| Budgies lost £43.8m on 12:36 - Oct 13 with 2077 views | baxterbasics |
Guess we have to celebrate them now. Great! |  |
|  |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 12:37 - Oct 13 with 2070 views | FlittonBlue |
Artificially inflated the cost of Trill |  |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 12:44 - Oct 13 with 2002 views | NedPlimpton |
Doesn't this assume that city get relegated every single season since 2009? |  | | |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 12:53 - Oct 13 with 1908 views | WeWereZombies |
Considering all the unwarranted flak Andy Burnham is getting over this affair maybe Everton being the third biggest losers under these workings is some indication of even handedness ?
And isn't the only table or chart that they can top the most Spursy thing yet ? |  |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 12:57 - Oct 13 with 1847 views | Axeldalai_lama |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 12:44 - Oct 13 by NedPlimpton |
Doesn't this assume that city get relegated every single season since 2009? |
Yeah, the whole thing is a bit of a stretch its like saying every team they beat in the cup could have won it so they missed out on gate reciepts, prize money tv money to the tune of if they had won it. There's enough to beat the cheating gits up about without stretching it to ridiculous lengths. |  | | |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:04 - Oct 13 with 1778 views | Chris_ITFC |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 12:44 - Oct 13 by NedPlimpton |
Doesn't this assume that city get relegated every single season since 2009? |
Yeah, that’s why I popped in a “supposedly”.
You can really tell we’re on Day 17(?) of the media needing fresh clickbait content. |  |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:12 - Oct 13 with 1713 views | SamWhiteUK |
Some very odd numbers. Claiming Spurs could have lost £120m is like saying that Southampton's spying cost them £200m+. That's only if Spurs got as far as City did had they been in the CL. I know it's opportunity cost but this is verging on clickbait. |  | | |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:25 - Oct 13 with 1632 views | _CliveBaker_ |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 12:44 - Oct 13 by NedPlimpton |
Doesn't this assume that city get relegated every single season since 2009? |
Which in itself is impossible, as had they been relegated in 2009 they wouldn't have been in the Premier League the following season.
Nonsense, impossible to quantify. Just boot them out of the league, they can start again at the bottom. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:31 - Oct 13 with 1607 views | BlueBadger |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:25 - Oct 13 by _CliveBaker_ |
Which in itself is impossible, as had they been relegated in 2009 they wouldn't have been in the Premier League the following season.
Nonsense, impossible to quantify. Just boot them out of the league, they can start again at the bottom. |
Agreed..
And the same for Manchester City as well. [Post edited 13 Oct 14:04]
|  |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:55 - Oct 13 with 1496 views | bsw72 |
Brace yourselves, my data analytics persona has been thrown into a fury about this BBC article.
This article is ridiculous and anything related to trying to calculate the impact on other clubs is fundamentally flawed.
This is because any "analysis" that tries to calculate financial damages or competitive impact from Man City's rule-breaking requires precise knowledge of an alternate reality that never existed. This is not just difficult, it's impossible.
We cannot know what squad Man City would have built with legitimate spending alone
Would they have developed youth players differently? Signed different players? Made different tactical choices?
Any calculation assumes Man City's management quality was fixed regardless of financial constraint, but financial constraint itself shapes recruitment strategy, negotiating power, and development pathways of youth and other players.
The counterfactual requires assuming they'd have made identical decisions, just with less money, which is just illogical.
Even if we knew their squad composition, translating that into "how many points they'd have won instead" is pure speculation as Football outcomes are probabilistic - need any proof of how probablity and odds can be flawed, look at Leicester in 2016 which incidentally is bang in the middle of the City financial manipulation. Maybe they should be stripped of their title, as City may not have taken as many points off opponents etc
Man City might have won 87 points or 72 points with a different squad, we cannot know and small changes in squad quality don't map linearly to league position. The difference between 1st and 2nd could be 1 point or 15 points depending on dozens of other variables.
The other consideration is that if Man City had finished lower, every other team's league position changes, which then changes their financial reward, which changes their summer transfers, which changes their performance next season.
You cannot isolate Man City's impact without recalculating the entire ecosystem across multiple seasons which becomes anotehr layer of "complex" within a few years from the starting point.
As for the "missed Champions League qualification", again, which teams would have qualified instead? You'd need to model Man City's exact league position, then recalculate every other team's performance (did their better European finances help them more?)
Did the teams that did qualify benefit from Man City's rule-breaking by facing a weaker Man City at different times? This is the opposite direction of harm (similar to the Leicester argument earlier).
