Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Juggy

Next manager odds - strange occurance

Recommended Posts

[quote user="BigFish"]Posters are confusing statistics with a predictive diagnostic science. Statistically, over a period of time there is a clear direct correlation between expenditure by clubs on the football side (wages, agents and transfer fees). That doesn''t mean on any given day you can predict the result but over a period of time you can. Therefore the difference between our performance this year and last year is not statistically significant. That is not a get out of jail free card for Hughton though, just science. If we stay up, he will have broadly achieved within expectations. If we down with Purple''s analysis of less debt and better players he will have out performed. Until we are in a position to pay for a top 10 team that will remain the case.[/quote]

Just ran that though Deep Thought and the answer was 42.

Now that might be points or goal difference or.........

Still think worse points, worse goals for, worse goals against is SLIGHTLY under performing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BigFish"]Posters are confusing statistics with a predictive diagnostic science. Statistically, over a period of time there is a clear direct correlation between expenditure by clubs on the football side (wages, agents and transfer fees). That doesn''t mean on any given day you can predict the result but over a period of time you can. Therefore the difference between our performance this year and last year is not statistically significant.

That is not a get out of jail free card for Hughton though, just science. If we stay up, he will have broadly achieved within expectations. If we down with Purple''s analysis of less debt and better players he will have under performed. Until we are in a position to pay for a top 10 team that will remain the case.[/quote]BigFish, I well understand that, and certainly over a period of years there is a strong - albeit not an absolute - link between wages and performance.The problem with your wage-link explanation as far as the directors of NCFC are concerned is that it really only makes sense if last season, finishing on 44 points, was a freak. In other words we did freakishly well. And this season is the norm. But then the season before, under Lambert with 47 points, would have to be even more of a freakish success!So we have a situation in which, out of the three PL seasons, we did best in the season in which we should have done worst and we are doing worst in the season in which we should be doing best...If I was a director of NCFC I would bear the wage link in mind, but I would also very much wonder why we are on course to drop from 47 points in 2011-12 to around 38 points this season. Why are we on course for the worst season out of the three when when I and my fellow directors have done our best to ensure at least parity with previous seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem I have with the theory "more money than last season should result in a better performance than last season" (which seems to mean finishing higher up the table) is that the logical end result is surely that we will be champions 10 seasons from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
''The problem I have with the theory "more money than last season should result in a better performance than last season" (which seems to mean finishing higher up the table) is that the logical end result is surely that we will be champions 10 seasons from now. '' ...Nuff said.

Never a truer word written, people seem to forget that most teams spent as much if not, more , than us.

Some stathead somewhere could tell us, i''m sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="BigFish"]Posters are confusing statistics with a predictive diagnostic science. Statistically, over a period of time there is a clear direct correlation between expenditure by clubs on the football side (wages, agents and transfer fees). That doesn''t mean on any given day you can predict the result but over a period of time you can. Therefore the difference between our performance this year and last year is not statistically significant.

That is not a get out of jail free card for Hughton though, just science. If we stay up, he will have broadly achieved within expectations. If we down with Purple''s analysis of less debt and better players he will have under performed. Until we are in a position to pay for a top 10 team that will remain the case.[/quote]BigFish, I well understand that, and certainly over a period of years there is a strong - albeit not an absolute - link between wages and performance.The problem with your wage-link explanation as far as the directors of NCFC are concerned is that it really only makes sense if last season, finishing on 44 points, was a freak. In other words we did freakishly well. And this season is the norm. But then the season before, under Lambert with 47 points, would have to be even more of a freakish success!So we have a situation in which, out of the three PL seasons, we did best in the season in which we should have done worst and we are doing worst in the season in which we should be doing best...If I was a director of NCFC I would bear the wage link in mind, but I would also very much wonder why we are on course to drop from 47 points in 2011-12 to around 38 points this season. Why are we on course for the worst season out of the three when when I and my fellow directors have done our best to ensure at least parity with previous seasons.[/quote]not strictly true as that presumes that all wages remained the same over that period - bar ours which roseif the theory is to be tested then it needs to be against all PL wages over each season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Comparing points with last season is meaningless as the league is decided on how you do against your competitors not how you performed compared to last season. It is another desperate attempt to discredit CH. Some of the attacks are offensive and derogatory and contradict an objective analysis so you really have to question the motivation for these constant attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let''s not confuse Turnover with Budget.

Also there are 19 other factors to take into account this year, i.e the other teams in this league.

Obviously not every team can improve on their previous seasons targets for some of those 19 reasons, so it is very misleading to just use those statistics to solely judge your team on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are more clubs with big money men owning them now who are prepared to put silly money in, than when we were promoted 3 years ago.Hull, Southampton, Cardiff, West Ham.. even Fulham are spending bigger now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]Comparing points with last season is meaningless as the league is decided on how you do against your competitors not how you performed compared to last season. It is another desperate attempt to discredit CH. Some of the attacks are offensive and derogatory and contradict an objective analysis so you really have to question the motivation for these constant attacks.[/quote]

I will ask you the question again T

Are you happy with this seasons performances?

