Matthew Le God Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 (edited) I haven't said we shouldn't do it, just that it won't really be relevant to our performance in the Premier League. It would be a nice "brand extension" and a form of relegation insurance. In an era of only spending what you earn, profits from such a development could help fund the wages of an good quality extra player. Also it would have knock on effects, if our stadium and surrounding land looked like those pictures I think we'd find it easier to attract higher level sponsorship with brands wanting to link up with us. Not that I like the idea (as I like St Mary's as a name), but Krueger did mention today of stadium sponsorship, which would be more attractive if the stadium looks as it does in those images. Stadium sponsorship deals could earn Saints a huge amount of money. So indirectly the stadium improvements could have positive knock on effects elsewhere to the club's income. Plus you make a good point of "relegation insurance", if in decades to come we were ever relegated again with the loss of Premier League TV the added income from such a development would give us an edge over Championship rivals on top of parachute money. The income from the development wouldn't be reliant on on field success. Things like that is what help make a club "healthy and sustainable in the future". Unless you are seriously suggesting Chelsea Village is wot won the Champions League for them. Isn't there a story that Abramovich was going to buy Spurs, but flew in a helicopter over Stamford Bridge and thought "wow I want that"? Chelsea Village may have made a difference! Yes, I know Chelsea Village is only a very small part of their success and most of it is down to Abramovich. But it has still produced a lot of money over the years and holds a lot of value for the business. Edited 12 March, 2014 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 Chelsea are never going to just spend what they earn. They are going to find ways around the FFP, it is obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 Yes, I know Chelsea Village is only a very small part of their success and most of it is down to Abramovich. But it has still produced a lot of money over the years and holds a lot of value for the business. How much income has it produced? I thought it had produced a lot of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 In an era of only spending what you earn, profits from such a development could help fund the wages of an good quality extra player. Also it would have knock on effects, if our stadium and surrounding land looked like those pictures I think we'd find it easier to attract higher level sponsorship with brands wanting to link up with us. Not that I like the idea (as I like St Mary's as a name), but Krueger did mention today of stadium sponsorship, which would be more attractive if the stadium looks as it does in those images. Stadium sponsorship deals could earn Saints a huge amount of money. So indirectly the stadium improvements could have positive knock on effects elsewhere to the club's income. Dont tell me you're planning some kind of Sim City does FM release? Are you tasked with saving the club and revenue streams as the Itchen occasionally floods the adjoining Odeon and disgruntled shoppers and spectators protest over eyesores such as gasworks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modern matron Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 I could not disagree more with your analysis. “Although there is a solid foundation in place, the Club still has tremendous untapped commercial potential. We will continue to nurture “The Southampton Way” by reaching for consistent growth in all departments to ultimately build a culture that allows Southampton to remain healthy and sustainable in the future.” I read that totally that they want to grow more revenue streams and that by doing so, they need to invest (still) in the club. Once investment is realising benefit, the aim will therefore be that the club will be self-funded and not requiring significant capital investment on an ongoing basis. No? I think maybe that means no more Gaston's or Osvaldo type Cortese type signings and some sales of players if they want out due to wages etc - I approve of this model...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 Like I said when Cortese left. I think we can say goodbye to the days of spending £10m+ on a player. That does not mean it is a bad thing as Lovren cost a lot less than that and he has been awesome this year. However.... I do think it also means she is happy to lose some of our youngsters i.e Shaw and Lallana if it means she will make some profit. This time next year we will have a better idea of her plans for the club but my gut feeling is she really is about the money more than the clubs progression. Only time will tell if that is true so no point arguing opinions on here until then really. Although I am sure people will say I am wrong based on the fact a hockey coach has been appointed as chairman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAS Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 Did I say it was sustainable as a club? No But Chelsea Village does help provide an income for the club and has done for many years and will continue to do so in the future.If they hadn't built Chelsea village they could have expanded their stadium which would have been of far better benefit and value to the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 (edited) I think we can say goodbye to the days of spending £10m+ on a player. On what is that based? Even if the Liebherr's didn't invest as much, there is still so much money just for being in the Premier League I don't see why £10m+ signings wouldn't happen. On top of the £60m+ TV money, we'll get circa £17m prize money this season for our league finish. Swansea's owners are massively wealthy and not investing huge amounts, yet were still able to spend £10m+ on a player this summer. This time next year we will have a better idea of her plans for the club but my gut feeling is she really is about the money more than the clubs progression. Only time will tell if that is true so no point arguing opinions on here until then really. She has been the owner for the last 4 years, in that time we have risen to the Premier League and spent over £100m on infrastructure and players. She said after Cortese left nothing has change in terms of plans for the club. Why hasn't she earned your trust in the last 4 years as to her good intentions for the club? Although I am sure people will say I am wrong based on the fact a hockey coach has been appointed as chairman! Is it the reason you think it? Because I don't see any evidence to support it, so possibly stems from something irrelevant. Edited 12 March, 2014 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 12 March, 2014 Share Posted 12 March, 2014 Could this be an example of future travel economies..? From the article about the new Chairman in the club's website: "“We had a road trip last Wednesday to the England match against Denmark and it was good because the traffic was really bad!” he joked. There was six of us in the van ...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 13 March, 2014 Share Posted 13 March, 2014 On what is that based? Even if the Liebherr's didn't invest as much, there is still so much money just for being in the Premier League I don't see why £10m+ signings wouldn't happen. On top of the £60m+ TV money, we'll get circa £17m prize money this season for our league finish. Swansea's owners are massively wealthy and not investing huge amounts, yet were still able to spend £10m+ on a player this summer. She has been the owner for the last 4 years, in that time we have risen to the Premier League and spent over £100m on infrastructure and players. She said after Cortese left nothing has change in terms of plans for the club. Why hasn't she earned your trust in the last 4 years as to her good intentions for the club? Is it the reason you think it? Because I don't see any evidence to support it, so possibly stems from something irrelevant. £100 Million in the Premier League and trying to attain that on players and infrastruture over a 4 years period is chicken feed, especially as we are supposed to be trying to overtake teams that are spending far far more for the Champions League positions, thats still on the table right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltonaggro Posted 13 March, 2014 Share Posted 13 March, 2014 Is it going to be 29-0? (Excluding us getting relegated, QPR's transfer policy being better than ours, Wigan staying up, J-Rod not being worth half what we paid, Norwich's fantastic summer signings, van Wolfswinkel being the signing of the season, etc) Makes Mark Lawrenson look like f*cking Nostradamus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now