The main thrust of my argument was that it would force us to pay going rate, ie towards the middle if the bell curve.
Sent from my iPhone On 28 Jul 2011, at 22:39, markbu...@aol.com wrote: > >>> Obviously if it were shown that we were paying conspicuously less than > clubs smaller and with smaller turnover, then he would feel pressured to > bridge the gap. I'm talking at least the middle of the bell curve. He could > convincingly justify not over spending in those circumstances. Not too > difficult a concept to grasp, surely?<< > > > > The problem is your the argument that because we have a bigger turnover, > we should spend more on players' wages. > > If you look at the teams that have recently been promoted, very few had a > big wage spend. > > Contrast Norwich & Swansea (low spenders, by all accounts, and promoted) > with Cardiff (massive overspenders; consistently fail to get promoted). > > > The correlation of wages and turnover isn't really relevant. > > _______________________________________________ > Leedslist mailing list > Info and options: > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org > > MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) > _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
