Jump to content

The Woolster

Season Ticket Holder
  • Content count

    5,867
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by The Woolster

  1. The Woolster

    Rafael Benitez has pledged...........

    Didn't Rafa try to buy Malouda but were outbid by Chealsea? And I wouldn't really say Malouda has a questionable attitude either. Probably not the best of sticks to beat Rafa with. What about Kuyt or Pennant? Or if they have to command the same fee, Kuyt or Queresma or Joaquin from a few years ago? Its not avery good arguement as will always find players that can prove the other one wrong. Really a good team/squad, if they can't have players with both the attitude and the technique throughout, should have a team with both types of player so that they can compliment each other.
  2. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    No need, I've also lost the will to live.
  3. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    Oh, and apology accepted
  4. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    You got into the discussion about Benitez straight away, you could easily have left it, but instead that is what the thread ended up being about because you kept going on about it, and you brought up that the squad is only good enough for 7th by the way, which started that part of the discussion. So sometimes, if you think someone is being an idiot, perhaps it is bet to let them continue being an idiot, particularly if it is a flippant one liner. If we start arguing about flippant one liners, which happens a lot here, then that will reduce the constructive and interesting discussions. You may think that I have strengthened some of your points, but then I think that you are one of the "far too many people that read a post, apply their own interpretation and then proceed with that interpretation as fact into a debate." So I guess we are just going around in circles there. So what is your view on Benitez, have I interpreted you incorrectly? Do you think he should stay? Much of your debating seems to be about the fact that he has not had the funds to make the squad stronger, and if he had that he would be able to compete, am I wrong about that? Or do you "simply enter arguements about Benitez" because you like to argue/debate? Do you ever play devils advocate in these debates?
  5. I wish I had seen this post about 20 minutes ago. Unfortunately I think I am in too deep now
  6. HAHA! This did make me laugh when I saw it yesterday. I have a very typical Jewish mother, and she has been texting me and calling me for the last week or so to check if me and the missus (who is preggers) are ok, but I have just kept forgetting to get back to her. I just got this text from her "Are you OK? You've got an Ology but you can't phone you mother!" Thats quite funny for her, but also a bit of a coincidence!
  7. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    Earlier in this very thread, you called someone an idiot. Now that may be a statement of opinion, but it also name calling. I said you was repetitive, that is merely a statement of opinion and not calling you any type of name, although some would regard it as fact. I suppose did say that you are humourless, apologies if that upset you. And why do you despair at the education system in response to one of my posts. What can you conlude from my post about my education? Do you think that inferring that I had a bad education, and therefore am unable to comprehend things could be interpretted as name calling? Can you accept that you have been somewhat hypocritical there? Do you understand causality and effect? The lack of transfer funds is an effect of the financial situation at the club, which itself is due to the club being bought using debt and having very little capital injected by the owners. Just because 2 things are intrinsically linked, it does not mean they can't be discussed in isolation. If I asked you about what causes the tides of the sea, would you be able to tell me about the gravitational pull of the moon without telling me that we can play around in the waves and go surfing? There are lots of other threads discussing whether Benitez has had enough transfer funds. Would it not be better disussing it in one of those, and by all means use the facts you have found out from this one, so that this thread could be left for something that, in my opinion, has not seen much discussion? Can you see how that by bringing transfer funds into the subject, and whether the squad is good enough for 4th or not for that matter, may be annoying? No, you missed my point. I did not say that you did suggest that, I am saying the our financial situation, and what I think was the more important aspect of the the article, how we can most effectively see off the yanks, can be discussed in isolation from the transfer funds and the quality of our squad. Perhaps that is because I am reasonable. However, I have also seen a number of other posters who I consider to be reasonable, from both sides of the Rafa arguement, take issue with you recently. Have you noticed any of their comments to you? Would that not suggest that it is possible that you are being unreasonable? I am not taking issue with what you say, I would say I am on your side of the arguement with regards to Benitez, but that is neither here nor there, what I do take issue with is that you say the same thing, with the same hysterity, all the time, and everywhere. I know there are a lot of questions there, but seeing that you take umbrage when people don't answer your questions, I do hope you will answer all of mine. Apologies to everyone else for carrying on this pointless arguement.
  8. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    All this is for another thread, and that is what my point is. And you still haven't answered my first question. I don't know why I'm gonna bother with this, but here goes. You are right that the transfer budget is related to the financial situation of the club, of course it is. But the transfer budget in itself does not affect our financial situation, and that is why it can be discussed as a seperate issue. For instance Utd have a significantly larger debt and interest payments than us, however they are able to still spend huge amounts because they have a big stadium which enables them to service their debt. Our transfer policy has not caused the mess we are in, it is a consequence. Can you see the difference and how it is more than possible to discuss cause and effects as seperate issues? Well done, now that you are on topic, I can say that I agree with much of what you say. I think people need to realise that boycotts will very probably mean that they are here longer. However I think it is worth the risk of them actually being here longer if it is becasue what we have done is what is right and we have made our voice heard.
  9. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    That would only have an effect on the Rafa situation and whether he thinks he can work under the new (if they are new) conditions or not, and if he feels he cannot he could possibly have a chance at constructive dismisall I think. It would unlikely have an effect on C&A leaving though, if anything, it could mean they are here longer if they Rafa leaves and they have to pay him off. They are likely to have a target return on equity that they are looking for, that includes both the profit from sale and profits (or loss) they earn whilst the still own us. Any payoff means that it will take longer for them to hit their target, as well as making us less attractive to potential investors, as in all likelyhood it would mean a furhter increase to the clubs debt to pay him off.
  10. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    As you have repeatedly mentioned to other posters about them not answering questions, perhaps you can answer the one I asked you? At no point did I say that I don't understand what transfer funds have got to do with finances, 1, because I do, and 2, because transfer funds have nothing to do with the article. Neither does whether the squad is good enough for 4th, 7th, or 20th, but for some reason you seem to be discussing that a lot on this thread too. Here are some other questions for you, what do you think is the best way to get rid of the yanks? Do you think boycotts will affect the way a potential buyer will see us? Do you think we should accept that C&A will have to make a big profit if we want them gone as soon as possible? Now see if you can answer them without mentioning Rafa or transfer funds
  11. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    What has transfer funds got to do with the best way to get rid of the yanks? The article is not about whether Rafa has had the funds to spend on players. I am firmly in the camp that he has not, however I am able to seperate different subjects, even if they are in the same broad area, something which you are obviously unable to do as you are turning every thread into the same subject. And my education was just fine thanks.
  12. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    But the article hasn't got anything to do with what the yanks have spent or not, it is about the financial problems of the club, and how the writer thinks the best solution to get rid of them is probably the most unpalatable to us, and that is to stop the boycott and/or protests against them. Unfortunately, I think there is some truth in what he says. Also, unfortunately, you are more repetitive than Catch 22. At least Catch has humour and often raises valid points
  13. Is right. If this hand gesture is true, why is Gerrard arguing with Rafa in the first place? What is he arguing with him about? And what does he say to provoke the gesture? I can't see Rafa giving it the big 'I am' just doing it for the hell of it. The could be a few things he said to him, but the most probable I can think of to cause such a reaction is that Stevie has told Rafa he wants him sacked. Thats if it happened of course...
  14. The Woolster

