Rather lose 6-0 and have a go.

[Houston Canary 0]

Wow, dullard morty with the Donkerty avatard showed up here to offer nothing constructive! What a shock.

It''s always amusing when idiots try to join in with laughable comments. It''s never fun when boring old over 40 morty tosses insults and nothing else, but that''s what low grade jerks do.

Go back to Ipswich, mor(t)on.

[Badger 2,405]

Snake - I agree with most of what you say in your post last night (10.00 pm). The report that I referred to was based on one year''s data and like you would not wish to over interpret on such a short time span. However, this report is just one of a growing number referring to the link between financial resources and footballing success. Some of them are anecdotal and non scientific (although still interesting), but there is also a body of research with rigorous method and a far broader data set - one study for example, is based over a 7 year period. I include examples of both the rigorous and non rigorous below.

I think that there is quite a persuasive body of evidence building up which supports the hypothesis that footballling success is positively correlated to financial expenditure. Many of the studies are open to peer review but I am not aware of a study which has contradicted the findings - it could be a useful MA thesis for someone!

I agree with you completely about managers making knee jerk reactions on slim evidence. Unfortunately, most government policy (of all persuasions) is based on a similar misconceptions and over-conclusion. I often suspect that there are things in the interview/ electoral process which means that those least able to make effective decisions are those most likely to gain the positions to do so! (I could develop the hypothesis but have only anecdotal evidence to support it). In relation to the football/ Norwich City dialogue that we have been having in this thread, I would argue that those saying that "we don''t want to win/ are useless" etc are guilty of precisely this error ie - over-interpretation of the evidence available.

As I said above, the statistical evidence suggests that Hughton is doing a good job. The most convincing arguments that I have heard against him are aesthetic, like Matt Julers this morning. However, these arguments are subjective and a matter of taste and it would be very difficult to operationalise variables in support of this. Nevertheless, I would suggest for football teams as a whole, league position is positively correlated to attendance - I have no robust evidence to support this.

[Badger 2,405]

Sorry Snake, forgot the links - they don''t come out as links in Chrome I''m afraid, so if interested you would need to cut and paste.

http://squawka.com/news/2013/07/09/value-index-part-1/2013070912877

http://usir.salford.ac.uk/17857/1/BER_Carmichael,_McHale_and_Thomas_2011.pdf

http://www.slideshare.net/philipjamesbarnes/buying-success-in-the-english-premier-league

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stefanszymanski/2012/05/13/manchester-city-buy-the-premier-league-championship/

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/05/01/revealed-the-worlds-best-paid-teams-man-city-close-in-on-barca-and-real-madrid-010501/