Money doesn't buy success

[St.Carl]

An interesting bit of research from Melbourne Uni.

The study — AFL team performance and football expenditure — looked at the football department spending and on-field success of AFL clubs between 1994 and 2011.

It found that, over recent years, clubs that spent 10 percent above average on their football departments enjoyed a 9.5 percent increase in their winning ratio during the home-and-away season. The chance of winning a premiership jumped by 7 percent.

"Spending currently explains only a relatively small proportion of the variation in AFL teams’ performances," according to lead researcher Professor Jeff Borland, from the University of Melbourne's Faculty of Business and Economics.

But the research did find that the impact of money on success is growing stronger.

https://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/foo ... tudy-finds

[dragit]

Money clearly does buy success going by the graph in the article.



WBD, Roos, Port, Rich, Melb have all spent less and have won less matches between 06 - 11.

[Spinner]

So it does buy success?

WTF from the results there is a correlation between increased winning and premierships chances.

7% would have been nice in 2010 and even 2009.

[Con Gorozidis]

I think the subject should be money does but you success ?

[bergholt]

It found that, over recent years, clubs that spent 10 percent above average on their football departments enjoyed a 9.5 percent increase in their winning ratio during the home-and-away season.

Not sure about their headline - 9.5% of 22 games is 2 wins. Most teams would be happy to win two more games over the course of a season!

Interesting to note that we were about middle of the pack in spending from 06-11:

Collingwood $18m
West Coast $17.4m
Sydney $17.2m
Geelong $16.75m
Fremantle $16.5m
Brisbane $16.4m
Hawthorn $16m
St Kilda $15.6m
Essendon $15.6m
Carlton $15.4m
Adelaide $15.4m
Melbourne $15m
Port Adelaide $14.8m
Richmond $14.4m
Bulldogs $14m
Kangaroos $13.9m

I reckon we would have been a long way further down the list through the 80s, 90s, early 00s. Still a long way from the top but hopefully we can keep spending wisely.

[Life Long Saint]

It found that, over recent years, clubs that spent 10 percent above average on their football departments enjoyed a 9.5 percent increase in their winning ratio during the home-and-away season.

Not sure about their headline - 9.5% of 22 games is 2 wins. Most teams would be happy to win two more games over the course of a season!

Interesting to note that we were about middle of the pack in spending from 06-11:

Collingwood $18m (premiers 2010)
West Coast $17.4m (premiers 2006)
Sydney $17.2m (premiers 2005, 2012)
Geelong $16.75m (premiers 2007, 2009, 2011)
Fremantle $16.5m (runners-up 2013)
Brisbane $16.4m
Hawthorn $16m (premiers 2008, 2014)
St Kilda $15.6m (runners-up 2009, 2010)
Essendon $15.6m
Carlton $15.4m
Adelaide $15.4m
Melbourne $15m
Port Adelaide $14.8m (runners-up 2007)
Richmond $14.4m
Bulldogs $14m
Kangaroos $13.9m

I reckon we would have been a long way further down the list through the 80s, 90s, early 00s. Still a long way from the top but hopefully we can keep spending wisely.

I have added the premierships into the list.
Brisbane is clearly the odd one out in the list. Every club (except Brisbane) that spent more than $16M at least made a grand final and every premier in that period spent at least $16M.

[dragit]

Let's not forget Brisbane played 4 in a row & won 3 just prior to this period.

Baffles me how the article can have that title.

It couldn't be any clearer, the rich clubs are definitely winning more games.

[Mr Magic]

I can't seem to open the article so can someone explain to me how we are listed as having spent the same amount as Essendon but more than Carlton, Adelaide and Richmond?
On the face of it that would appear to be false - we are consistently reported as being in the bottom 3-4 clubs on Football Dept spending so how can we suddenly be in the 'middle'?

[GrumpyOne]

Money doesn't buy success, but it makes failure a whole lot more comfortable.

[bergholt]

I can't seem to open the article so can someone explain to me how we are listed as having spent the same amount as Essendon but more than Carlton, Adelaide and Richmond?
On the face of it that would appear to be false - we are consistently reported as being in the bottom 3-4 clubs on Football Dept spending so how can we suddenly be in the 'middle'?

This is total football department spending so it includes player salaries. Maybe if we were at 100% of the salary cap and they were at 95% then that could make a few hundred grand worth of difference?

[Jacks Back]

Too small a sample.

[gringo]

they often talk of getting a 1% advantage to separate the pack so this is outdoing their expectations.

I see Eddie wants cheating gone from the AFL now Malty got their sports scientist? Coincidence?