THE MATCHDAY THREAD Discuss ICT & other games in this thread as they happen Hearts -V- Inverness CT PREVIEW 20th Aug @ 3PM, Tynecastle Stadium, Edinburgh Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Go to the Chatroom Media Coverage AUDIO BBC Sportsound Open All Mics [UK Only] TEXT ESPN BBC Sporting Life   VIDEO SPL YouTube Channel ICT Official YouTube Channel   TEAM LINEUPS TO FOLLOW Tweets by @ICTFC Tweets by @ICTFC

Also, that survey is average wage - you can spend more money but still have a lower average. 

30 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

As a sports Journalist I thought you would have been up to date with this. Your link http://stv.tv/sport/football/1321105-celtics-average-wage-bill-is-25-times-higher-than-ross-countys/

Intriguing that STV seems to know more about ICT's wages than the shareholders do, since these aren't even detailed in the club's accounts. Then there's the Ross County figure of EXACTLY (!) £36,000. What on earth has that club been doing with its money if it's needed millions written off by Roy MacGregor and STILL pays thousands a year less than anyone else??

You should never believe everything the media tell you!

 

22 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Stats = facts. What you should have said instead is "According to a flawed and unreliable survey......" 

Or, according to some back of the envelope speculation...

9 minutes ago, HawkeyeTheGnu said:

Also, that survey is average wage - you can spend more money but still have a lower average. 

This is my reaction every time I see these figures. Figures for total overall spend on wages for season 13/14 or whatever would be better. Still interesting but not a way to gauge who has the biggest budget.

29 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Intriguing that STV seems to know more about ICT's wages than the shareholders do, since these aren't even detailed in the club's accounts. Then there's the Ross County figure of EXACTLY (!) £36,000. What on earth has that club been doing with its money if it's needed millions written off by Roy MacGregor and STILL pays thousands a year less than anyone else??

You should never believe everything the media tell you!

 

I'm quite prepared to hold my hands up if I am wrong but please point me to stats that prove otherwise. 

13 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

I'm quite prepared to hold my hands up if I am wrong but please point me to stats that prove otherwise. 

Your "stats" don't prove that St Johnstone have a bigger budget. They prove, that on average, they paid each employee more. And based on Celtic's comments on the report, employees aren't just players, so to draw any conclusion in the playing budget based on this would be wild-eyed speculation at best. 

Edited August 22, 20169 yr by HawkeyeTheGnu

Here's an example....

Shop 1

I am a shop owner. I have two members of staff who are paid £1,000 a month. The average wage for my employees is £1,000 a month. My total wage bill per month is £2,000 a month.

Shop 2

I am a shop owner. I have five members of staff who are paid £750 a month. The average wage for my employees is £750 a month. My total wage bill is £3,750 a month.

Shop 1 pays a higher average wage but Shop 2 has a bigger wage budget.

This is why we can't infer too much on playing budgets from a table based on averages. As HtG says you could perhaps speculate that on average Team A pays more than Team B but if the latter has about 10 more players than the former then you don't know who has the bigger budget overall.

oh I see. That means St J have a SMALLER playing budget than we do. Stupid me.

Rig - Nail, head & hit

Add to that shop 3 which pays the same or very similar as shop 2 but in order to compete to get the staff due to their remote location has to offer their staff accommodation or incentives to relocate themselves and their family?

2 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

oh I see. That means St J have a SMALLER playing budget than we do. Stupid me.

No. It means it is not possible to determine one way or the other. The only comparisons you can draw are in the average. 

5 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

oh I see. That means St J have a SMALLER playing budget than we do. Stupid me.

No. You can compare the averages of what teams pay but you can't, with any real accuracy, deduce who has a bigger or smaller playing budget from those averages without having more figures.

10 minutes ago, HawkeyeTheGnu said:

No. It means it is not possible to determine one way or the other. The only comparisons you can draw are in the average. 

Never mind the stats then. Do you believe we have a bigger budget than St J?

3 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

Never mind the stats then. Do you believe we have a bigger budget than St J?

What Caley Thistle's budget is RELATIVE to St J's, be that in reality or by way of dodgy stats, is completely irrelevant. What matters is Caley Thistle's budget in ABSOLUTE terms. St J's financial arrangements, which we don't know, have no bearing whatsoever on the cash available to Richie Foran. I just can't believe that such a meal is being made here of the basic fact that you simply can't spirit money out of nowhere!

1 minute ago, caleyboy said:

Never mind the stats then. Do you believe we have a bigger budget than St J?

Hang on. You introduce "stats" to try and make your point. When the stats are shown to be of a questionable nature, you ask me what I believe?

To answer your question - they have a slightly higher average attendance, and finished higher up the league than us last season, so I would guess they may have a slightly larger budget. 

Hanging on to nothing. All stats could be deemed questionable but I think the source should be more accurate than you. If that's what you believe so be it.

Edited August 22, 20169 yr by caleyboy

6 minutes ago, caleyboy said:

Hanging on to nothing. All stats could be deemed questionable but I think the source should be more accurate than you. If that's what you believe so be it.

I've not said the source isn't accurate. 

I said that you can't use the comparison of two averages to compare the total value without more information.

And as I haven't provided a figure, the source is bound to be more accurate than me. 

