Our Future? Stadium Expansion Proposal on Season Ticket DVD

[Turkish]

Bored

 

Or just realised what a prat you are?

[aintforever]

Or just realised what a prat you are?

 

LOL, you are the one who said we couldn't compete with Swansea in the transfer market.

[Turkish]

LOL, you are the one who said we couldn't compete with Swansea in the transfer market.

 

As you well know I didn't. Anyway, stop trying to wriggle out of it. Don't you feel a moron for arguing and calling people thick that you actually agree with. It didn't realise it, what does that make you?!

[hypochondriac]

It's obvious what we should do. Stay up for a sustained period of time, establish ourselves as a regular premiership team, sell out every single week, have a substantial season ticket waiting period and then look at the possibility of a small stadium expansion. It isn't rocket science.

[Turkish]

It's obvious what we should do. Stay up for a sustained period of time, establish ourselves as a regular premiership team, sell out every single week, have a substantial season ticket waiting period and then look at the possibility of a small stadium expansion. It isn't rocket science.

 

Sadly, to some it isn't obvious. We need to do it now and come up with all these crazy ideas to justify it.

[aintforever]

As you well know I didn't. Anyway, stop trying to wriggle out of it. Don't you feel a moron for arguing and calling people thick that you actually agree with. It didn't realise it, what does that make you?!

 

I remember it well because you were throwing playground insults around as usual. You said:

 

We couldn't compete with Swansea because they had £40mill Prem money sat in the bank.

The fact that we are owned by Billionaires is irrelevant.

We wouldn't break the Rory Delap record more than three times because it would mean spending more than £20mill and that could never happen.

[Turkish]

I remember it well because you were throwing playground insults around as usual. You said:

 

We couldn't compete with Swansea because they had £40mill Prem money sat in the bank.

The fact that we are owned by Billionaires is irrelevant.

We wouldn't break the Rory Delap record more than three times because it would mean spending more than £20mill and that could never happen.

 

You are wrong a usual. I admit that I didn't think we'd spend over £20m, who did? The Swansea thing was your stupidity as usual. What I actually said and you in your own arguementitive and dense style failed to grasp, was to people who were banging on that we should just spend, spend, spend was that it was arrogant to just assume we could outbid the likes of Swansea who were current premier league club and had already banked a seasons worth of TV money. TO do this would be need to rely on our owners to find it and we shouldn't assume they would, the fact we have rich owners doesn't automatically mean we are a rich club. Obviously you have yet again shown how thick you are today so it's no surprise you couldn't differentiate between this and us having no chance of competing with Swansea. Word of asvice, As you've already embarrassed yourself today by arguing and calling people thick you actually agree with I'd probably log off and come back in a few weeks when most people have forgotten how dense you are dumbass. Xxxx

[John B]

No, that concept just exists in you head.

 

So where are these fans going to come from?

[The Kraken]

So where are these fans going to come from?

 

They're kind of already there. Take a look at the Tottenham and Man United games this season; sold out 2 weeks prior to the game. So we could obviously get more than 32,000 for those games. How many extra, that's the debatable part.

 

Of course the trick is; how do the club get those extra fans to come to the game against the likes of Villa, Fulham and Wigan; thereby making talk of a bigger stadium a much more realistic proposition. We're simply not there yet.

[aintforever]

You are wrong a usual. I admit that I didn't think we'd spend over £20m, who did? The Swansea thing was your stupidity as usual. What I actually said and you in your own arguementitive and dense style failed to grasp, was to people who were banging on that we should just spend, spend, spend was that it was arrogant to just assume we could outbid the likes of Swansea who were current premier league club and had already banked a seasons worth of TV money. TO do this would be need to rely on our owners to find it and we shouldn't assume they would, the fact we have rich owners doesn't automatically mean we are a rich club. Obviously you have yet again shown how thick you are today so it's no surprise you couldn't differentiate between this and us having no chance of competing with Swansea. Word of asvice, As you've already embarrassed yourself today by arguing and calling people thick you actually agree with I'd probably log off and come back in a few weeks when most people have forgotten how dense you are dumbass. Xxxx

 

Ha ha, so you do remember saying it!

[hypochondriac]

Ha ha, so you do remember saying it!

 

Think he just admitted that he didn't see us spending 20 million but he is quite clearly saying that he did not mention us never being able to compete with Swansea.

[John B]

They're kind of already there. Take a look at the Tottenham and Man United games this season; sold out 2 weeks prior to the game. So we could obviously get more than 32,000 for those games. How many extra, that's the debatable part.

 

Of course the trick is; how to the club get those extra fans to come to the game against the likes of Villa, Fulham and Wigan; thereby making talk of a bigger stadium a much more realistic proposition. We're simply not there yet.

