How the PL table would look based on money spent-per-point

[callumc513]

http://bplbanter.lockerdome.com/articles/107907688

Interesting.

[Holders]

Gratifying.

[grandad]

Mo´s got it right then. It´s not what you spend but on what.

[ToodlesMcToot]

Would love to know how this was calculated and what our number would look like had MAF not forgiven our debt to him.

[Ordar]

Well this is obviously based solely upon transfers from this season

[The Equalizer]

Nice idea, but how was this calculated? Profit-per-point surely means that if you have more points, then you'll have less profit per? These numbers look quite skewed.

[Arthur]

I can understand how the expenditure-per-point is calculated; a team has, say, a net deficit of £10M in the transfer market and secures 50 points - which equates to spending £200,000 per-point (though such thinking is surely flawed because it doesn't allow for the fact that, had the club spent nothing at all, it would still have gained some points), but I cannot see how the profit-per-point value is calculated. After all, with a net profit in the transfer market of £30M and having 30 points, the profit-per-point appears to be £1M. Yet, having done better with 60 points, this value doesn't rise; it falls - to £0.5M profit-per-point.

Anyone?

[Rhys Lightning 63]

Boom baby

[valdeingruo]

how is WBA on sixth with 0 per point?

[Frankie-Peter Taylor]

how is WBA on sixth with 0 per point?

Because it then goes into money spent per point rather than profit per point.

[The Equalizer]

how is WBA on sixth with 0 per point?

Because it then goes into money spent per point rather than profit per point.

But that also makes absolutely no sense. WBA finished on 49 points, so did they spend nothing or £49?

[HatterDon]

The person who put this together is a 14 year-old netball player from Leighton Buzzard. She is also very biasED. It just goes to show you that we never get a ... huh?

[rusty shackleford]

Original article with a bit of text about each club

http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/features/130521/how-pl-table-would-look-based-money-spent-point-198063

[Forever Fulham]

The attachment keeps referring to a hyperlink in the shape of an arrow icon, but neither I nor the webpage's commenters can find it.  Can you?  I don't understand this chart at all. If there is a distinction between money spent per player acquired and annual club profit based on costs of player acquisitions, it isn't shown.  Rather, the chart suggests Fulham was not the most efficiently spending club of the 20 in the league.  Others got more points spending less money--I think that is the point of the chart, isn't it?   

[FOOlhamfighters]

One of the websites says that it was calculated by taking the net transfer spend and dividing it by the amount of points this season. Seems like a fair way to do it yet I suspect that we were helped loads by the loans we made, rather than actually buying players :/

[Lighthouse]

If you calculate the time taken to calculate the points per pound ratio. You will see that we should have done better than we did. But if you take the loan players and times that by the age of the players without a care in the World, then you will see clearly that we scored more goals from a position of half past the hour then at anytime during the season.

Hope this clears things up.

[Forever Fulham]

One of the websites says that it was calculated by taking the net transfer spend and dividing it by the amount of points this season. Seems like a fair way to do it yet I suspect that we were helped loads by the loans we made, rather than actually buying players :/

What if you spent your money on defenders?  Oh, I give up.  This stupid chart makes no sense at all.

[michaelread]

The attachment keeps referring to a hyperlink in the shape of an arrow icon, but neither I nor the webpage's commenters can find it.  Can you?  I don't understand this chart at all. If there is a distinction between money spent per player acquired and annual club profit based on costs of player acquisitions, it isn't shown.  Rather, the chart suggests Fulham was not the most efficiently spending club of the 20 in the league.  Others got more points spending less money--I think that is the point of the chart, isn't it?   

its within the photo, on the right

[Forever Fulham]

OK.  I get it now.  F-P T (above) had it right from the outset.  This proves the club sat on the bulk of its revenues from selling the Dems, didn't plough the majority of it into player acquisitions, got Berb on the cheap.  The team suffered a relegation scare that could have been avoided had it secured one or two key players during the season, but instead put the money in its pocket.  Which it is certainly entitled to do.  But this ranking is somewhat deceptive.  What did the club lose by not finishing with a higher standing in the table?  What quality player will want to come to Fulham after this season.  And by buying elder players on short term contracts, or via loan, aren't we trading in long term health for a short term fix?  No sooner will teammates finally get used to playing alongside, say, Karagounis, than he is gone or unable to play more than 30 minutes.  And ever slower with each passing year. And then they have to get acquainted and comfortable with his replacement--which will cost a few points in the process.  Maybe making Fulham a last stop for aged players has helped the books, but it spells only big trouble for the future.  It kills the power of continuity to win games. 

[The Equalizer]

Ok, I kind of get it now. But, even so, it still means absolutely nothing.