Our Future? Stadium Expansion Proposal on Season Ticket DVD

[hypochondriac]

Don't forget now, Every single prem game is easily available to stream on the net. Which I don't recall was the case 10 years ago

 

I for one will be going less due to this simple fact. I see little point in paying a shed load of money to watch something I can see for free in my own home. I imagine I will go to less games this season than I did last.

[Turkish]

An ad hoc weighted system of recent generations of attendances, league and cup performance, population size and infrastructure. Which is all a "who is the bigger club?" debate can ever be. It is all very arbitrary and subjective.

 

Isnt there any important pieces of evidence that you might not be aware of?

[Dig Dig]

yes, i am absolutely sure they have. Which is why, despite the demands of some people on here, they aren't laying bricks and fitting chairs right now. It seems NC appears to side with the Dell sized mentality posters who would like to see a season or so of sell outs and a full 32k SMS before spunking millions on making it bigger. Does that make sense to you?

 

I haven't seen anyone demand that it's built now. Some people have been arguing that there is sufficient data to support expansion already, others have countered it.

 

Simply put, none of us know exactly what the club's stance is on expansion, sensible option is to wait and see but would it be a huge surprise to hear some announcements from the club within the next year? Probably not.

 

As others have said, this debate is all relevant to success on the pitch, something which can never be guarenteed anyway. Does that make sense to you?

[kpturner]

I for one will be going less due to this simple fact. I see little point in paying a shed load of money to watch something I can see for free in my own home. I imagine I will go to less games this season than I did last.

Surely being there and being part of the atmosphere is one of the biggest attractions of being a (insert sport) fan? If everybody thought like that then there would soon be no revenue and therefore no sport to watch anyway.

[The Kraken]

32k

7k on Kingland

3k on Chapel

3k on Northam

 

= 45k

 

As I said "maybe more", so could be an extra 3k you talked about (spilt over the three stands) taking it to 48k.

 

OK. I'll accept your 7K on the Kingsland. I think your 3K on the Northam/Chapel is way out, and I'll explain why.

 

In the original incarnation of the stadium it was possible for 8K extra on the Kingland, and 4K on the Chapel and Northam. That assumed that seats on the Northam and Chapel would go back as far as the Kingsland extension. In the new design, they clearly don't.

 

Firstly:

 

This is the view of the Itchen/Chapel corner. I think it shows that the seats don't actually go any higher within the Itchen/Chapel corner itself, and they potentially start to rise from the right hand side of the Chapel. Now, using simple mathematics, if that back line of seats goes straight up to the Kingland level, then that adds half of the 4,000 seats possible in a straight extension, so 2,000 on each side. Maybe a touch more if the Chapel/Kingsland corner is included.

 

However, the back of the Chapel/Northam clearly isn't as high as the back of the Kingsland. Hence the significant step up in the roof, and in the area I've highlighted below.

 

 

So I think there's actually less than 2,000 on the Chapel and Northam. Using that design, and the original 4,000 seat restriction, and that the seats don't start to go further back in the Itchen corner, I think (even taking into account the rise of seats into the Chapel/Kingsland corner) that 3,000 is mathematically impossible, and therefore that your numbers are rather flawed.

[Matthew Le God]

Isnt there any important pieces of evidence that you might not be aware of?

 

You are missing a key point. Man Utd to Darlington is easier to compare than Saints to Everton.

 

Darlington is a small market town and struggle to break the 2k mark in a 25k stadium in the 5th tier. Saints averaged circa 22k in the 3rd tier, 26k in the 2nd tier and sold out regularly whilst in the top flight, we don't know what their upper limit is as demand outstrips supply when Saints are in the top flight. Everton averaged 33k during a season of a 7th place finish, despite being able to average 40k in theory but failed.

Edited 20 June, 2012 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

I haven't seen anyone demand that it's built now. Some people have been arguing that there is sufficient data to support expansion already, others have countered it.

