It keeps on getting more difficult.

[cambsaint]

Reading the Telegraph about the announcement of Pep Guardiola going to Man City, and the probability of him having huge amounts to spend, possibly even enough for Messi and the other super stars. The article went on to say that even the juggernaut that is Man U is going to have to respond, possibly by appointing "The Special One", and sorting out the hugely expensive selection of new buys that haven't set the PL alight. This could mean that the big four will all have to spend big this summer.

Poch seems to have settled in at Spurs, and is undoubtedly as good as we thought he was, and may well join the Euro elite. Although they face uncertainty with the move they have plenty of money and will undoubtedly be a force in their new stadium (more's the pity).

West Ham will soon have a 60K capacity and all the publicity and potential sponsorship that comes with that.

We've seen that the mega-bucks the PL generates allows all clubs to buy good players and the mid table will become even harder.

I can't help thinking that in the coming years, there will be about ten clubs all fighting for six down and the bottom three or four will become a revolving door, having their day in the sun, going down and returning again.

It is going to be extremely difficult to finish in the top ten in future, let alone the top six.

Saints are going to have to be very well managed in the future, as will all the other PL clubs, there will be no room for error in my opinion.

[eddie]

Reading the Telegraph about the announcement of Pep Guardiola going to Man City, and the probability of him having huge amounts to spend, possibly even enough for Messi and the other super stars. The article went on to say that even the juggernaut that is Man U is going to have to respond, possibly by appointing "The Special One", and sorting out the hugely expensive selection of new buys that haven't set the PL alight. This could mean that the big four will all have to spend big this summer.

Poch seems to have settled in at Spurs, and is undoubtedly as good as we thought he was, and may well join the Euro elite. Although they face uncertainty with the move they have plenty of money and will undoubtedly be a force in their new stadium (more's the pity).

West Ham will soon have a 60K capacity and all the publicity and potential sponsorship that comes with that.

We've seen that the mega-bucks the PL generates allows all clubs to buy good players and the mid table will become even harder.

I can't help thinking that in the coming years, there will be about ten clubs all fighting for six down and the bottom three or four will become a revolving door, having their day in the sun, going down and returning again.

It is going to be extremely difficult to finish in the top ten in future, let alone the top six.

Saints are going to have to be very well managed in the future, as will all the other PL clubs, there will be no room for error in my opinion.

 

unbelievable times that stoke can just pay 20m for a new signing in january and a) a lot of people haven't heard of him (i.e. he isn't even necessarily world class), and b) it's not even a big deal

 

think we will have to be very resilient and maybe have a slight change of tack in order to challenge for top 8 / 10

[Lallana's Left Peg]

Spending money does not guarantee success, but we do know to have success you need to spend money. There is always the odd challenge to this rule but that challenge is never one that repeats itself. The increased spending power that those above us have is not exclusive to them - our spending power has also increased so the basic challenge is to continue to invest our extra riches in a way that ensures the gap does not increase - and with a little luck maybe it decreases.

[Red Alert]

I was reading recently that due to English teams poor efforts in Europe recently our co-efficient was dropping putting us in danger of only 3 teams getting into the Champions League. If that is correct that would really hot things up in the coming seasons.

[Nexstar]

Will be very interesting to see what situation Leicester are in 12 months from now. Assuming they retain a position within the top 3 come May they'll have a guaranteed CL group stage position, and a shed-load more cash with the new TV deal to spend in the summer; a potent mix for attracting some big names and rising talent. So they could find themselves fully transformed after just a single season with a (relatively) inexpensive manager and squad.

[SaintAmongSkates]

Unfortunately I see a different outcome for Leicester. One where they spend big based in CL qualification. Don't then finish in top 4 and can't get the books to balance. A bit like Leeds of a few years ago

[Wes Tender]

Saints are going to have to be very well managed in the future, as will all the other PL clubs, there will be no room for error in my opinion.

 

At the start of this season, what were people's predictions? Chelsea to be Champions again? Man United would surely press on with Van Gaal having had the opportunity to bring in his own players. Would they now have a realistic shot at the title? Liverpool to regain what they consider to be their divine right to sit at the top table? Leicester to flirt with relegation, or at least to finish in the lower bottom half?

 

Arguably the top managers in World football are Guardiola, Mourinho and Van Gaal. Mourinho has had an embarrassing fall from grace despite considerable early success in the PL. Van Gaal has been less then impressive even in charge of one of the greatest teams in the World. Guardiola has virtually unlimited funds at City, but no experience of managing in England. Will he do better than Pellegrini? Even though it is most unlikely that they will not be first or second, the recent hierarchy for the top four would historically be chosen from Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, United and Liverpool.

