Our Future? Stadium Expansion Proposal on Season Ticket DVD

[Sour Mash]

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.

I think if you look through the final league positions in the Premier League over the last 20 years, you'll find a pretty clear correlation between money spent and success on the field. Yes there is the odd exception to the rule, as with anyything stretched over a 20 year period. For every club on a tight budget and using academy players that has done exceptionally well, there are 20 others that have taken the same approach and struggled.

[tajjuk]

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.

 

 

Keyboard thumping? I was merely reacting and responding to areas where my posts were countered and criticised, not my fault you don't read people's posts and make assumptions.

 

Where have I said that we wouldn't need to buy players? I haven't said that anywhere, I merely stated that I think we could have long term success by investing in our youth players/academy, filling in the gaps with talented and cheaper foreign players and maximising the club's off-field potential (which may include the stadium expansion) rather than getting an Arab Sheik to splurge his millions on us and we buy a load of Robinho's and Jordan Hendersons. Maybe I'm over optimistic but I think the club can potentially be a bigger club and a champions league club if keep going with our current philosophy.

 

The example's I used all have elements of what Saints are trying to do, good youth team policy/recruitment (Arsenal), increase off field revenue/commercial activities (arsenal/newcastle), management stability and good team ethic (Everton), Yes I know Newcastle haven't won anything but they have gone from promoted club to the europa league in 3 years, a pretty big jump, yet people scoffed at our Chairman stating European football as a realistic ambition, and they did it buy not spending a huge amount of money. with a hated Chairman and an (IMO) average manager. (and they seemed to manage it with Championship defenders). Yeh if we produce another Gareth Bale/Oxlade Chamberlain, City or Utd will come sniffing but we will be able to get £25 million for them and get two Ramirez's, isn't that effectively what Newcastle did?, they conned Liverpool out of £35 million for Carroll and got Paps Cisse for a third of the price and he's better than Carroll. Yeh Arsenal might have spent £100 million but you conveniently ignore the fact that they got more than that in sales, they got a 21 year old Van Persie for £2.75 million and sold him on at 29 for £25 million.

[The Kraken]

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.

 

The notion of Cortese thumbing through here for advice on how to run the club is quite humorous. Good one Wes.

[Turkish]

Keyboard thumping? I was merely reacting and responding to areas where my posts were countered and criticised, not my fault you don't read people's posts and make assumptions.

 

Where have I said that we wouldn't need to buy players? I haven't said that anywhere, I merely stated that I think we could have long term success by investing in our youth players/academy, filling in the gaps with talented and cheaper foreign players and maximising the club's off-field potential (which may include the stadium expansion) rather than getting an Arab Sheik to splurge his millions on us and we buy a load of Robinho's and Jordan Hendersons. Maybe I'm over optimistic but I think the club can potentially be a bigger club and a champions league club if keep going with our current philosophy.

 

The example's I used all have elements of what Saints are trying to do, good youth team policy/recruitment (Arsenal), increase off field revenue/commercial activities (arsenal/newcastle), management stability and good team ethic (Everton), Yes I know Newcastle haven't won anything but they have gone from promoted club to the europa league in 3 years, a pretty big jump, yet people scoffed at our Chairman stating European football as a realistic ambition, and they did it buy not spending a huge amount of money. with a hated Chairman and an (IMO) average manager. (and they seemed to manage it with Championship defenders). Yeh if we produce another Gareth Bale/Oxlade Chamberlain, City or Utd will come sniffing but we will be able to get £25 million for them and get two Ramirez's, isn't that effectively what Newcastle did?, they conned Liverpool out of £35 million for Carroll and got Paps Cisse for a third of the price and he's better than Carroll. Yeh Arsenal might have spent £100 million but you conveniently ignore the fact that they got more than that in sales, they got a 21 year old Van Persie for £2.75 million and sold him on at 29 for £25 million.

 

It sounds so easy doesn't it. We build a team around our academy players and plug the gaps with good foreigners which weVe bought on the cheap. Can I ask why no other club has thought of this ingenious idea? Why didn't Man City do it instead of buying hundreds of millions of pounds worth of players? Why didn't Villa do it when they were finishing 6th three seasons in a row with a team containing Milner, Barry, Downing and Young? Why haven't Sunderland thought if doing it? It really is quite straightforward when you put it like that. It's incredible no one else has tried it and that we are the only club that could possibly succeed with it.

[Wes Tender]

The notion of Cortese thumbing through here for advice on how to run the club is quite humorous. Good one Wes.

 

Well, it's quite obvious from some of the comments on here that the most knowledgeable posters are not confident that he will know when to enlarge and to what extent. And here is a valuable resource to guide him. All somebody has to do, is point him in this direction for expert consultancy advice without a fee.