 

Simply put, none of us know exactly what the club's stance is on expansion, sensible option is to wait and see but would it be a huge surprise to hear some announcements from the club within the next year? Probably not.

 

As others have said, this debate is all relevant to success on the pitch, something which can never be guarenteed anyway. Does that make sense to you?

 

So we agree then. Good good.

[View From The Top]

Surely being there and being part of the atmosphere is one of the biggest attractions of being a (insert sport) fan? If everybody thought like that then there would soon be no revenue and therefore no sport to watch anyway.

 

Money talks and after this season I doubt I'll renew and go to the northern games only and watch the streams live instead.

 

Price is becoming too high and from next year my nippers ticket goes up £200 odd.

[hypochondriac]

Surely being there and being part of the atmosphere is one of the biggest attractions of being a (insert sport) fan? If everybody thought like that then there would soon be no revenue and therefore no sport to watch anyway.

 

Until you realise that the vast majority of revenue is from TV revenue. I can still follow my team by a combination of watching on the internet and going to a few games and I get to save a lot more money that I can spend on more important things like my house and things in my life.

[Matthew Le God]

OK. I'll accept your 7K on the Kingsland. I think your 3K on the Northam/Chapel is way out, and I'll explain why.

 

In the original incarnation of the stadium it was possible for 8K extra on the Kingland, and 4K on the Chapel and Northam. That assumed that seats on the Northam and Chapel would go back as far as the Kingsland extension. In the new design, they clearly don't.

 

Firstly:

 

This is the view of the Itchen/Chapel corner. I think it shows that the seats don't actually go any higher within the Itchen/Chapel corner itself, and they potentially start to rise from the right hand side of the Chapel. Now, using simple mathematics, if that back line of seats goes straight up to the Kingland level, then that adds half of the 4,000 seats possible in a straight extension, so 2,000 on each side. Maybe a touch more if the Chapel/Kingsland corner is included.

 

However, the back of the Chapel/Northam clearly isn't as high as the back of the Kingsland. Hence the significant step up in the roof, and in the area I've highlighted below.

 

 

So I think there's actually less than 2,000 on the Chapel and Northam. Using that design, and the original 4,000 seat restriction, and that the seats don't start to go further back in the Itchen corner, I think (even taking into account the rise of seats into the Chapel/Kingsland corner) that 3,000 is mathematically impossible, and therefore that your numbers are rather flawed.

 

Where have you got your 8k, 4k and 4k figures from? I did say it could be more than 45k, I was only guessing. Maybe it is the figures you use and capacity will go upto 48k.

[The Kraken]

Money talks and after this season I doubt I'll renew and go to the northern games only and watch the streams live instead.

 

Price is becoming too high and from next year my nippers ticket goes up £200 odd.

 

With Sky's new deal from 2013, each club will be on television on average 2 games out of every 5 games. So around 15 games per season on TV, and no need to spend £40 or whatever on ticket price. Personally I think that's will be a very significant factor in what attendances we can attract.

[hypochondriac]

Money talks and after this season I doubt I'll renew and go to the northern games only and watch the streams live instead.

 

Price is becoming too high and from next year my nippers ticket goes up £200 odd.

 

Yep a sensible decision. Your place will most likely be taken by a JCL at any rate.

[Turkish]

You are missing a key point. Man Utd to Darlington is easier to compare than Saints to Everton.

 

Darlington is a small market town and struggle to break the 2k mark in a 25k stadium in the 5th tier. Saints averaged circa 22k in the 3rd tier, 26k in the 2nd tier and sold out regularly whilst in the top flight, we don't know what their upper limit is as demand outstrips supply when Saints are in the top flight. Everton averaged 33k during a season of a 7th place finish, despite being able to average 40k in theory but failed.

 

Well let's use the factors you used to decide who is he bigger club out of Darlington and Man U, let's apply them to Saints and Everton.

 

Historic attendances - Everton

League and cup performances - Everton

Population - Everton

Infrastructure - Everton

 

Other than guessing at what saints demand might be one day in the future if we expand, do well mars aligns to venus and so on I'm struggling to make a case using your factors for saints being bigger than Everton.

[The Kraken]

Where have you got your 8k, 4k and 4k figures from? I did say it could be more than 45k, I was only guessing. Maybe it is the figures you use and capacity will go upto 48k.

 

8K 4K and 4K were the figures previously quoted that the stadium capacity could be increased to, without knocking it all down and starting again. It was also what the foundations of the stadium etc were designed to.

 

And it simply can't be 48K, for the reasons I just explained (and even used pictorial reference).

[stevegrant]

This is what adding 8,250 seats to Brighton's Amex Stadium looks like....

 

http://www.thefootballforum.net/index.php?/topic/211717-amex-stadium-expanding/

 

Saints' plans look a lot more substantial than that.

Aware that the conversation's moved on from here, but I'd like to drag it back just to point out that the Amex already has the space for the building work they're embarking on at the moment, hence why it doesn't look like much. When we went there in January, it was clear that it was unfinished.

 

Dragging it back again to the more recent points about an "upper limit" that St Mary's could be expanded to, I have vague recollection of the figure being (a completely unrealistic) 55k, with the Itchen being the only stand unable to be expanded due to the weight of the offices, corporate facilities, etc on the foundations.

 

However, stadium design has changed substantially in the 11 years since SMS was built. I'm not entirely sure whether the more modern structures with more curves are lighter or heavier, but I'd say for certain that the 55k figure would no longer apply if any expansion were to be along the lines of a new-look design rather than simply an extension following the more dated Barr identikit pattern. Also, a friend of mine who works in geotechnics was of the opinion that the foundations could be modified anyway - as with many things, it's basically a case of how much money you want to throw at it that will determine what sort of an impact you can make.

[Matthew Le God]

With Sky's new deal from 2013, each club will be on television on average 2 games out of every 5 games. So around 15 games per season on TV, and no need to spend £40 or whatever on ticket price. Personally I think that's will be a very significant factor in what attendances we can attract.

 

The TV games aren't spread evenly around, some teams get significantly more than others as I'm sure you know. Saints last season were on TV just as much as those at the bottom of the Premier League.

[hypochondriac]

The TV games aren't spread evenly around, some teams get significantly more than others as I'm sure you know. Saints last season were on TV just as much as those at the bottom of the Premier League.

 

But all games will be available online. That will be a significant factor for many I believe.

[The Kraken]

The TV games aren't spread evenly around, some teams get significantly more than others as I'm sure you know. Saints last season were on TV just as much as those at the bottom of the Premier League.

 

As I'm sure you are aware it was an average figure I quoted. It could be less; it could be more if we're doing well. And the 2013 deal includes significantly more games per season than the current deal, so more games on TV for all.

[stev2001]

The Brighton example does show how a L1/championship club thinks its viable to spend £93M on stadium then spend more millions on expansion without even making it to the prem yet. We are currently a prem club with a stadium as good as paid for. To spend money on our stadium is not over stretching I think.

[stevegrant]

The TV games aren't spread evenly around, some teams get significantly more than others as I'm sure you know. Saints last season were on TV just as much as those at the bottom of the Premier League.

In theory, a club could be shown just 5 times under the terms of the new deal, up to a maximum of 26 out of 38 games. However, in practice even the bottom clubs get around 10 games, simply because a lot of those games will be against the top clubs, who themselves have generally been televised between 18 and 22 times over the past few years.

 

Obviously there are more games in the new deal (worth remembering we'll only see the benefits of it if we stay up this season), but not by much. Only an extra 16 games per season.

[Matthew Le God]

Well let's use the factors you used to decide who is he bigger club out of Darlington and Man U, let's apply them to Saints and Everton.

