Proof that we don't need to fill SMS to expand...

[Matthew Le God]

Far, far too many presumptions - first you presume that we have massive numbers of fans waiting to attend games, now you make the presumption that the owner will foot the bill.

 

Nobody actually knows the level of financial backing that the Liebherr family are willing to commit to, so it's more than a little speculative to make such suggestions.

 

Yes, they are presumptions. But pre-sumptions based on things like Cortese telling the press and fans dinners of plans for expansion to 45k+ and aims of Champions League football in conversations between him and Markus. So not exactly plucked out of the air by me.

[Micky]

Actually they may not pay anything up front for the stadium; they won't own it, they will lease it. £35M has been set aside in public monet to convert the Olympic Stadium to a stadium fit for purpose after the games, whatever that may be.

 

West Ham will (it's only rumoured for now) only incur a £2M per year tenancy charge. and will be able to sell their old ground; a tidy little profit for the porn barons.

 

So nothing like our situation whatsoever.

 

I wasn't aware of that, I thought that the sell on fee of UP was going to the council as a down payment and lease terms were also then payable.

 

Talk about getting in on the cheap. Win win situation I guess - although I'm still sceptical to see whether they can fill it and the sort of atmosphere it generates. If they don't get promoted this season it could cause all sorts of problems.

[The Kraken]

"Only incur a £2m per year tenancy charge"

 

You are very dismissive of a £2m fee each year. If Saints had a loan for a stadium expansion, how much do you think it would cost per year. Lets say it cost the £50m you previously mentioned and a 25 year period. Oh look, that comes to £2m a year, so in fact very similar in terms of costing.

 

The running costs for the Olympic stadium is £5M a year; of which West Ham will only be committed to pay £2M a year. So yes, I'm dismissive of £2M a year when that stadium costs £5M a year to run. Please stop using analogies that make no sense.

 

West Ham's annual contribution will probably barely cover the business rates dues on the site.

Edited 9 November, 2011 by The Kraken

[Matthew Le God]

The training ground is, from what I'm led to believe, financed from a "pot of money" provided upon takeover that would, amongst other things, assist on a return to and within the Premier League; and therefore at such a point the return on investment would cover the cost outlayed. It's also a fraction of the cost you're looking at for a stadium.

 

What leads you to believe this?

 

Cortese stated after Liebherr's death that the resubmitted plans for the Staplewood development are now costing three times the original amount. Where has this extra money come from then if it is as you say a predefined "pot of money"?

 

Actually, I'm doing you a dis-service; you don't think a 40K stadium is what we're looking at, you think 45K - 50K don't you? So that's not £50M at all, that's closer to £100M. Just so we've got our facts and figures correct.

 

On what do you base a 13,000 increase in capacity costing £100m? Evidence for this claim please?

[Matthew Le God]

The running costs for the Olympic stadium is £5M a year; of which West Ham will only be committed to pay £2M a year. So yes, I'm dismissive of £2M a year when that stadium costs £5M a year to run. Please stop using analogies that make no sense.

 

But if it is a similar figure to what Saints would have to pay for a loan for an expansion, why are you dismissive of a comparison between the two?

[Micky]

Yes, they are presumptions. But pre-sumptions based on things like Cortese telling the press and fans dinners of plans for expansion to 45k+ and aims of Champions League football in conversations between him and Markus. So not exactly plucked out of the air by me.

 

Yep, maybe so - but not right now. When we reach the premiership, establish ourselfs, maintain our status, have significant numbers of fans on the waiting list, and qualifiy for or nearly qualify for the CL. Next year you think - or in 5 -10 years time.

[The Kraken]

I wasn't aware of that, I thought that the sell on fee of UP was going to the council as a down payment and lease terms were also then payable.

 

Talk about getting in on the cheap. Win win situation I guess - although I'm still sceptical to see whether they can fill it and the sort of atmosphere it generates. If they don't get promoted this season it could cause all sorts of problems.

 

From what I understand of it, that's all part of the previous deal, which has been totally ripped up. So they're now just looking at an extended tenancy agreement, rather than shared ownership. Which means that once West Ham move in, they're under no obligation to do anything with their old site other than what they want to.

[The Kraken]

What leads you to believe this?