[Wurzel]

One thing is for sure. None of us on here "know" for sure how much per seat it would cost to extend the stadium, what interest will be charged on any borrowing (if any) needed to do it, how many years that the expense will be written off over, what market research has been done to gauge demand (if any) for extra seats, what future plans (note plans not guarantees) the club has to ensure that any future seats (not to mention the existing ones) will still be popular in years to come and at what price range, what ancillary services (i.e hotel, conference rooms, leisure etc and the income it provides) could also be added if extended.

The other thing that is for sure is that every club that HAS extended or moved will have known all that before they've done so.

Question. How many have extended or moved and NOT achieved a higher average attendance once they'd done so?

[Turkish]

One thing is for sure. None of us on here "know" for sure how much per seat it would cost to extend the stadium, what interest will be charged on any borrowing (if any) needed to do it, how many years that the expense will be written off over, what market research has been done to gauge demand (if any) for extra seats, what future plans (note plans not guarantees) the club has to ensure that any future seats (not to mention the existing ones) will still be popular in years to come and at what price range, what ancillary services (i.e hotel, conference rooms, leisure etc and the income it provides) could also be added if extended.

The other thing that is for sure is that every club that HAS extended or moved will have known all that before they've done so.

Question. How many have extended or moved and NOT achieved a higher average attendance once they'd done so?

 

When Lowe was he here he said the cost worked out around 3k per seat. I have no idea if prices have gone up or down since then.

[CB Fry]

Well, it's quite obvious from some of the comments on here that the most knowledgeable posters are not confident that he will know when to enlarge and to what extent. And here is a valuable resource to guide him. All somebody has to do, is point him in this direction for expert consultancy advice without a fee.

 

 

 

Not sure Nicola Cortese needs to read a load of horsesh it from you and your chums about Drastically reduced tickets, Easyjet model, Bayern Munich model, Pompey defectors and our gigantic catchment area of people hitherto with no interest in Saints.

 

But hey, send him over. I'm sure he'll work out our self-proclaimed intelligent posters are always good value for a laugh.

[Wes Tender]

*Yawn*

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[tajjuk]

It sounds so easy doesn't it. We build a team around our academy players and plug the gaps with good foreigners which weVe bought on the cheap. Can I ask why no other club has thought of this ingenious idea? Why didn't Man City do it instead of buying hundreds of millions of pounds worth of players? Why didn't Villa do it when they were finishing 6th three seasons in a row with a team containing Milner, Barry, Downing and Young? Why haven't Sunderland thought if doing it? It really is quite straightforward when you put it like that. It's incredible no one else has tried it and that we are the only club that could possibly succeed with it.

 

Didn't say it was easy, the reason a lot of clubs aren't doing it is mainly a combination of short termism, stupidity, old school football thinking and financial issues. For example Man City wanted success as soon as possible, so they threw money at the problem, they have longer term planning in place as well hence they have invested in the training ground and their academy and have bought lots and lots of younger players, however they have so much money that they can splurge hundreds of millions on players to get immediate success, they are an anomaly though, virtually no other club has their spending power even Chelsea, maybe those cash rich Russian clubs.

 

Other clubs only look at the now, they have limited budgets and they are so scared of being out of the premiership money train that they spend £15 million on some overpriced premiership experienced players to try and stay in the league, West Ham being an example, they go for the manager and the players that will keep them up this season, however not realising that whilst fat Sam can build efficient, direct premiership teams that will avoid relegation that is as far as they get, they never really progress. QPR are another example, splurge of player signings, mainly on older more 'experienced' players with high wages and little re-sale value, no real team ethos and still playing in a tiny stadium.

 

Also a lot of 'football' people are stupid and too stuck in the past, look at the mistrust of the AVB's of the world a modern tactical and talented young coach (mainly not given the credence because he didn't play pro) compared with the MicK McCarthy's of this world, how the hell does Mick McCarthy keep getting jobs?, favourite to replace Owen Coyle at Bolton. Look at the over top fees paid for average English players, £35 million for Andy Carroll? £20 Million for Jordan Henderson, £24 million for James Milner? Look at how our kids aren't coached properly at a young age, how u10 games kids are allowed to kick the crap out of each other and it's all about winning the game even at that young age when it should be about technique and skill. How it's taken this country till 2012 to build a national football centre. Old school thought, traditionalism and too much trust 'football' people has held English football back. I think the Dalglish return to Liverpool about summed it up, out of touch old manager given too much trust based on past glories 20 years ago and free reign to sign average over rated English players.

 

Some clubs just don't have any money, Villa who you mentioned aren't bankrolled by Lerner anymore and have been in decline for years, clubs like West Brom and Fulham are consistently punching above their weight and doing well, I don't really know about Sunderland, they have the potential to be a big club but again don't ever seem to progress, they transfer policy seems to be quite standard with a lot of premiership clubs, they sign mainly premiership rejects from bigger clubs for high fees, maybe that is holding them back? They have also had a turnover of managers in the last few years so not much stability. I don't know the details about Sunderland.

 

Lot's of factors really, and no it isn't easy nor will it be easy. Maybe if UEFA gets it's arse in gear it and actually works out some decent financial fair play laws and homegrown limits it'll be a bit easier. However we are well placed to do it, we tick lots of boxes, we have one of the best academies in the country, a track record of developing good young players, we will soon have world class training facilities, a modern stadium, a young talented modern thinking manager, an ambitious chairman, sound financial footing, a decent fan base, we have bought some young talented players with a lot of potential and we are scouring the world for more, we are playing attractive football. We are sharing ideas with a massive club like Barcelona and looking at other club's models. Adopting a 'philosophy' throughout the club like Barcelona. Like I said we tick lots of boxes and a lot more than a lot of clubs in the premiership for various reasons, so is it too much of a stretch to think we can progress further than the likes of Villa, Sunderland, West Brom, Fulham, Stoke, etc? maybe even beyond Liverpool and Everton?

Edited 17 October, 2012 by tajjuk

[daveygwyatt]

Im sure its been covered and for the record im in the we dont need to expand yet camp. But is it posible we will receive funding towards increasing capacity if we host any rugby world cup games? . Prehaps if this is the case ( and i have no idea if it is) then maybe expansion at a reduced cost would be considered viable even without current demand.

[Saint_clark]

Not sure Nicola Cortese needs to read a load of horsesh it from you and your chums about Drastically reduced tickets, Easyjet model, Bayern Munich model, Pompey defectors and our gigantic catchment area of people hitherto with no interest in Saints.

 

But hey, send him over. I'm sure he'll work out our self-proclaimed intelligent posters are always good value for a laugh.

 

I'm sure the irony of this statement isn't just noticed by me.

[The Kraken]

Im sure its been covered and for the record im in the we dont need to expand yet camp. But is it posible we will receive funding towards increasing capacity if we host any rugby world cup games? . Prehaps if this is the case ( and i have no idea if it is) then maybe expansion at a reduced cost would be considered viable even without current demand.

 

For the rugby; its debatable we'll get anything other than group games. Surely all England games will be played at Twickenham, so the best we can hope for is for a home-nations side; but then we're also potentially competing against the Olympic stadium, Millenium Stadium, Wembley, Old Trafford, St. James Park, Elland Road, Stadium of Light and Villa Park as grounds that have significantly more capacity than us.

 

So you'd have to guess that the likelihood is we'll get games such as Tonga v Samoa, or other such thrillers. I don't think a justifiable case could be made that those sorts of ties will demand capacities in excess of St. Mary's; plus other stadia shortlisted include Bristol City, Leicester, Coventry, Brighton and MK, so there could be a bit of a big claim from all those clubs if they look to expand on the back of the RWC.

[tajjuk]

Im sure its been covered and for the record im in the we dont need to expand yet camp. But is it posible we will receive funding towards increasing capacity if we host any rugby world cup games? . Prehaps if this is the case ( and i have no idea if it is) then maybe expansion at a reduced cost would be considered viable even without current demand.

 

I think we would need a football world cup and then we might be considered a potential venue, but I don't see corrupt FIFA giving us one of those for a long time

[Matthew Le God]

Im sure its been covered and for the record im in the we dont need to expand yet camp. But is it posible we will receive funding towards increasing capacity if we host any rugby world cup games? . Prehaps if this is the case ( and i have no idea if it is) then maybe expansion at a reduced cost would be considered viable even without current demand.

 

Unlike the FIFA World Cup or UEFA Euros there is no big money to be made from hosting the Rugby World Cup, certainly not enough to warrant expanding stadiums at huge cost. The last Rugby World Cup in 2011 had group games at stadiums with capacities as low as between 15,000 to 20,000, so St Mary's at 32,000 is fine for Rugby World Cup group games.

Edited 17 October, 2012 by Matthew Le God

[trousers]

Have Brighton got this whole 'stadium experience' right?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19977215?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[hypochondriac]

Have Brighton got this whole 'stadium experience' right?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19977215?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

Contrast that with the awful experience I had the one time I stayed after a game at sms. It is very disappointing.

[Sour Mash]

Have Brighton got this whole 'stadium experience' right?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19977215?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Fans get in early and stay after the game at the Amex because there's nothing else around the ground, rather than any great 'quality' of the 'product'.

[melmacian_saint]

Fans get in early and stay after the game at the Amex because there's nothing else around the ground, rather than any great 'quality' of the 'product'.

 

Exactly. And I can imagine the internal claustrophobia attacks plus jam stress that goes through most people as they hop on the buses/train or try to drive out back into town.

 

Although to be fair if I had experienced even a year of the Withdean craphole, a stadium in the middle of the channel would've seemed a great matchday experience.

 

For the record does anyone remember season ticket prices at SMS before the 2005 relegation?