You cannot prove that without Man City's financial edge, Team X wouldn't have found different rule-breaking or competitive advantage to gain qualification anyway.
As for the impact arpound "relegation claims" which no doubt would be the strongest claim if it could be proven, but again:
- You'd need to model Man City's exact finishing position
- Then model cascading effects on promoted teams, playoff competitors, etc.
The probability distributions here are enormous and one relegated team might have survived if another team (affected by Man City's dominance) hadn't been as strong but you can't rewind to test this theory.
Basically a lot of headlines are now talking about how much Man City's cheating may have cost club XYZ etc but these rest on:
- A specific counterfactual (Man City performs exactly this much worse)
- Deterministic match outcomes (if Man City is weaker, these specific results change)
- Isolation (other teams don't adapt or find alternative advantages)
None of these can be proven. They're post-hoc rationalisations dressed up as analysis.
The only statement of any certainty which can be made is "Man City's financial rule-breaking gave them a measurable competitive advantage in squad building for the years in question.' Any claim beyond this is tabloid speculation masquerading as journalism."
The mistakes above are compounded by then presenting speculative damage calculations as factual outcomes. [Post edited 13 Oct 13:56]
|  | | |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:00 - Oct 13 with 1448 views | homer_123 |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:55 - Oct 13 by bsw72 |
Brace yourselves, my data analytics persona has been thrown into a fury about this BBC article.
This article is ridiculous and anything related to trying to calculate the impact on other clubs is fundamentally flawed.
This is because any "analysis" that tries to calculate financial damages or competitive impact from Man City's rule-breaking requires precise knowledge of an alternate reality that never existed. This is not just difficult, it's impossible.
We cannot know what squad Man City would have built with legitimate spending alone
Would they have developed youth players differently? Signed different players? Made different tactical choices?
Any calculation assumes Man City's management quality was fixed regardless of financial constraint, but financial constraint itself shapes recruitment strategy, negotiating power, and development pathways of youth and other players.
The counterfactual requires assuming they'd have made identical decisions, just with less money, which is just illogical.
Even if we knew their squad composition, translating that into "how many points they'd have won instead" is pure speculation as Football outcomes are probabilistic - need any proof of how probablity and odds can be flawed, look at Leicester in 2016 which incidentally is bang in the middle of the City financial manipulation. Maybe they should be stripped of their title, as City may not have taken as many points off opponents etc
Man City might have won 87 points or 72 points with a different squad, we cannot know and small changes in squad quality don't map linearly to league position. The difference between 1st and 2nd could be 1 point or 15 points depending on dozens of other variables.
The other consideration is that if Man City had finished lower, every other team's league position changes, which then changes their financial reward, which changes their summer transfers, which changes their performance next season.
You cannot isolate Man City's impact without recalculating the entire ecosystem across multiple seasons which becomes anotehr layer of "complex" within a few years from the starting point.
As for the "missed Champions League qualification", again, which teams would have qualified instead? You'd need to model Man City's exact league position, then recalculate every other team's performance (did their better European finances help them more?)
Did the teams that did qualify benefit from Man City's rule-breaking by facing a weaker Man City at different times? This is the opposite direction of harm (similar to the Leicester argument earlier).
You cannot prove that without Man City's financial edge, Team X wouldn't have found different rule-breaking or competitive advantage to gain qualification anyway.
As for the impact arpound "relegation claims" which no doubt would be the strongest claim if it could be proven, but again:
- You'd need to model Man City's exact finishing position
- Then model cascading effects on promoted teams, playoff competitors, etc.
The probability distributions here are enormous and one relegated team might have survived if another team (affected by Man City's dominance) hadn't been as strong but you can't rewind to test this theory.
Basically a lot of headlines are now talking about how much Man City's cheating may have cost club XYZ etc but these rest on:
- A specific counterfactual (Man City performs exactly this much worse)
- Deterministic match outcomes (if Man City is weaker, these specific results change)
- Isolation (other teams don't adapt or find alternative advantages)
None of these can be proven. They're post-hoc rationalisations dressed up as analysis.
The only statement of any certainty which can be made is "Man City's financial rule-breaking gave them a measurable competitive advantage in squad building for the years in question.' Any claim beyond this is tabloid speculation masquerading as journalism."