 

Historic attendances - Everton

League and cup performances - Everton

Population - Everton

Infrastructure - Everton

 

Other than guessing at what saints demand might be one day in the future if we expand, do well mars aligns to venus and so on I'm struggling to make a case using your factors for saints being bigger than Everton.

 

Historic attendances - unknown as Saints have only recently moved to a stadium with a capacity in excess of 30,000. Everton last season in coming 7th in the Premier League only averaged 33k in a 40k stadium. Something that Saints would have beaten if they had the same capacity as Everton do. Saints averaged 30k whilst 20th, so to think they couldn't beat 33k whilst 7th and in a 40k stadium is foolish. The big games would sell more and pull the average up.

 

League and Cup performance - yep you are right Everton are better here. That isn't to say it will always be that way, Saints have been restricted for most of their history by other factors, some of which they have now overcome.

 

Population - Yep, Liverpool is bigger than Southampton, but it is a 2 club city and Tranmere is also very close albeit relatively small. There population isn't reflected in their attendances and also have far more in the way of competition surrounding them than Saints do with Pompey and Bournemouth.

 

Infrastructure - I don't know where you are going with this. Goodison Park is not better than St Mary's, yes it is bigger but it is very dated and lacking modern facilities. The Staplewood development is better than Finch Farm and Saints academy is up there with the best in the country as I thought you would already know.

Edited 20 June, 2012 by Matthew Le God

[stevegrant]

The Brighton example does show how a L1/championship club thinks its viable to spend £93M on stadium then spend more millions on expansion without even making it to the prem yet. We are currently a prem club with a stadium as good as paid for. To spend money on our stadium is not over stretching I think.

They have a lifelong fan with more money than sense throwing some of his own cash at the club. If we are being run as a sustainable business - as has always been the claim - we won't be doing the same without the figures adding up.

[Crazy Diamond]

So you're all assuming that these drawings (and let's not forget that's all they are at this point in time) are final, to scale, have been drawn up by an architect, are practical, are okay as far as planning permission...

 

If you're sure of all factors like that, may I suggest you are being slightly presumptious.

 

The facts, as of 14:25 today, are that we have some drawings and nothing else. Speculation is what a forum is for, but this has already turned into 'this is fact' 'no this is fact' 'go on prove it' 'here's your proof' 'that's not proof'.

 

A fair few people are going to look very silly in the future depending on what they're saying right now.

[Matthew Le God]

But all games will be available online. That will be a significant factor for many I believe.

 

They aren't in HD, the stream stops and nothing beats the experience of being at the stadium.

[The Kraken]

They aren't in HD, the stream stops and nothing beats the experience of being at the stadium.

 

Spurious argument at best.

 

If it comes down to a factor of cost, and the game is available on the internet, then it will be a factor in whether people choose to go to the game or not.

[stevegrant]

A fair few people are going to look very silly in the future depending on what they're saying right now.

You'd think people might have learned their lesson by now.

[Crazy Diamond]

They aren't in HD, the stream stops and nothing beats the experience of being at the stadium.

 

So when attendances dip as games are televised, which I believe is a proven fact for a lot of clubs, that's just coincidental is it? I think I'm also right in saying that attendances dipped when televised games weren't in HD ten years or more ago. Whilst I'm there, not everyone's streams stop. Anything else?

[Matthew Le God]

They have a lifelong fan with more money than sense throwing some of his own cash at the club. If we are being run as a sustainable business - as has always been the claim - we won't be doing the same without the figures adding up.

 

Which is why there is a huge red building to the left of the stadium, with anther building surrounding it. The club will want to expand revenue streams under FFP, not just from ticket sales. It makes sense to invest in projects that open up new sources of revenue.

 

This redevelopment isn't just about more bums on seats.

