[stagmanluke]

lindo-spireite, on 15 April 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

You're getting boring again.

OK... I'll get my coat... bye for now.

[Middle East]

lindo-spireite, on 15 April 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

You're getting boring again.

................I must have been away on the day he made an interesting post!

[Zeus]

stagmanluke, on 15 April 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

The clue's in the title mate.

Scab - something which you can't pick off, and something horrible which never seems to go away...

I do understand the tension and nerves on here, but isn't it what this game was kind of invented for?

Scabs peel. We don't call you the Scars.

[BurySpireite]

stagmanluke, on 15 April 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

Everyone can point to ifs, buts, and maybes.

The league never lies. It's like getting done for speeding and trying to deny it.

Depends what you mean by the table 'lying', if you mean it doesn't lie because it shows the exact amount of points everyone's got over the season then you can't argue with that! But I mean that it lies when it comes to being a ranking of teams with regards to ability. You might think that over a full season the ifs and buts cancel out and normally they kind of do, but it's still completely down to chance. The fact remains that IF those perfectly legitimate goals had been given then we'd be top of the league. Just because it's and IF doesn't make it any less a valid point. The only way the league table would be 'telling the truth' is if Dale and Scunny have both been equally damned by poor officiating this season which I severely doubt!

[Wooden Spoon]

BurySpireite, on 15 April 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Depends what you mean by the table 'lying', if you mean it doesn't lie because it shows the exact amount of points everyone's got over the season then you can't argue with that! But I mean that it lies when it comes to being a ranking of teams with regards to ability. You might think that over a full season the ifs and buts cancel out and normally they kind of do, but it's still completely down to chance. The fact remains that IF those perfectly legitimate goals had been given then we'd be top of the league. Just because it's and IF doesn't make it any less a valid point. The only way the league table would be 'telling the truth' is if Dale and Scunny have both been equally damned by poor officiating this season which I severely doubt!

So, as the table stands, wins draws losses goals scored and goals conceded the table doesnt lie.

There are no columns for maybes, no points for "ifs and buts" just results.

Leave the foolishness to the fool

[Doughnut]

BurySpireite, on 15 April 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Depends what you mean by the table 'lying', if you mean it doesn't lie because it shows the exact amount of points everyone's got over the season then you can't argue with that! But I mean that it lies when it comes to being a ranking of teams with regards to ability. You might think that over a full season the ifs and buts cancel out and normally they kind of do, but it's still completely down to chance. The fact remains that IF those perfectly legitimate goals had been given then we'd be top of the league. Just because it's and IF doesn't make it any less a valid point. The only way the league table would be 'telling the truth' is if Dale and Scunny have both been equally damned by poor officiating this season which I severely doubt!

The League table does not tell you who the best team is. It objectively positions the teams in a hierarchical structure based on points acquired.

'Best' team is subjective as 'best' can be based on a number of criteria that differs from person to person.

[60s 70s Spireite]

Doughnut, on 15 April 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

The League table does not tell you who the best team is. It objectively positions the teams in a hierarchical structure based on points acquired.

'Best' team is subjective as 'best' can be based on a number of criteria that differs from person to person.

Try telling that to our teams, and we supporters of, 69-70, 84-5 and 10-11.

[Spire-Power]

Doughnut, on 15 April 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

The League table does not tell you who the best team is. It objectively positions the teams in a hierarchical structure based on points acquired.

'Best' team is subjective as 'best' can be based on a number of criteria that differs from person to person.

We are the best footballing team in the division imo but that doesnt mean we will finish top. Bury may have been a better footballing team when we won the title a few years back - though I can't say that with any conviction as its based on what I saw when we played them at home near the end of the season! The best footballing team isnt necessarily the best team (eg Arsenal a few years ago) as the game is also about commitment and strength and of course finishing.

death, on 15 April 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

So, as the table stands, wins draws losses goals scored and goals conceded the table doesnt lie.

There are no columns for maybes, no points for "ifs and buts" just results.