 

And never likely to be

 

Surely most clubs are in the same situation so why should SFC be any different

[hypochondriac]

They're kind of already there. Take a look at the Tottenham and Man United games this season; sold out 2 weeks prior to the game. So we could obviously get more than 32,000 for those games. How many extra, that's the debatable part.

 

Of course the trick is; how do the club get those extra fans to come to the game against the likes of Villa, Fulham and Wigan; thereby making talk of a bigger stadium a much more realistic proposition. We're simply not there yet.

 

Not really a trick though is it. The reason these people turn up to United and city is precisely because they want to see these teams and not sfc.

[The Kraken]

And never likely to be

 

Surely most clubs are in the same situation so why should SFC be any different

 

Well of course right now we just don't know for sure. Which is why the only common sense thing to do is monitor attendances over a sustained period of time and make a decision from that.

[Turkish]

Ha ha, so you do remember saying it!

 

I said I didn't think we'd spend £20m. I don't think many did in June or whenever it was. Don't see the problem with that. The rest of it is you too dense to understand the difference between saying we shouldnt just assume we can outbid premier league clubs and not being able to.

 

Tell us how you feel after arguing with and telling people the were thick that you actuslly agree with but didn't realise you did.

Edited 14 October, 2012 by Turkish

[The Kraken]

Not really a trick though is it. The reason these people turn up to United and city is precisely because they want to see these teams and not sfc.

 

It'd be quite some trick to get around 40,000 fans to come and watch Wigan, that's for sure!

 

Perhaps the more pertinent games to highlight are the likes of Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa etc etc. Against the top 5 or 6 we'll get much more than 32000 crowds; as you rightly say, those games are much more attractive to Saints fans. The less popular sides such as Wigan, Fulham, Norwich, Stoke etc, I wouldn't have thought we'll ever get much above the current capacity for those. The mid-range sides will probably be the clincher; regularly sell those out in advance and we can realistically say we need something bigger. Only just get to capacity; and you have ot doubt the rationale of building a bigger stadium for the sake of 5 or 6 matches a season.

[Turkish]

It'd be quite some trick to get around 40,000 fans to come and watch Wigan, that's for sure!

 

Perhaps the more pertinent games to highlight are the likes of Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa etc etc. Against the top 5 or 6 we'll get much more than 32000 crowds; as you rightly say, those games are much more attractive to Saints fans. The less popular sides such as Wigan, Fulham, Norwich, Stoke etc, I wouldn't have thought we'll get much above the current capacity for those. The mid-range sides will probably be the clincher; regularly sell those out in advance and we can realistically say we need something bigger. Only just get to capacity; and you have ot doubt the rationale of building a bigger stadium for the sake of 5 or 6 matches a season.

 

Dynamic pricing, easy jet models, follow what Bayern Munich do and if there are any left give them all to Wigan fans FFS. Have you learnt nothing this week?

[The Kraken]

Dynamic pricing, easy jet models, follow what Bayern Munich do and if there are any left give them all to Wigan fans FFS. Have you learnt nothing this week?

 

I'm still scratching my head at why the likes of Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa and Everton (all clubs with bigger stadia than ours and which throughout last season they each struggled to fill) haven't switched on to this brilliant idea of giving away extra seats to the visiting side. Why hasn't this happened?

[hypochondriac]

I'm still scratching my head at why the likes of Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa and Everton (all clubs with bigger stadia than ours and which throughout last season they each struggled to fill) haven't switched on to this brilliant idea of giving away extra seats to the visiting side. Why hasn't this happened?

 

They aren't visionaries like nicola

[Cheese on Toast]

can you all shut up

[aintforever]

I said I didn't think we'd spend £20m. I don't think many did in June or whenever it was.

 

I did, and got the usual childish nonsense from you.

[Turkish]

I'm still scratching my head at why the likes of Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa and Everton (all clubs with bigger stadia than ours and which throughout last season they each struggled to fill) haven't switched on to this brilliant idea of giving away extra seats to the visiting side. Why hasn't this happened?

 

It is strange, you know I look at Villa and with Birminghams well documented off the pitch problems, you'd think there would be quite a few of Birmingham fans thinking of becoming villa fans as well as all the millions of people in Birminghams catchment area, which borders ours, that are looking for a premier league club to support. I'm surprised they havent tried to tap into them. They already have th room so don't even need to build the seats. It's very odd.

[Turkish]

I did, and got the usual childish nonsense from you.

 

You mean like calling people you agree with thick?

[hypochondriac]

I did, and got the usual childish nonsense from you.