 

Who would have thought that at this stage of the season, Leicester would be 3 points clear at the top and 10 points clear of United, that Spurs would be in 4th, 5 points ahead of United. West Ham 6th, two points ahead of the once mighty Liverpool, who are only a point ahead of us, having bought half of our team.

 

Why should this next season be any different? Why should there not be one or two of the glory teams misfiring through over rated players not performing, like Hazard at Chelsea, or key players like Kane being injured? Why shouldn't there be other teams like Leicester coming up the division because of clever management of their team, bringing out the best of them. Ultimately, the size of stadium is becoming less of a factor financially compared to the vast sums coming into football through the media and sponsorship.

 

But at the end of the day, teams can only have 11 players on the pitch and sometimes the most expensively formed team of world superstar individuals is beaten by another with a squad costing less than one individual in the glory team. Although we have had our customary dip and a poor start to the season, we have beaten United, Chelsea and Arsenal so far and we are showing how disadvantages of size and money can be countered by good management, investment in infrastructure and canny dealings in the transfer market. But if Leicester hold on to finish the season as champions, then that will do more to upset the apple-cart by proving that the top four is not the sole preserve of the richest glory clubs.

[Wade Garrett]

Unfortunately I see a different outcome for Leicester. One where they spend big based in CL qualification. Don't then finish in top 4 and can't get the books to balance. A bit like Leeds of a few years ago

 

A bit like Leicester a few years ago.

[MarkSFC]

I was discussing this with a mate the other day, in the sense of how within 2-3 years we will be in a far less strong position in terms of matchday income. Without wishing to take this in to yet another "stadium" based thread the size of our groud is going to have an increasingly bigger impact over the next few years - either positively or negatively.

Soon capacities will look like this (estimating exact figures for illustration);

 

Man Utd 78,000

Arsenal 60-65,0000

Spurs 60-65,000

Liverpool 60-65,000

West Ham 60-65,000

Man City 50-55,000

Sunderland 50,000

Newcastle 50,000

Everton 36-38,000 currently but looking to expand / move

Villa 36-38,000

Chelsea 36-38,000 currently but looking to expand / move

 

After that come a whole host of 30-35,000 stadia;

Us of course

Middlesborough

Derby

MK Dons

Leeds

and Im sure there's one or two Ive missed.

 

The point is though that pretty soon there will be a distinct gap in stadium size and therefore the gap in income becomes even more and effectively sends us back equivalently to when we were in The Dell.

 

We almost certainly will never create a demand for 50,000 but I seriosly think that we need to get up to 40-45,000 level. And before the old arguements come out like "we will only sell 36-38,000 so why....." the investment in the stadium needs to get ahead of our current demand and create availability and opportunity for growth. West Ham may be the model we should follow - definitely not the same number - in terms of thinking ahead and looking at how stadiums will be filled in the future. They are banking on a certain percentage of "tourist" fans, those who are attracted to either the stadium or the team (or both) and the fact they are in London they have an obviously bigger market place.

 

Our city is in line for major developments over the coming years - Watermark, The Pier Development, Ocean Village, increased Student numbers, increasing cruise numbers, not to mention the fact that the clubs own reputation is building internationally. There will of course be those who hate the "plastics" for want of a better phrase but every successful club around the world, not just in football rely partially on these type of customers.

 

With the next TV deal being so large we have a great opportunity to invest in the infrastructure as well as the team. If the club wait too long then I fear we will eventually (5-10 years) end up back in the Championship / Low Premier league pack and find it even harder to move up.

 

We've significantly improved the training ground, the first team squad, the support team, the manager.....next should be the stadium!!

[notnowcato]

The sooner the mega-bucks clubs feck off to their own euro "elite" league the better. The Premier League will become more about football again and all the clubs left behind can enjoy a proper competition.

[trousers]

[The9]

I was reading recently that due to English teams poor efforts in Europe recently our co-efficient was dropping putting us in danger of only 3 teams getting into the Champions League. If that is correct that would really hot things up in the coming seasons.

 

This is true, it can't happen before 2017/18 and requires Italian sides to do better than English ones, but the Chelsea CL win and the Man U Final appearance will drop off the calculations soon.

[The9]

Unfortunately I see a different outcome for Leicester. One where they spend big based in CL qualification. Don't then finish in top 4 and can't get the books to balance. A bit like Leeds of a few years ago

 

Fortunately for them they'll also be getting shedloads more money from the new tv deal like the rest of the Prem, which will engulf the additional CL money. The CL income as a proportion of their total revenue will be far lower than in any year up until now, and they'd have to go some to massively overspend with wages not yet adjusted to match the new levels of money available.

 

I still don't think they'll finish top 5 anyway.

