Statistically it actual does work like that. The level of wage bill correlates to 93 percent of success
Well explain.why blunts have been in this league for five seasons and had the biggest budget every season. I said DOESN'T ALWAYS work like that.
Yes they should. They have the ability to pay over a million pound for one player. That's crazy money at this level
It's just been realistic. We've gone from trying to compete with Middlesbrough, Bolton, QPR, Derby etc to competing with Bury, Rochdale, Gillingham, Wallsall etc. Statistics are fine if you're comparing two similar situations e.g Chelsea under Ancelotti, Villas Boas & Mourinho but not Barnsley under managers in different leagues
I posted the stats without agenda because I know, as I said, that they are just stats. They're just historical data and give little if any indication as to future success or failure. There are always millions of variables that dictate success or failure. Budget is just one of them. The stats I provided don't take any variables into account. They're pure. So if you're going to try and deconstruct the reasons for their existence, you'll need to delve a little deeper than "budget".
Each individual season other variables impact the correlation between wages spending and success but it still equates to 80% plus. Over a longer period it ups to 93%. That's at all levels of professional football. Transfer budget is pretty irrelevant. If you look at the promoted teams last year they all had some of the highest in the division. For example Mk Dons could afford to sign Carl Baker whereas we couldn't. Sheffield United should have been promoted but are happily are underperformed having been run by eejuts