    Good article by Maddock

    We are in the shit financially, and that we need new owners, but unfortunately the quickest way to get rid of C&A is to make the club itself as attractive as possible to potential buyers, and that means everyone, boss, players and fans showing a united front to make it a club worht buying, and that if we want C&A gone, we should accept that they will have to make a profit out of it. EDIT: Unfortunately however, the thread is now about whether the squad is good enough for 7th.
  15. The Woolster

    TLW Fantasy Football League.

    Oooh, finished 2nd. Close but no cigar. Great score from Dynamo Coaster, 123rd overall is a really impressive finish in this game
  16. The Woolster

    If Torres was forced to leave.......

    Errr, your description of how leveraged finance works is wrong. FACT. By its very nature, LBO finance makes its returns by paying back its debt in large chunks, as the investment horizon for leveraged finance deals is generally relatively short, say about 5 years. The most common way the that an LBO makes its profit is to buy something, increase its value over the 5 years, and then selling it at a higher value, paying off all the debt and whats left being profit. There may be debt in the company afterwards, but that is 'different' debt, and the acquisition debt has been paid in full, in one large chunk. A more relevant example of how leveraged financiers can get their returns would be asset stripping/divestment/spin-off, where they believe that the individual assets are worth more seperately than what they have had to pay for the whole. In this case, they would sell the asset, and use the proceeds to reduce debt, in a large chunk, so that they can make a return quicker, and also because without the sold asset, they business will generate less profit/cash to service their debts, so they need to be reduced. Just thought I'd let you know like You are right about Torres staying keeping the yanks in longer though
  17. The Woolster

    The Leg End that is Ronnie??

    Singha is defo superior, especially since the Blueshite have had them as sponsors. I would never have dreamed of adding ice to my beer before I went to Thailand, but it is so good on a hot day
  18. The Woolster

    Catch - is that you?

    It should be remembered though that 70% is still very very high. And as I pointed out, I think there is less correlation for mid table clubs, which in effect brings the result down to 70%, and it could infact be much higher for us. I did try to figure out how I could calculate the standard deviation for last season, and not sure if I have done it right, but got a standard deviation from the expected position of 4.7. In other words, on average, each team was 4.7 places away from where wage rank would suggest. But the thing that stood out for me, was that the difference between the 6th highest payers and the 17th highest payers was £20m, whilst the difference between us and Arsenal is also £20m, the difference between Arse and Utd is another £20m, and the difference between Utd and Chelsea is £30m. And that really is a significant amount and shows that task we have to finish higher than 4th.
  19. The Woolster

    Catch - is that you?