[The9]

The sooner the mega-bucks clubs feck off to their own euro "elite" league the better. The Premier League will become more about football again and all the clubs left behind can enjoy a proper competition.

 

Not going to happen, especially now the Prem money is worth more than the CL and the top clubs have tied up the FFP rules so they're all but guaranteed to be able to spend more than everyone else.

[Turkish]

I was discussing this with a mate the other day, in the sense of how within 2-3 years we will be in a far less strong position in terms of matchday income. Without wishing to take this in to yet another "stadium" based thread the size of our groud is going to have an increasingly bigger impact over the next few years - either positively or negatively.

Soon capacities will look like this (estimating exact figures for illustration);

 

Man Utd 78,000

Arsenal 60-65,0000

Spurs 60-65,000

Liverpool 60-65,000

West Ham 60-65,000

Man City 50-55,000

Sunderland 50,000

Newcastle 50,000

Everton 36-38,000 currently but looking to expand / move

Villa 36-38,000

Chelsea 36-38,000 currently but looking to expand / move

 

After that come a whole host of 30-35,000 stadia;

Us of course

Middlesborough

Derby

MK Dons

Leeds

and Im sure there's one or two Ive missed.

 

The point is though that pretty soon there will be a distinct gap in stadium size and therefore the gap in income becomes even more and effectively sends us back equivalently to when we were in The Dell.

 

We almost certainly will never create a demand for 50,000 but I seriosly think that we need to get up to 40-45,000 level. And before the old arguements come out like "we will only sell 36-38,000 so why....." the investment in the stadium needs to get ahead of our current demand and create availability and opportunity for growth. West Ham may be the model we should follow - definitely not the same number - in terms of thinking ahead and looking at how stadiums will be filled in the future. They are banking on a certain percentage of "tourist" fans, those who are attracted to either the stadium or the team (or both) and the fact they are in London they have an obviously bigger market place.

 

Our city is in line for major developments over the coming years - Watermark, The Pier Development, Ocean Village, increased Student numbers, increasing cruise numbers, not to mention the fact that the clubs own reputation is building internationally. There will of course be those who hate the "plastics" for want of a better phrase but every successful club around the world, not just in football rely partially on these type of customers.

 

With the next TV deal being so large we have a great opportunity to invest in the infrastructure as well as the team. If the club wait too long then I fear we will eventually (5-10 years) end up back in the Championship / Low Premier league pack and find it even harder to move up.

 

We've significantly improved the training ground, the first team squad, the support team, the manager.....next should be the stadium!!

 

Do you think perhaps it would be a good idea to expand to 45,000 and make ticket prices significantly cheaper so as to attract casual fans from the line which runs from London, through Birmingham up to Liverpool which we along with Bournemouth and Swansea are the only premier league clubs below? Or how about some inventive pricing models, easyjet seem to be the masters of that maybe we could take some guidence from them.

[richardc]

Dont worry we have our academy

[MarkSFC]

Do you think perhaps it would be a good idea to expand to 45,000 and make ticket prices significantly cheaper so as to attract casual fans from the line which runs from London, through Birmingham up to Liverpool which we along with Bournemouth and Swansea are the only premier league clubs below? Or how about some inventive pricing models, easyjet seem to be the masters of that maybe we could take some guidence from them.

 

yep!! it "should" be about maximising attendance first....

[The9]

But at the end of the day, teams can only have 11 players on the pitch and sometimes the most expensively formed team of world superstar individuals is beaten by another with a squad costing less than one individual in the glory team. Although we have had our customary dip and a poor start to the season, we have beaten United, Chelsea and Arsenal so far and we are showing how disadvantages of size and money can be countered by good management, investment in infrastructure and canny dealings in the transfer market. But if Leicester hold on to finish the season as champions, then that will do more to upset the apple-cart by proving that the top four is not the sole preserve of the richest glory clubs.

 

Football is always more subject to "upset" results than other major sports, but nevertheless there's an interesting shift in the "ability to effort" ratio being embodied by Chelsea and Leicester this season. From the early 2000s until this season it seemed it didn't matter how bad the "top 6" sides were, they always kicked on and turned things around and finished near the top - and as we showed last season, it didn't matter how good the "non top 6" sides were, they usually didn't have the squad depth to maintain the position over 38 matches.

 

Still not quite sure how they've got the improvement out of numerous Prem-journeymen alongside the lightning in a bottle moments from the likes of Vardy and Mahrez. Ranieri has to take a lot of credit - still another third of the season left though.

[The9]

yep!! it "should" be about maximising attendance first....

 

It needs be about maximising global market share, and the only way to do that is to win stuff and get people interested in buying your stuff all over the world, and selling ads and sponsorship to businesses based on global awareness.