Edited August 22, 20169 yr by HawkeyeTheGnu

23 minutes ago, HawkeyeTheGnu said:

I've not said the source isn't accurate. 

I said that you can't use the comparison of two averages to compare the total value without more information.

And as I haven't provided a figure, the source is bound to be more accurate than me. 

That's my take as well. There are (at least?) two grounds on which the stats presented need to be questioned.

1 - As HTG says you can't compare two averages like that. You at least need to know squad sizes. 25 players at 50K = 1.25M but 20 players at 60K = only 1.2M... bigger average, smaller total. Then even squad size will fluctuate during the season.

2 - And you don't know how accurate the numbers contributing to these ambiguous figures are in the first place. I'm rather surprised that STV claim to have total knowledge of all the Premiership clubs' wage bills.

you can use stats to say almost whatever you want based on how you present them. One aspect that does not appear to have been considered in this discussion so far is that ICT have traditionally been said to pay lower wages but higher bonuses than some teams. This typically means that when we have a more successful season and get a windfall in the cup or elsewhere more of it is taken up with the player's share of that .... how other teams structure their bonuses could significantly skew any presented stats. If you want my unverifiable and uninformed opinion .... I would say we have amongst the lowest budgets in the premiership at the start of the season, perhaps comparable to 1 or 2 other teams, ... but by the end of the season, if we have performed well then we may have a higher total spend than several more teams dependent on those bonuses. it is NOT an exact science !    

Incidentally - as far as I am aware we are not scheduled to receive our payment for OFW participation in the Euros until later in the year (September I think) and although I dont know the details, I am guessing that he might get a decent chunk of it as his signing bonus from prior to the end of last season because if he was unsigned or he re-signed later we would have got nothing !!! 

38 minutes ago, Scotty said:

you can use stats to say almost whatever you want based on how you present them. One aspect that does not appear to have been considered in this discussion so far is that ICT have traditionally been said to pay lower wages but higher bonuses than some teams. This typically means that when we have a more successful season and get a windfall in the cup or elsewhere more of it is taken up with the player's share of that .... how other teams structure their bonuses could significantly skew any presented stats. If you want my unverifiable and uninformed opinion .... I would say we have amongst the lowest budgets in the premiership at the start of the season, perhaps comparable to 1 or 2 other teams, ... but by the end of the season, if we have performed well then we may have a higher total spend than several more teams dependent on those bonuses. it is NOT an exact science !    

Incidentally - as far as I am aware we are not scheduled to receive our payment for OFW participation in the Euros until later in the year (September I think) and although I dont know the details, I am guessing that he might get a decent chunk of it as his signing bonus from prior to the end of last season because if he was unsigned or he re-signed later we would have got nothing !!! 

good point scotty

Meanwhile, back on the original topic, that's the Hearts v Inverness matchday topic, here is our report, penned by Johndo

 

All this talk of budgets is a smokescreen. The simple fact is that we, once again, are left scrapping about at the end of August looking for players. If I remember last season we were in the same position only able to field 4 or 5 subs in each of the first half dozen games. That is we have no option but to play the same players most weeks, whether they perform or not. Contrast that with the likes of Dundee who get their business done in May/June and have the summer to relax and prepare for the new season. If we can afford to bring in 4 players THIS WEEK then why didn't we do this earlier? I will be really interested to see the gang of 4 who we are going to sign before the St J. game.

54 minutes ago, tm4tj said:

Meanwhile, back on the original topic, that's the Hearts v Inverness matchday topic, here is our report, penned by Johndo

 

Have to say that's as damning a match report as i've ever read, Sounds as though Johndo was well pissed off with that performance!  I presume most of the fans left feeling frustrated and perturbed as Richie seemed to think to score flattered Hearts.

I really hope the players left just as annoyed and embarrassed by their own performance and i'm hoping they will show this saturday that they are indeed capable of much better.

16 minutes ago, givmeaccccc said:

All this talk of budgets is a smokescreen. The simple fact is that we, once again, are left scrapping about at the end of August looking for players. If I remember last season we were in the same position only able to field 4 or 5 subs in each of the first half dozen games. That is we have no option but to play the same players most weeks, whether they perform or not. Contrast that with the likes of Dundee who get their business done in May/June and have the summer to relax and prepare for the new season. If we can afford to bring in 4 players THIS WEEK then why didn't we do this earlier? I will be really interested to see the gang of 4 who we are going to sign before the St J. game.

Think it might have the fact that Richie didn't get the job until the 30th of May?  Paul Hartley had a wee bit of an advantage over Richie there...

Actually I did try to look for positives but they were few. It shook me that players that have shone and impressed in the last couple of seasons looked so, so average. It was strange how many of our away support left well before the final whistle and the dread of a bigger embarrassment every time Hearts attacked. There really was a shocking lack of urgency and many heads went down after the second goal. But I firmly believe that Richie has to forget previous allegiances and friendship. If that means benching previous favourites and bringing on the kids - so be it !! I even fear that we will be pointless after five games and then it will be very difficult to make up the ground. Please, Please prove me wrong.

The players owe their new manager a performance and we could do with a wee bit of luck too.

Three points on sat and the gloom will be lifted even though their will still be much hard work to do.

Ritchie must be wondering what he has let himself in for but let's all have faith he can make some progress and bring in some quality. I'm impressed he has stayed so cool so far I'm sure he has fancied battering some of the players!