The mistakes above are compounded by then presenting speculative damage calculations as factual outcomes. [Post edited 13 Oct 13:56]
|
Yep, the research analyst part of me feels exactly the same. |  |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:06 - Oct 13 with 1410 views | ITFC_Essex |
Norwich losing out or not, Mancheater City need to be booted out of the Premier League, to League Two and have all their titles stripped as a bare minimum punishment and it needs to happen ASAP. |  |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:09 - Oct 13 with 1401 views | homer_123 |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:06 - Oct 13 by ITFC_Essex |
Norwich losing out or not, Mancheater City need to be booted out of the Premier League, to League Two and have all their titles stripped as a bare minimum punishment and it needs to happen ASAP. |
Genuine question. Is demoting them to L2 fair on the Conference/ L2 and L1 teams? [Post edited 13 Oct 14:18]
| |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:33 - Oct 13 with 1301 views | Chris_ITFC |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:55 - Oct 13 by bsw72 |
Brace yourselves, my data analytics persona has been thrown into a fury about this BBC article.
This article is ridiculous and anything related to trying to calculate the impact on other clubs is fundamentally flawed.
This is because any "analysis" that tries to calculate financial damages or competitive impact from Man City's rule-breaking requires precise knowledge of an alternate reality that never existed. This is not just difficult, it's impossible.
We cannot know what squad Man City would have built with legitimate spending alone
Would they have developed youth players differently? Signed different players? Made different tactical choices?
Any calculation assumes Man City's management quality was fixed regardless of financial constraint, but financial constraint itself shapes recruitment strategy, negotiating power, and development pathways of youth and other players.
The counterfactual requires assuming they'd have made identical decisions, just with less money, which is just illogical.
Even if we knew their squad composition, translating that into "how many points they'd have won instead" is pure speculation as Football outcomes are probabilistic - need any proof of how probablity and odds can be flawed, look at Leicester in 2016 which incidentally is bang in the middle of the City financial manipulation. Maybe they should be stripped of their title, as City may not have taken as many points off opponents etc
Man City might have won 87 points or 72 points with a different squad, we cannot know and small changes in squad quality don't map linearly to league position. The difference between 1st and 2nd could be 1 point or 15 points depending on dozens of other variables.
The other consideration is that if Man City had finished lower, every other team's league position changes, which then changes their financial reward, which changes their summer transfers, which changes their performance next season.
You cannot isolate Man City's impact without recalculating the entire ecosystem across multiple seasons which becomes anotehr layer of "complex" within a few years from the starting point.
As for the "missed Champions League qualification", again, which teams would have qualified instead? You'd need to model Man City's exact league position, then recalculate every other team's performance (did their better European finances help them more?)
Did the teams that did qualify benefit from Man City's rule-breaking by facing a weaker Man City at different times? This is the opposite direction of harm (similar to the Leicester argument earlier).
You cannot prove that without Man City's financial edge, Team X wouldn't have found different rule-breaking or competitive advantage to gain qualification anyway.
As for the impact arpound "relegation claims" which no doubt would be the strongest claim if it could be proven, but again:
- You'd need to model Man City's exact finishing position
- Then model cascading effects on promoted teams, playoff competitors, etc.
The probability distributions here are enormous and one relegated team might have survived if another team (affected by Man City's dominance) hadn't been as strong but you can't rewind to test this theory.
Basically a lot of headlines are now talking about how much Man City's cheating may have cost club XYZ etc but these rest on:
- A specific counterfactual (Man City performs exactly this much worse)
- Deterministic match outcomes (if Man City is weaker, these specific results change)
- Isolation (other teams don't adapt or find alternative advantages)
None of these can be proven. They're post-hoc rationalisations dressed up as analysis.
The only statement of any certainty which can be made is "Man City's financial rule-breaking gave them a measurable competitive advantage in squad building for the years in question.' Any claim beyond this is tabloid speculation masquerading as journalism."
The mistakes above are compounded by then presenting speculative damage calculations as factual outcomes. [Post edited 13 Oct 13:56]
|
Yes, but can we laugh at the Budgies or not?  | |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:35 - Oct 13 with 1297 views | blue_curacao |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:09 - Oct 13 by homer_123 |
Genuine question. Is demoting them to L2 fair on the Conference/ L2 and L1 teams? [Post edited 13 Oct 14:18]
|
Personally, I don't think it is.
I don't really know how it all works but presumably the Premier League can either kick them out of the PL or give them a points deduction that equates to relegation.
If relegated then they would go into the Championship rather than L1 or L2 unless the EFL re-write their rules (unlikely).