 

People who go to games are basically insignificant in terms of revenue for Prem clubs as of this summer compared to the tv deal, and they're already maxing out merchandise from the people who actually go to games - and it's dwarfed by the money from TV revenue. I suspect that's why the Cups were meant to be the focus this year.

 

Look at the "Match Day" compared to "Broadcasting" figures from 2014. It was an even bigger gap last year as we got more for finishing higher - and next season that Broadcasting amount will be significantly more.

 

 

Even Man U with their massive capacity only get around £100m from Match Day revenue, and whilst their Broadcasting revenue is only a bit more than ours (£70m to at least £107m-ish) based on being on tv more and a bit more prize money for league position, they get nearly £200m from commercial revenue on top which is WAY more than Saints get (under £8m in 2014, though it went up in 2015). It will cost a hell of a lot in Stadium development to get Match Day revenue up to Man U levels, and while we can't expect to be a global brand on the level of Man U, it's easier to make inroads to selling stuff to 7 billion people, and building a marque that businesses want to advertise with, than it is to sell tickets and merch to the number of people who can fit in a ground.

 

Edited 2 February, 2016 by The9

[xerox]

I was discussing this with a mate the other day, in the sense of how within 2-3 years we will be in a far less strong position in terms of matchday income. Without wishing to take this in to yet another "stadium" based thread the size of our groud is going to have an increasingly bigger impact over the next few years - either positively or negatively.

Soon capacities will look like this (estimating exact figures for illustration);

 

Man Utd 78,000

Arsenal 60-65,0000

Spurs 60-65,000

Liverpool 60-65,000

West Ham 60-65,000

Man City 50-55,000

Sunderland 50,000

Newcastle 50,000

Everton 36-38,000 currently but looking to expand / move

Villa 36-38,000

Chelsea 36-38,000 currently but looking to expand / move

 

After that come a whole host of 30-35,000 stadia;

Us of course

Middlesborough

Derby

MK Dons

Leeds

and Im sure there's one or two Ive missed.

 

The point is though that pretty soon there will be a distinct gap in stadium size and therefore the gap in income becomes even more and effectively sends us back equivalently to when we were in The Dell.

 

We almost certainly will never create a demand for 50,000 but I seriosly think that we need to get up to 40-45,000 level. And before the old arguements come out like "we will only sell 36-38,000 so why....." the investment in the stadium needs to get ahead of our current demand and create availability and opportunity for growth. West Ham may be the model we should follow - definitely not the same number - in terms of thinking ahead and looking at how stadiums will be filled in the future. They are banking on a certain percentage of "tourist" fans, those who are attracted to either the stadium or the team (or both) and the fact they are in London they have an obviously bigger market place.

 

Our city is in line for major developments over the coming years - Watermark, The Pier Development, Ocean Village, increased Student numbers, increasing cruise numbers, not to mention the fact that the clubs own reputation is building internationally. There will of course be those who hate the "plastics" for want of a better phrase but every successful club around the world, not just in football rely partially on these type of customers.

 

With the next TV deal being so large we have a great opportunity to invest in the infrastructure as well as the team. If the club wait too long then I fear we will eventually (5-10 years) end up back in the Championship / Low Premier league pack and find it even harder to move up.

 

We've significantly improved the training ground, the first team squad, the support team, the manager.....next should be the stadium!!

 

Have to agree - although there are some that won't. Why are so many clubs expanding if the revenue is so small? Also thinking ahead there may never be a better chance of expanding, cheap money/steel etc club better off than ever, more status, lots of reasons really.

[Turkish]

yep!! it "should" be about maximising attendance first....

 

Adding 13,000 seats would cost around £40m which has already been stashed away from transfer profits the last two seasons. What we should do is add those seats to SMS and make all tickets £15. That way we'd definitely sell out every week and attract fans all across the south of England who want to see premier league football. Plus we'd sell more hot dogs and kit Kats so commercial income would go up as well. I'm can't really see a downside. it begs the question would 45,000 be enough? There is huge catchment area to tap into.

[nta786]

IF St Mary's can be expanded- how much would it cost and by how much will the stadium increase? Which end of the stadium would expand? Itchen?

[sandwichsaint]

Taken to it's logical conclusion who's going to be the first team to down-size their ground then? All those pesky fans with their associated running costs and their ever-diminishing share of revenues, surely the most far-sighted and ground breaking of clubs will down-size to a mini European-style stadium with a capacity of say 15-18k? Fleece the remaining hard-core bestest fans, those who would pay literally anything to see 'their' team play live, exist on the TV revenues and the global brand. Genius, I can't believe I'm the first person to have spotted this, silly West Ham and Spurs and Liverpool all moving and/or expanding and wasting all that money they'll never get back.

