RUMOUR - David Hoilet

[melonhead]

Just for info regarding the transfer fees vs wages debate:

I recently read an excellent book called 'Why England lose and other curious football phenomena explained' which is written by a couple of journos/ statisticians who have an interesting, scientific, data-based approach to studying football.

Now, as much as football is not about pure data, and it is a lot to do with the fit into the squad, tactics etc, etc. there are some really interesting observations in the book.

One that I found really interesting is that, judging success by how high you finish in the league table, transfer fees are not a reliable indicator, as they fluctuate too much with too many variables having an effect, such as length of contract left to run, nationality, reputation etc, and especially in the same year as a major championships (world cup, euros), as clubs are still liable to fall into the trap of paying over the odds for a player that has 3 good performances on the telly.

There was, however, a 92% correlation between wages paid and how high you finish up the table. Statistically, that is a very significant link and has been proven over many seasons of data, so is very reliable.

The bottom line is, that whilst transfer fees grab headlines and attention, the fact is that the higher wages you pay the better players you get and the better your team performs. The remaining 8% of the data will be down to variables such as luck, tactics or whatever.

Nothing to do with the fact that generally the technically better players command the higher wages then

but better players command bigger transfer fees too, and yet there isnt the same correlation with that

[Brain Traysers]

Surely this is because a player signed for any fee can have his wages increased by his and the teams performance, but a player signed for a huge fee could be a flop. Academy players spending their whole career with one club never command a fee but can command wage rises which would increase as league position does eg Totti.

[Hoop Blah]

True, even on the same contracts, a club could end up playing the same set of players 20% more finishing 10th than they might've done if they ended up 18th. That means performance and wages will always be interlinked.

but better players command bigger transfer fees too, and yet there isnt the same correlation with that

Transfer fees are more dependant upon length of contract, value to the buying or sellings teams squad (ie are they the final piece of the jigsaw or just another squad player) or just the number of clubs interested in said player. Wages are usually more indicative of the players worth (although can be distorted by lack of fee's involved in the move etc etc).

[melonhead]

thanks

[PistolPete]

I recently read an excellent book called 'Why England lose and other curious football phenomena explained' which is written by a couple of journos/ statisticians who have an interesting, scientific, data-based approach to studying football.

Very good book, enjoyed it.

[Tredder]

Never in a million years. He will be off to a top top side.

oh yes.

[Simon's Church]

Poor man's Victor Moses.

[Tredder]

and so is every other person Reading are linked to but fail to get etc...

[Blakey's Right Peg]

Would love to see how much he will be earning a week.

[RFCSPACE]

Would love to see how much he will be earning a week.

Hopefully so much that when they go down they'll royally f'ed.

[MouldyRoyal]

They won't go down, to be fair to QPR, they've made some very good (if expensive) signings. Wouldn't be surprised to see them top 10 this year.

[Tredder]

Would love to see how much he will be earning a week.

Hopefully so much that when they go down they'll royally f'ed.

Ouchie.