Nice win...but I agree with the two Robbies...

[Paul Marin]

But wait , yuh nuh ansa mi question, yuh bright fi ask mi.Now yuh move from (won ) not challenging , then yuh move to (top 3 ) .


10 years mek it 30 ....lol... I gave you parameters of 4 years to define challenging, there must be some consistency in that , or do you have your own set of parameters of (years)


Claffy yuh a one blasted fool.

Arsole. As usual, you miss the point - if you had read my other entry, you would have seen what my response was. Dummy. And you "gave parameters" LOL...dude, jes glad seh me neva BAX u harda...you too easy fi twis up. Now get with the program and stop being an arse, challenging for the title CONSISTENTLY REQUIRES financial parity - you have not proven otherwise. An hold dis for insubordination...dyam likkle mouse...

[Sir X]

So you have none,its just generalizations and you know what they say about those who generalise?

Well at least i tried to work with you....hehe.

Claffy.

[Paul Marin]

So you have none,its just generalizations and you know what they say about those who generalise?

Well at least i tried to work with you....hehe.

Claffy.

It is not a generalization. It is clear as crystal. If you want to put a very fine point on what everyone else takes for granted, then so be it. Challenging for the title is easily determined when you look at the end of season results. Most reasonable people would agree that 20 points off the top of the table at the end of the season, even if you are in 2nd place, is not "challenging" for anything whereas 4th place with a mathematical chance and 5 games to go is. I'm sure you'll find some place in between those goalposts to hang your hat. Good luck.

[Sir X]

Thanx , I will keep that in my pipe and smoke it, when I look at the data for the past 4 years, no 10, no 20, no 30 , no 40 years..lol

Challenging for the title is easily determined when you look at the end of season results. ...Claffy ..lol

[Paul Marin]

Thanx , I will keep that in my pipe and smoke it, when I look at the data for the past 4 years, no 10, no 20, no 30 , no 40 years..lol

Challenging for the title is easily determined when you look at the end of season results. ...Claffy ..lol

Hopefully, you're now able to understand that Hull winning their first game of the season and going top is not challenging for the title. Dufus. You are a real head case. LOL!

[Sir X]

I am a head case...lol,so you predicted 10th place chelsea in 2016 would be winning the prem this year,no challenging based on it being in 10th place ?

[Paul Marin]

I am a head case...lol,so you predicted 10th place chelsea in 2016 would be winning the prem this year,no challenging based on it being in 10th place ?

Like I said, you're very stupid. The finances are a requirement, not a guarantee...and certainly, not the only factor. Put Pep in charge of Hull and see how far he goes... you frikin idiot! You are so f-ing stupid the obvious goes above your head. You jes want to argue, but you are a fool. Argue with someone your own IQ, if you can find anyone that stupid (besides me I guess - NOT! Next to you, I make Einstein look like a dunce.) LOL!

[Sir X]

Hot head Claffy , easy yuh self , all I seek is clarification of your theor-ies.

So its a multidue of factors and to generalise is ridiculous, so far you have given me.

* Position from last season
* Wage bill and squad value
* Quality of coach- so the claim that all BR needed is $$$ is out the door.hehe

All that to come into your definition of consistency (10 years ).Explain Man U ,it will be 5 years since they last won the Prem,where is the consistency of challenging?


All I seek is clarification claffy, nuh mek it tek yuh ead, find comfort in knowing, I am confused as much as you are

[Paul Marin]

Hot head Claffy , easy yuh self , all I seek is clarification of your theor-ies.

So its a multidue of factors and to generalise is ridiculous, so far you have given me.

* Position from last season
* Wage bill and squad value
* Quality of coach- so the claim that all BR needed is $$$ is out the door.hehe

All that to come into your definition of consistency (10 years ).Explain Man U ,it will be 5 years since they last won the Prem,where is the consistency of challenging?


All I seek is clarification claffy, nuh mek it tek yuh ead, find comfort in knowing, I am confused as much as you are

Ha ha ... another testament to your stupidity and low comprehension skills...LOL! Klown, u too foooooooooooool...go back to school. Again, if the finances aren't there, nothing else matters. Gwaan, mek we see wha Rafa gonna do with NUFC (your team) neX year. LOL!!! Him ago bawl down the place fi money. ha ha ha.

[Peter R]

Here is some info: I found the squad values (SV) as per www.transfermarkt.com as at May 15 of each of the indicated years. The teams are listed in their order of finish. In bracket is their SV as at May 15 of the year indicated.

What the results shows is that of the 20 top four places indicated (i.e. top 4 over 5 years), teams with a squad value NOT in the top four of squad value, placed in the top four, four times. And of those four, two were the fifth SV team, one the sixth, and of course LCFC at 11th. In other words, and mathematicians can correct me, if you were a top four squad value team over the last five years, you had four chances out of five to place in the top four.

In two of those years, top 4 squad value teams finished top four. You don't have to thank me. LOL

2012
MCity (1)
ManU (2)
Arse (3)
Tott (5)

2013
ManU (2)
MCity (1)
Chel(3)
Arse (4)

2014
MCity (1)
LFC (5)
Chel (2)
Arse (4)

2015
Chel (1)
MCity (3)
AArse(4)
ManU (2)

2016
LCFC (11)
Arse (3)
Tott (6)
MCity (1)

[Sir X]

Nice only 2 in 4 yrs ....lol..The new paradigm and you and Claffy predetermined the positions ?

[Peter R]

Let me help you understand... NO ONE EVER SUGGESTED that the finish was a one to one relationship! Only a fool would interpret what Paul has been saying, as that. The premise is to the effect: to challenge consistently for the title, ONE OF, a KEY ONE mind you, of the factors needed is a squad value comparable to that of the winners. The years when a top 4 squad value team did not finish top four, the teams were 2 - 5th place SV teams, a 6th place and of course LCFC at 11. I don't see any team with a SV outside of the top six (except for LCFC) in the top four.

If you look at those five years, in three of them the no. 1 squad value team won the league, in a fourth the number 2 did and of course we have the outlier LCFC.

If that doesn't tell you the importance of the SV to challenge, then you must be an idiot as Paul says.

Another way of interpreting the data is that Paul is right 95% of the time and you only 5%.

I hope you're not a gambler! LOL

[Sir X]

Given that this will be 3 in 5 years ,how does the Consistency look for the financially weaker clubs ? Glad you said that about the fool and one to one relationship,i have been saying that from the get go !so can we expect another weaker club to be in the top 4,given the 3/ 5 probability next season.

The new Paradigm.To clarify 3/5, meaning in 5 seasons 2of the financially weaker clubs have been in the top 4 in 3 seasons out of the 5!

This season if it remains on the same trajectory is the 5th

[Paul Marin]

Unbelievable!!!😂😂

[Paul Marin]

Good analysis Pedro...but trying to Xplain anything grounded in logic and fact to the empty barrel KlownX is harder than explaining it to a block of concrete, no offense to concrete.