[Pamplemousse]

IF St Mary's can be expanded- how much would it cost and by how much will the stadium increase? Which end of the stadium would expand? Itchen?

 

I think all stands can be expanded upon EXCEPT the Itchen

[Saint Charlie]

Our period of advantage was based on a run of momentum, very good and saleable academy players and clever scouting.

 

That advantage has probably been dimished quite significantly now as others have caught up, we have spent the money our players generated etc.

 

Be interesting to see what direction we take over the next 3-5 years in terms of strategy.

 

Certainly suprised we haven't tried to sign more young prospects (U21s) from the UK and around Europe. That would seem to be the best way for us to go IMO combined with smart European recruitment from lesser leagues (Holland, Scotland, Portugal, Austria to name some examples we have used recently).

Edited 2 February, 2016 by Saint Charlie

[mrfahaji]

I feel the biggest threat to the league is the big/rich clubs' ability to pay huge wages to an entire squad. I'm sure players all want to play, but I doubt it's a huge problem for them not to be when they're being paid 80k+ a week at a 'glamorous' club. It means that even if a top side doesn't NEED a player, they'll still buy them either as backup or to stop someone else from signing them. If the top 5 can afford to have 20 world class players each, that leaves a big gap to the next group of teams.

 

Of course the flip side is, as mentioned above, you can still only field 11, and when the top teams are now having to shell out £30m+ to prise these top class players away, it gives the teams below an opportunity to really strengthen their first XI, while the teams at the top can only bolster their squad. I'm not sure if the trend will continue, but the effect in recent seasons has actually been to even the playing field because of this effect, even though I very much doubt this was the intention...

[Toadhall Saint]

Adding 13,000 seats would cost around £40m which has already been stashed away from transfer profits the last two seasons. What we should do is add those seats to SMS and make all tickets £15. That way we'd definitely sell out every week and attract fans all across the south of England who want to see premier league football. Plus we'd sell more hot dogs and kit Kats so commercial income would go up as well. I'm can't really see a downside. it begs the question would 45,000 be enough? There is huge catchment area to tap into.

 

Are you MLG in disguise [emoji3]

[Sour Mash]

I was discussing this with a mate the other day, in the sense of how within 2-3 years we will be in a far less strong position in terms of matchday income. Without wishing to take this in to yet another "stadium" based thread the size of our groud is going to have an increasingly bigger impact over the next few years - either positively or negatively.

Soon capacities will look like this (estimating exact figures for illustration);

 

Man Utd 78,000

Arsenal 60-65,0000

Spurs 60-65,000

Liverpool 60-65,000

West Ham 60-65,000

Man City 50-55,000

Sunderland 50,000

Newcastle 50,000

Everton 36-38,000 currently but looking to expand / move

Villa 36-38,000

Chelsea 36-38,000 currently but looking to expand / move

 

After that come a whole host of 30-35,000 stadia;

Us of course

Middlesborough

Derby

MK Dons

Leeds

and Im sure there's one or two Ive missed.

 

The point is though that pretty soon there will be a distinct gap in stadium size and therefore the gap in income becomes even more and effectively sends us back equivalently to when we were in The Dell.

 

We almost certainly will never create a demand for 50,000 but I seriosly think that we need to get up to 40-45,000 level. And before the old arguements come out like "we will only sell 36-38,000 so why....." the investment in the stadium needs to get ahead of our current demand and create availability and opportunity for growth. West Ham may be the model we should follow - definitely not the same number - in terms of thinking ahead and looking at how stadiums will be filled in the future. They are banking on a certain percentage of "tourist" fans, those who are attracted to either the stadium or the team (or both) and the fact they are in London they have an obviously bigger market place.

 

Our city is in line for major developments over the coming years - Watermark, The Pier Development, Ocean Village, increased Student numbers, increasing cruise numbers, not to mention the fact that the clubs own reputation is building internationally. There will of course be those who hate the "plastics" for want of a better phrase but every successful club around the world, not just in football rely partially on these type of customers.

 

With the next TV deal being so large we have a great opportunity to invest in the infrastructure as well as the team. If the club wait too long then I fear we will eventually (5-10 years) end up back in the Championship / Low Premier league pack and find it even harder to move up.

 

We've significantly improved the training ground, the first team squad, the support team, the manager.....next should be the stadium!!

Where are we going to get a 60k former Olympic Stadium to move into on the cheap, therefore following your idea of using the West Ham model?

 

On an overall point, back to the OP, I'm not sure how much what Man City does really affects us. The top flight of English Football has always been bloody competitive.