 

Cortese stated after Liebherr's death that the resubmitted plans for the Staplewood development are now costing three times the original amount. Where has this extra money come from then if it is as you say a predefined "pot of money"?

 

I'm not going more into this, other than to re-iterate what I previously said I heard about there being a "pot of money" identified for a number of projects which, upon restoration to the PL, would add value and provide a return on investment.

 

On what do you base a 13,000 increase in capacity costing £100m? Evidence for this claim please?

 

Based on Wolves' figures of £6,000 per extra seat and your previous claims we should build up to a 50K stadium (18,000 extra seats x £6,000 per seat = £108M). You said 45K+ plus in this thread, you've said 50K before.

 

Oh, and about West Ham; their £2M per year is pretty much "business rate payments". Which every club who owns a ground has to pay, to some level. All their tenancy agreement does is effectively give them a free stadium and then they have to pay running costs etc as other clubs who own their stadiums do. Including us. If we then got a loan for your £100M (even £50M), then we'd we paying well in excess of that.

 

On that note, I'm now signing off on this thread, because it's descended into farce.

Edited 9 November, 2011 by The Kraken

[Matthew Le God]

Based on Wolves' figures of £6,000 per extra seat and your previous claims we should build up to a 50K stadium (18,000 extra seats x £6,000 per seat = £108M). You said 45K+ plus in this thread, you've said 50K before.

 

Why are you using the Wolves figure? They are completely knocking down the stands and building them again. Saints would add an extra tier on an existing stadium.

 

Brighton built a completely new high spec 22,500 stadium for £95m. You are suggesting adding 18,000 seats to an existing stadium will cost more.

[sandwichsaint]

That was buying a business when in a financial disaster. Should the club be financially secure and in the Premier League when the Liebherr's do sell up it will be worth more if the infrastructure at Staplewood and St Mary's is improved.

 

 

 

You keep on about "waiting lists", however answer this...

 

Has a waiting list for season tickets been a prerequisite for every stadium expansion in the past? If not, then it is not really particularly relevant is it?

 

 

 

That doesn't mean by default those 40k won't sold. In any case more seats allow for more flexibility in pricing for season tickets, match tickets, family deals, free school offers etc etc.

 

Fack me! Where is the face-palm thingy on here?!

 

One question!

 

Why would you pay LOTS of money to build EXTRA seats, and then GIVE THEM AWAY?

 

The club will make far more money over the next (five) years by slapping 5 pounds on every seat - pure profit!

 

When we have spent that money on stabilising and then improving in the PL we will be able to gauge the demand for 'extra' seats.

[The Kraken]

Why are you using the Wolves figure? They are completely knocking down the stands and building them again. Saints would add an extra tier on an existing stadium.

 

Brighton built a completely new high spec 22,500 stadium for £95m. You are suggesting adding 18,000 seats to an existing stadium will cost more.

 

Rather than speculating constantly, how about you provide some figures?

 

The quoted figure when we were built was £1K per seat then, £3K per seat per addition. That was nearly 10 years ago; inflation, increased material costs, increased staffing costs, means that's gone up.

 

But please, do provide us with your figures.

[Matthew Le God]

Rather than speculating constantly, how about you provide some figures?

 

The quoted figure when we were built was £1K per seat then, £3K per seat per addition. That was nearly 10 years ago; inflation, increased material costs, increased staffing costs, means that's gone up.

 

But please, do provide us with your figures.

 

You were the one that claimed £100m, not me.

 

The stadium, main steelwork, foundations etc already exists. Do you then think it costs more to add the extra tier to a 32k stadium than to build from scratch a 50k stadium? The Molineux development is costing £40m for phase one and two and that is rebuilding stands from scratch.

Edited 9 November, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

Fack me! Where is the face-palm thingy on here?!

 

One question!

 

Why would you pay LOTS of money to build EXTRA seats, and then GIVE THEM AWAY?

 

The club will make far more money over the next (five) years by slapping 5 pounds on every seat - pure profit!

 

When we have spent that money on stabilising and then improving in the PL we will be able to gauge the demand for 'extra' seats.

 

As I later said, it wouldn't be every seat in the stadium, plus in the short term it might be seen as "giving them away". But what it does is creates future generations of fans that will be paying adult prices in years to come. It also allows those with families to attend games they may otherwise not have gone to due to cost (thus it is additional revenue the club wouldn't have got if the price wasn't discounted).

