jambovambo Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 A bit like bangs per buck, it would be interesting to know which SPL team is the most prudent, or successful, with its wage spend - based on dividing the wage bill by the number of points gained in a league season. Hard to do, involving delving into club accounts etc, plus the fact that accounts are (as we know - see Gordon sale etc) at least a year behind. I ... kinda ... know where Hearts might be in that league table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 that stat would tell more than most of the others I've read on here of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 A bit like bangs per buck, it would be interesting to know which SPL team is the most prudent, or successful, with its wage spend - based on dividing the wage bill by the number of points gained in a league season. Hard to do, involving delving into club accounts etc, plus the fact that accounts are (as we know - see Gordon sale etc) at least a year behind. I ... kinda ... know where Hearts might be in that league table. We'd be 10th, above the Old Firm. Gretna might be below us if you include their 10 point penalty and ignore the fact that they don't actually pay their wage bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 I think Dundee United would be most prudent, as per that table. Do you really think we would be "above" the Old Firm ? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I think Motherwell would Top that League at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 Anyone in a position to find this data readily? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1874M Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Hate to say it but reckon Hubs wouldnt be far off... regarding finding that info.. Doesnt Deliotte run audits every year on football clubs? http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,cid%253D73888,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I think Dundee United would be most prudent, as per that table. Do you really think we would be "above" the Old Firm ? I doubt it. I reckon we would - easily. they currently have 77 points to our 45. So even if they are spending only double our wages (which I'm sure they are), then that'd mean they were doing worse than us, as they've got less than double the points we have. I also think we'd be significantly clear in 10th in such a table (i.e. we're getting a lot less return for our money than every other team in the spl outside the OF.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 I reckon we would - easily. they currently have 77 points to our 45. So even if they are spending only double our wages (which I'm sure they are), then that'd mean they were doing worse than us, as they've got less than double the points we have. I also think we'd be significantly clear in 10th in such a table (i.e. we're getting a lot less return for our money than every other team in the spl outside the OF.) Hmmm ... maybe then there is something else - a third factor - which needs brought in here ... something to do with number of fans at games ... What I'm interested in, nay, looking for ... is a factual expression of what bad value for money Hearts are at the moment, unashamedly - relative to their rivals in the league. Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Hmmm ... maybe then there is something else - a third factor - which needs brought in here ... something to do with number of fans at games ... What I'm interested in, nay, looking for ... is a factual expression of what bad value for money Hearts are at the moment, unashamedly - relative to their rivals in the league. Any ideas? I think the points per pound does the job - it would show us miles behind the rest of the SPL, other than the OF, cause they pay way over the odds anyway as we all know, and also, they pay to have players who can do more than just win them points in the SPL (players who can compete in European competion to later stages). I don't think it takes much to convince people that spending 12.49M pounds on wages and NOT finishing third = massive underacheivment (almost impossible level of underachievement for any competent management) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 I think the points per pound does the job - it would show us miles behind the rest of the SPL, other than the OF, cause they pay way over the odds anyway as we all know, and also, they pay to have players who can do more than just win them points in the SPL (players who can compete in European competion to later stages). I don't think it takes much to convince people that spending 12.49M pounds on wages and NOT finishing third = massive underacheivment (almost impossible level of underachievement for any competent management) There's a difference in spending what the OF do, to "entertain" 50-60k people per week, and get the points they do ... and what HMFC spend per point per fan "entertained" though ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Merse Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Hmmm ... maybe then there is something else - a third factor - which needs brought in here ... something to do with number of fans at games ... What I'm interested in, nay, looking for ... is a factual expression of what bad value for money Hearts are at the moment, unashamedly - relative to their rivals in the league. Any ideas? I think a comparison of the value for money and real league would show us up for the joke we are. Old Firm may be bottom of the VFM league but are top of the actual league. We're doing crap in both. Or perhaps the VFM league could be judged on positions and not points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboGraham Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I think the points per pound does the job - it would show us miles behind the rest of the SPL, other than the OF, cause they pay way over the odds anyway as we all know, and also, they pay to have players who can do more than just win them points in the SPL (players who can compete in European competion to later stages). Interest point this that makes me think...unless an SPL club can match the Old Firm spending required to compete on the European stage then by default an SPL club could never realistically hope to take the SPL title away from either of the Old Firm teams? I don't think it takes much to convince people that spending 12.49M pounds on wages and NOT finishing third = massive underacheivment (almost impossible level of underachievement for any competent management) I don't think anyone can disagree with this fact. What is worrying that although we reduced the spend for this season it moves us from 4th last year to, at best, 7th while still hugely outspending the rest of our 3rd place down rivals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Interest point this that makes me think...unless an SPL club can match the Old Firm spending required to compete on the European stage then by default an SPL club could never realistically hope to take the SPL title away from either of the Old Firm teams? Yes and no. I reckon it's tough, but possible, with good management and the clever investment, and a wee bit of luck. I don't think anyone can disagree with this fact. What is worrying that although we reduced the spend for this season it moves us from 4th last year to, at best, 7th while still hugely outspending the rest of our 3rd place down rivals. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans007 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 In terms of wagebill compared to turnover, debt, league position and amount of employees we could be the biggest underachievers in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Hmmm ... maybe then there is something else - a third factor - which needs brought in here ... something to do with number of fans at games ... What I'm interested in, nay, looking for ... is a factual expression of what bad value for money Hearts are at the moment, unashamedly - relative to their rivals in the league. Any ideas? The thing you're trying to account for is the law of diminishing returns. While it is reasonable, ceteris paribus, to expect a club that spends more money to accumulate more success the potential for sporting success whether measured by points, league positions or trophies is in effect finite while there is no fixed ceiling on expenditure meaning that the expected mathematical relationship between expenditure and the expected value of whatever numerical measure you use as proxy for success can't be a simple linear one. One approach would be to collate the data for several seasons and attempt to find a logarithmic function that fits the data well and then use that as a base line. It may well be for example that the ratio between points gained and the square root of expenditure holds more constant over history. You would of course have to rebase the expenditure in previous seasons to account for inflation and the correct process for doing that would be debatable. If you can find the numbers though I'll happily crunch them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 The thing you're trying to account for is the law of diminishing returns. While it is reasonable, ceteris paribus, to expect a club that spends more money to accumulate more success the potential for sporting success whether measured by points, league positions or trophies is in effect finite while there is no fixed ceiling on expenditure meaning that the expected mathematical relationship between expenditure and the expected value of whatever numerical measure you use as proxy for success can't be a simple linear one. One approach would be to collate the data for several seasons and attempt to find a logarithmic function that fits the data well and then use that as a base line. It may well be for example that the ratio between points gained and the square root of expenditure holds more constant over history. You would of course have to rebase the expenditure in previous seasons to account for inflation and the correct process for doing that would be debatable. If you can find the numbers though I'll happily crunch them To take it to extremes though, what I am saying it may be OK to have a wage bill of e.g. as high as ?100m if you have a ground that sells out to 100,000 people every week (or whatever) - but it's even better if you're also getting a decent number of points too (specially enough to get into the lucrative Euro-competitions. Anyway, you sound like you know what you are talking about (or you're taking the pesh) ... so great if someone can find the amounts and you do the maths. Quid pro quo, since we're talking Latin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.