BroadstairsR 2,138 Posted March 19, 2013 http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/wage-and-the-premier-league-scaled-table It amounts to a well-earned plaudit to all concerned at Carrow Road. (Take out Grant''s £10m and it looks even better[:)]) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
It's Character Forming 1,160 Posted March 19, 2013 Thanks, very interesting. No surprise that Man City are under-performing relative to wages, but interesting to see Arsenal and Villa also under-performing - the impression being that Arsenal are much tighter on wages than other "top" clubs, and Villa we''re always told are having to economise this season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted March 19, 2013 oh dear that does rather blow a big hole on that theory regularly posted on here by some dimwit that money spent directly related to league position albeit the theory was no more than another stick to beat the club with, but it will mean another stick now has be found Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Not Nigel 0 Posted March 19, 2013 I''d have thought that a real stickler for accuracy like you City1st would have raised some serious questions about just where the author got his annual salary statistics from for each club, can you answer that? For example, the last set of published QPR accounts show numbers up to May 2012 (last season), and their wage bill for that season was £58.5m. Where has the author got a figure of £69m for this season? Just like Nutty Nigel, you will point out inaccuracies to further your agenda, but ignore trivialities like quality and reliability of information when it furthers one of your current or previous agendas. Here is the authors quote:"The wage costs (shown in the two left columns) are based on either, recently published wage costs for the 2011/12 season, or, where not available, an estimate of the wage bill"I''m glad that you deem that a satisfactory means of gathering and analysing information, you know... just making it up.Quite impressive that he has even managed to fail to utilise the data provided in the 2012 accounts which were published in October 2012 and stated staff costs at £29.6m. Getting it wrong by £11m before considering the non-playing staff included in that figure is quite some achievement. It''s a shame that his February 2013 article didn''t use the publicly available information in this case - he has managed to estimate a Norwich wage bill of £41m, probably because he couldn''t be bothered to check. "Research" wouldn''t involve football manager 2013 by any chance, would it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
William Darby 0 Posted March 19, 2013 One of two problems with the graph.Out of date.Source of wage bills used. Differences between actual wages against transfer fees.The season isn''t over.More BS statistics to prove whatever the author wants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 19, 2013 Thanks for link.The figures show that there is an 80% correlation between wages and points i.e. 80% of points are down to wages and only 20% are down to the manager, players form, injuries, suspensions, referee decisions and luck. The final Premier League table is very predictableIt also shows that Hughton is the fourth best manager in the league in terms of wage cost per point after Swansea, Soton and WBrom. It might not always be pretty but CH is curretnly proving to be a highly effective maanger. Total NCFC staff staff incl cost of loaned players, NI and pension costs were €36.7m for 2011/12 in the audited accounts. This is the headline cost disclosed in the audited accounts so should be the comparable figure used for all clubs. Therefore 41m estimate for this season is not unreasonable. I suspect that QPR is an estimated press figure which I''ve seen quoted by the club and not unreasonable. I find the Swansea wage bill difficult to believe given they are debt free and I suspect Villa have reduced their wage bill since last season. I would like to see the David Conn Guardian article when it comes out as that does uses actual rather than estimated figures. Ideally you compare the actual total staff cost for 2011/12 with the points/position for last season as they are the most accurate and comparable figures. The figures though generally make sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 19, 2013 The wage figures are generally in line with the 2010/11 figures from the David Conn article which are taken from the audited accounts. If you use the latest points figures there is a 79% correlation between wages and points and CH is still the fourth best manager. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Not Nigel 0 Posted March 19, 2013 €36.7m? Euros? The article was in pounds, what''s all this euro nonsense? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 19, 2013 Keyboard typo € should be GBP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted March 19, 2013 [quote user="singupcarrowroad"]I''d have thought that a real stickler for accuracy like you City1st would have raised some serious questions about just where the author got his annual salary statistics from for each club, can you answer that? For example, the last set of published QPR accounts show numbers up to May 2012 (last season), and their wage bill for that season was £58.5m. Where has the author got a figure of £69m for this season? Just like Nutty Nigel, you will point out inaccuracies to further your agenda, but ignore trivialities like quality and reliability of information when it furthers one of your current or previous agendas. Here is the authors quote: "The wage costs (shown in the two left columns) are based on either, recently published wage costs for the 2011/12 season, or, where not available, an estimate of the wage bill" I''m glad that you deem that a satisfactory means of gathering and analysing information, you know... just making it up. Quite impressive that he has even managed to fail to utilise the data provided in the 2012 accounts which were published in October 2012 and stated staff costs at £29.6m. Getting it wrong by £11m before considering the non-playing staff included in that figure is quite some achievement. It''s a shame that his February 2013 article didn''t use the publicly available information in this case - he has managed to estimate a Norwich wage bill of £41m, probably because he couldn''t be bothered to check. "Research" wouldn''t involve football manager 2013 by any chance, would it?[/quote] you really are incredibly dim the author of the piece has already qualified it by stating that some of the figures are estimates, so we are working from that premise - just as with the thread elsewhere imagining that Delia handed over her shares to you (us etc) whereas the guff you post up is invaribaly based on some lie or invention that you have conjured up to allow you to warble away with some more nonsense - there is a vast difference now why not go outside and get some fresh air, a girlfriend ... a life even Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T 190 Posted March 19, 2013 How did singupcarrowroad become nutty nigel or are they the same? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Not Nigel 0 Posted March 19, 2013 I''m not nutty nigel, I''m nigel nutty. Big difference! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,513 Posted March 19, 2013 [quote user="T"]How did singupcarrowroad become nutty nigel or are they the same?[/quote] He''s got an embarrassing mess he''d like the mods to clear up for him T. Let him be [;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CiderkiddCanary 0 Posted March 19, 2013 [quote user="nigel nutty"]I''m not nutty nigel, I''m nigel nutty. Big difference![/quote]With the greatest respect, having had the misfortune to read a lot of your posts, I think City1st is correct in his presumption that some fresh air and some time away from this forum might do you a world of good.Back on topic... I think clubs such as Norwich and Swansea, who place emphasis on financial sensibility and long-term planning, will be the role models for many aspiring and even current Premier League clubs, of course excluding those at the very top of the league. But certainly those clubs who are deemed "established", or those who want to reach that stage, are more likely to look towards the likes of Norwich and Swansea for inspiration, and I think the figures in this graph, which I think are near enough accurate (or certainly enough so to maintain the point the graph is making), back up this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites