"Each club has been given a rating out of 100, with the lowest rated teams first up."
And then the first team is Doncaster at the top with 90.26 of whatever?
Lost it's credibility immediately.
Just because the Chronic's clickbait department get hold of something and present it in a shoddy fashion doesn't diminish the value of the underlying research, which is worthy of consideration at least because it was written by a recognised academic.
A quick Google dug up this (which I admit I have only skimmed as I haven't yet had a chance to read it properly):
https://blog.betvictor.com/campaigns/most-investible-football-clubs/This seems to encompass the part about infrastructure ratings.
On a lighter note, everyone's favourite legal advisor has peeped out from under his tin hat on Facebook to suggest I am, and I quote, "a club insider?" for thinking being 14th in this study is alright, neatly illustrating the point Peter made a short while ago!!
Edit: I've now had a proper look at this and I think it's from a while back. We score 48% here rather than 62% so either a) the methodology has changed b) the scores have been revised or c) the Chron have got it wrong, but in the data given here the score is composed of:
10% - Stadium Age - 7%
15% - Stadium Condition - 3%
15% - Training Facilities - 8.5%
10% - Youth Facilities - 8.5%
20% - Youth Recruitment - 10%
20% - Corporate Facilities - 11%
10% - Transport Links - 0%
Whatever has changed, this at least gives an idea of the methodology used.
