"I'd wager it will be a better correlation than the net spend table." The big clubs tend to have the high net spends. Then you get the odd small club who are making big financial punts to improve (QPR in 2012-13 etc) . Some of the broadsheets do retrospective analytics (when they have the figures) for a PL season, and you can dimension PL position by revenues (total or specifics) / transfer fees / wage bill etc. Whenever I've played with these in the past, Spurs PL position has been either exactly as / better than the ranking suggests they should be.
It's a little strange that we put so much emphasis on transfers imo. What counts is what happens on the field and we've won 4 out of 5. Granted it's too early to read too much into that but it would be the same if we were talking up signings at this stage(as we were last season). We've had one very good result, three results where we've pretty much done what's expected, and one very bad result. Nothing to panic about and nothing to start celebrating either, just a decent start.
Wage bills tend to make the best predictor of league placings. There's always a couple of outliers, but most teams finish roughly where there wages would indicate. West Ham and Newcastle were big overspenders for some years and Man Utd were miles out last season. Everton are normally a few places higher than expected. The most recent figures published were for the 2012/13 season. The top six in wage spending were City, Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and us. The top six in the league were Utd, City, Chelsea, Arsenal, us and Everton with Liverpool in seventh. QPR spent the seventh most and finished bottom, while Everton spent tenth most. Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages and the Premier League table.
As it did to lots of us. It is generally thought that continuing injury problems may have been what lay behind it.
"It's a little strange that we put so much emphasis on transfers imo." Transfer fees are a basic means of measuring the likely output from a player. Yes the values can be inflated, and there are far better data that indicates the true ability of a player, but the value is still a good broad-brush statement of a players' ability.
I don't think fees represent expected performance of a player at all. Age, wages, player wishes and actions, contract length, budgets, how badly selling club want to keep the player and how baldy the buying club want the player all have a big influence on the figure they're sold for.
If a player in a given position is valued at 20m, I have a fundamentally different expectation of what they will deliver to my team, than a player in that position who is valued at 2m.
Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? If you look at any player who has moved clubs a few times the fees will vary quite a lot. It's still the same player but things change and so does the transfer fee.
I like our squad...we are weaker than under harry but we have lost 3 top class players which the club is not to blame for imo...modric pretty much went on strike, bale was clear he was going to go and tarnished his excellent attitude a little in the end with his hissy fit and vdv left due to marital/family problems. But we are slowly recovering from the stupid decisions (imo) to have avb and sherwood managing us...our squad looks more balanced than previously and we seem to have a philosophy which includes playing watchable football which is a big improvement and we no longer have a manager who is an embarrassment on the touchline (again just imo). My only gripe about us is we need and have needed a striker for ages...and the lack of a striker is frustrating and will be worse if ade goes to the ACON in Jan.
Agree. Transfer fees are weird and seem to be affected by so many factors which probably aren't relevant. 1 - Length of contract. 2 - Age 3 - 'Proven' in PL 4 - International caps.
"Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?" I consider the transfer value to be a broad-brush statement of the contribution that a player will bring to a buying club, at the time of valuation (ie right now) . If a player is valued at 20m right now, my expectation of the contribution he will make in his position is far higher than my expectation of his peer who is valued at 2m right now.
Bale cost us about £7m. He wasn't worth that much to us as a player when we signed him and he was worth more than ten times that when he left. Woodgate was an £8m transfer in the same season. We expected more of him at the time that he signed than we did from Bale. The Welshman was signed for his potential. That often costs a substantial amount.
i think he's talking about a current transfer estimate rather than what the players were actually signed for.
"Bale cost us about £7m. He wasn't worth that much to us as a player when we signed him and he was worth more than ten times that when he left." Spurs had at least a 7m expectation of player contribution when they signed Bale. At that MOMENT. Madrid I would say had at least a 50m expectation of player contribution when they signed Bale. At that MOMENT.
In which case it's a circular argument. If a player's market value is based upon how well he's doing, then how well he's doing will always match his market value.