I have not attacked CH just his brand of football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="BigFish"]Posters are confusing statistics with a predictive diagnostic science. Statistically, over a period of time there is a clear direct correlation between expenditure by clubs on the football side (wages, agents and transfer fees). That doesn''t mean on any given day you can predict the result but over a period of time you can. Therefore the difference between our performance this year and last year is not statistically significant.

That is not a get out of jail free card for Hughton though, just science. If we stay up, he will have broadly achieved within expectations. If we down with Purple''s analysis of less debt and better players he will have under performed. Until we are in a position to pay for a top 10 team that will remain the case.[/quote]BigFish, I well understand that, and certainly over a period of years there is a strong - albeit not an absolute - link between wages and performance.The problem with your wage-link explanation as far as the directors of NCFC are concerned is that it really only makes sense if last season, finishing on 44 points, was a freak. In other words we did freakishly well. And this season is the norm. But then the season before, under Lambert with 47 points, would have to be even more of a freakish success!So we have a situation in which, out of the three PL seasons, we did best in the season in which we should have done worst and we are doing worst in the season in which we should be doing best...If I was a director of NCFC I would bear the wage link in mind, but I would also very much wonder why we are on course to drop from 47 points in 2011-12 to around 38 points this season. Why are we on course for the worst season out of the three when when I and my fellow directors have done our best to ensure at least parity with previous seasons.[/quote]not strictly true as that presumes that all wages remained the same over that period - bar ours which roseif the theory is to be tested then it needs to be against all PL wages over each season

[/quote]No, because I have not just been talking about wages. I have also been factoring in external debt repayments in the first two seasons as against none in this, plus other less easy to quantify factors, such as Hughton''s growing experience as a PL manager, all of which were favourable to us. All in all we on course to be doing things the wrong way round. If anything the first season should have been the most difficult, the second less so and the third less so again.As it happens I have never expected that kind of improvement. Or indeed any improvement, because of our comparitive poverty. But it is a serious question as to why we regressed last season from the season before and this season from last when if there was going to be a change it should have been an improvement rather than a regression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m happy with the performances as we are outperforming on an objective basis.

If you asked me did I enjoy watching the Real Madrid more than NCFC from a style perspective then the answer is RM but their players cost a bit more. Of course I''d prefer more quality but football is an analytical finance driven business now and CH is an effective pragmistist and I take that over style as I want to see us stay up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]I''m happy with the performances as we are outperforming on an objective basis. If you asked me did I enjoy watching the Real Madrid more than NCFC from a style perspective then the answer is RM but their players cost a bit more. Of course I''d prefer more quality but football is an analytical finance driven business now and CH is an effective pragmistist and I take that over style as I want to see us stay up.[/quote]

I would like to argue with you but football is not, at this level a fan driven sport anymore.

It is all about money and entertainment for the fan is sadly way down the agenda.

In the end who benefits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s interesting how we all love our football in different ways.

T for example enjoys going to The Carra to see a pragmatist at work, whereas i would prefer a capable manager running our team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]Comparing points with last season is meaningless as the league is decided on how you do against your competitors not how you performed compared to last season. It is another desperate attempt to discredit CH. Some of the attacks are offensive and derogatory and contradict an objective analysis so you really have to question the motivation for these constant attacks.[/quote]I think you would struggle to find any director of any professional football club who did not take very serious note of how their manager''s performance in one season, with points a key indicator, compared with their performance in previous seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So now we are asked to believe that a football director would prefer to finish second with more points than first with lower points - it just gets more bizarre. Money is paid for position not points - I very much doubt any director cares about points.

CH was the second most effective mgr in the premier league last season and outperforming this season so anyone who suggests that he is clueless, hapless or incapable is just being ignorant, derogatory and offensive and at best incapable of grasping reality. Pity as there was some decent debate on this thread for ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]It''s interesting how we all love our football in different ways. T for example enjoys going to The Carra to see a pragmatist at work, whereas i would prefer a capable manager running our team[/quote]

 

No no no Bury, I do wish you would keep up.

We are not talking about real football, but a scientific football where you actually are the second most effective manager even though you finished 12th. It really is very simple. If you apply the co efficient of the hypotenuse based on Swarthbricks theory of Total Cobblers, you can actually prove that Norwich is in the third quadrant of Ursa Minor and CH is a very very good tactician.  