[The Kraken]

You were the one that claimed £100m, not me.

 

The stadium, main steelwork, foundations etc already exists. Do you then think it costs more to add the extra tier to a 32k stadium than to build from scratch a 50k stadium? The Molineux development is costing £40m for phase one and two and that is rebuilding stands from scratch.

 

Did you read what I wrote? It was announced when we built the stadium that it would cost £3K per extra seat. In ten years, inflation has had an effect.

 

Yet more constant speculation, and no reliance on any facts.

 

I'll help you out with a comparison, a stadium much like ours, Sunderland's stadium of light.

 

Built in 1997, the original stadium with 42,000 seats cost £16M to build.

An additional tier of 7,000 seats in 2000 cost an additional £7M. Almost half the original cost.

Edited 9 November, 2011 by The Kraken

[SaintBobby]

I don't think the "expanionists" have really tackled CB Fry's key point about the pricing strategy.

 

Look, to take a wild punt, I reckon we could get crowds of perhaps 50K in the premiership if we charged, say, a quid a ticket. But 50k x £1 is less than 32K x £25.

 

Heck, if attendance is all we care about, why not charge "negative prices" (i.e.pay people to attend)? At some point, we could get crowds of 100,000 or more (but would obviously be running at a huge loss!)

 

The point is that even if you're utterly sure that we could get crowds of 40K every week, it is not necessarily profit-maximising behaviour to expand the stadium. You could just put the prices up for the 32K seats available. This might even yield as much income as a 40K sellout depending on how price insensitive the keenest/richest 32K fans are. And, of course, it avoids any financial outlay at all.

 

Even if you can show that expanding to 38K, 40K, 42k etc would "pay for itself" in ten years, it doesn't follow that this is the profit-maximising strategy. Squeezing a hardcore 30K until the pips squeak might be the better option from a pure profit motive.

 

It is also obviously, without question, the safer option.

[Red and White Army]

Such as...

 

- Selling 30k+ tickets in a 32k stadium whilst in the 2nd and 3rd tier for some games

 

While being on the longest winning home streak in a century. We won't have those in the Premier League.

 

 

- Having a club record attendance of 32,152 for a Tuesday night 2nd tier game within the last few weeks

 

We play very few teams as big as West Ham, and even fewer when we're top of the table.

 

- Having 4 consecutive years of averaging over 30k in a 32k stadium

 

At much lower ticket prices in a very different economic climate

 

- Selling out in numerous games including against "lesser" Premier League teams the last time you were there

 

The world was a different place. There is no guarentee we would replicate those crowds, especially if we got whipped in our return to the Premier League.

 

I agree with everyone who disagrees with you - talk of stadium expansion is extremely premature at this point. Let's get back to the PL, stay there and assess the demand then.

[Matthew Le God]

While being on the longest winning home streak in a century. We won't have those in the Premier League.We play very few teams as big as West Ham, and even fewer when we're top of the table.

 

Nor will we have a Saints team of Premier League players playing against Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City etc whilst in the Championship. West Ham are the size of a mid Premier League club, however the recent 32,152 Tuesday night game wasn't for a Premier League fixture with both sides packed full of internationals to draw the crowds, instead it was a top of the table 2nd tier game.

 

But we would if back in the Premier League.

 

At much lower ticket prices in a very different economic climate

 

The prices in 2005 for Premier League games at St Mary's weren't a lot higher than the £30 it costs for a Championship game today.

 

The world was a different place. There is no guarentee we would replicate those crowds, especially if we got whipped in our return to the Premier League.

 

Well an expansion would be done if the club intends to compete in the top half, if it doesn't have the funding/ambition for that it won't expand, the two go hand in hand.

Edited 9 November, 2011 by Matthew Le God

[Junction 9]

The ground was bulit at exactly the right size. We might get 35k now and again for the top 5 sides, but for the rest would get around 30k. Expansion therefore is not really needed. Selling out on a Tuesday night against West Ham when you're top doesn't equate to 40k fans queing up to get Blackburn tickets in the Prem.

[doddisalegend]

Loads of interesting comments. The main thing about the Dons expansion though is it's not about filling the stadium up with football fans but using it for other things that aren't football related plus combine it with a shopping complex.

 

Kraken has pointed out that this probably isn't an option with us due to restrictions placed on SMS (not surprising given the location of SMS)

 

What I was trying to get at with my orginal post (and no doubt failing) was how people would feel about this in relation to SMS and saints.

 

Hypothetically if NC could reach a deal with the council buy up the land surrounding SMS. Maybe build a lesuire complex and hotel for example. Find (or set up) a rugby team to share SMS. Get permission for regular concert use and international sporting events and increase the sitting capacity for these things rather than football itself as MK dons have. Would people see this as a good thing?

[david in sweden]

I don't think the "expanionists" have really tackled CB Fry's key point about the pricing strategy.

B]The point is that even if you're utterly sure that we could get crowds of 40K every week,..........[/[/b]QUOTE]

 

 

 

 

I'm steering clear of this particular discussion, which seems to have developed into a personal dialogue between Kraken and Matthew Le God...however, just to point out that we don't play at SMS every week - wish we did - but at the end of the season it's only 23 games + eventual cup games.

perhaps max. 30 days a year out of 365. Promotion to the Prem. will mean only 19 games a season.

 

As this discussion seems to be about money. It's a big investment to watch 45 hours football in a 9 month season .

 

The big question surely has to be - how can you utilise an empty stadium for (timewise)...11 months of the year?

[Smirking_Saint]

[Joensuu]

Very debatable. A football stadium, particularly in Southampton, is only worth anything as a football stadium, it doesn't really do anything else. So it's only worth that money if someone will come in and actually pay the price for it.

I can see it both ways. Purely in terms of adding value to property, I would doubt that the 'real' value of the club would be raised by the value of expansion. However, it's not quite the same as owning a car, there are only fairly small number of well-supported clubs out there, so frankly, either the buyer meets the asking price, or they choose not to buy the club. The only way the person investing in the club's infrastructure can loose out is if the need to sell, and are forced to reduce the price.

Take St. Mary's for instance; it cost £32M to build. Did it add £32M to the share price? Only going by memor, but the share price in the last few months prior to our ultimate demise as a PLC only priced the whole of SLH at around £15M or so; and that included the training ground, Jackson's Farm etc.

No, it didn't add £32m to the value of the share price. Simply because the stadium wasn't an asset, but was a liability of the club (i.e. it wasn't fully ours until the mortage was paid). However, if paid in full, and generating income, the stadium and any expansion to it would count as an asset. (And frankly, now that we are in private hands, the price is something which is entirely up the the owners - if the Liebherr Estate increase their minimum sale price from say £80m to say £120m that's entirely their descision).

It's a very imprecise calculation to just say that what you spend on infrastructure gets instantly added to the value of the club. Cost doesn't alwalys equal value, or price; particularly when investing in something as specific as a football-only stadium.

Agreed. Of course cost doesn't equal value. The Liebherr's could quite easily spend £40m on more seats, then decide that they want to add £50m or more to their minimum asking price (you can be certain they won't add less than they have spent to their price!).Btw, I'm not saying that the Liebherr's are looking to sell, more that everything has a value and will be sold if the price is right. In the meanwhile the Liebherr's can sit back and make a very tidy 'interest' of say 6-8% their say £40m investment.

[Charlie Wayman]

This has developed into a fascinating discussion which I could not participate in as I am a three-a-day non-subscriber (accepting the epitaph - "bloody miser"). Lowe's decision to limit the stadium to 32500 when we were doing well in the PL disappointed all of us at the time but clearly was based on very effective research at the time, as the number of times we reached absolute capacity since then has been minimal. I know some will argue that people might have been deterred because the stadium wasn't big enough to guarantee people getting a ticket at the last minute, but by and large Lowe got it about right (for once!).

 

This time it is different, we are in the deepest recession that any of us alive have known and it is set to get a lot worse before it gets better. £40 a ticket is going to be way beyond the means of many blue collar fans who might be worried about their ability to stay in work and keep their heads above water. In 2001-2 when SMS opened we were on the crest of the biggest bonanza wave that our economy ever experienced and every one felt good and rich and it was in that era of relative prosperity that Lowe made his decision and got it about right.

 

For these reasons Cortese will take his time over any decision to expand the stadium even if we get to the PL and the "Wow!" factor is enough to fill the ground for the early part of next season. If the momentum lasts the whole season and we survive in reasonably good shape of course he'll reflect again but one guesses he will want three or four seasons of sustained sell-outs to even consider taking the project forward to cost study phase. This suggest we will be at around 2016/8 before anything is even likely to happen. If we really do well in the PL and the recession has passed through by then, that is when it might be worth taking a risk but for now "risk averse" is the order of the day.

[The9]

I won't be convinced in this debate until I see an A-level standard Supply and Demand line with some prices on it*

 

*and the assumption that there is no value to the consumer of holding money.

 

Until then I am going to consider that expanding the car park(s) will actually be of more benefit to Cortese's business model.

[The9]

Did you read what I wrote? It was announced when we built the stadium that it would cost £3K per extra seat. In ten years, inflation has had an effect.

 

Yet more constant speculation, and no reliance on any facts.

 

I'll help you out with a comparison, a stadium much like ours, Sunderland's stadium of light.

 

Built in 1997, the original stadium with 42,000 seats cost £16M to build.

An additional tier of 7,000 seats in 2000 cost an additional £7M. Almost half the original cost.

 

I'm assuming this is because adding more cranes and concrete and steel when you already have cranes and concrete and steel on site is a lot cheaper than getting it all arranged on two separate occasions, and indeed deconstructing some of the original construction in order to expand without it all falling down and squashing the home fans is going to cost plenty too.

 

The actual adding of seats onto empty concrete is probably the cheap bit - which is what MK are doing, and how all this got started. So endless arguments about match cost and Season Ticket numbers aside, the OP is incorrect in claiming this is any kind of proof, as there's no stadium development being done.

[CB Fry]

I don't think the "expanionists" have really tackled CB Fry's key point about the pricing strategy.

 

Look, to take a wild punt, I reckon we could get crowds of perhaps 50K in the premiership if we charged, say, a quid a ticket. But 50k x £1 is less than 32K x £25.

 

Heck, if attendance is all we care about, why not charge "negative prices" (i.e.pay people to attend)? At some point, we could get crowds of 100,000 or more (but would obviously be running at a huge loss!)

 

The point is that even if you're utterly sure that we could get crowds of 40K every week, it is not necessarily profit-maximising behaviour to expand the stadium. You could just put the prices up for the 32K seats available. This might even yield as much income as a 40K sellout depending on how price insensitive the keenest/richest 32K fans are. And, of course, it avoids any financial outlay at all.

 

Even if you can show that expanding to 38K, 40K, 42k etc would "pay for itself" in ten years, it doesn't follow that this is the profit-maximising strategy. Squeezing a hardcore 30K until the pips squeak might be the better option from a pure profit motive.

 

It is also obviously, without question, the safer option.

 

Thanks for the supportive post. But our man MLG has ruled out an price rise strategy, even though it is a very simple mechanism to deliver cash to the business to spend on players and the squad.

 

His strategy seems to be to not worry about having no season ticket waiting list and no evidence of sustained over-demand, build the xx thousands of seats anyway, and then give those seats away in family and school promotions, and charging less for tickets than now, with the sole requirement of the development, er, "paying for itself".

 

Which is a strategy that at the same time as delivering no extra cash to the business to invest in players or wages it also creates complexity and ties up funds in infrastructure there is no concrete need for. In his head it's a 100% vanity project to build seats just for the sake of it.

 

It really is truly, truly amazing.

[The Kraken]

Thanks for the supportive post. But our man MLG has ruled out an price rise strategy, even though it is a very simple mechanism to deliver cash to the business to spend on players and the squad.

 

It's simple, and it's also the tried and tested method of virtually all clubs that get promoted. Norwich being a prime point in case; they've always been a team who have been relatively cheap to follow, but this year has seen a huge jump in price for match day tickets to the top games now coming in at £45 per ticket.

 

Thankfully we seem to have a chairman who is not as completely naive and blinkered in the world of business as MLG appears to be; and I'm satisfied and confident that the sensible option of "increase prices then wait and see what happens for a few years" is the model that we'll see applied here if we do gain promotion, rather than some half-baked d*ck-measuring race for a massive stadium.

[JRM]

although correct from a Economics / Business studies case study we should not as fans be encouraging price rises, i'd rather have a huge ground we can't fill and be able to afford to go then a small ground with extortionate prices that can only be affordable for the wealthier fan base.

 

i think we could fill 40k in the premier league, partly by increasing the away allocation to 5k

[Sour Mash]

It's simple, and it's also the tried and tested method of virtually all clubs that get promoted. Norwich being a prime point in case; they've always been a team who have been relatively cheap to follow, but this year has seen a huge jump in price for match day tickets to the top games now coming in at £45 per ticket.

 

Thankfully we seem to have a chairman who is not as completely naive and blinkered in the world of business as MLG appears to be; and I'm satisfied and confident that the sensible option of "increase prices then wait and see what happens for a few years" is the model that we'll see applied here if we do gain promotion, rather than some half-baked d*ck-measuring race for a massive stadium.

While you and CB Fry are certainly correct, that the sensible business case is to simply increase prices as a result of increased demand, surely as fans we would prefer to say average 40k attendances in the Prem paying on average of £32 a ticket, then 32k paying an avergae of £40 a ticket?

[Sour Mash]

although correct from a Economics / Business studies case study we should not as fans be encouraging price rises, i'd rather have a huge ground we can't fill and be able to afford to go then a small ground with extortionate prices that can only be affordable for the wealthier fan base.

 

i think we could fill 40k in the premier league, partly by increasing the away allocation to 5k

If it meant giving 5k to away fans I wouldn't want it. Plus we wouldn't need to do that. Any team that could bring 5k, we could sell 40k ourselves for I reckon.

[The Kraken]

While you and CB Fry are certainly correct, that the sensible business case is to simply increase prices as a result of increased demand, surely as fans we would prefer to say average 40k attendances in the Prem paying on average of £32 a ticket, then 32k paying an avergae of £40 a ticket?

 

Yes, of course it's what the fans would prefer; but often what the fans would prefer, and what the club deems best in its interests, do not always go hand in hand. Look at Manchester Utd, they've undergone massive price rises in recent years which fans are up in arms about, yet from a business point of view they still sell out every week. So, and again from purely a business perspective, they have it right, whilst admittedly not adhering to the will of the fans in line with pricing.

 

A 40K+ st Mary's stadium comes with a massive cost implication; absolutely massive. So if the club can first achieve the same/similar revenues without having the risk of shelling out many millions on a ground expansion, they would be crazy not to do so. I may not like that as a fan, but I do accept it as a commercial reality. And if further expansion is still vindicated on the back of that, then that is the time to approach it. If 32,000 people won't regularly pay inflated prices (and I'm only talking in line with other Premier league clubs), then there's an argument to be made that the demand for a bigger stadium just isn't as strong as some feel.

[Sour Mash]

Yes, of course it's what the fans would prefer; but often what the fans would prefer, and what the club deems best in its interests, do not always go hand in hand. Look at Manchester Utd, they've undergone massive price rises in recent years which fans are up in arms about, yet from a business point of view they still sell out every week. So, and again from purely a business perspective, they have it right, whilst admittedly not adhering to the will of the fans in line with pricing.

 

A 40K+ st Mary's stadium comes with a massive cost implication; absolutely massive. So if the club can first achieve the same/similar revenues without having the risk of shelling out many millions on a ground expansion, they would be crazy not to do so. I may not like that as a fan, but I do accept it as a commercial reality. And if further expansion is still vindicated on the back of that, then that is the time to approach it. If 32,000 people won't regularly pay inflated prices (and I'm only talking in line with other Premier league clubs), then there's an argument to be made that the demand for a bigger stadium just isn't as strong as some feel.

Yes, we all get the logic, but in your previous post you appeared almost gushing at the thought we'd be raising prices as opposed to expanding the ground. Plus while I do agree that your argument does carry logic, it is still not as black and white as you paint it. A big ground means more people supporting Saints on a regular basis, buying shirts, merchandise, signing up to Saints Player or whatever else, it makes us a bigger club, raises the profile of the football club which could transfer itself into greater amounts earned through sponsorship, advertising, media coverage etc. Lots of positive intangibles, that are much harder to calculate than a simple P&L on each seat built/sold.