 

You expected us to send over twenty million and fifteen million on one player? Fair play Sir your predictions were incredible!

[RonManager]

can you all shut up

[Cheese on Toast]

 

You went all the way to youtube just to find a link to post to me? That's the nicest thing anyone's ever done for me :')

[Dr Who?]

We are Southampton we will build when we want!

[SaintRichmond]

They're kind of already there. Take a look at the Tottenham and Man United games this season; sold out 2 weeks prior to the game. So we could obviously get more than 32,000 for those games. How many extra, that's the debatable part.

 

Of course the trick is; how do the club get those extra fans to come to the game against the likes of Villa, Fulham and Wigan; thereby making talk of a bigger stadium a much more realistic proposition. We're simply not there yet.

 

 

It's not a trick, it's simple (to say)

 

You have a Good Quality Consistent WINNING Team, capable of finishing in the Top Six, with European Fixtures every year

 

I'm sure that was Markus Leibherr's Dream, and that is what Cortese is aiming for

 

However, it all takes TIME, and it means fans have to be Loyal throughout the "growing" process

[Turkish]

It's not a trick, it's simple (to say)

 

You have a Good Quality Consistent WINNING Team, capable of finishing in the Top Six, with European Fixtures every year

 

I'm sure that was Markus Leibherr's Dream, and that is what Cortese is aiming for

 

However, it all takes TIME, and it means fans have to be Loyal throughout the "growing" process

 

This is the whole point of the argument. The Dell sized thickos like Fry, Myself and Kraken say wait and see if we need it, let's establish ourselves in the premier league, sell out what weve got first but we are all agreed that given a successful team and sellingout what we havein the future we may well need to expand.

 

The self titled Intelligent posters and visionaries are claiming that we should build it now, we are being held back, could esily sell more if we slashed, err i mean dramatially reduced the price coming up with all their bizarre easy jet/Bayern munich/dynamic/give more to away fans price models to shift the tickets and attract new fans.

 

The irony being that some people who were calling us thick actually agreed with us but were too desperate to have an argument and too thick to realise it.

[tajjuk]

Im not going to give you a history lesson in why crowds are bigger now than they were in the 80's, if you cant see the reasons why then you really should never comment on football attendances again.

 

So how do you propose we attact new fans. I take it "being good" is one of them, which to reach the levels of the other clubs you mention such as Chelsea and Man United is going to cost hundreds of millions of pounds in transfer fees. How else?

 

Man Utd didn't get where they did by spending "hundreds of millions in transfer fees" they did it by using their youth team and having stability and faith in a talented manager. Where utd are now is essentially due to Fergie and having the likes of Giggs, Beckham, the Nevilles, Scholes etc coming through the youth team and then supplementing those talented youngsters with experienced players. Something which pretty much is the stated ambition of this club. It means being better and improving, it doesn't mean we have to splash millions on player transfers, had we had this current regime for the last 10 years say we might have been able to have held onto our best young players and had the likes of Walcott, Bale and Oxlaide-Chamberlain in the team, who knows, but again it's the ambition of the club to hold onto our top youth players, run the club sustainably and develop the off-field assets, which includes potentially expanding the stadium.

 

As for your 'history lesson', that just sounds like an 'I've been proven wrong statement so I'll say something to cover it up' statement'. I know why crowds are bigger but then your actual previous post you said this "So what did the Dell have to do with it. why are we going to tap into these tens of thousands of fans with nothig else to do when their team is away on saturday now when we've never done it at anytime in our history?" I showed you an exact point in history where we tapped into over 10k new fans. That gives credence to my previous point about their being potential to find even more fans, I proved my point, backed it up with some evidence and you conveniently ignored it because it showed you up.

 

Sorry for not responding immediately to you, but alas I've been to the gym. In future I'll remember to put my social schedule to one side to provide answers to random faceless people online.

 

My point to you about the Dell was to highlight that "success" in whatever guide is no immediate guarantee of filling a stadium; even one much smaller as we had at the Dell. Success in those guises (top 2, Europe) wasn't enough on its own when we were in the 80s and had a team filled with the European footballer of the year. And neither was a massive catchment area. If you can be arsed to read the other drivel I've written at the top of this page, you'll see exactly where I stand on how many future fans we might expect to see; so your statement that I've "ignored the 30% more fans" is obviously complete nonsense. As for your last paragraph, ok then!

 

As for Wes, if he looks in my previous response to him I've already answered his direct question and given reasons why, so there's really no need to repeat it, is there?

 

You had no point about the dell, I said the dell might have limited attendances which I admit I was wrong about, however I then illustrated that we have grown our fanbase over the years despite general decline in success, I used this as an example of why I think we can grow our fan base in the future.

 

My original post was about our catchment area, and you pointed to previous history saying we haven't been able to 'cash in' on this catchment area even when we were doing very well, yet I pointed out that we have grown our fanbase despite being crap over the years and then you have repeated the same thing again, previously you were having a go at me for saying we were going to tap into £1.7 million people in Hampshire, which I didn't say but it suited your point to present it like that and you made some pointless references to Basingstoke and Fleet, when most of the population of Hampshire are in fact either near Southampton or Portsmouth. When I countered that comment by saying that all the people in Basingstoke we might loose to Chelsea there are loads more in Dorset and the west country without a top flight club you said this "Plymouth. By your rationale they should be utterly huge." Which again I showed was a stupid comment due to the differences between Hampshire and Devon/Cornwall as well as the state of Plymouth, so again you ignored it. There is literally no point in discussing things with you because whenever a point of yours is countered and show up you ignore it and move on to something else. Hence my "cherry pick" statement.

[The Kraken]

There is literally no point in discussing things with you because whenever a point of yours is countered and show up you ignore it and move on to something else. Hence my "cherry pick" statement.

 

And yet you still had a rambling essay to try and do just that. How utterly bizarre.

[Thedelldays]

Where United are now is due to being the biggest club in world football and having the highest turn over in world football

 

Spending £30m on defenders. £20m on keepers.. Buying some of Europe's top top players... Being able to keep Scholes etc..

 

To even try and compare us to them is delusional

[tajjuk]

And yet you still had a rambling essay to try and do just that. How utterly bizarre.

 

Proves my point exactly.

[The Kraken]

Proves my point exactly.

 

It really doesnt't. And I do find it quite funny that you accuse me of "cherry picking" whilst also doing exactly the same yourself. Probably best you pop me on ignore though if you get that upset about it.

[tajjuk]

It really doesnt't. And I do find it quite funny that you accuse me of "cherry picking" whilst also doing exactly the same yourself. Probably best you pop me on ignore though if you get that upset about it.

 

Lol, I'm not upset so don't need to put you on ignore.

 

Where United are now is due to being the biggest club in world football and having the highest turn over in world football

 

Spending £30m on defenders. £20m on keepers.. Buying some of Europe's top top players... Being able to keep Scholes etc..

 

To even try and compare us to them is delusional

 

When they won the league in 1992 they spent £2.2 million, and recouped £1.8 million. They had finished 6th two years before that. Some of their best ever players like Cantona and Schmeichel were signed for relatively small fees. Ferguson was close to being sacked in 1989.

 

Their average attendances were around 45k at the time. The behemoth they are now is largely due to the work done in the early 90's and them cashing in on the explosion of the Premier League. Good scouting and clever pruchases, good youth policy, sticking with a talented manager, investing in the club's infrastructure and making the most of marketing opportunities.

 

Yeh they are a bigger club than we have ever been. but they hadn't won the league for 30 years and were not a top team in the 1980s behind the likes of Liverpool, Everton and Arsenal. but they maximised everything could off field and grew the club to massive results. It wasn't about mass player transfer of millions and millions.

 

Look at Newcastle promoted in 2009-10, Spent £12 million (including Chiote and Ban Arfa) recouped £35 million from Carroll, finished 13th. Then last year finished 5th, almost got Champions League, spent £22 million (including Cabaye, Ba and later Cisse) recouped £12 million is sales. Championship to 5th Europa League in three seasons with a transfer spend of £34 million.

[Turkish]

Man Utd didn't get where they did by spending "hundreds of millions in transfer fees" they did it by using their youth team and having stability and faith in a talented manager. Where utd are now is essentially due to Fergie and having the likes of Giggs, Beckham, the Nevilles, Scholes etc coming through the youth team and then supplementing those talented youngsters with experienced players. Something which pretty much is the stated ambition of this club. It means being better and improving, it doesn't mean we have to splash millions on player transfers, had we had this current regime for the last 10 years say we might have been able to have held onto our best young players and had the likes of Walcott, Bale and Oxlaide-Chamberlain in the team, who knows, but again it's the ambition of the club to hold onto our top youth players, run the club sustainably and develop the off-field assets, which includes potentially expanding the stadium.

 

As for your 'history lesson', that just sounds like an 'I've been proven wrong statement so I'll say something to cover it up' statement'. I know why crowds are bigger but then your actual previous post you said this "So what did the Dell have to do with it. why are we going to tap into these tens of thousands of fans with nothig else to do when their team is away on saturday now when we've never done it at anytime in our history?" I showed you an exact point in history where we tapped into over 10k new fans. That gives credence to my previous point about their being potential to find even more fans, I proved my point, backed it up with some evidence and you conveniently ignored it because it showed you up.

