Jump to content

Worst financially performing club in Europe


Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

My understand is that it's because this particular sub-analysis excluded any clubs that had recorded transfer income as part of their annual turnover. That's not the same as saying Wednesday are 185th out of 1,000. Happy to be corrected 

 

As for your second question... they did make an assessment on the other 800+. It just so happens that in this subanalysis, those other 800 were excluded for the stipulation above.

Get that, but why then the Examiner’s banner headline………

 

“Worst financially performing club in Europe“

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Key said:


How many professional football clubs do you think there are there in Europe, just 185 or quite a lot more? 

 

Why doesn’t the article make any assessment of the other 800+ clubs?

 

Wednesday won’t have been anywhere near the worst performing out of all the clubs in Europe, many of the biggest clubs have debts the size of a small country!




The Examiner didn't do the stats, the analysis or publish the report


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Still don't get why a few fans are STILL struggling to understand this report and analysis


Or maybe they do but want to ignore any actual facts and  just wanna gang up on sports writers and aim anger at them or the 'media' again

 

*sigh*


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

My understand is that it's because this particular sub-analysis excluded any clubs that had recorded transfer income as part of their annual turnover. That's not the same as saying Wednesday are 185th out of 1,000. Happy to be corrected 

 

As for your second question... they did make an assessment on the other 800+. It just so happens that in this subanalysis, those other 800 were excluded for the stipulation above.

To be fair he did say the article 'implies' 

 

For balance the article was headlined 

 

Sheffield Wednesday named Europe's worst financial performers in 2021: - hardly accurate either.

 

Looks like a bit of creative interpretation both ways to me. 

 

Roll on the new season. I can't wait.

 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 


Still don't get why a few fans are STILL struggling to understand this report and analysis


Or maybe they do but want to ignore any actual facts and  just wanna gang up on sports writers and aim anger at them or the 'media' again

 

*sigh*

See for me it's not about  having a go at journalists per se but in this occasion about a sensationalised and somewhat inaccurate headline.

Source, analysis and reporting should be digested by reading in full before responding I agree, but headlines like that, on something that stimulates passions/emotions, can often divert that. 

The official accounts were published and reported on a while back. 

To the new season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, casbahowl said:

Get that, but why then the Examiner’s banner headline………

 

“Worst financially performing club in Europe“

I guess because while there are qualifiers to that statement, it's true once you remove transfer revenue. Obviously that's not a 'true' picture, but you can also see why it's relevant because it strips away all profit (or loss) one can make on transfers and purely looks at losses vs gains when it comes to raw income vs expenditure. 

 

I suppose a good analogy for this would be looking at everyone's finances purely by looking at their income vs expenditure, discounting bonuses or gambling wins/losses (transfer fees in and out). If you strip out all the people who either earn bonuses or gamble, we are the equivalent of the person has the worst bottom line. There are caveats, sure, but it's definitely informative.

 

But as to why the Examiner's headline says what it does, rather than what it currently is with the addition of "if you strip out all transfer fees from the equation"), my guess is character count and a less clickbaity headline

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Teddy Nickelarse said:

 

Sheffield Wednesday named Europe's worst financial performers in 2021:  

 

Looks bang on to me

Which bit of that headline was inaccurate?

Didn't the analysis company state that Sheffield Wednesday performed the worst?

If the headline had said 'Sheffield Wednesday were Europe's worst financial performers in 2021:'  I agree with you


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


If we're being 100% honest then 99.999% of those angry at the article just want an excuse to have a pop at a sports writer

 

Let's be honest

 

Come on now


We all know it

 

lol

 


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

Looks bang on to me

Which bit of that headline was inaccurate?

Didn't the analysis company state that Sheffield Wednesday performed the worst?

If the headline had said 'Sheffield Wednesday were Europe's worst financial performers in 2021:'  I agree with you

Well if were talking semantics then 'named' might be deemed as approaching accurate. But the report was actually an edited sample.

'Edited sample report names Sheffield Wednesday as Europe's worst financial performers in 2021' might be more accurately  described as accurate 😅

Course that wouldn't push as  any buttons though.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Teddy Nickelarse said:

Well if were talking semantics then 'named' might be deemed as approaching accurate. But the report was actually an edited sample.

'Edited sample report names Sheffield Wednesday as Europe's worst financial performers in 2021' might be more accurately  described as accurate 😅

Course that wouldn't push as  any buttons though.



