- This topic has 42 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Yes.
In 2002/3, they made a loss of £5,803,351 that Mr Whelan covered, on top of the £16,678,917 that was already being covered. That season, they paid £1.2 million for Nathan Ellington. Wages cost £4,949,582. Income was £2,874,626.
In 2003/4, in the 2nd division, on income of £3,610,035, they posted a loss of £4,845,675. Wages accounted for £6,165,699
Compare 2003/4 with 2013/14 (which was a successful season in the 2nd tier), where the income was £37m and salaries were £30m. That’s a tenfold increase on income and a fivefold increase on wages.
Now do you get it?
Yes.In 2002/3, they made a loss of £5,803,351 that Mr Whelan covered, on top of the £16,678,917 that was already being covered. That season, they paid £1.2 million for Nathan Ellington. Wages cost £4,949,582. Income was £2,874,626.
In 2003/4, in the 2nd division, on income of £3,610,035, they posted a loss of £4,845,675. Wages accounted for £6,165,699
Compare 2003/4 with 2013/14 (which was a successful season in the 2nd tier), where the income was £37m and salaries were £30m. That’s a tenfold increase on income and a fivefold increase on wages.
Now do you get it?
No.
Let’s deal with the simple stuff first. What the hell has that overly simplistic splash got to do with the original question of whether the analogy was good or bad?
All you have tried to do there, and not very cleverly I may add, is pad out your last post with little substance, if indeed any at all. Are you really trying to convince me (us) that what you have stated represents the income/expenditure of all business related activities associated with Mr Whelan, the football Club, his ‘other’ financial interests, sponsorship etc and that this would answer the questions I last asked of you. My last junior could have googled that information and made more sense of it than you have (tried to).
So, look back at what was said, forget your feeble backtracking, try to stay focused on how you saw the analogy, remember how I described it (I was doing you a favour) in that… “is to provide more information about a difficult concept by comparing it to an already understood idea”, and please tell us, as simplistic as you please, how it was a good analogy.
I think its a very good analogy.
In 2003, DW contributed a (then) significant sum of money on quality players in an attempt to get Wigan from 3rd division to Premier league as quickly as possible. In 2015, the amount that would be needed to repeat the feat would be around 10 times the amount spent on the likes of Roberts, Ellington etc.
Wigan circa 2015 is about developing young local players, not buying imported merceneries.
Your understanding of that analogy is as subtle as a hand grenade is a barrel of sh1t. The ruse is to provide more information about a difficult concept by comparing it to an already understood idea. But then, it’s what I expected.
You ‘scattergun’ some information in your post relating to the money Mr Whelan contributed during a specific period in the clubs history. How much is ‘significant’? How do you realise the cost differential to be ’10 times the amount spent on the likes of Roberts, Ellington etc’? Why do you think that the boards policy may or may not have included the purchase of ‘imported merceneries’ (sic)? How would you explain or consider the relationship between total revenue profits of player purchases/sales and total costs when you calculate the overall value of the clubs overall business.
Now tell us all again how that was a good analogy.[/quote]
So are you saying my analogy was s**t?
I think its a very good analogy.
In 2003, DW contributed a (then) significant sum of money on quality players in an attempt to get Wigan from 3rd division to Premier league as quickly as possible. In 2015, the amount that would be needed to repeat the feat would be around 10 times the amount spent on the likes of Roberts, Ellington etc.
Wigan circa 2015 is about developing young local players, not buying imported merceneries.
Your understanding of that analogy is as subtle as a hand grenade is a barrel of sh1t. The ruse is to provide more information about a difficult concept by comparing it to an already understood idea. But then, it’s what I expected.
You ‘scattergun’ some information in your post relating to the money Mr Whelan contributed during a specific period in the clubs history. How much is ‘significant’? How do you realise the cost differential to be ’10 times the amount spent on the likes of Roberts, Ellington etc’? Why do you think that the boards policy may or may not have included the purchase of ‘imported merceneries’ (sic)? How would you explain or consider the relationship between total revenue profits of player purchases/sales and total costs when you calculate the overall value of the clubs overall business.
Now tell us all again how that was a good analogy.[/quote]
So are you saying my analogy was s**t?[/quote]
Now that, Garswood, was funny.
Hats off chap.
I think its a very good analogy.
In 2003, DW contributed a (then) significant sum of money on quality players in an attempt to get Wigan from 3rd division to Premier league as quickly as possible. In 2015, the amount that would be needed to repeat the feat would be around 10 times the amount spent on the likes of Roberts, Ellington etc.
Wigan circa 2015 is about developing young local players, not buying imported merceneries.
Your understanding of that analogy is as subtle as a hand grenade is a barrel of sh1t. The ruse is to provide more information about a difficult concept by comparing it to an already understood idea. But then, it’s what I expected.
You ‘scattergun’ some information in your post relating to the money Mr Whelan contributed during a specific period in the clubs history. How much is ‘significant’? How do you realise the cost differential to be ’10 times the amount spent on the likes of Roberts, Ellington etc’? Why do you think that the boards policy may or may not have included the purchase of ‘imported merceneries’ (sic)? How would you explain or consider the relationship between total revenue profits of player purchases/sales and total costs when you calculate the overall value of the clubs overall business.
Now tell us all again how that was a good analogy.[/quote]
So are you saying my analogy was s**t?[/quote]
Salt?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