 

 

 

You had no point about the dell, I said the dell might have limited attendances which I admit I was wrong about, however I then illustrated that we have grown our fanbase over the years despite general decline in success, I used this as an example of why I think we can grow our fan base in the future.

 

My original post was about our catchment area, and you pointed to previous history saying we haven't been able to 'cash in' on this catchment area even when we were doing very well, yet I pointed out that we have grown our fanbase despite being crap over the years and then you have repeated the same thing again, previously you were having a go at me for saying we were going to tap into £1.7 million people in Hampshire, which I didn't say but it suited your point to present it like that and you made some pointless references to Basingstoke and Fleet, when most of the population of Hampshire are in fact either near Southampton or Portsmouth. When I countered that comment by saying that all the people in Basingstoke we might loose to Chelsea there are loads more in Dorset and the west country without a top flight club you said this "Plymouth. By your rationale they should be utterly huge." Which again I showed was a stupid comment due to the differences between Hampshire and Devon/Cornwall as well as the state of Plymouth, so again you ignored it. There is literally no point in discussing things with you because whenever a point of yours is countered and show up you ignore it and move on to something else. Hence my "cherry pick" statement.

 

A post littered with inconsistencies and seeing what you want to see.

 

Cantona was signed for around £1.5m, at a time when the british transfer record was around £3m. Loose change now yes it at the time £1.5m was still a reasonable amount of cash. Not loads, but a fair amount.

 

As for your comments about Man U not being where they are without spending big. Lets look at their treble winning side in 1999. Well yes, they had a great academy, they were fortunate that they manged to bring through in Giggs & Scholes two of the greatest players of our era, Beckham a bit behind them in terms of ability but still a top international in his day and also a number of solid premier league and international players like the Neville's, Butt and Wes Brown. That academy crop produced a standard of player that comes through once in a generation and Man U have been big enough to hold into those players, something no other club, not even one the size of Arsenal have been able to do. what you have conviniently forgotten is it was supplemented with big money signs as well, big money at the time remember. Roy Keane, British record when he signed, Andy Cole, british record when he signed, Dwight Yorke, then Man Us biggest ever signing when he joined, Jaap stam Most expensive defender ever when he joined. Plenty of big money signings there sunshine, before we even come onto the likes of Van Nistelroy, Veron, Ferdinand, Rooney etc But It's all be done by having a good academy hasn't it?

 

So why didn't we tap into these 10,000 extra fans when we were getting into europe and playing in cup finals in 2003? Why wasn't the phone lines jammed and thousands of disappointed faces pressing their nose up against the ticket office windows as the 'sold out' signs went up for games in that period?

Edited 15 October, 2012 by Turkish

[The Kraken]

Agreed. United are where they are for a number of reasons. They have always been a massively popular club, even in their wilderness years. They arrived at a brilliant manager in Fergie and stuck with him. They had an utterly incredible crop of players come through all at once, just at the right time for United to cash in on the new riches offered by the Premier League. But they have also been able to consistently hoover up the best talent to supplement all that. Nearly £30M a piece for Ferdinand and Rooney; add in Berbatov, Veron, Anderson, RVN, RVP, de Gea, Carrick, Nani and Owen Hargreaves and you're at almost £250M in transfers just for those. Which doesn't take into account the players, as you say like Roy Keane, Andy Cole, Dwight Yorke etc etc who were less money back then but still considerably huge.

 

Man United have had great success based upon resources from a number of areas. Suggesting huge transfer fees isn't one of those is plain wrong.

[tajjuk]

A post littered with inconsistencies and seeing what you want to see.

 

Cantona was signed for around £1.5m, at a time when the british transfer record was around £3m. Loose change now yes it at the time £1.5m was still a reasonable amount of cash. Not loads, but a fair amount.

 

As for your comments about Man U not being where they are without spending big. Lets look at their treble winning side in 1999. Well yes, they had a great academy, they were fortunate that they manged to bring through in Giggs & Scholes two of the greatest players of our era, Beckham a bit behind them in terms of ability but still a top international in his day and also a number of solid premier league and international players like the Neville's, Butt and Wes Brown. That academy crop produced a standard of player that comes through once in a generation and Man U have been big enough to hold into those players, something no other club, not even one the size of Arsenal have been able to do. what you have conviniently forgotten is it was supplemented with big money signs as well, big money at the time remember. Roy Keane, British record when he signed, Andy Cole, british record when he signed, Dwight Yorke, then Man Us biggest ever signing when he joined, Jaap stam Most expensive defender ever when he joined. Plenty of big money signings there sunshine, before we even come onto the likes of Van Nistelroy, Veron, Ferdinand, Rooney etc But It's all be done by having a good academy hasn't it?