[The Kraken]

Yes, we all get the logic, but in your previous post you appeared almost gushing at the thought we'd be raising prices as opposed to expanding the ground. Plus while I do agree that your argument does carry logic, it is still not as black and white as you paint it. A big ground means more people supporting Saints on a regular basis, buying shirts, merchandise, signing up to Saints Player or whatever else, it makes us a bigger club, raises the profile of the football club which could transfer itself into greater amounts earned through sponsorship, advertising, media coverage etc. Lots of positive intangibles, that are much harder to calculate than a simple P&L on each seat built/sold.

 

Gushing? Poor choice of words, if you don't mind me saying.

 

I'm not asking for prices to go up at all; if anything the opposite. If we do get to the Premier League, and if we do find that prices are up towards £45 per game, then I for one will be attending far, far less frequently than I have been doing in the past few years. But I do accept that's the commercial reality of it; we were paying up to £35 for a ticket when last in the Premier League so it's naive to suggest we won't see prices in excess of that this time round.

 

And yes, I'm aware of the other benefits that you mention of additional numbers would bring, and I agree with you. There would also of course be additional costs incurred, such as stewarding, staffing, utlities etc etc, but again you're right, it's far from a black and white issue.

 

Don't think that I'm against ground expansion in theory; I'm absolutely not, and would love to see a need for it. And if my argument comes across as ultra-defensive, then it's just because I thoroughly don't understand the logic of bypassing most good business sense for the costly and premature expansion of a stadium when no-one really has a clue whether it'll be needed or not, and if it is to what extent.

[Sour Mash]

Gushing? Poor choice of words, if you don't mind me saying.

 

I'm not asking for prices to go up at all; if anything the opposite. If we do get to the Premier League, and if we do find that prices are up towards £45 per game, then I for one will be attending far, far less frequently than I have been doing in the past few years. But I do accept that's the commercial reality of it; we were paying up to £35 for a ticket when last in the Premier League so it's naive to suggest we won't see prices in excess of that this time round.

 

And yes, I'm aware of the other benefits that you mention of additional numbers would bring, and I agree with you. There would also of course be additional costs incurred, such as stewarding, staffing, utlities etc etc, but again you're right, it's far from a black and white issue.

 

Don't think that I'm against ground expansion in theory; I'm absolutely not, and would love to see a need for it. And if my argument comes across as ultra-defensive, then it's just because I thoroughly don't understand the logic of bypassing most good business sense for the costly and premature expansion of a stadium when no-one really has a clue whether it'll be needed or not, and if it is to what extent.

You contradict yourself there. So we don't know the commercial implications really and they're far more more detailed and complex than simply ticket price per seat. If that logic was used why did we move from the Dell? Why didn't we just charge £50 a game there? Why does any club move to a bigger stadium? Or any business increase its capacity rather than simply increase its prices? I'm not expecting us to do any development anytime soon, but there is potential for this club to grow and as with any business there is always the need for a certain amount of speculation and risk to achieve that growth. Edited 9 November, 2011 by Sour Mash

[The Kraken]

You contradict yourself there. So we don't know the commercial implications really and they're far more more detailed and complexed than simply ticket price per seat. If that logic was used why did we move from the Dell? Why didn't we just charge £50 a game there? Why does any club move to a bigger stadium? Or any business increase its capacity rather than simply increase its price? I'm not expecting us to do any development anytime soon, but there is potential for this club to grow and as with any business there is always the need for a certain amount of speculation and risk to achieve that growth.

 

Just because we don't know all the details, it doesn't mean the club didn't know them. The management at the Dell had year on year figures relating to costs, revenues, waiting lists etc. We also moved because there were more issues than just normal ticket price, not least one of which was the installation of exec boxes etc that we previously didn't have, so we were able to tap into a huge revenue stream that we had been previously only been able to exploit to a minor degree. The financial incentive to move from the dell was clear at the time; it's much less clear to expand right now.

 

And as my previous post should have told you, I'm not ruling out speculating with a bigger ground in future, far from it. Just hoping for proper due diligence to be done before we commit to it.