Again I can hear in your posts that you just want to do the usual tiresome ‘clickbait’ attack on a sports writer or publication 

 

If we are honest people in this thread are definitely not looking at this fairly but with an agenda to just attack ‘the media’ again 

 

It’s so dull 


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 


If we're being 100% honest then 99.999% of those angry at the article just want an excuse to have a pop at a sports writer

 

Let's be honest

 

Come on now


We all know it

 

lol

 

I'm not angry at the report. Bit disappointed at the very few who jumped on it to express negative twists on it just as things are looking positive.

 Im still happy, positive and really looking forward to the new season.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Teddy Nickelarse said:

I'm not angry at the report. Bit disappointed at the very few who jumped on it to express negative twists on it just as things are looking positive.

 Im still happy, positive and really looking forward to the new season.



Me too! 


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:




The Examiner didn't do the stats, the analysis or publish the report

 

Indeed, they just copied and pasted from it and published it under a misleading headline.

You could argue that makes it an even worse piece of journalism than the original report!

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:



Again I can hear in your posts that you just want to do the usual tiresome ‘clickbait’ attack on a sports writer or publication 

 

If we are honest people in this thread are definitely not looking at this fairly but with an agenda to just attack ‘the media’ again 

 

It’s so dull 

I can do little about what you erroneously interprete from my postings . This is manifest.

Nor can judge the thoughts of others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StudentOwl said:

My understand is that it's because this particular sub-analysis excluded any clubs that had recorded transfer income as part of their annual turnover. That's not the same as saying Wednesday are 185th out of 1,000. Happy to be corrected 

 

As for your second question... they did make an assessment on the other 800+. It just so happens that in this subanalysis, those other 800 were excluded for the stipulation above.

 

 

So the sub-analysis is meaningless then.

Might as well report that if you exclude all the clubs who are even worse then club x is the worst!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Key said:

 

Indeed, they just copied and pasted from it and published it under a misleading headline. 


It wasn't a misleading headline


The headline was bang on

 

Sheffield Wednesday WERE named Europe's worst financial performers in 2021

 


Same as if the headline said something like "Donald Trump says all cars should be taken off anyone over the age of 60"

That doesn't mean you'd attack the journalist who wrote the headline because the journalist themselves believe that all cars should be taken off anyone over the age of 60

It just means that the article is saying that Donald Trump SAID it

 

FFS

Come on people 

This is exhausting

 

lol

 


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


It wasn't a misleading headline


The headline was bang on

 

Sheffield Wednesday WERE named Europe's worst financial performers in 2021

 


Same as if the headline said something like "Donald Trump says all cars should be taken off anyone over the age of 60"

That doesn't mean you'd attack the journalist who wrote the headline because the journalist themselves believe that all cars should be taken off anyone over the age of 60

It just means that the article is saying that Donald Trump SAID it

 

FFS

Come on people 

This is exhausting

 

lol

 

Neil, Neil,  Neil; tha a reight wazzock at times.

lol

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can pick holes in the headline or the article until the cows come home, it doesn't change the fact that we remain in a real mess and that DC is the primary cause of it.

 

The depths of standards and acceptance of mediocrity amongst our fanbase is criminal. The way some were bending over backwards to praise DC for signing two free transfers from Rotherham last week was an absolute embarrassment. 

 

DC does appear to have learnt some things but I'm way off "give credit to DC" yet. We are treading water. I hope DC has remembered how to swim or the club drowns. He doesn't get a pat on the back for dragging us overboard in the first place. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Key said:

 

 

So the sub-analysis is meaningless then.

Might as well report that if you exclude all the clubs who are even worse then club x is the worst!

 

No, it's far from meaningless

 

It gives a very good indicator as to how clubs that don't engage in attempting to improve turnover through the transfer market are performing.

 

At the risk of repeating myself, it would be the same as looking at the monthly finances of everyone in the UK and their incomings and outgoings. You then exclude all those that make money from bonuses, and you look at the individual at the bottom. That’s the one with the worst bottom line. No-one would reasonably state that that analysis is meaningless, in fact anyone unless the willfully ignorant would describe that as quite informative... albeit not a complete picture.

 

Let's be honest, had this sub-analysis found that Sheffield United were at the bottom, you wouldn't have made a single post on here saying it was meaningless. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...