 

So why didn't we tap into these 10,000 extra fans when we were getting into europe and playing in cup finals in 2003? Why wasn't the phone lines jammed and thousands of disappointed faces pressing their nose up against the ticket office windows as the 'sold out' signs went up for games in that period?

 

Do you actually have a point, I was talking about how Utd grew from a top 6 ish size club in the mid to late 80's to dominant premiership champions by the mid 90's and you are talking about 1999? what?

 

1999 was a 7 years after their 'comeback' title, that's continuing success they already had, of course a club that has won the premiership several times and is playing champions league football is going to be able to spend big, that's cashing in on their success. The building blocks for that success were built in the late 80's and the early 90's and it wasn't reliant on big spending. I no point in this period did Man Utd do a Man City or Chelsea which was your original point, they might have bought one big signing a season mainly after they had a lot of success. I also see you ignored my example of Newcastle who went from the championship to challenging for a champions league spot spending £12 million a season.

 

We took a hell of lot to wembley and as Kraken regularly tells us in his attendance threads we were selling out to teams like villa weeks in advance. Our average attendance in 2003/04 was 31,699, a mere 990 empty seats on average most likely due to away fan allocations, we only had one game that had less than 31,000. Our average attendances since that season have slipped away so I again I don't really get your point? Our success brought in a lot of new fans.

[The Kraken]

Do you actually have a point, I was talking about how Utd grew from a top 6 ish size club in the mid to late 80's to dominant premiership champions by the mid 90's and you are talking about 1999? what?

 

1999 was a 7 years after their 'comeback' title, that's continuing success they already had, of course a club that has won the premiership several times and is playing champions league football is going to be able to spend big, that's cashing in on their success. The building blocks for that success were built in the late 80's and the early 90's and it wasn't reliant on big spending. I no point in this period did Man Utd do a Man City or Chelsea which was your original point, they might have bought one big signing a season mainly after they had a lot of success. I also see you ignored my example of Newcastle who went from the championship to challenging for a champions league spot spending £12 million a season.

 

We took a hell of lot to wembley and as Kraken regularly tells us in his attendance threads we were selling out to teams like villa weeks in advance. Our average attendance in 2003/04 was 31,699, a mere 990 empty seats on average most likely due to away fan allocations, we only had one game that had less than 31,000. Our average attendances since that season have slipped away so I again I don't really get your point? Our success brought in a lot of new fans.

 

I'm afraid it was. Plus all the other factors previously mentioned (great academy, huge attractive club to start with, brilliant manager etc) but the signings made simply can't be put down as just "experienced" players as you previously did. United underpinned their success by making record transfers. It perhaps started even earlier than you suggest; buying Bryan Robson for a British club record (a record which stood for 6 years). They then toppled that in the late 80s with a club record re-signing of Mark Hughes. A British record £2M fee was agreed for Paul Gascoigne before he went to Spurs at the last minute. Gary Pallister joined in 89/90 for a fee which was a tiny shade below the british record at the time (2.3M, record was 2.5M). Roy Keane was a British record signing in 93/94; Andy Cole a British record in 94/95. And United really put their mark on the European stage with their Champions League win in 99, which was underpinned by the signings of Jaap Stam (most expensive defender in history at the time) and Dwight Yorke who cost even more. Within the next 3 years United broke the British record transfer 3 more time with tne signings of van Nistelrooy, Veron and Ferdinand, and that what was what really pushed them on to the European elite, and "where they are now" as you suggested.

 

So yes, United have always been reliant on big spending; it has only been one facet of why they have been successful, but it is a valid one nonetheless.

Edited 16 October, 2012 by The Kraken

[Turkish]

Do you actually have a point, I was talking about how Utd grew from a top 6 ish size club in the mid to late 80's to dominant premiership champions by the mid 90's and you are talking about 1999? what?

 

1999 was a 7 years after their 'comeback' title, that's continuing success they already had, of course a club that has won the premiership several times and is playing champions league football is going to be able to spend big, that's cashing in on their success. The building blocks for that success were built in the late 80's and the early 90's and it wasn't reliant on big spending. I no point in this period did Man Utd do a Man City or Chelsea which was your original point, they might have bought one big signing a season mainly after they had a lot of success. I also see you ignored my example of Newcastle who went from the championship to challenging for a champions league spot spending £12 million a season.

