|
Post by chilly1883 on Jan 1, 2019 16:07:10 GMT
Is there anything more ridiculous than the cones, set up at half time, for the players return. Really, what a waste of money, Far to many hang on staff. Surely better spent on players?
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 1, 2019 16:51:48 GMT
Is there anything more ridiculous than the cones, set up at half time, for the players return. Really, what a waste of money, Far to many hang on staff. Surely better spent on players? How many players does 15 minutes at minimum wage buy you? Let's do the math. £4.35 minimum hourly wage for an under 18. 15 mins = £1.09 23 games at home = 23* 1.09 =25.07 across a season Now, I don't reckon it takes 15 mins. I reckon it takes less than 5 mins so we could reduce the total annual cost to £8.36. Plus some extra employers bits I expect. Now let's look at getting a player in who's not half bad. Let's say they are on £1k per week and let's go even further and say we got them on a free transfer. So that's £52k for the season. Let's ignore any bonuses. So our £8.36 saved on the half time cone kid is worth 0.016% of our new players annual wage. Ignoring any injuries or time away our new guy plays 90 mins a game. 90 * 46 = 4140 minutes played per season. We also pay him for training though too so let's do it on the average working week of 37.5 hours. 37.5 hours * 52 =1950 hours a year. = 117000 mins per year. 0.016% of 117000 (117000* 0.00016) = 18.72 mins (=18 mins 43 secs). Now the above is crude in the extreme but yeah, good luck with that! By my reckoning if you got rid of the cone kid for a year all you could afford would be 19 minutes of the wages of an average free transfer. 96% would be spent in training and the remaining 4% or 46 seconds would be on the field. I'm out.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 1, 2019 16:59:24 GMT
Also just for fun
Based on 75 mins average game time over 52 games, if we used our 19 minutes above on Tom Nichols, there would be a 0.0097% chance of him scoring.
|
|
|
Post by sipirate on Jan 1, 2019 17:09:00 GMT
Is there anything more ridiculous than the cones, set up at half time, for the players return. Really, what a waste of money, Far to many hang on staff. Surely better spent on players? You just got Absolutely told, if I were you I would make another user name and never post such dross again..
|
|
|
Post by barumgas on Jan 1, 2019 17:28:55 GMT
Also just for fun Based on 75 mins average game time over 52 games, if we used our 19 minutes above on Tom Nichols, there would be a 0.0097% chance of him scoring. As high as that!
|
|
|
Post by justin blue on Jan 1, 2019 17:30:23 GMT
Is there anything more ridiculous than the cones, set up at half time, for the players return. Really, what a waste of money, Far to many hang on staff. Surely better spent on players? You just got Absolutely told, if I were you I would make another user name and never post such dross again.. There's no need of that sort of comment everybody is entitled to an opinion whether you agree with it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Dirt Dogg on Jan 1, 2019 17:30:28 GMT
Sack the board.
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Jan 1, 2019 17:31:41 GMT
e=mc2
Apparently....
|
|
|
Post by syg on Jan 1, 2019 17:33:14 GMT
Is there anything more ridiculous than the cones, set up at half time, for the players return. Really, what a waste of money, Far to many hang on staff. Surely better spent on players? How many players does 15 minutes at minimum wage buy you? Let's do the math. £4.35 minimum hourly wage for an under 18. 15 mins = £1.09 23 games at home = 23* 1.09 =25.07 across a season Now, I don't reckon it takes 15 mins. I reckon it takes less than 5 mins so we could reduce the total annual cost to £8.36. Plus some extra employers bits I expect. Now let's look at getting a player in who's not half bad. Let's say they are on £1k per week and let's go even further and say we got them on a free transfer. So that's £52k for the season. Let's ignore any bonuses. So our £8.36 saved on the half time cone kid is worth 0.016% of our new players annual wage. Ignoring any injuries or time away our new guy plays 90 mins a game. 90 * 46 = 4140 minutes played per season. We also pay him for training though too so let's do it on the average working week of 37.5 hours. 37.5 hours * 52 =1950 hours a year. = 117000 mins per year. 0.016% of 117000 (117000* 0.00016) = 18.72 mins (=18 mins 43 secs). Now the above is crude in the extreme but yeah, good luck with that! By my reckoning if you got rid of the cone kid for a year all you could afford would be 19 minutes of the wages of an average free transfer. I'm out. An interesting post, and clearly an important issue for you. But what if the "coners", were not employed , and actually attended the match as paying customers. I'm sorry to have dismantled your detailed analysis. Alan partridge springs to mind. "Read your conetract".
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 1, 2019 17:36:32 GMT
How many players does 15 minutes at minimum wage buy you? Let's do the math. £4.35 minimum hourly wage for an under 18. 15 mins = £1.09 23 games at home = 23* 1.09 =25.07 across a season Now, I don't reckon it takes 15 mins. I reckon it takes less than 5 mins so we could reduce the total annual cost to £8.36. Plus some extra employers bits I expect. Now let's look at getting a player in who's not half bad. Let's say they are on £1k per week and let's go even further and say we got them on a free transfer. So that's £52k for the season. Let's ignore any bonuses. So our £8.36 saved on the half time cone kid is worth 0.016% of our new players annual wage. Ignoring any injuries or time away our new guy plays 90 mins a game. 90 * 46 = 4140 minutes played per season. We also pay him for training though too so let's do it on the average working week of 37.5 hours. 37.5 hours * 52 =1950 hours a year. = 117000 mins per year. 0.016% of 117000 (117000* 0.00016) = 18.72 mins (=18 mins 43 secs). Now the above is crude in the extreme but yeah, good luck with that! By my reckoning if you got rid of the cone kid for a year all you could afford would be 19 minutes of the wages of an average free transfer. I'm out. An interesting post, and clearly an important issue for you. But what if the "coners", were not employed , and actually attended the match as paying customers. I'm sorry to have dismantled your detailed analysis. Alan partridge springs to mind. "Read your conetract". AHA! yes it did cross my mind about half way in but I was in too deep by that point.