[Turkish]

Historic attendances - unknown as Saints have only recently moved to a stadium with a capacity in excess of 30,000. Everton last season in coming 7th in the Premier League only averaged 33k. Something that Saints would have beaten if they had the same capacity as Everton do. Saints averaged 30k whilst 20th, so to think they couldn't beat 33k whilst 7th and in a 40k stadium is foolish. The big games would sell more and pull the average up.

 

League and Cup performance - yep you are right Everton are better here. That isn't to say it will always be that way, Saints have been restricted for most of their history by other factors, some of which they have now overcome.

 

Population - Yep, Liverpool is bigger than Southampton, but it is a 2 club city and Tranmere is also very close albeit relatively small. There population isn't reflected in their attendances and also have far more in the way of competition surrounding them than Saints do with Pompey and Bournemouth.

 

Infrastructure - I don't know where you are going with this. Goodison Park is not better than St Mary's, yes it is bigger but it is very dated and lacking modern facilities. The Staplewood development is better than Finch Farm and Saints academy is up there with the best in the country as I thought you would already know.

 

Goodison park is bigger our academy is better, so lets call that one a score draw then shall we.

 

Still Everton 3.5 Saints 0.5

 

Here are Evertons and Saints historic attendances, even in the early 80's with a 24k capacity and our most successful ever side we still only average 18-21k. So this is some improtant evidence you might not be aware of. Correct me if im wrong but Saints have never had a bigger average crowd than Everton, even when capacity allowed it such as it did in 77-85.

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/history/records/attendances.asp

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/soto.htm

[Crazy Diamond]

This redevelopment isn't just about more bums on seats.

 

This isn't a redevelopment. These are drawings. You're getting ahead of yourself again.

[View From The Top]

Spurious argument at best.

 

If it comes down to a factor of cost, and the game is available on the internet, then it will be a factor in whether people choose to go to the game or not.

 

Us northern / midland based fans will certainly benefit from all the live streams and the fact that it will save around £80 - £100 per match makes it a no brainer.

 

Only renewed this season for the nippers sake.

[stevegrant]

Which is why there is a huge red building to the left of the stadium, with anther building surrounding it. The club will want to expand revenue streams under FFP, not just from ticket sales. It makes sense to invest in projects that open up new sources of revenue.

 

This redevelopment isn't just about more bums on seats.

Again, you are taking a drawing and assuming that it is a fact that we will be expanding the stadium. It is no such thing.

 

Of course the club will be looking at all avenues when it comes to growing revenues, just like all good businesses do, but that doesn't necessarily have to involve a stadium expansion at all. It certainly won't involve a stadium expansion if we fail to sell out games this season - our first back in the top flight for seven years - as I fear we might if the club don't get the matchday pricing right.

[View From The Top]

Not bigger than Everton & not bigger than Villa and you'd have to be deluded to think otherwise.

[Sour Mash]

So you're all assuming that these drawings (and let's not forget that's all they are at this point in time) are final, to scale, have been drawn up by an architect, are practical, are okay as far as planning permission...

 

If you're sure of all factors like that, may I suggest you are being slightly presumptious.

 

The facts, as of 14:25 today, are that we have some drawings and nothing else. Speculation is what a forum is for, but this has already turned into 'this is fact' 'no this is fact' 'go on prove it' 'here's your proof' 'that's not proof'.

 

A fair few people are going to look very silly in the future depending on what they're saying right now.

Exactly. I've seen them be described as "plans" and "designs", when they are neither, just nice looking drawings that's all.

[stev2001]

They have a lifelong fan with more money than sense throwing some of his own cash at the club. If we are being run as a sustainable business - as has always been the claim - we won't be doing the same without the figures adding up.

Very true and let hope the figures do add up.

[Matthew Le God]

Goodison park is bigger our academy is better, so lets call that one a score draw then shall we.

 

Still Everton 3.5 Saints 0.5

 

Here are Evertons and Saints historic attendances, even in the early 80's with a 24k capacity and our most successful ever side we still only average 18-21k. So this is some improtant evidence you might not be aware of. Correct me if im wrong but Saints have never had a bigger average crowd than Everton, even when capacity allowed it such as it did in 77-85.

