nevillew
Tripping the light puntastic
 Offline
Posts: 4156
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 15:52:45 » |
|
Surely quite a few of those 100 will be on under £4m if the average is £4.9m, paul? Depending on the distribution of course.
Nice statistical refutery fB - that never came up in the classics did it pauld ? Presumably that would be a bell end curve ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Paolo Di Canio, it's Paolo Di Canio
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #31 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 15:53:27 » |
|
Surely quite a few of those 100 will be on under £4m if the average is £4.9m, paul? Depending on the distribution of course.
Oh bugger. See, that's why they're (well, some of them) on over 4m quid a year and I'm not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jayohaitchenn
Wielder of the BANHAMMER
Offline
Posts: 12832
|
|
« Reply #32 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 15:54:39 » |
|
bell end curve ?
haha, genius. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #33 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 16:10:22 » |
|
Nice statistical refutery fB - that never came up in the classics did it pauld ?
Nope, pretty much anything beyond a wine-dark sea, a wooden horse or a symposium and I'm all ends up, truth be told. Presumably that would be a bell end curve ?
pwned  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27180
|
|
« Reply #34 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 16:29:43 » |
|
Surely quite a few of those 100 will be on under £4m if the average is £4.9m, paul? Depending on the distribution of course.
Depends if that's the mean, median, mode or range. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flammableBen
|
|
« Reply #35 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 16:47:13 » |
|
If we presume the mean, and take the top three which are mentionedin the article (90m, 38.4m and 26.9m), out of the total 490m pot, it leaves 334.7m left for the remaining 97. Or an average of 3.45m. Poor blokes.
It could be the median I suppose, given the above top three that would mean that the mean (hehe) would be a lot higher than 4.9m, which would make the median a strange choice for the angle of the article.
Don't know what the mode would show in a fairly small set of non discrete data, you'd have to group in sets of millions wouldn't you?
And the range isn't a type of average is it sam? I've never heard it described like that anyway.
I have no idea what this has to do with footballers anymore, but it seems fair to say that maybe even a majority of the FTSE100 chief execs earn less than 4m a year.
Now to watch some paint dry?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #36 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 17:03:33 » |
|
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that I chose an appallingly bad example and I've fucked up rather badly. Again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abrahammer
Offline
Posts: 4851
A legitimate dude sighting
|
|
« Reply #37 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 17:07:48 » |
|
I wouldnt mind these high wages if the cunts actually paid tax but they stick it all in off shore accounts and pay about as much tax as regular folk.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 18:43:07 by Abrahammer »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lumps
|
|
« Reply #38 on: Thursday, October 28, 2010, 17:41:07 » |
|
Actually O'Shea, and for that matter Rooney's wages are a really poor example of "football bankrupting itself" as (mutters through clenched teeth) the debt aside Utd are actually an incredibly well governed and financially prudent club.
They're salaries bill per annum is a piddling 45% of turnover, where Man City's is about 106% or something.
If Utd hadn't been taken over by some yank leprechaun in a leveraged deal, shortly before the international debt markets went into a tailspin. They'd be quids in.
As it is they're estimated to be sitting on a cash pool upwards of £100,000,000 at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