[Dalek2003]

I would rather yoyo between the top two leagues than be a supporter of a plastic club. Annual fights against relegation, especially when the odds are stacked against us, are w

hat made Saints great in the 90's.

[ScepticalStan]

Fortunately for them they'll also be getting shedloads more money from the new tv deal like the rest of the Prem, which will engulf the additional CL money. The CL income as a proportion of their total revenue will be far lower than in any year up until now, and they'd have to go some to massively overspend with wages not yet adjusted to match the new levels of money available.

 

I still don't think they'll finish top 5 anyway.

 

I have a feeling you might be correct on this.

 

If so, get betting. Leicester are 1.3-ish to finish in the top four, so if you think they'll finish outside the top five you'll probably get 6 or 7/1 on that.

[St_Tel49]

At the start of this season, what were people's predictions? Chelsea to be Champions again? Man United would surely press on with Van Gaal having had the opportunity to bring in his own players. Would they now have a realistic shot at the title? Liverpool to regain what they consider to be their divine right to sit at the top table? Leicester to flirt with relegation, or at least to finish in the lower bottom half?

 

Arguably the top managers in World football are Guardiola, Mourinho and Van Gaal. Mourinho has had an embarrassing fall from grace despite considerable early success in the PL. Van Gaal has been less then impressive even in charge of one of the greatest teams in the World. Guardiola has virtually unlimited funds at City, but no experience of managing in England. Will he do better than Pellegrini? Even though it is most unlikely that they will not be first or second, the recent hierarchy for the top four would historically be chosen from Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, United and Liverpool.

 

Who would have thought that at this stage of the season, Leicester would be 3 points clear at the top and 10 points clear of United, that Spurs would be in 4th, 5 points ahead of United. West Ham 6th, two points ahead of the once mighty Liverpool, who are only a point ahead of us, having bought half of our team.

 

Why should this next season be any different? Why should there not be one or two of the glory teams misfiring through over rated players not performing, like Hazard at Chelsea, or key players like Kane being injured? Why shouldn't there be other teams like Leicester coming up the division because of clever management of their team, bringing out the best of them. Ultimately, the size of stadium is becoming less of a factor financially compared to the vast sums coming into football through the media and sponsorship.

 

But at the end of the day, teams can only have 11 players on the pitch and sometimes the most expensively formed team of world superstar individuals is beaten by another with a squad costing less than one individual in the glory team. Although we have had our customary dip and a poor start to the season, we have beaten United, Chelsea and Arsenal so far and we are showing how disadvantages of size and money can be countered by good management, investment in infrastructure and canny dealings in the transfer market. But if Leicester hold on to finish the season as champions, then that will do more to upset the apple-cart by proving that the top four is not the sole preserve of the richest glory clubs.

They bought a lot of players from a mid-table team - so guess where they are!

[St_Tel49]

More seriously - the outcome of the extra millions will be that we pay more for players and the players get paid more - but that does not actually make them better

[CB Fry]

Fortunately for them they'll also be getting shedloads more money from the new tv deal like the rest of the Prem, which will engulf the additional CL money. The CL income as a proportion of their total revenue will be far lower than in any year up until now, and they'd have to go some to massively overspend with wages not yet adjusted to match the new levels of money available.

 

I still don't think they'll finish top 5 anyway.

Nah, I think they're nailed on top 5 now.

 

This isn't a "ooh look at Blackpool/Hull breath of fresh air" burst of surprise package good form in August. It's February and they're three clear at the top. Their form would need to tail off to West Brom-ish levels to even be in with a chance of 6th, and even then you need other clubs to step up.

 

Too many points in the bank now - even a drab average remainder of the season (1.5 points a game) will still see them top 5.

 

Good luck to em.

[trousers]

I would rather yoyo between the top two leagues than be a supporter of a plastic club. Annual fights against relegation, especially when the odds are stacked against us, are w

hat made Saints great in the 90's.

2.8/10

[Saint Fan CaM]

It would be a good start to extend the Northam with an upper tier for all away fans - would transform the atmosphere of SMS for the better IMO and would assist in security keeping order too.

[Millbrook Saint]

Do you think perhaps it would be a good idea to expand to 45,000 and make ticket prices significantly cheaper so as to attract casual fans from the line which runs from London, through Birmingham up to Liverpool which we along with Bournemouth and Swansea are the only premier league clubs below? Or how about some inventive pricing models, easyjet seem to be the masters of that maybe we could take some guidence from them.