 

Now I wouldn’t expect you to understand that. Not coming from Suffolk an’ all. And anyway I remember T arguing with Purple Canary before , and T is a qualified barrister/FCA/Insurance Broker who has worked with some of the greatest minds in world football. I also think he scored the winner in the 1956 world cup final. For Costa Rica.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that you''re arguing about whether points or places are more important. First season we finished 12th with 47 poionts. Last season we finished 11th but with 44 points. One position better but 3 points less. Which was better? There''s little in it is there? I would say that in the second season the bottom half was stronger than the first. A good indication of that is that in the first season all three promoted sides stayed up where as last season only 2 managed it and QPR couldn''t repeat the previous season''s escape. I would say this season it''s even stronger. Others will point to the same things and suggest when the points totals for halfway are lower the league is weaker.

 

There is one fact that can''t be contested however. And that is that prize money is allocated on league position and it makes no difference if the points totals are lower or higher than previous seasons.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]So now we are asked to believe that a football director would prefer to finish second with more points than first with lower points - it just gets more bizarre. Money is paid for position not points - I very much doubt any director cares about points.

CH was the second most effective mgr in the premier league last season and outperforming this season so anyone who suggests that he is clueless, hapless or incapable is just being ignorant, derogatory and offensive and at best incapable of grasping reality. Pity as there was some decent debate on this thread for ones.[/quote]I don''t think anyone asked you to believe that. I certainly didn''t. If that oddly irrelevant example was in someone else''s post it must have been deleted in the meantime.The point I was making, which is far from bizarre, is that football directors, in deciding whether to keep or sack a manager, will compare one season''s performance with previous seasons. And a points total, seen in context, is a key indicator of that.If we stay up this season, but finish, as seems probable, with a points total significantly lower than last season''s (not to mention a lower league position) then it would be astonishing if the NCFC directors did not at least discuss that and examine the reasons why.This is what happens in the real Premier League world that NCFC inhabits of a permanent fight to avoid relegation, in which any suggestion that such a falling-off in performance, as shown by a marked drop in points, would carry on next season would be taken extremely seriously, given the potentially vast loss of revenue from a relegation. In crude terms, if we stay up this season but drop from 44 points to the 38 we are headed for, and then drop another six points next season we will go down. No team has stayed up on 32 points.The directors would care more about the long-term implications of that scenario than the comparitive pittance from an extra league place or two (bearing in mind that this season we are almost certainly going to have a lower points total AND a lower placing). And your invented dilemma of finishing first in the Premier League on X points or second on X + Y is not one that would bother them much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You can estimate wage budget from prior year public financial statements"No you can''t, you ascertain last seasons wage but from prior year financial statements. You cannot estimate this seasons wage bill using last years accounts.

"How do you think the stock mkt works"
Listed companies offer up quarterly accounts and have other procedures like profit warnings!

"It is not revenue that ultimately counts it is the wage budget you pay as this largely determines player quality"Suddenly we are talking about wage budget are we? What about ''playing budget'', which is made up of two components - amount spent on transfer fees + annual wage bill? Our summer spending will have moved us up a notch in terms of playing budget this season. Some teams spent next to nothing.

"Stoke are heavily subsidised by the owner of bet 365"This is a baseless lie and not supported by their accounts, which you have clearly not read (I have). He has converted external debt into director debt. This means that the club don''t have to pay interest to banks and are free of external debt. SO ARE WE.  He is not gifting them money, he paid off bank debt and converted it into a debt owed to him. Stoke have a smaller revenue and neither cluh have external debt so neither club has interest or debt repayments to make.

"McNally said our wage budget is 18th or 19th this season"Source/citation? Where or when has he said this? Link to article or video please? Also explain how he would know this, why has he been made privy to information that even minority shareholders of the other 19 clubs themselves won''t know until accounts are published?

"and is outperforming this season"How do we know this without knowing the playing budget for every club in the league?:

"CH critics are like daily mail readers - we know their criticism is based on ignorance"I''ve read Stoke City''s accounts, you have not. You are making stuff up, I am not. And my criticism is based on ignorance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Football is a competitive sport it is your position against your peers that matters. Prize money is paid for position not points so points are irrelevant. The one and second dilemma is an example of a logic example which demonstrates the irrelevance of season point comparison.

You can estimate this season''s wages from last season''s because as I stated there is a very high correlation between a clubs relative wages for each season. Also much of revenue and wages is fixed by long time contracts

Just like finance mkts you can make predictions of future based on past. Football clubs announce new owners, sponsorship deals, season ticket numbers and player transfers so it is not a black box and there is a very strong correlation between years.

THE correlation as I''ve always said is with the wage budget, these figures are readily publicly available, are an ongoing cost and the best indicator of player quality.