    I haven't a clue. To be honest, although I know where it comes from, I haven't read the analysis that Catch goes on about, I'm just trying to explain the stats in more laymens terms, as I learnt stats as a layman and I know they can be hard to get your head around. The way I have explained it may not even be right as stats are not really my strong point (which also might make the rest of what I am going to say bollocks...). I have found a recent article by one of the authors though. FT.com / weekend columnists / Simon Kuper - Magical managers have no effect on league The main thing I would take from it is that in any 1 season, the correlation between wages and league position is actually only 70%, which why we see team like Newcaste getting relegated. The 90% is over the long term, so perhaps Catch shouldn't be so repetitive with that point... And that is why I would argue against what they say about managers not making a difference. Over the long term managers (generally) change, so you would have an 'average' manager, and would assume that managers are all of the same level. They quite clearly aren't. Over the short term, a manager, I think, would make up a lot of the 30% thats wages don't account for, and not the luck, injuries, bad referee decisions that they ascribe it to (although to be fair, they probably know more about what they are doing than me...). I also think that how they correlate wage rankings with league position is the wrong way to go about it as there is not enough variance in data and the results, it can only be 1 to 20, and that the way the Fink Tank does it by correlating wages with points is better as you can then compare points difference from where you would expect. Also, although I have no stats to back this up, I would say it is likely that there isn't a linear relationship, and that wages have a higher correlation for teams at the top and at the bottom of the league, and for mid tables there are other stronger factors. Which is why the top 4 stay as the top 4 each season, the promoted teams are usually the ones that get relegated unless they are able to spend big, whilst the mid table teams can often vary in position quite a lot from season to season. Shit, I'm starting to sound like Catch, or even worse, Tomkins :eek:
  20. The Woolster

    Catch - is that you?

    Luck is a huge part of scientific/mathmatical research. It will often be called randomness, which is in effect just luck, and explains evolution, changes in stock markets, how a large group of people will react to something like a fire in a building etc
  21. The Woolster

    Catch - is that you?

    But they do matter, they matter imensly, its those things can't easily be measured with a number, and part of them will acutally be reflected in the wage numbers, which is why it comes out at such a high number. But if it gets you down, just ignore it and watch the game, as it isn't about stats, its just some of us saddos are more statistically inclined.
  22. The Woolster

    Catch - is that you?

    Not really, models are very rarely 100% accurate, there is always a part that is unexplained. In football, a lot of this would be luck. Luck should even itself out, but this probably over a period a lot longer than a season. Which is part of why I think the term "the best team always wins the league" is a misnomer, as proved when Arsenal won the league in 89. But there are other examples as well.
  23. The Woolster

    Catch - is that you?

    5th definately isn't the best we can do, but I think it is fair to say that it is what we should expect if everything else is equal. But not everything is equal, we have a great manager, and that is why we often finish above expectations. This year he has not been as good, but a managers performance, like a players, can sometimes be above or below average. I think it would actually be easier to understand if it was to calculate expected points instead of expected position. In very basic terms, you could say that a team with our wages should expect to score say, 75 points, which would explain 90% of our points scored. The other 10% would be 7.5 points, but this could be + or - from the 75 points, depending on whether the other factors were positive or negative for us. Giving a large swing of 15 points because the last 10% is very important. The Fink Tank in The Times, do a manger of the year every season, which is based on expected points dependent on wages, and how many points the manager has added. I think it is pretty well explained. Fergie came top last season, with Rafa 2nd. Moyes has actually come top on a couple of occasions... The graphic in the link shows all the managers Sir Alex Ferguson is Fink Tank manager of the year | The Fink Tank - Times Online
  24. The Woolster

    Catch - is that you?

    That doesn't actually disprove the 90% odd though does it. In fact, on a very basic stats level, it would prove it, as from memory the output of the regression, which is the analysis where the 90% comes from, will be the one that has the least squared errors. Taking last season as an example, Utd finished 1st, an error of +1, we were 2nd, an error of +2, Chelsea 3rd, an error of -2, and Arse were 3rd, an error of -1. So the sum of those errors = 0, and infers that the regression has a very good fit. The regression is a line of best fit through a sample, but none of the sample actually have to be on that line for the regression to be significant. When I did stats you always had to do a confidence interval of the the output as well, usually to 90% or 95%, as there will always be errors. I wouldn't be surprised if the 95% confidence interval for expected positions is about + or - 2 places. So, even when were 4th highest payers, we only had a small chance of winning the league. Haven't done any stats for a while though, so I may not be completely right. I think have a problem with the 90% explanation as it makes everything else seem insignificant, whereas statistically, that 10% is still very significant.
  25. The Woolster

    Catch - is that you?

    Found this website which gives a rough idea of transfer spending in Italy, but if you look at the overview section you will see it does not have details for all players Transferbilanz - Football - transfermarkt.co.uk
×