Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
So where does the death of Kim Jong-il leave us? Is that finally the end of all this socialist nonsense? On 23 December 2011 21:45, Rog & Reet wrote: > He asked for it, literally. > > Think he usually pays for something like that. > > Being a good leftie I did it for free. > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Friday, 23 December 2011 8:47 PM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > ** ** > > I didn't beat elliot up Rog unlike you. I know the death of the Dear > Leader has probably upset you but why take it out on poor Elliott? > > On 20/12/2011, at 10:35 PM, "Rog & Reet" wrote:* > *** > > Yes they do pay out more than one place if you have an each way bet. > > Means in essence you have to place 80 bets. > > They wouldn’t have given you 19-1 for Chelsea to finish top. > > They wouldn’t have given you 19-1 for Everton to finish 8th. > > They certainly wouldn’t have given you 4.75-1 for Burnley finishing in the > bottom 3 even if they’d have smoked all the hash in Afghanistan. > > > > > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Jeremy Tonks > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:27 PM > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > What are you smoking Rog? > > They *do* give out prizes for being only one place out though don’t they?* > *** > > > > You’d have only done your money in 22 out of 40 (but you can get a pay out > for missing by two in an each way bet… in which case you’d have won 27 out > of 40) > > > > I reckon that’s about as good as a super punter like yourself ever does…?* > *** > > > -------------- > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Rog & Reet > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:22 PM > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > If only bookies gave out prizes for getting 35 out of 40 wrong. > > I’d be a millionaire, hang on, no I’d be a billionaire.**** > > > > > > > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:57 PM > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even > stronger the year before. > > When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like > that by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). > > ** > ** > > On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe > wrote: > > Dear Steve, > > > > I found these figures on the web from Deloitte’s annual football report > for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: > > > > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > Burnley. .18..191 > Fulham12...11.. ..-1 > Stoke11...14.. ..3 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..23... ..1 > Wolves..18...15... .3 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...3.5. ...2 > Everton..8.8.. ..0 > Wigan...16...15... .-1 > Hull City..19...16 -3 > Bolton...13...14.. ..1 > Chelsea..1.1.. .0 > Birmingham.17...9 ..8 > Man City.5.2.. .-3 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..1710...-7 > > Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: > > > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > West Brom..11..198 &g
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
He asked for it, literally. Think he usually pays for something like that. Being a good leftie I did it for free. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Friday, 23 December 2011 8:47 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages I didn't beat elliot up Rog unlike you. I know the death of the Dear Leader has probably upset you but why take it out on poor Elliott? On 20/12/2011, at 10:35 PM, "Rog & Reet" wrote: Yes they do pay out more than one place if you have an each way bet. Means in essence you have to place 80 bets. They wouldn't have given you 19-1 for Chelsea to finish top. They wouldn't have given you 19-1 for Everton to finish 8th. They certainly wouldn't have given you 4.75-1 for Burnley finishing in the bottom 3 even if they'd have smoked all the hash in Afghanistan. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:27 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages What are you smoking Rog? They do give out prizes for being only one place out though don't they? You'd have only done your money in 22 out of 40 (but you can get a pay out for missing by two in an each way bet. in which case you'd have won 27 out of 40) I reckon that's about as good as a super punter like yourself ever does.? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rog & Reet Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:22 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages If only bookies gave out prizes for getting 35 out of 40 wrong. I'd be a millionaire, hang on, no I'd be a billionaire. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:57 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even stronger the year before. When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like that by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe wrote: Dear Steve, I found these figures on the web from Deloitte's annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..18...15... .3 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15..
Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
I didn't beat elliot up Rog unlike you. I know the death of the Dear Leader has probably upset you but why take it out on poor Elliott? On 20/12/2011, at 10:35 PM, "Rog & Reet" wrote: > Yes they do pay out more than one place if you have an each way bet. > > Means in essence you have to place 80 bets. > > They wouldn’t have given you 19-1 for Chelsea to finish top. > > They wouldn’t have given you 19-1 for Everton to finish 8th. > > They certainly wouldn’t have given you 4.75-1 for Burnley finishing in the > bottom 3 even if they’d have smoked all the hash in Afghanistan. > > > > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Jeremy Tonks > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:27 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > What are you smoking Rog? > > They do give out prizes for being only one place out though don’t they? > > > > You’d have only done your money in 22 out of 40 (but you can get a pay out > for missing by two in an each way bet… in which case you’d have won 27 out of > 40) > > > > I reckon that’s about as good as a super punter like yourself ever does…? > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Rog & Reet > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:22 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > If only bookies gave out prizes for getting 35 out of 40 wrong. > > I’d be a millionaire, hang on, no I’d be a billionaire. > > > > > > > > From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf > Of Steven Millward > Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:57 PM > To: nswolves@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > > > Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even > stronger the year before. > > When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like that > by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). > > > On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe wrote: > > Dear Steve, > > > > I found these figures on the web from Deloitte’s annual football report for > season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: > > > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > Burnley. .18..191 > Fulham12...11.. ..-1 > Stoke11...14.. ..3 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..23... ..1 > Wolves..18...15... .3 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...3.5. ...2 > Everton..8.8.. ..0 > Wigan...16...15... .-1 > Hull City..19...16 -3 > Bolton...13...14.. ..1 > Chelsea..1.1.. .0 > Birmingham.17...9 ..8 > Man City.5.2.. .-3 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..1710...-7 > > Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: > > > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > West Brom..11..198 > Fulham8...11.. ..3 > Stoke13...15.. ..2 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..13... ..2 > Wolves..17...18... .1 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...4.5. ...1 > Everton..7.8.. ..1 > Wigan...16...16... .0 > Newcastle..12...12 0 > Bolton...14...14.. ..0 > Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 > Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 > Man
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Yes they do pay out more than one place if you have an each way bet. Means in essence you have to place 80 bets. They wouldn't have given you 19-1 for Chelsea to finish top. They wouldn't have given you 19-1 for Everton to finish 8th. They certainly wouldn't have given you 4.75-1 for Burnley finishing in the bottom 3 even if they'd have smoked all the hash in Afghanistan. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Tonks Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:27 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages What are you smoking Rog? They do give out prizes for being only one place out though don't they? You'd have only done your money in 22 out of 40 (but you can get a pay out for missing by two in an each way bet. in which case you'd have won 27 out of 40) I reckon that's about as good as a super punter like yourself ever does.? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rog & Reet Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:22 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages If only bookies gave out prizes for getting 35 out of 40 wrong. I'd be a millionaire, hang on, no I'd be a billionaire. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:57 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even stronger the year before. When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like that by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe wrote: Dear Steve, I found these figures on the web from Deloitte's annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..18...15... .3 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly's for 2009 to 2010 being Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the season 2008 to 2009? Still not convinced Manager's have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team performanc
Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
It's like putting pearls before swine. On 20 December 2011 22:22, Rog & Reet wrote: > If only bookies gave out prizes for getting 35 out of 40 wrong. > > I’d be a millionaire, hang on, no I’d be a billionaire. > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:57 PM > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > ** ** > > Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even > stronger the year before. > > When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like > that by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). > > ** > ** > > On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe > wrote: > > Dear Steve, > > > > I found these figures on the web from Deloitte’s annual football report > for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: > > > > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > Burnley. .18..191 > Fulham12...11.. ..-1 > Stoke11...14.. ..3 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..23... ..1 > Wolves..18...15... .3 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...3.5. ...2 > Everton..8.8.. ..0 > Wigan...16...15... .-1 > Hull City..19...16 -3 > Bolton...13...14.. ..1 > Chelsea..1.1.. .0 > Birmingham.17...9 ..8 > Man City.5.2.. .-3 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..1710...-7 > > Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: > > > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > West Brom..11..198 > Fulham8...11.. ..3 > Stoke13...15.. ..2 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..13... ..2 > Wolves..17...18... .1 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...4.5. ...1 > Everton..7.8.. ..1 > Wigan...16...16... .0 > Newcastle..12...12 0 > Bolton...14...14.. ..0 > Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 > Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 > Man City.3.2.. .-1 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..208...-12 > > > > Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly’s for 2009 to 2010 being > Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in > terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but > ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. > > Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for > the season 2008 to 2009? > > Still not convinced Manager’s have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of > team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. > > Regards > > Paul. > > > > > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > > > *From:* n