If expelled from the PL (a much more interesting scenario!) then the EFL and/or the National League would need to decide whether to admit them and at what level. This is what I would like to see but I think the PL will bottle it and, at most, give them a points deduction which leads to relegation. | | | |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:37 - Oct 13 with 1292 views | Chris_ITFC |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:09 - Oct 13 by homer_123 |
Genuine question. Is demoting them to L2 fair on the Conference/ L2 and L1 teams? [Post edited 13 Oct 14:18]
|
This is why I don’t see the ‘artificial’ relegation happening. This will just never have an end - there are already so many vested interests fighting for their way, so creating even more discontent and injustice just prolongs this ever more!
It really has to be a points deduction in the Premier League, which more ‘naturally’ relegates them. It will disappoint many, if they just bounce straight back, but the only way to keep it ‘natural’ would be to suspend some points until they return.
Again, far from perfect, as it just prolongs things again - and in a sentence, that’s the whole situation in one. | |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:56 - Oct 13 with 1203 views | homer_123 |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:31 - Oct 13 by BlueBadger |
Agreed..
And the same for Manchester City as well. [Post edited 13 Oct 14:04]
|
Well played Badge. | |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:57 - Oct 13 with 1199 views | Wacko |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:09 - Oct 13 by homer_123 |
Genuine question. Is demoting them to L2 fair on the Conference/ L2 and L1 teams? [Post edited 13 Oct 14:18]
|
It worked with Rangers, don’t seem to recall there being many complaints | |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:59 - Oct 13 with 1190 views | homer_123 |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:57 - Oct 13 by Wacko |
It worked with Rangers, don’t seem to recall there being many complaints |
Wasn't that as a result of administration? | |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 15:00 - Oct 13 with 1183 views | homer_123 |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 14:57 - Oct 13 by Wacko |
It worked with Rangers, don’t seem to recall there being many complaints |
I should add:
SFL entry
Following the vote by rival clubs to reject the application for direct entry of Rangers to the SPL,[119] SFL and SFA executives proposed a direct entry to the Scottish Football League First Division.[121] Scottish Football League clubs felt that they were being forced to deal with a situation which was not of their making. Notable opponents to direct entry included Raith Rovers chairman Turnbull Hutton,[122] who said that lower league clubs were being "bullied, rail-roaded and lied to" and described the conduct of the governing bodies as being "corrupt".[123] Clyde[124] and Falkirk[125] also voiced strong disapproval of Rangers entering the First Division, with the Falkirk chairman Martin Ritchie claiming that parachute entry would be "totally unacceptable".[125]
The SFL voted to let the club join as an associate member and placed Rangers in the Third Division. Agreement was subsequently reached on the transfer of SFA membership.[126] Sevco Scotland Ltd agreed to accept all conditions relating to charges against Rangers FC of bringing the game into disrepute, including a 12-month transfer embargo, the payment of all outstanding fines and football debts, and agreement on broadcasting rights. The Scottish Premier League retained its right to the potential application of sanctions, including an investigation into the clubs use of EBTs and any penalties that may be applied as a result of it.[126] The decision allowed Rangers to complete their first fixture just two days later, a Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City at Glebe Park.[127] | |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 15:11 - Oct 13 with 1136 views | hoppy |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:31 - Oct 13 by BlueBadger |
Agreed..
And the same for Manchester City as well. [Post edited 13 Oct 14:04]
|
Beat me to it... exactly what I was going to reply, but saw you already had. |  |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 15:11 - Oct 13 with 1133 views | WeWereZombies |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 15:00 - Oct 13 by homer_123 |
I should add:
SFL entry
Following the vote by rival clubs to reject the application for direct entry of Rangers to the SPL,[119] SFL and SFA executives proposed a direct entry to the Scottish Football League First Division.[121] Scottish Football League clubs felt that they were being forced to deal with a situation which was not of their making. Notable opponents to direct entry included Raith Rovers chairman Turnbull Hutton,[122] who said that lower league clubs were being "bullied, rail-roaded and lied to" and described the conduct of the governing bodies as being "corrupt".[123] Clyde[124] and Falkirk[125] also voiced strong disapproval of Rangers entering the First Division, with the Falkirk chairman Martin Ritchie claiming that parachute entry would be "totally unacceptable".[125]
The SFL voted to let the club join as an associate member and placed Rangers in the Third Division. Agreement was subsequently reached on the transfer of SFA membership.[126] Sevco Scotland Ltd agreed to accept all conditions relating to charges against Rangers FC of bringing the game into disrepute, including a 12-month transfer embargo, the payment of all outstanding fines and football debts, and agreement on broadcasting rights. The Scottish Premier League retained its right to the potential application of sanctions, including an investigation into the clubs use of EBTs and any penalties that may be applied as a result of it.[126] The decision allowed Rangers to complete their first fixture just two days later, a Ramsdens Cup tie against Brechin City at Glebe Park.[127] |
Oh, that last line. I've been to Brechin a few times and that was indeed a fitting punishment for Rangers. So, whilst noting your very valid point on the fundamental differences between the Rangers financial failure and the (alleged) financial skullduggery of Manchester City and also introducing a national misapplication, I still feel it would be fitting for Manchester City to have to start next season at Brechin City, who are now in the Lowland League East (other forthcoming fixtures include The University of Stirling, Cowdenbeath and Bonnyrigg Rose so a follow up stadium tour by Oasis would be a real shot in the arm for the finances of those clubs...) | |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 15:19 - Oct 13 with 1087 views | Billywitch |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 13:55 - Oct 13 by bsw72 |
Brace yourselves, my data analytics persona has been thrown into a fury about this BBC article.