Leave the foolishness to the fool

Correct, the table stands, it doesnt lie.

[Doughnut]

60s 70s Spireite, on 15 April 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

Try telling that to our teams, and we supporters of, 69-70, 84-5 and 10-11.

??? Do you disagree with my thoughts?

[60s 70s Spireite]

Doughnut, on 15 April 2014 - 09:28 PM, said:

??? Do you disagree with my thoughts?

In short, yes. Best team has to be the team with most points, there can be no other indicator. There maybe a best passing side, best defence, best attack, but the best team can only be the marker set by the Football league; points gained. That's the rules given at the beginning of the season.

As someone else has posted, Southend were perhaps the best team we have seen, but clearly not the best team seen by many others at grounds up and down the country, hence their position outside the automatics.

I cant think I have seen a ny ournalist argue that the team at the top of the league wasn't the best team that season.

[Doughnut]

60s 70s Spireite, on 15 April 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

In short, yes. Best team has to be the team with most points, there can be no other indicator. There maybe a best passing side, best defence, best attack, but the best team can only be the marker set by the Football league; points gained. That's the rules given at the beginning of the season.

As someone else has posted, Southend were perhaps the best team we have seen, but clearly not the best team seen by many others at grounds up and down the country, hence their position outside the automatics.

I cant think I have seen a ny ournalist argue that the team at the top of the league wasn't the best team that season.

I can't really disagree with your assessment there. My point was people seem to have a different interpretation of 'best' as demonstrated by claims Chesterfield are the best team in the division - the league table doesn't back up that claim, certainly not based on your criteria.

[BurySpireite]

death, on 15 April 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

So, as the table stands, wins draws losses goals scored and goals conceded the table doesnt lie.

There are no columns for maybes, no points for "ifs and buts" just results.

Leave the foolishness to the fool

Obviously the amount of points, wins, draws, losses, goals scored and goals conceded are represented in the table 'truthfully', that's its job! You're missing my point that the number of points, wins, draws, losses, goals scored... etc. don't always reflect the whole picture and 'lie' in terms of the actual valuable insight into the numbers.

Leave the maxims to my mum

Doughnut, on 15 April 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

The League table does not tell you who the best team is. It objectively positions the teams in a hierarchical structure based on points acquired.

'Best' team is subjective as 'best' can be based on a number of criteria that differs from person to person.

I accept that the 'truth' of the league teams (that isn't being adequately expressed in the so called 'lying' table) can't be objectively quantified, all I'm pointing out is that the league table does in fact 'lie' (when it comes to the actual valuable insight into the strength of teams gained by assessing the points).

This post has been edited by BurySpireite: 15 April 2014 - 11:17 PM

[Brookie]

BurySpireite, on 15 April 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

Obviously the amount of points, wins, draws, losses, goals scored and goals conceded are represented in the table 'truthfully', that's its job! You're missing my point that the number of points, wins, draws, losses, goals scored... etc. don't always reflect the whole picture and 'lie' in terms of the actual valuable insight into the numbers.

Leave the maxims to my mum




I accept that the 'truth' of the league teams (that isn't being adequately expressed in the so called 'lying' table) can't be objectively quantified, all I'm pointing out is that the league table does in fact 'lie' (when it comes to the actual valuable insight into the strength of teams gained by assessing the points).

The team that finishes top is the most consistent in terms of results, it's not necessarily the best footballing side

[Xerxes]

60s 70s Spireite, on 15 April 2014 - 09:37 PM, said:

In short, yes. Best team has to be the team with most points, there can be no other indicator. There maybe a best passing side, best defence, best attack, but the best team can only be the marker set by the Football league; points gained. That's the rules given at the beginning of the season.

As someone else has posted, Southend were perhaps the best team we have seen, but clearly not the best team seen by many others at grounds up and down the country, hence their position outside the automatics.

I cant think I have seen a ny ournalist argue that the team at the top of the league wasn't the best team that season.