 

How does Goodison Park being bigger, make it better? Fratton Park used to have a capacity of over 50k in the 1950's, does that make it better than St Mary's?

 

You failed to address my point about Everton, they came 7th last year and averaged 33k in a 40k stadium. It being 40k allowed them to boost the average by having some games close to 40k. Saints on the other hand are restricted to 32k and are not able to boost the average with gates close to 40k, despite that even in the relegation season they had an average close to that of Everton finishing 7th in a 40k stadium. Had Saints been in a 40k stadium and finsihed 7th in the Premier League do you think they would average more or less than 33k, given they could boost the average with some attendances close to 40k?

[stev2001]

Which is why there is a huge red building to the left of the stadium, with anther building surrounding it. The club will want to expand revenue streams under FFP, not just from ticket sales. It makes sense to invest in projects that open up new sources of revenue.

 

This redevelopment isn't just about more bums on seats.

 

I been saying this for a while now. Let's just hop the figures add up soon and we can go ahead with this soon.

[Matthew Le God]

This isn't a redevelopment. These are drawings. You're getting ahead of yourself again.

 

Again, you are taking a drawing and assuming that it is a fact that we will be expanding the stadium. It is no such thing.

 

Where did I say it was a fact or definitely happening? The question mark in "Our future?" on the first image is significant. However Cortese does so far have a good track record of seeing things through, League One to Premier League in 3 years (not 5 years), £15m training ground development and category one academy. Unlike Pompey for example with images of a new stadium and Mandaric in a digger for the training ground that never happened.

 

I doubt they took the decision to reveal these drawings if they were an unlikely pipe dream, I'd imagine Cortese has stadium redevelopment high on his list for his future for Saints.

[stev2001]

Where did I say it was a fact or definitely happening? The question mark in "Our future?" on the first image is significant. However Cortese does so far have a good track record of seeing things through, League One to Premier League in 3 years (not 5 years), £15m training ground development and category one academy. Unlike Pompey for example with images of a new stadium and Mandaric in a digger for the training ground that never happened.

 

I doubt they took the decision to reveal these drawings if they were an unlikely pipe dream, I'd imagine Cortese has stadium redevelopment high on his list for his future for Saints.

 

Agree if certain trigger points are achieved. The only problem we all have is we don't know what these are.

[buctootim]

Udine has a population of just 100,000 and Udinese's ground has a capacity of 41,000.

[stev2001]

OK. I'll accept your 7K on the Kingsland. I think your 3K on the Northam/Chapel is way out, and I'll explain why.

 

In the original incarnation of the stadium it was possible for 8K extra on the Kingland, and 4K on the Chapel and Northam. That assumed that seats on the Northam and Chapel would go back as far as the Kingsland extension. In the new design, they clearly don't.

 

Firstly:

 

This is the view of the Itchen/Chapel corner. I think it shows that the seats don't actually go any higher within the Itchen/Chapel corner itself, and they potentially start to rise from the right hand side of the Chapel. Now, using simple mathematics, if that back line of seats goes straight up to the Kingland level, then that adds half of the 4,000 seats possible in a straight extension, so 2,000 on each side. Maybe a touch more if the Chapel/Kingsland corner is included.

 

However, the back of the Chapel/Northam clearly isn't as high as the back of the Kingsland. Hence the significant step up in the roof, and in the area I've highlighted below.

 

 

So I think there's actually less than 2,000 on the Chapel and Northam. Using that design, and the original 4,000 seat restriction, and that the seats don't start to go further back in the Itchen corner, I think (even taking into account the rise of seats into the Chapel/Kingsland corner) that 3,000 is mathematically impossible, and therefore that your numbers are rather flawed.

 

Great logic and i do think you are right but it does make me laugh that people on here keep staying we are restricted to this capacity on this stand, we can't extend this stand because of this etc.

