-
Originally posted by dom9 View Post
I had noted it but didn't want to p*ss off Kennel.
Assuming it's not a low base and the methodology is reasonably robust, that's a very significant increase.
And of course it's not a measurement of a possibly transient opinion either.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Well, I was there or thereabouts ... the full snippet:
In 2008 Sport+Matkt found that Chelsea had 2.4 million 'fans' in Britain. Again according to Sport+Markt, that represented a rise of 523 per cent in the five years since Roman Abramovich had bought the club. Yet even that figure of 2.4 million represented a swift decline: in 2006, when, no doubt coincidentally, Chelsea had just won the league twice running, Sport+Markt credited the club with a mammoth 3.8 million British fans.
By 2006, if we can believe Sport+Markt's figures, about 90 per cent of Chelsea's fans were people who had not supported them in 2003.
... Sport+Markt has polling data ... *eek*
EDIT: Taverymuchly, Stu.Last edited by Muddled; 11-02-13, 04:34 PM.Comment
-
Any suggestions as to what the f*ck I was on about?Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
It's OK, Craigy, I wasn't being serious. I'd have thought that was obvious but perhaps you really do believe I'm around a hundred and ninety years old.
And that's my final say on the matter.
Except to say this: a row with you INWWN.
Craigy.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
Nope, but I'm confident that you did not get the last post in on that matter.Comment
-
A row with you is not what we need?Like blood on ironComment
-
Very plausible. Very plausible indeed.
It's certainly the most convincing explanation so far..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.Comment
-
i think that's right.dave of mutilation
Comment
Comment