I have learnt lots on this forum, and elsewhere, as I'm sure most people have, but I can't say I recall being taught about turnover here a month ago. Can I ask when that was? Or is this in the same world that you state OGS is tactically inept and didn't finish above Klopp last season?
Again you don't really seem to have read, or comprehended anything else I've written. I haven't said wages to turnover isn't a worthwhile or useful measure (as it is) but just that it had no worth in the context of what we were discussing. This is about the 4th occasion now that you have just mansplained a fairly basic concept back which everyone already knows. The art of good conversation is not just rant and repeating your bit of knowledge, but listening to what's being said to you, and grasping the context of the discussion.
For about the 4th time, the discussion was about levels of wage spend and the correlation with performance. In that context, adding turnover doesn't add anything to that discussion. There are other discussions whereby it is an interesting is a little elementary point (it's fairly novice level of reading of financial statements but nevertheless it has some value).
The best indicator of where you will finish is the wages spent, not wages to turnover. In all honesty wages to turnover doesn't really give you much of an indication at all. It's a base level analysis for the efficiency and strategic decision making of an organisation. I don't think I'd know anyone who would use it in that context.
As for the question, I ignored it, because as with all of the above, it just doesn't have any relevance to the discussion. It's a bit of a crude question, as there are all sort of metrics that indicate financial strength, and I wouldn't really judge a business solely on 1 ratio, based on 2 numbers. However if you want to reduce it down to such a binary choice, the business with the lower wages to turnover is likely to be in a healthier financial position. I think everyone knows that, so it doesn't need answering. The real issue is, why would you want to input a completely irrelevant question to a discussion about wage spent versus performance.
I have seen the numbers you've given for wages, and it looks like they are out of date. I have given you the updated figures, hence why there is a difference. Liverpool are now 3/4th in the world on wage spend. If you're going to make statements about differences on wage spend (or other areas) it's probably best to use the most up to date information available as a general rule. It's also probably best to approach discussions from a standpoint of attempting to grasp what the discussion is about and contribute to it, rather than using it as platform to repetitively spout fairly elementary financial equations in order to try and show you understand wages to turnover. We have gathered that now. Your next challenge is to know when to use that bit of knowledge appropriately. Id also avoid the inaccurate assumption that just because somebody tactfully ignores irrelevant information they don't understand it. They just understand how and when to apply it.