 

We took a hell of lot to wembley and as Kraken regularly tells us in his attendance threads we were selling out to teams like villa weeks in advance. Our average attendance in 2003/04 was 31,699, a mere 990 empty seats on average most likely due to away fan allocations, we only had one game that had less than 31,000. Our average attendances since that season have slipped away so I again I don't really get your point? Our success brought in a lot of new fans.

 

I fail to see the relevance of how many we took to Wembley. Millwall and Luton have taken similar sized support there in recent years, are you suggesting they too need a bigger, 45,000 stadium? We attracted new fans when we moved to SMS or those that couldn't get in at the Dell, to fill this 45,000 stadium some are dreaming off, we will need to fill the Dell 3 times over and generate as may new fans on expansion as we did when we moved. Where are they all now? Where were they in 2003?

 

Okay the evidence of the united team which was built in the late 80s and early 90s. Let's look at their team which won the cup winners cup in 1991. Gary Pallister, British record for a defender at the time, mark Hughes, united record when he resigned from Barcelona, Bryan Robson british record at the time, As well as the likes of Brian McClair, Steve Bruce, Dennis Iriwn and Paul Ince who were all signed for fees of around £1m, a lot of money for transfers between English clubs back then in their positions when you consider that the record fee back then was £2m for Paul Gasgoine, who was the golden boy of English football at that time. But it's all been do by having a good academy and adding the odd experienced player has it? It's not going very well for you this is it?

Edited 16 October, 2012 by Turkish

[Thedelldays]

I will will never forget when Andy Cole signed for man u... Record transfer fee and the press told us how he was the highest paid player in the UK and had to take his wages home in a wheel Barrow...

 

It would be easier to keep Bale and oxo if we regularly broke the British transfer record and at times, the world transfer record....

 

 

We are not going to... We never will and we will lose players as good as Bale more often than not

[Sour Mash]

Do you actually have a point, I was talking about how Utd grew from a top 6 ish size club in the mid to late 80's to dominant premiership champions by the mid 90's and you are talking about 1999? what?

 

1999 was a 7 years after their 'comeback' title, that's continuing success they already had, of course a club that has won the premiership several times and is playing champions league football is going to be able to spend big, that's cashing in on their success. The building blocks for that success were built in the late 80's and the early 90's and it wasn't reliant on big spending. I no point in this period did Man Utd do a Man City or Chelsea which was your original point, they might have bought one big signing a season mainly after they had a lot of success. I also see you ignored my example of Newcastle who went from the championship to challenging for a champions league spot spending £12 million a season.

 

We took a hell of lot to wembley and as Kraken regularly tells us in his attendance threads we were selling out to teams like villa weeks in advance. Our average attendance in 2003/04 was 31,699, a mere 990 empty seats on average most likely due to away fan allocations, we only had one game that had less than 31,000. Our average attendances since that season have slipped away so I again I don't really get your point? Our success brought in a lot of new fans.

It is hard to take you seriously when you compare us to Manchester United. They've always had a team of big stars and have been able to attract top players, even when they were rubbish. When United won their first Premiership title I think they had two academy players in their first XI, how do you think the rest of their quality team ended up there?

[The Kraken]

It is hard to take you seriously when you compare us to Manchester United. They've always had a team of big stars and have been able to attract top players, even when they were rubbish. When United won their first Premiership title I think they had two academy players in their first XI, how do you think the rest of their quality team ended up there?

 

And one of those was Lee Sharpe, signed on YTS forms from Torquay for £200K, a record fee for a YTS apprentice at the time.

[Thedelldays]

How much did Danny Wallace cost them.... Quite a bit.

[Turkish]

How much did Danny Wallace cost them.... Quite a bit.

 

£1.2m. Was 1989 I think. A lot of money back then. The record between English clubs was £2m. A record sale for us as well.

[Thedelldays]

£1.2m. Was 1989 I think. A lot of money back then. The record between English clubs was £2m. A record sale for us as well.

 

Despite all these facts.. Ttjjjuk is adamant they did not build their success on (largely) vast amounts of money

[Wes Tender]

So 20 pages in, have we reached any conclusions, based on what Manchester United have achieved historically?

 

Having covered them, I really do believe that the debate ought to be continued with several pages of facts and figures relating to Arsenal's and Liverpool's transfer dealings in the 90's too.

 

Cortese will find all this information invaluable in assisting him to reach a decision as to how big the expansion should be and the precise optimum moment when it should be enacted.

 

Well done, lads.

[buctootim]

Regardless of who did what in the past - its obvious that if you are able to provide half of your team from the academy then whatever transfer budget you have will go further - you can spend twice as much per player buying in quality than you would have otherwise been able to.