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
What are you smoking Rog? They do give out prizes for being only one place out though don't they? You'd have only done your money in 22 out of 40 (but you can get a pay out for missing by two in an each way bet. in which case you'd have won 27 out of 40) I reckon that's about as good as a super punter like yourself ever does.? _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rog & Reet Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 10:22 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages If only bookies gave out prizes for getting 35 out of 40 wrong. I'd be a millionaire, hang on, no I'd be a billionaire. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:57 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even stronger the year before. When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like that by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe wrote: Dear Steve, I found these figures on the web from Deloitte's annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..18...15... .3 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly's for 2009 to 2010 being Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the season 2008 to 2009? Still not convinced Manager's have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. Regards Paul. Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's m
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
If only bookies gave out prizes for getting 35 out of 40 wrong. I'd be a millionaire, hang on, no I'd be a billionaire. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 8:57 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even stronger the year before. When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like that by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe wrote: Dear Steve, I found these figures on the web from Deloitte's annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..18...15... .3 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly's for 2009 to 2010 being Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the season 2008 to 2009? Still not convinced Manager's have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. Regards Paul. Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Thanks for these Paul. It's interesting that the correlation is even stronger the year before. When you combine both seasons, the chance of data falling into line like that by chance is about one in 59,000,000,000 (59 billion). On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe wrote: > Dear Steve, > > ** ** > > I found these figures on the web from Deloitte’s annual football report > for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: > > > ** ** > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > Burnley. .18..191 > Fulham12...11.. ..-1 > Stoke11...14.. ..3 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..23... ..1 > Wolves..18...15... .3 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...3.5. ...2 > Everton..8.8.. ..0 > Wigan...16...15... .-1 > Hull City..19...16 -3 > Bolton...13...14.. ..1 > Chelsea..1.1.. .0 > Birmingham.17...9 ..8 > Man City.5.2.. .-3 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..1710...-7 > > Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: > > ** ** > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > West Brom..11..198 > Fulham8...11.. ..3 > Stoke13...15.. ..2 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..13... ..2 > Wolves..17...18... .1 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...4.5. ...1 > Everton..7.8.. ..1 > Wigan...16...16... .0 > Newcastle..12...12 0 > Bolton...14...14.. ..0 > Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 > Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 > Man City.3.2.. .-1 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..208...-12 > > ** ** > > Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly’s for 2009 to 2010 being > Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in > terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but > ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. > > Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for > the season 2008 to 2009? > > Still not convinced Manager’s have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of > team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. > > Regards > > Paul. > > > > ** ** > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562**** > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > ** ** > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM > *To:* nswolves > *Subject:* [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > ** ** > > Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the > same as the data I have already shared. > > > > West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a > stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them > last season > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
I think they got relegated. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LEESE Matthew Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:46 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Jeremy - can you find out what happened to West Ham last season please. _ From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. Logo <http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/images/permanent/RMS_Email_Logo.png> Before printing, please consider the environment IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
But you have to admit, there is a very strong relationship. Don't worry about the anomolies. They aren't important. Bear in mind also that wages are not a perfect analogue for player quality, which is the real determinant of league position. A great players can join a club on 30k a week but he is really worth 50k a week. This is especially true for youth players where value and negotiating position are weaker. I know it's a hard thing to trust, but stats can genuinely identify the amount of varaibility that is explained by a factor. You might not agree that managers account for about 3% of final position but you're surely changing your mind about the importance of a manager? On 20 December 2011 16:14, Paul Crowe wrote: > Dear Steve, > > ** ** > > I found these figures on the web from Deloitte’s annual football report > for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: > > > ** ** > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > Burnley. .18..191 > Fulham12...11.. ..-1 > Stoke11...14.. ..3 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..23... ..1 > Wolves..18...15... .3 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...3.5. ...2 > Everton..8.8.. ..0 > Wigan...16...15... .-1 > Hull City..19...16 -3 > Bolton...13...14.. ..1 > Chelsea..1.1.. .0 > Birmingham.17...9 ..8 > Man City.5.2.. .-3 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..1710...