 

I tend to agree with this, most of the revenue comes from the tv deals now, money made from ticket sales is minimal in comparison. I personally think the way forward is increasing popularity around the world, if the club can project itself as a big club, showing full stadiums each week with 50,000 - 60,000 (before anyone says anything this should be a long term aim), then surely that would in turn increase our global appeal. I know it sounds fantasy land but if you make the tickets ridiculously low people would come, just say for instance matchday tickets were a tenner and season tickets £200. People would buy them, our 2 kids could afford to go so you're getting a whole generation of people involved again who can't afford to go now, this would have the added benefit of creating a better atmosphere, cos let's face it younguns make more noise than us middle aged old farts.

 

I know people say there's no financial incentive to expand the stadium and reduce ticket prices but now is the time to do it whilst the tv money is so high, if we don't we will be left behind as little old Southampton like we were at The Dell. Clubs like west ham will pull so far ahead we'll never catch them. To become popular around the world is all image and we need to create the image that we're a big club.

[Mr Biscuits]

 

My vote is for the monkey chicken petting zoo. I mean seriously come on guys who wouldn't want one of those?

[Saint86]

Reading the Telegraph about the announcement of Pep Guardiola going to Man City, and the probability of him having huge amounts to spend, possibly even enough for Messi and the other super stars. The article went on to say that even the juggernaut that is Man U is going to have to respond, possibly by appointing "The Special One", and sorting out the hugely expensive selection of new buys that haven't set the PL alight. This could mean that the big four will all have to spend big this summer.

Poch seems to have settled in at Spurs, and is undoubtedly as good as we thought he was, and may well join the Euro elite. Although they face uncertainty with the move they have plenty of money and will undoubtedly be a force in their new stadium (more's the pity).

West Ham will soon have a 60K capacity and all the publicity and potential sponsorship that comes with that.

We've seen that the mega-bucks the PL generates allows all clubs to buy good players and the mid table will become even harder.

I can't help thinking that in the coming years, there will be about ten clubs all fighting for six down and the bottom three or four will become a revolving door, having their day in the sun, going down and returning again.

It is going to be extremely difficult to finish in the top ten in future, let alone the top six.

Saints are going to have to be very well managed in the future, as will all the other PL clubs, there will be no room for error in my opinion.

 

Well its simple really. We are being run sustainably and were sticking to rules that are for all intensive purposes dead dodo's anyway.

 

Whether we change that or not we'll see.

 

I'd add that our model is still solid and no one has a better buy this January other than Austin. But we badly need to improve the youth teams i think.

[Chez]

expand the stadium and reduce ticket prices

I like your full post above. But that's a double wammy to the bottom line, which will effect spending on wages. Big call for any Chairman to go down that route...

[CB Fry]

Have to agree - although there are some that won't. Why are so many clubs expanding if the revenue is so small? Also thinking ahead there may never be a better chance of expanding, cheap money/steel etc club better off than ever, more status, lots of reasons really.

Lots of reasons except we don't need a bigger stadium.

[Batman]

No matter what Guardiola does here (he has to suss the league out first) he will never ever be a patch on what Fergie did at United and we gave them a bloody nose more than a few times.

[Millbrook Saint]

I like your full post above. But that's a double wammy to the bottom line, which will effect spending on wages. Big call for any Chairman to go down that route...

 

I agree it is, thing is the TV deals are almost making gate receipts irrelevant. I think a lot is to do with image, make the club look big, then hopefully you get more support around the world, players will enjoy playing in front of large crowds with hopefully a better atmosphere.

[nta786]

does this mean guys in 50 years time that we will have 150000 seaters in the country?

[Chez]

I agree it is, thing is the TV deals are almost making gate receipts irrelevant. I think a lot is to do with image, make the club look big, then hopefully you get more support around the world, players will enjoy playing in front of large crowds with hopefully a better atmosphere.

 

Chelsea managed to break into the top echelon of football with global recognition and the sponsorship deals etc to go with it and their stadium wasn't anywhere near as big as the top clubs. They did it by spending money on players and winning things, not by building a bigger stadium. We don't have the spending power to do that, but doubt the stadium route will get us there either. Not sure I'm all that bothered to be honest.

[Batman]

Chelsea managed to break into the top echelon of football with global recognition and the sponsorship deals etc to go with it and their stadium wasn't anywhere near as big as the top clubs. They did it by spending money on players and winning things, not by building a bigger stadium. We don't have the spending power to do that, but doubt the stadium route will get us there either. Not sure I'm all that bothered to be honest.

 

They already had a stadium as big as many top European clubs though and one of the bigger ones in their league.

[Millbrook Saint]

Chelsea managed to break into the top echelon of football with global recognition and the sponsorship deals etc to go with it and their stadium wasn't anywhere near as big as the top clubs. They did it by spending money on players and winning things, not by building a bigger stadium. We don't have the spending power to do that, but doubt the stadium route will get us there either. Not sure I'm all that bothered to be honest.