This article is ridiculous and anything related to trying to calculate the impact on other clubs is fundamentally flawed.
This is because any "analysis" that tries to calculate financial damages or competitive impact from Man City's rule-breaking requires precise knowledge of an alternate reality that never existed. This is not just difficult, it's impossible.
We cannot know what squad Man City would have built with legitimate spending alone
Would they have developed youth players differently? Signed different players? Made different tactical choices?
Any calculation assumes Man City's management quality was fixed regardless of financial constraint, but financial constraint itself shapes recruitment strategy, negotiating power, and development pathways of youth and other players.
The counterfactual requires assuming they'd have made identical decisions, just with less money, which is just illogical.
Even if we knew their squad composition, translating that into "how many points they'd have won instead" is pure speculation as Football outcomes are probabilistic - need any proof of how probablity and odds can be flawed, look at Leicester in 2016 which incidentally is bang in the middle of the City financial manipulation. Maybe they should be stripped of their title, as City may not have taken as many points off opponents etc
Man City might have won 87 points or 72 points with a different squad, we cannot know and small changes in squad quality don't map linearly to league position. The difference between 1st and 2nd could be 1 point or 15 points depending on dozens of other variables.
The other consideration is that if Man City had finished lower, every other team's league position changes, which then changes their financial reward, which changes their summer transfers, which changes their performance next season.
You cannot isolate Man City's impact without recalculating the entire ecosystem across multiple seasons which becomes anotehr layer of "complex" within a few years from the starting point.
As for the "missed Champions League qualification", again, which teams would have qualified instead? You'd need to model Man City's exact league position, then recalculate every other team's performance (did their better European finances help them more?)
Did the teams that did qualify benefit from Man City's rule-breaking by facing a weaker Man City at different times? This is the opposite direction of harm (similar to the Leicester argument earlier).
You cannot prove that without Man City's financial edge, Team X wouldn't have found different rule-breaking or competitive advantage to gain qualification anyway.
As for the impact arpound "relegation claims" which no doubt would be the strongest claim if it could be proven, but again:
- You'd need to model Man City's exact finishing position
- Then model cascading effects on promoted teams, playoff competitors, etc.
The probability distributions here are enormous and one relegated team might have survived if another team (affected by Man City's dominance) hadn't been as strong but you can't rewind to test this theory.
Basically a lot of headlines are now talking about how much Man City's cheating may have cost club XYZ etc but these rest on:
- A specific counterfactual (Man City performs exactly this much worse)
- Deterministic match outcomes (if Man City is weaker, these specific results change)
- Isolation (other teams don't adapt or find alternative advantages)
None of these can be proven. They're post-hoc rationalisations dressed up as analysis.
The only statement of any certainty which can be made is "Man City's financial rule-breaking gave them a measurable competitive advantage in squad building for the years in question.' Any claim beyond this is tabloid speculation masquerading as journalism."
The mistakes above are compounded by then presenting speculative damage calculations as factual outcomes. [Post edited 13 Oct 13:56]
|
This is sounding as messy as the storyline in the film "Worth"
great film BTW, with a local (ish) actress in it, albeit a tiny scene, and you don't see her head | | | |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 15:28 - Oct 13 with 1046 views | GeoffSentence |
Nodge actually got a point out of Man City in the 2013/14 season. Neither WBA or Fulham managed that. Strip out City's results and Nodge would have been further adrift of safety |  |
| |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 15:35 - Oct 13 with 1018 views | BlueBadger |
| Budgies lost £43.8m on 15:11 - Oct 13 by hoppy |
Beat me to it... exactly what I was going to reply, but saw you already had. |
A rare accolade form the king of the Dad Joke here! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