[skintsaint]

I'm assuming this is because adding more cranes and concrete and steel when you already have cranes and concrete and steel on site is a lot cheaper than getting it all arranged on two separate occasions

 

Prolly get a decent discount on cranes I would of thought

[Sour Mash]

Just because we don't know all the details, it doesn't mean the club didn't know them. The management at the Dell had year on year figures relating to costs, revenues, waiting lists etc. We also moved because there were more issues than just normal ticket price, not least one of which was the installation of exec boxes etc that we previously didn't have, so we were able to tap into a huge revenue stream that we had been previously only been able to exploit to a minor degree. The financial incentive to move from the dell was clear at the time; it's much less clear to expand right now.

 

And as my previous post should have told you, I'm not ruling out speculating with a bigger ground in future, far from it. Just hoping for proper due diligence to be done before we commit to it.

Good, I'm glad we're all agreed that an expansion of St Mary's is a reasonably realistic aim, but that none of us really have an undersanding of how any such decision may be made.

[Red and White Army]

But we would if back in the Premier League.

 

Not necessarily. West Ham are one of the biggest clubs we will face in the Championship. If this fixture was repeated on Tue night next year when we're both in the bottom quarter of the Premier League then it might well not fill the stadium then.

 

 

The prices in 2005 for Premier League games at St Mary's weren't a lot higher than the £30 it costs for a Championship game today.

 

Apples and oranges. You need to look at Premiership 2005 vs Premiership 2012.

 

Well an expansion would be done if the club intends to compete in the top half, if it doesn't have the funding/ambition for that it won't expand, the two go hand in hand.

 

You can't buy your way to success reliably anyway. There is no evidence our owners have the ambitions to fund a push to Premiership top half. Funding promotion from League 1 is very much cheaper than taking a decent Championship side to top half of the Premier League.

[Latheal]

Kind of siding with MLG here although maybe not to the extent of 40-45K. Its been alluded to here we can increase the stadium by 4K pretty easily. Taking that 4K at a cost of £6,000 per seat will come at a massive £24million (understand how those costs have been speculated on, but lets be honest, we're not sure they are accurate as well). However, so many people on here are saying that increasing the price of a ticket to £40 would be a better idea. Well if that's true, the extra 4K seats will also be sold at £40 as well meaning it would be paid back within 8 years should we sell out in at least the 19 games we play in the league (yes, I know, we may not, but then, it may not cost £6,000 per seat either).

 

More to the point, such a change would only come if/when we are in the Premiership which brings its own TV money and other riches. I don't actually see the problem expanding the stadium and calls that we won't fill the stadium against the lesser teams like Blackburn, Wigan and Bolton - well, they might not even be there. The Premier League is getting more competitive every season - just look at QPR, Norwich and Swansea this season - if we're at the bottom, in a relegation fight, I have no doubt people will be clamouring to get in. If we're not, and we're doing well, the same will apply but for the opposite reasons. Swansea have increased their attendance 4K from last season and Norwich are apparently looking at a further 8K as they are selling out every week (I know that they have a smaller capacity and were getting a larger attendance than us in League 1, but the point is, they have been getting those attendences for 2 years but waited until they got to the Premiership to put plans into action - where the funds would minimise the cost implications). Getting back to the Premier League will undoubtedly be the right time to increase the capacity - and more importantly provide the funds to do it with a long term benefit that could be met.

 

More to the point, and what TLG has alluded to is the extra revenue this COULD bring in. With fair play rules coming in, the infrastructure costs won't count against us but the extra revenue will count for us. I honestly think we'll average at least 30K if and when we get back to the Premiership and wouldn't believe it beyond the realms of possibility to sell out a 36K stadium for at least 75% of the games. Who here doesn't think we will sell out again at least 4 more times this season alone?

 

We're supporters at the end of the day, and whilst the season ticket argument and ROI arguments are sound, I take pride of being there the day we had over 30K against Exeter and Leeds in League 1, that we averaged well over 20,000 in our 2 seasons in League 1 and will probably over average over 25,000 this year. 36K is not beyond the realms of possibility. And out of interest - and this isn't part of the argument, just honestly interested, answer me this. If we had a 45K stadium, would we fill it against Pompey?

 

My shout is yes, without a doubt. Doesn't justify expanding to a 45K stadium but I believe the fanbase is there. The current economic climate is against supporters getting to games, but that could also work in the clubs favour - expanding the stadium would surely be cheaper now, than in the future when the economy gets back on its feet.

 

Just my thoughts.