Bizarre to accuse someone of lying and confirm what they are saying at the same time. Stoke have very substantial debt from the directors as the reader has confirmed. THIS debt has been used to provide cash to subsidise the operations. Norwich have very small external and director debts. Cash has gone out to repay loans unlike stoke and a number of other clubs where cash has come in from director loans/equity to subsidise the business.

The McNally claim on our wage budget is in his recent interview with archant/radio norfolk which was on the club''s website. Deloitte publish a report on the finances of each club each year so directors know a clubs relative finance position. They also know because they are compeing in contract negotiations for the same pool of players.

I''ve seen all the club''s accounts as they are publicly available and have worked on the acquisition of a premier league football club and seen the deloitte report findings. Anyone as we have see on here can read a set of accounts but that does not mean they necessarily understand them without a knowledge of business, finance and accounting. If you have then it is very clear that objectively the criticisms of CH are ignorant and abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So somehow T has managed to turn the discussion from performance to money related results.

Rightly he stated "Premiership" survival as paramount BECAUSE of money.

Other than in a derogatory manner does he even mention supporters or should that be "mug punters"

IF the sole aim of the club is now money driven, to who''s benefit is it?

Not the paying public who turn up in their thousands and hand over their hard earned to watch ,well it doesen''t matter as long as we remain in the Premiership.

Look forward to being hammered at every away game, desperate, tense (more often) home games with only one aim AND THAT''S NOT ENTERTAINMENT.

Frustration personified as we are subjected to more and more obscure management decisions.

Don''t worry next season we will have even more money to give for more expensive players who can''t perform because we don''t know what to do with them.

Well if that''s what progress is then the local junior football becomes more attractive at every passing week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]I''m happy with the performances as we are outperforming on an objective basis.[/quote]You have no idea if this is true or not until the wage details for this season are made available. [quote user="T"]

CH was the second most effective mgr in the premier league last season [/quote]What metric are you using to determine this? Show your working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not sure that business, finance and accounting explain why, for example,:

1. CH''s tactical substitutions have yielded no goals and no assists

2. We can play OK at home at times yet are almost always terrible away

3. Two previously prolific strikers can neither score nor create chances on a regular basis

4. The team is capable of imploding at a moment''s notice.

5. Any forward momentum is so slow, pedestrian and uncreative that opposition defenders have time to take afternoon tea before having to run back and provide cover.

6. Players seem to openly argue with other on the pitch on a regular basis.

I''m not trying to be obtuse, but it is not all about money. We are not going to compete for the Champions League but there are clearly some pretty serious footballing issues not being solved resulting in us performing worse than we are capable of doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think there may be a tad too much analysis going on here.Does it really matter?All that matters is what happens on the pitch and how you ultimately feel about Norwich City Football Club and the performances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the question is how do we measure performance. The standard measure is outputs/inputs compared to peers. Ie points/wages compared to other premier league clubs - CH was second last year and somewhere above average this year the hard evidence is that CH performs better than other managers and has a better idea than other managers. If you want stylish football or altruism then the bottom half of the premier league is not the place to find and that is regardless of manager and it is totally unfair to blame one manager for that reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We know CH is outperforming because of the strong correlation between year on year wages and McNally has said are wages are 18th/19th

I use the Std metric to measure performance points/wages vs peers. Apologies if it contradicts the myths but it shows CH what ever you think of his decisions and their impacts is performing better than his peers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]So the question is how do we measure performance. The standard measure is outputs/inputs compared to peers. Ie points/wages compared to other premier league clubs - CH was second last year and somewhere above average this year the hard evidence is that CH performs better than other managers and has a better idea than other managers. If you want stylish football or altruism then the bottom half of the premier league is not the place to find and that is regardless of manager and it is totally unfair to blame one manager for that reality.[/quote]For now, lets ignore the flaws in that method of analysis and go with the obvious question: where are you getting last years wage details from? I can only find figures for every club for the 11/12 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"][quote user="T"]So the question is how do we measure performance. The standard measure is outputs/inputs compared to peers. Ie points/wages compared to other premier league clubs - CH was second last year and somewhere above average this year the hard evidence is that CH performs better than other managers and has a better idea than other managers. If you want stylish football or altruism then the bottom half of the premier league is not the place to find and that is regardless of manager and it is totally unfair to blame one manager for that reality.[/quote]

For now, lets ignore the flaws in that method of analysis and go with the obvious question: where are you getting last years wage details from? I can only find figures for every club for the 11/12 season.
[/quote]

You have to admit it is very clever propaganda to try and change expectations from football performance to financial performance.

When we were sinking under debt it was never mentioned...strange that.

Clubs would have a good idea about wage levels etc!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s the hardest, objective measure we have and is far more objective than any of the criticisms levelled.

The wage figures for 12/13 are in the accounts which have been published on the Internet for the individual clubs or are available from companies house same way as deloitte prepare their information which is a summary of public info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...