Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[BoSelecta]

People slating xG as it doesn’t account for the player are missing the point. You can have elite finishers who will always outperform their xG (eg Son, historically) and shite kickers who fall below the statistical average (Calvert Lewin).

 

Comparing actual goals scored to xG gives you how good a finisher someone is (or how much of a hot streak they are on….Chris Wood). The more data the better, as always with stats. 

A pelanty is 0.7 or 0.8xg I believe. 

[timeEd32]

15 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

There’s plenty of games where I’ve believed we could have played all night and not scored (West Ham at home, Brighton’s smash and grab). 
 

I’m not expecting xg to have a feel for how a game is going but it really should be weighted for who is involved in shooting and I’d also include a tariff for who the keeper is.

 

In the PSG game, they didn’t look like scoring, we invited them into some shooting situations where they’d have been better off building a better position. This got worse as the game went along (where their xg also increased).

 

It’s a data tool but I’m happy to trust my own eyes on how a game has played out. I’d also add that it’s also subjective to what is a chance/ big chance. OPTA had to change its shots on target in the Sheff U v Hull as some berk couldn’t tell that Brereton Diaz had given the keeper the eyes and shot near post as opposed to it being a miss hit cross. I only know this as Skybet paid out for me 2 days later after initially recording it as a lost bet from the original OPTA data.

 

I think you have a bit of blinkered memory of the game. It's partially what you said, but they also had some legitimate chances:

 

- Right before halftime Dembele from 12 yards out takes a shot that hits Schar in the chest. Pope was behind him and may have saved it.

- Barcola at 66 minutes from 5 yards out and all alone has their best chance of the game. The ball skims off of Pope's knee. If this was one of our players they would have been crucified for not scoring.

-  Barcola again a minute later is through on Pope and gently pushes the ball into the outside of the net. I cannot imagine the posts about him on a PSG board.

- Dembele in the 82nd minute beats Schar and has a chance from five yards out. He misses entirely.

[madras]

21 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

There’s plenty of games where I’ve believed we could have played all night and not scored (West Ham at home, Brighton’s smash and grab). 
 

I’m not expecting xg to have a feel for how a game is going but it really should be weighted for who is involved in shooting and I’d also include a tariff for who the keeper is.

 

In the PSG game, they didn’t look like scoring, we invited them into some shooting situations where they’d have been better off building a better position. This got worse as the game went along (where their xg also increased).

 

It’s a data tool but I’m happy to trust my own eyes on how a game has played out. I’d also add that it’s also subjective to what is a chance/ big chance. OPTA had to change its shots on target in the Sheff U v Hull as some berk couldn’t tell that Brereton Diaz had given the keeper the eyes and shot near post as opposed to it being a miss hit cross. I only know this as Skybet paid out for me 2 days later after initially recording it as a lost bet from the original OPTA data.

I'm happy to trust my own eyes on game I watch (and the xG is usually in i e with that) trusting my eyes doesn't help much on games I don't see but want to get a handle on what happened ie for gambling purposes. Say if team A has won its last three games 1-0 but had an xG of 0.1 against 5.0 in each game, I may not be so confident on them being in good form as opposed to maybe Bruceing a game or two.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, 80 said:

I'm take it or leave it with xG. It doesn't offend me but people who rely too much on it look silly. 

 

I'd like to imagine there are much more sophisticated xG analyses available to clubs for the right price, factoring in how many defenders are positioned in front of the goal and where, which individual player the chance has fallen to, the speed of the ball received etc. etc.

 

I find I'm usually pretty good at guessing what the xG of a match I've watched is, which implies it's not wildly out of keeping with what I'm seeing with my eyes.

Believe most Xg models take this into account.

 

Personalising it to particular players doesn't make sense and loses the value of Xg.

 

The Xg of a penalty is 0.8 let's say. It being a .95 xg for Ivan Toney and a 0.6Xg for Michael Owen ruins the value of the metric. The standardisation is what makes it powerful.

