t come close to being filled unless they are in the Prem.  Does it look sensible to you?  Of course, "infrastructure first" was sold to us as the safe option....What would have happened had gates fell back to 17k or so?[/quote]Then the Blackpool Model is the way forward [;)] ?  Suppose it''s only a matter of time before Carrow Road becomes a Coastal resort...