We can make any stand practically any capacity if the right money is spent.

[The Kraken]

Udine has a population of just 100,000 and Udinese's ground has a capacity of 41,000.

 

Their highest attendance last season was 19,000; their average attendance was 16,625. So what does that tell us?

[Colinjb]

Udine has a population of just 100,000 and Udinese's ground has a capacity of 41,000.

 

They do however have an extremely large catchment area in the Italian region of Friuli. Nearly a million people or so. Also, while it may be capable of holding 41k it's restricted to a capacity of 31k.

[The Kraken]

Great logic and i do think you are right but it does make me laugh that people on here keep staying we are restricted to this capacity on this stand, we can't extend this stand because of this etc.

We can make any stand practically any capacity if the right money is spent.

 

Potentially, if money is no object. But there are a few limiting factors. Most notably the Kingsland has a train line behind it, and limited space to build into as it is. Not insurmountable by any means, but any expansion on that side of the stadium is going to be a significant challenge, that's for sure.

[Turkish]

How does Goodison Park being bigger, make it better? Fratton Park used to have a capacity of over 50k in the 1950's, does that make it better than St Mary's?

 

You failed to address my point about Everton, they came 7th last year and averaged 33k in a 40k stadium. It being 40k allowed them to boost the average by having some games close to 40k. Saints on the other hand are restricted to 32k and are not able to boost the average with gates close to 40k, despite that even in the relegation season they had an average close to that of Everton finishing 7th in a 40k stadium. Had Saints been in a 40k stadium and finsihed 7th in the Premier League do you think they would average more or less than 33k, given they could boost the average with some attendances close to 40k?

 

Right so on the one hand we are deciding who is the bigger club based on historical attendances. Yet now you want us to speculate on what attendances might be if we had a bigger stadium and ignore all historical evidence. Which one is it?

 

Also you're the one going on about the size of stadium being important. Their staidum is going by your factors this means they are bigger.

[Matthew Le God]

Their highest attendance last season was 19,000; their average attendance was 16,625. So what does that tell us?

 

They are smaller than Saints, as Saints averaged significantly more whilst in the English 3rd tier compared to Udinese as a Champions League team in the Italian top flight?

[Matthew Le God]

Right so on the one hand we are deciding who is the bigger club based on historical attendances. Yet now you want us to speculate on what attendances might be if we had a bigger stadium and ignore all historical evidence. Which one is it?

 

Also you're the one going on about the size of stadium being important. Their staidum is going by your factors this means they are bigger.

 

Which is why I told you before it is hard to make a comparison, because until Saints have a larger stadium and finish as high as Everton in the league, how can you tell? For most of Saints' 126 years they have been restricted/stunted from fulfilling what they could.

[Crazy Diamond]

Where did I say it was a fact or definitely happening? The question mark in "Our future?" on the first image is significant. However Cortese does so far have a good track record of seeing things through, League One to Premier League in 3 years (not 5 years), £15m training ground development and category one academy. I doubt they took the decision to reveal these drawings if they were an unlikely pipe dream, I'd imagine Cortese has stadium redevelopment high on his list for his future for Saints.

 

You imagining is entirely the problem. You ARE getting ahead of yourself when all you've got are some drawings with no detail. You've also chosen to interpret 'Our future?' positively as in 'yes, that is our future'. Equally, being an open question it could be a negative response.

[Matthew Le God]

You imagining is entirely the problem. You ARE getting ahead of yourself when all you've got are some drawings with no detail. You've also chosen to interpret 'Our future?' positively as in 'yes, that is our future'.

 

That is the complete opposite of what I said in the post you just quoted.

[View From The Top]

They are smaller than Saints, as Saints averaged significantly more whilst in the English 3rd tier compared to Udinese as a Champions League team in the Italian top flight?

 

You are aware, of course, why Italian attendances have fallen through the floor aren't you?