You're old enough to remember the best team I have ever seen - the Holland team in the 1974 world cup. They were brilliant, very skilful, total football, totally entertaining. I;ve never seen better in well over 40 years watching football - but according to your argument the pedestrian, lacklustre W Germany team that very luckily beat them in the final was a better team as 'there can be no other indicator'

I'm sorry, I totally disagree with you. (You're not John Duncan are you?)

[60s 70s Spireite]

Xerxes, on 16 April 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

You're old enough to remember the best team I have ever seen - the Holland team in the 1974 world cup. They were brilliant, very skilful, total football, totally entertaining. I;ve never seen better in well over 40 years watching football - but according to your argument the pedestrian, lacklustre W Germany team that very luckily beat them in the final was a better team as 'there can be no other indicator'

I'm sorry, I totally disagree with you. (You're not John Duncan are you?)

Best footballing side ever? Could be? Best winning team? Clearly not. This was a team riddled with internal strife, threatening to go on strike three days before the tournament.
Perhaps the fact we talk of Holland is because of their performance in the final and the famous Cruyff turn, first seen on TV at this World Cup. In fact the team was lucky to be at the finals, scraping in with a 0-0 draw v Belgium.
Then why did they take their foot off the throat of West Germany when they had them under the cosh? Somewhere, somehow the team wasn't good enough. The record book says it all, Holland have never won the World Cup. Plus, don't overlook that West Germany were reigning European Champions.
We are followers of football, not boxing.

[60s 70s Spireite]

60s 70s Spireite, on 16 April 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Best footballing side ever? Could be? Best winning team? Clearly not. This was a team riddled with internal strife, threatening to go on strike three days before the tournament.
Perhaps the fact we talk of Holland is because of their performance in the final and the famous Cruyff turn, first seen on TV at this World Cup. In fact the team was lucky to be at the finals, scraping in with a 0-0 draw v Belgium.
Then why did they take their foot off the throat of West Germany when they had them under the cosh? Somewhere, somehow the team wasn't good enough. The record book says it all, Holland have never won the World Cup. Plus, don't overlook that West Germany were reigning European Champions.
We are followers of football, not boxing.

Edit. Just thought. Not sure why you (Xerves) are comparing a knock out event with one played over 46 games?

This post has been edited by 60s 70s Spireite: 16 April 2014 - 07:23 AM

[Rodney 63]

Think of the extra money promotion will generate against the bigger teams.
Don't get too exited but it will help the club progress to the next level.
And just imagine where we would be if Craig Davies was in this team !!!!

[Phil V 72]

Rodney 63, on 16 April 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Think of the extra money promotion will generate against the bigger teams.
Don't get too exited but it will help the club progress to the next level.
And just imagine where we would be if Craig Davies was in this team !!!!

Has anyone ever worked out (or do we have club figures for) how much revenue comes into the club through the turnsiles is the crowd is 4000, 5000, 6000, etc.?

If it's correct that our budget will be based primarily on gate receipts, how do the figures stack up?

So, is it as simple as you assume the average ticket (after running costs) is £10 and we get 5000, will gate receipts be 5000 x 10 = £50k ish or do factoring corporate tickets, season tickets etc distort the picture so a flat comparison basis doesn't work?

This post has been edited by Phil V 72: 16 April 2014 - 09:03 AM

[Rodney 63]

I have no idea if anyone has worked that one out, but you don't have to be a mathematician to realise that big games against the likes of possibly Sheff Utd, Barnsley, Rotherham, Notts County will fill the Proact.
The overall attendance for a season in League 1, next year will be much higher.

[Johnnyspireite7]

Rodney 63, on 16 April 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

I have no idea if anyone has worked that one out, but you don't have to be a mathematician to realise that big games against the likes of possibly Sheff Utd, Barnsley, Rotherham, Notts County will fill the Proact.
The overall attendance for a season in League 1, next year will be much higher.

Not if past history is to go by, never had a large away following in the past!