 

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

XG is shit because I frequently see games with multiple 1 v 1’s against the keeper and XG will say 1.2 goals.

Nah mate, I’m sorry but it’s going down as expecting him to score the fucking goal.

A 0.4 Xg shot is a "big chance". That goes in 1 every 3 attempts. Most hat-tricks are scored from an Xg of under 2.25. In a low-scoring sport, scoring 3 in a game requires an element of a "hot hand" that is a little improbable

1 hour ago, madras said:

Re the "could have played all night and not scored" stuff  it's a football fan thing to say that as a team misses  chance after glorious chance. .........then when one goes in "it was coming, we've had the chances".

Aye. It's either meant "the team isn't creating any chances at all and won't score all night" or... "The team is creating and missing loads of chances and this will keep happening".

 

In both instances, there's a loss of belief that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that everyone can see and feel. It's why teams like Real Madrid don't lose that belief and when they score it's "they always find a way". But it's all narrative.

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, madras said:

I'm happy to trust my own eyes on game I watch (and the xG is usually in i e with that) trusting my eyes doesn't help much on games I don't see but want to get a handle on what happened ie for gambling purposes. Say if team A has won its last three games 1-0 but had an xG of 0.1 against 5.0 in each game, I may not be so confident on them being in good form as opposed to maybe Bruceing a game or two.

Agreed. I also use it to question my beliefs or assumptions. Like the Miggy purple patch vs the Murphy purple patch.

 

The expected data indicates one was a purple patch and the other isn't.

[Stifler]

3 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Believe most Xg models take this into account.

 

Personalising it to particular players doesn't make sense and loses the value of Xg.

 

The Xg of a penalty is 0.8 let's say. It being a .95 xg for Ivan Toney and a 0.6Xg for Michael Owen ruins the value of the metric. The standardisation is what makes it powerful.

 

A 0.4 Xg shot is a "big chance". That goes in 1 every 3 attempts. Most hat-tricks are scored from an Xg of under 2.25. In a low-scoring sport, scoring 3 in a game requires an element of a "hot hand" that is a little improbable

Aye. It's either meant "the team isn't creating any chances at all and won't score all night" or... "The team is creating and missing loads of chances and this will keep happening".

 

In both instances, there's a loss of belief that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that everyone can see and feel. It's why teams like Real Madrid don't lose that belief and when they score it's "they always find a way". But it's all narrative.

Sorry like, but XG literally means expected goals. A penalty or a 1 v 1 against the keeper should go down as an expected goal.

I know that there is a chance that they could be saved, but it’s expected goals, not probable goals.

[loki679]

Gotta love the way Stifler can just come up with the dumbest opinion in any given situation.

[gjohnson]

5 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

That is actually very basic and plain though, we didn't fail PSR last year, 21/22 has dropped off the calculation so our headroom for losses this season is at least what we lost in 21/22, which was around £70m.

 

 

 

OK if it's that basic and plain how much are we able to spend?

[gjohnson]

4 hours ago, McCormick said:

Why do people hate xg by the way? Just because it’s boring? 

Because it's irrelevant and meaningless?

 

It's like saying i might have won the lottery with my xg of y if the number that came out was 6 instead of 7. Great for historical reviews but irrelevant over 1 game and even less during a game.

 

One crappy ass deflection that bounces off a beach ball, the referees arse and the back of a goalkeepers head still counts as a goal despite probably being negative xg

 

 

Edited yesterday at 18:44 by gjohnson

[gjohnson]

2 hours ago, timeEd32 said:

 

I think you have a bit of blinkered memory of the game. It's partially what you said, but they also had some legitimate chances:

 

- Right before halftime Dembele from 12 yards out takes a shot that hits Schar in the chest. Pope was behind him and may have saved it.