-7 > > Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: > > ** ** > > Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference > West Brom..11..198 > Fulham8...11.. ..3 > Stoke13...15.. ..2 > Spurs..57. ...2 > Man Utd..13... ..2 > Wolves..17...18... .1 > Blackpool...19...20... .1 > Arsenal...4.5. ...1 > Everton..7.8.. ..1 > Wigan...16...16... .0 > Newcastle..12...12 0 > Bolton...14...14.. ..0 > Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 > Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 > Man City.3.2.. .-1 > Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 > Sunderland.108 -2 > Aston villa...9.6...-3 > Blackburn...15...12... -3 > West Ham..208...-12 > > ** ** > > Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly’s for 2009 to 2010 being > Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in > terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but > ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. > > Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for > the season 2008 to 2009? > > Still not convinced Manager’s have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of > team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. > > Regards > > Paul. > > > > ** ** > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542**** > > Mob: 0406009562**** > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > ** ** > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM > *To:* nswolves >
Re: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
I'll shout it this time so it gets heard: I'VE ONLY GOT DATA FOR ONE SEASON. THE AUTHOR OF SOCCERNOMICS HAS DONE ANALYSIS ON MORE YEARS OF DATA On 20 December 2011 14:59, Paul Crowe wrote: > Thanks Steve but this is only for last season, what about previous > seasons? > > ** ** > > Paul Crowe > > Sales Manager - Asia Pacific > > > > ConTech (Sydney Office) > > > > PO Box 3517 > > Rhodes Waterside > > Rhodes NSW 2138 > > Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 > > Mob: 0406009562 > > Email: pcr...@contechengineering.com > > Website: www.contechengineering.com > > ** ** > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM > *To:* nswolves > *Subject:* [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages > > ** ** > > Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the > same as the data I have already shared. > > > > West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a > stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them > last season > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > > -- > Boo! Thick Mick Out. > -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
FW: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
-2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly's for 2009 to 2010 being Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the season 2008 to 2009? Still not convinced Manager's have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. Regards Paul. Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: <mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com> pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: <http://www.contechengineering.com> www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. --- End Message ---
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Dear Steve, I found these figures on the web from Deloitte's annual football report for season 2009 to 2010, the season before your figures. Results as follows: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference Burnley. .18..191 Fulham12...11.. ..-1 Stoke11...14.. ..3 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..23... ..1 Wolves..18...15... .3 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...3.5. ...2 Everton..8.8.. ..0 Wigan...16...15... .-1 Hull City..19...16 -3 Bolton...13...14.. ..1 Chelsea..1.1.. .0 Birmingham.17...9 ..8 Man City.5.2.. .-3 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..1710...-7 Compared to your results for last season 2010 to 2011: Team..League Rank...Wage Rank...Difference West Brom..11..198 Fulham8...11.. ..3 Stoke13...15.. ..2 Spurs..57. ...2 Man Utd..13... ..2 Wolves..17...18... .1 Blackpool...19...20... .1 Arsenal...4.5. ...1 Everton..7.8.. ..1 Wigan...16...16... .0 Newcastle..12...12 0 Bolton...14...14.. ..0 Chelsea..2.1.. .-1 Birmingham.18...17 ..-1 Man City.3.2.. .-1 Liverpool.6.4. ..-2 Sunderland.108 -2 Aston villa...9.6...-3 Blackburn...15...12... -3 West Ham..208...-12 Ok, pretty similar results. The 2 x anomaly's for 2009 to 2010 being Birmingham and West Ham. Interesting that West Ham went up 2 x places in terms of the wage table for last season compared to the previous year but ended up finishing bottom and were relegated. Pity Deloitte do not publish their reports. Anybody have the figures for the season 2008 to 2009? Still not convinced Manager's have no effect whatsoever and that 90% of team performance is directly attributed to wage bill spend. Regards Paul. Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: <mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com> pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: <http://www.contechengineering.com> www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Thanks Steve but this is only for last season, what about previous seasons? Paul Crowe Sales Manager - Asia Pacific ConTech (Sydney Office) PO Box 3517 Rhodes Waterside Rhodes NSW 2138 Tel: 02 97396636 Fax: 02 97396542 Mob: 0406009562 Email: <mailto:pcr...@contechengineering.com> pcr...@contechengineering.com Website: <http://www.contechengineering.com> www.contechengineering.com From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Jeremy - can you find out what happened to West Ham last season please. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. Before printing, please consider the environment IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
RE: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
I'm sure if you applied the same to manager/coach wages over the lifetime of the Premiership you would see a high correlation between the teams that have spent the most on these wages and league position, proving that (assuming the better the manager/coach the more their value in a free market) having a decent manager and coaching staff is all important as it directly correlates to success in the league? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Tuesday, 20 December 2011 2:36 PM To: nswolves Subject: [NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. Before printing, please consider the environment IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mistaken transmission to you. Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is not responsible for any unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of RMS. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. -- Boo! Thick Mick Out.
[NSWolves] Fwd: Prem league wages
Here's the wages data that Paul Crowe asked for, It's more or less the same as the data I have already shared. West Ham is an outlier and linear regression is not robust so you get a stronger r-squared when you take it out. God knows what happened to them last season -- Boo! Thick Mick Out. prem league wages.xlsx Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