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Jan 1, 2019 17:37:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 1, 2019 17:42:13 GMT
I should think the saving would be quite a lot more but then there would be no-one to pay for it by offsetting their costs against the asset... don't get me started!
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Jan 1, 2019 17:44:04 GMT
Is there anything more ridiculous than the cones, set up at half time, for the players return. Really, what a waste of money, Far to many hang on staff. Surely better spent on players? How many players does 15 minutes at minimum wage buy you? Let's do the math. £4.35 minimum hourly wage for an under 18. 15 mins = £1.09 23 games at home = 23* 1.09 =25.07 across a season Now, I don't reckon it takes 15 mins. I reckon it takes less than 5 mins so we could reduce the total annual cost to £8.36. Plus some extra employers bits I expect. Now let's look at getting a player in who's not half bad. Let's say they are on £1k per week and let's go even further and say we got them on a free transfer. So that's £52k for the season. Let's ignore any bonuses. So our £8.36 saved on the half time cone kid is worth 0.016% of our new players annual wage. Ignoring any injuries or time away our new guy plays 90 mins a game. 90 * 46 = 4140 minutes played per season. We also pay him for training though too so let's do it on the average working week of 37.5 hours. 37.5 hours * 52 =1950 hours a year. = 117000 mins per year. 0.016% of 117000 (117000* 0.00016) = 18.72 mins (=18 mins 43 secs). Now the above is crude in the extreme but yeah, good luck with that! By my reckoning if you got rid of the cone kid for a year all you could afford would be 19 minutes of the wages of an average free transfer. I'm out. I think I get what you're saying here.... It's a bit like someone at the MOD saying they're no longer allowed paper clips because they need the money to build a nuclear submarine?
|
|
|
Post by syg on Jan 1, 2019 17:55:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jan 1, 2019 18:28:56 GMT
How many players does 15 minutes at minimum wage buy you? Let's do the math. £4.35 minimum hourly wage for an under 18. 15 mins = £1.09 23 games at home = 23* 1.09 =25.07 across a season Now, I don't reckon it takes 15 mins. I reckon it takes less than 5 mins so we could reduce the total annual cost to £8.36. Plus some extra employers bits I expect. Now let's look at getting a player in who's not half bad. Let's say they are on £1k per week and let's go even further and say we got them on a free transfer. So that's £52k for the season. Let's ignore any bonuses. So our £8.36 saved on the half time cone kid is worth 0.016% of our new players annual wage. Ignoring any injuries or time away our new guy plays 90 mins a game. 90 * 46 = 4140 minutes played per season. We also pay him for training though too so let's do it on the average working week of 37.5 hours. 37.5 hours * 52 =1950 hours a year. = 117000 mins per year. 0.016% of 117000 (117000* 0.00016) = 18.72 mins (=18 mins 43 secs). Now the above is crude in the extreme but yeah, good luck with that! By my reckoning if you got rid of the cone kid for a year all you could afford would be 19 minutes of the wages of an average free transfer. I'm out. I think I get what you're saying here.... It's a bit like someone at the MOD saying they're no longer allowed paper clips because they need the money to build a nuclear submarine? Sigh. Let's do the math. One nuclear submarine, operationally ready but unstaffed. We will use the new Dreadnought class which replaced the old Vanguard class and is capable of carrying Trident D-5 nuclear missiles. There may be some old mariners on here that can correct me. Anyway, the cost. It’s expected that just the submarines and their infrastructure will cost an immediate £15 billion or so to build. This can be broken down as such: £0.25 billion to participate in the Trident D5 missile life extension programme. £11 billion for a class of four new submarines. £2 billion for possible refurbishing of the warheads. £2–3 billion for infrastructure This is spread over around 30 years but the new submarines and warheads is what we are interested in right now if we want a fully functional state of the art nuclear submarine and we need these costs spent to achieve that. So £13 billion in all for 4 subs £3.25 billion each A paperclip costs around £0.0055 per item. So just over half a penny each based on £5.50 for 1000 before delivery costs on Amazon. To fund our nuclear submarine project from paperclip savings.. £3,250,000,000 =325,000,000,000 pence /0.55 = 590,909,090,909.09 paperclips. (590 billion 909 million 90 thousand 9 hundred and 9) If each one is 4cm long and you chained them together (losing 2mm for the links on each one) you would have a total paperclip chain of 38mm * 590,909,090,909 = 22,454,545,454,545mm =2,245,454,545,455cm =22,454,545,455m =22,454,545km The earth circumference is 47,075km so our paperclip chain would go round the earth 477 times or if you prefer, it's near enough the exact average distance to Mars. It would weigh (at 1 gram a piece) 590,909,090,909.09 grams =590,909,091 kilos So because each sub weighs 17m kg (coverted from tonne displacement of 17200 tonnes), we might as well make it out of those paperclips.
|
|
|
Post by spiess1 on Jan 1, 2019 18:35:31 GMT
The players did seem to think....''some idiot has left these cones in the way for us to trip over, just as well I saw them to avoid''.
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Jan 1, 2019 19:16:34 GMT
Coneheads
|
|
|
Post by gasstrictband on Jan 1, 2019 20:16:36 GMT
Who are the Coneheads?
|
|
|
Post by toddy1953 on Jan 1, 2019 21:27:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by althepirate on Jan 1, 2019 22:03:26 GMT
When I've watched a really crap first half and then have to watch the pathetic sight of (some) of the players stepping the cones I wonder what it's supposed to achieve. I'm still wondering.
|
|