- Barcola at 66 minutes from 5 yards out and all alone has their best chance of the game. The ball skims off of Pope's knee. If this was one of our players they would have been crucified for not scoring.

-  Barcola again a minute later is through on Pope and gently pushes the ball into the outside of the net. I cannot imagine the posts about him on a PSG board.

- Dembele in the 82nd minute beats Schar and has a chance from five yards out. He misses entirely.

Which is exactly why xg is worthless. 

 

A plain and simple better metric is shots on target. 

[geordie_b]

4 hours ago, McCormick said:

Why do people hate xg by the way? Just because it’s boring? 

 

Typically because they dont understand data sample sizes and cant grasp when statistical analysis doesn't play out in a sample of one

[Jackie Broon]

21 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

OK if it's that basic and plain how much are we able to spend?

 

I was saying that in relation to your post saying "Same calculations by others show we still need to sell." I don't know how much we are able to spend but it's just common sense that we do not need to sell to comply with PSR this year unless our losses this year are more than 21/22, which is vanishingly unlikely.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 18:58 by Jackie Broon

[gjohnson]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

I was saying that in relation to your post saying "Same calculations by others show we still need to sell." I don't know how much we are able to spend but it's easy to demonstrate that we do not need to sell to comply with PSR this year unless our losses this year are more than 21/22, which is vanishingly unlikely.

Which doesn't answer the question...

 

Same set of numbers in front of two different reports...one says it means we have to sell as currently breaching psr, one says it means we can buy as well within psr....

 

I need to lie down

[gjohnson]

6 minutes ago, geordie_b said:

 

Typically because they dont understand data sample sizes and cant grasp when statistical analysis doesn't play out in a sample of one

Statistics are also not an indication of what will happen, just what has happened, so virtually irrelevant as an indicator of how good a team is. 

 

Stick Luuk de Jong 3 yards out from an open undefended goal 5 times in a game probably gives an xg of 5....but we all know real goals would still probably be 0

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Which doesn't answer the question...

 

Same set of numbers in front of two different reports...one says it means we have to sell as currently breaching psr, one says it means we can buy as well within psr....

 

I need to lie down

 

We simply can't be breaching PSR this season.

 

We know that we were compliant for the period 21/22, 22/23, 23/24 so we have to be compliant for the period 22/23, 23/24, 24/25 if 24/25 is not a larger loss than 21/22 and there is no way that we are running at a £70m+ loss this season.

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 19:06 by Jackie Broon

[Unbelievable]

37 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Statistics are also not an indication of what will happen, just what has happened, so virtually irrelevant as an indicator of how good a team is. 

 

Stick Luuk de Jong 3 yards out from an open undefended goal 5 times in a game probably gives an xg of 5....but we all know real goals would still probably be 0

Is this the same Luuk de Jong as the one who scored 277 goals in 636 games of professional football?

[gjohnson]

12 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

Is this the same Luuk de Jong as the one who scored 277 goals in 636 games of professional football?

The exact same guy who couldn't strike a ball more than more than 3 yards for us

[AyeDubbleYoo]

15 hours ago, Stifler said:

Sorry like, but XG literally means expected goals. A penalty or a 1 v 1 against the keeper should go down as an expected goal.

I know that there is a chance that they could be saved, but it’s expected goals, not probable goals.

It would be an expected goal if penalties and 1-on-1 chances were scored 100% of the time. 

[tarie4]

23 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

Again it’s about finances and hitting a ceiling - checkmate. 
 

If not for the emergence of Yankuba Minteh and his breakout season, we would’ve sold a purple in the summer - on the cheap - without being replaced. Or a points deduction that would end our chances of qualifying for the CL.  We need to consistently perform 8/10 on and off the pitch for us to be long term competitive.  2 years of bad transfer windows, expensive signings that flop etc., a bad managerial hire and we are in trouble. Probably not relegation but something in the magnitude of Everton.  ‘Big 6’ can weather 5 years of underperformance and still be in a better financial position than the field. Thats the difference.