[tajjuk]

I fail to see the relevance of how many we took to Wembley. Millwall and Luton have taken similar sized support there in recent years, are you suggesting they too need a bigger, 45,000 stadium? We attracted new fans when we moved to SMS or those that couldn't get in at the Dell, to fill this 45,000 stadium some are dreaming off, we will need to fill the Dell 3 times over and generate as may new fans on expansion as we did when we moved. Where are they all now? Where were they in 2003?

 

Okay the evidence of the united team which was built in the late 80s and early 90s. Let's look at their team which won the cup winners cup in 1991. Gary Pallister, British record for a defender at the time, mark Hughes, united record when he resigned from Barcelona, Bryan Robson british record at the time, As well as the likes of Brian McClair, Steve Bruce, Dennis Iriwn and Paul Ince who were all signed for fees of around £1m, a lot of money for transfers between English clubs back then in their positions when you consider that the record fee back then was £2m for Paul Gasgoine, who was the golden boy of English football at that time. But it's all been do by having a good academy and adding the odd experienced player has it? It's not going very well for you this is it?

 

Potential fans, isn't that the whole point of the thread? I mean the club must think they are there to be serious enough to consider the expansion and draw up plans. Those 45k at the cup final must have some affinity for Saints otherwise they wouldn't spend all that money and effort going to Wembley?, and it's not like we had an allocation, we had exactly enough takers to use it up and that was it, there were obviously no disappointed fans were there?.

 

First you said our success in 1983/84 didn;t get us many new fans, except we have gained over a 30% more since then depsite being generally poor. So you moved on and cited our 'success' in 2003 and said it didn't bring in any new fans, except it did the following season was our highest average attendance we have had at St Mary's, now you are asking where they have gone? Seriously? first you were saying they weren't there, now they have gone? Make your mind up. You have a go at me for inconsistencies

 

Do clubs build new stadiums purely because they have 20k extra fans queuing up for every single home game regardless of opposition? No, they don't, they build stadiums based on their potential fan base. Earlier in the thread I cited Sunderland as an example, their Stadium has a 49,000.00 seater capacity, they recently got 37k against Wigan, do you think they are overly bothered that about 10k fans don't want to watch Wigan? I doubt it. They get 45k plus against the likes of Tottenham and Liverpool so probably think their stadium expansion is worth it in the long run. I have cited several reasons why I think we can attract new fans, especially if the club continues to improve on the pitch which would make a Stadium expansion viable, clearly the club agrees with me. You clearly don't agree which is fair enough but that's all have your own negative opinion that shifts about from point to point because you have nothing to back your opinion up with. If you go back through my posts you'll see I said that I didn't think it should be done now, I merely said that I thought that if the club continues to grow we have the potential to attract more fans, I have given perfectly good reasons as to why I think this, all I have had in response is odd nitpicking things like people in Basingstoke might still support Chelsea and you trying to deny at every corner that we don't have any more fans despite clear evidence that we do, it's truly sad. Several people in this thread have given more than reasonable explanations as to why they think it is viable now and I agree with some of the reasoning but still think it's too soon.

 

As for the Man Utd, I was responding directly to a comment about having to do a 'Chelsea' or Man City to get success and pointed out that Man Utd got success without a mass splurge of player transfers, yes they bought players and paid some good money for them, but did every other club around them not? I'm presuming Liverpool the biggest and most successful club in England in the 80's decided not to buy any players in the early 90's? Same with Arsenal, Everton etc, no? Only Man Utd had money and spent money? I also pointed out Newcastle, (which has been ignored )as an example that you don't have to do a 'Chelsea or a Man City' to get success.

 

How about Arsenal? Still challenging for the title despite being no where near close to their rivals in spending power (based on clever overseas buys and good youth recruitment) Arsenal's net transfer spend in the last 10 years in the Premier League is minus £4.22 million.

 

Everton? potentially on for the champions league this year on shoestring budget, despite needing a new stadium and constantly looking for new investment?

 

The only way for success is clearly by spending millions and millions of pounds on player transfers, clearly.

[Turkish]

So,if you don't think it should be done now and that possibly could be in the future with continued on the pitch success. What exactly is the point of writing this long, keyboard thumping essays? We agree on that.

 

As for your point about success by not spending millions, you point to Newcastle, who still finished Outside the champions league places, who still lost their valuable player and won nothing. The only clubs who make the regularly make the champions league are the ones who spend big. Even arsenal, the one you mentioned have spent over £100m on transfers over the last two seasons. P*ses on that argument doesn't it.. If you think we are going to bring through a crop of players and keep them of the standard good enough to play champions league football without adding players of champions league quality at champions leafue prices you're living in another planet sunshine.

Edited 16 October, 2012 by Turkish