Dude, your argument's full of holes! So many ifs, buts, and what-ifs. Without Miniteh, we could've sold Longstaff, easy peasy, pure profit like with Anderson. So you can't really prove that. Just like I can't prove mine. The fact is Minteh was sold.

 

Plus, our revenue's 7th highest in the league. Financially, we're way closer to Bournemouth (dead last) than Arsenal (6th). That's why our goal isn't and shouldn't be Champions League. Darren Eales said in Germany (pre-season) our goal is Europe – Conference or Europa. Makes sense if you look at our finances and league position. I'm sure we can agree on that.

 

Everton's been battling relegation for four years straight, mate. Like you said about Leicester, it's a rubbish, illogical example.

 

Spurs rake in double our revenue, but our ambition's triple theirs, so we know every pound will go towards our goals. We don't need to match Spurs or Man U financially to consistently beat them. There's gotta be a break-even point where we can spend £60-80 million a season on transfers without going bust. We don't need £500 million revenue to do that, surely?

[BergenMagpie]

4 hours ago, gjohnson said:

The exact same guy who couldn't strike a ball more than more than 3 yards for us

Remember him barely getting a touch / crossing the halfway line as it was peak @Alan Pardew ball. Recall him missing a sitter or two, but the pressure was pretty heavy to take the one or two chances we got a game. Think even prime Messi would've struggled in that side

[The College Dropout]

You've proved my point. We are closer to Bournemouth in revenue than Spurs. Successive bad decisions will put us closer to teams like Bournemouth than teams like Spurs for a medium term.

 

As bad as Spurs have been these last 3-4 years they've finished 4th & 5th among them. 

[tarie4]

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

You've proved my point. We are closer to Bournemouth in revenue than Spurs. Successive bad decisions will put us closer to teams like Bournemouth than teams like Spurs for a medium term.

 

As bad as Spurs have been these last 3-4 years they've finished 4th & 5th among them. 

So this supposed point of yours has gone from doing  Leicester (relegation) to Everton (consistently fighting relegation) and now Bournemouth (mid table)?  Great point mate. Keep shifting goal posts. Have a good one 👍 

[The College Dropout]

26 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

So this supposed point of yours has gone from doing  Leicester (relegation) to Everton (consistently fighting relegation) and now Bournemouth (mid table)?  Great point mate. Keep shifting goal posts. Have a good one 👍 

It was hyperbolic to make a point.

 

We are legit a few successive bad decisions away from falling right off it and taking many years to get close again. Zoom out - Bournemouth have had 2 relegations in the last 5/6 years. They are a yo-yo club that now look set to re-establish themselves as a PL outfit. In the same period Man U have won 2 Cups and been to a final for 2 others, multiple CL campaigns - as a "banter" era.

 

That's the point of the big 6. No matter how poorly they are run, they are too big to get relegated. Too much money. They will only be a few good decisions away from competing for Europe and Cups. Everybody else - including us - needs a string of generational choice decisions to compete with them and that success can be undone quickly. Fall right back into the pack or further for several years. That's my point. It's not a controversial point i'm making.

[Miggys First Goal]

So Chris Waugh, in his Almiron transfer piece on the Athletic:

 

Quote

Yet profitability and sustainability rules (PSR) mean a sale of some form is essential and, with Almiron deemed expendable, Newcastle have picked up a reasonable fee for him.

I can’t get my head around this PSR bollocks. This sale was essential? Were we up shit creek again? Another player gone without anyone coming in. This is absolute shite. 

[MagCA]

1 minute ago, Miggys First Goal said:

So Chris Waugh, in his Almiron transfer piece on the Athletic:

 

I can’t get my head around this PSR bollocks. This sale was essential? Were we up shit creek again? Another player gone without anyone coming in. This is absolute shite. 

One must think we’re being taken for a ride by ownership.