 

Fair enough, I just think with other clubs increasing the size of their grounds we're going to end up having an image of 'little old Southampton' again, which even now I feel the club struggles to shake off.

[colehillsaint]

Reading the Telegraph about the announcement of Pep Guardiola going to Man City, and the probability of him having huge amounts to spend, possibly even enough for Messi and the other super stars. The article went on to say that even the juggernaut that is Man U is going to have to respond, possibly by appointing "The Special One", and sorting out the hugely expensive selection of new buys that haven't set the PL alight. This could mean that the big four will all have to spend big this summer.

Poch seems to have settled in at Spurs, and is undoubtedly as good as we thought he was, and may well join the Euro elite. Although they face uncertainty with the move they have plenty of money and will undoubtedly be a force in their new stadium (more's the pity).

West Ham will soon have a 60K capacity and all the publicity and potential sponsorship that comes with that.

We've seen that the mega-bucks the PL generates allows all clubs to buy good players and the mid table will become even harder.

I can't help thinking that in the coming years, there will be about ten clubs all fighting for six down and the bottom three or four will become a revolving door, having their day in the sun, going down and returning again.

It is going to be extremely difficult to finish in the top ten in future, let alone the top six.

Saints are going to have to be very well managed in the future, as will all the other PL clubs, there will be no room for error in my opinion.

 

Of course there is always truth that bigger clubs will ultimately prosper but with this happening currently, at the end of January;

- saints beating MU at old Trafford and taking four points off Arsenal in short order.

- the current champions in the bottom half of the table.

- Leicester City clear at the top of the premier league.

- Liverpool and United well below expectations.

- Little old Bournemouth making a good fist of staying up in some style.

- A club the size and stature of Villa adrift at the bottom of the table,

you seem to have waited for the worst moment in about twenty five years to make your point. I suppose you might just be fishing!

Edited 3 February, 2016 by colehillsaint

[david in sweden]

Spending money does not guarantee success' date=' but we do know to have success you need to spend money. There is always the odd challenge to this rule but that challenge is never one that repeats itself. The increased spending power that those above us have is not exclusive to them - our spending power has also increased so the basic challenge is to continue to invest our extra riches in a way that ensures the gap does not increase - and with a little luck maybe it decreases.[/quote']

 

Good post !

[david in sweden]

With the TV money getting more mental, isn't the different in gate receipts for a 32,000 compared to 40,000 becoming less important anyway?

 

.....the extra revenue generated from another 8,000 seats would take quite a few years to recoup....even if we sold out every game.

The majority of the stadium income.... (advertising aside).... is from just 19 games a season.....cup games and pop concerts are a bonus.

 

London clubs in the Prem. sell out 90% every game, Arsenal and Spurs totally. Even with 60,000 seats there's no guarantee Spurs and WHam would sell out every game.

[Redslo]

I was reading recently that due to English teams poor efforts in Europe recently our co-efficient was dropping putting us in danger of only 3 teams getting into the Champions League. If that is correct that would really hot things up in the coming seasons.

 

This is a potentially significant problem. And if England doesn't lose its fourth Champions League slot this year (for the 2017-2018 season), it is very likely to lose it next year (for the 2018-2019 season). This web site provides all the information you need to see what is going on:

 

http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/crank2016.html

 

Will be very interesting to see what situation Leicester are in 12 months from now. Assuming they retain a position within the top 3 come May they'll have a guaranteed CL group stage position, and a shed-load more cash with the new TV deal to spend in the summer; a potent mix for attracting some big names and rising talent. So they could find themselves fully transformed after just a single season with a (relatively) inexpensive manager and squad.

 

Unfortunately I see a different outcome for Leicester. One where they spend big based in CL qualification. Don't then finish in top 4 and can't get the books to balance. A bit like Leeds of a few years ago

 

Either one of you could be right, but I think something in the middle is more likely. With the big TV contract, they would have difficulty spending themselves into trouble like Leeds did. So long as they only offer sensible contracts they should be able to unload unnecessary expensive players when they fail to requalify for the champions league.

 

At the start of this season, what were people's predictions? Chelsea to be Champions again? Man United would surely press on with Van Gaal having had the opportunity to bring in his own players. Would they now have a realistic shot at the title? Liverpool to regain what they consider to be their divine right to sit at the top table? Leicester to flirt with relegation, or at least to finish in the lower bottom half?

 

Arguably the top managers in World football are Guardiola, Mourinho and Van Gaal. Mourinho has had an embarrassing fall from grace despite considerable early success in the PL. Van Gaal has been less then impressive even in charge of one of the greatest teams in the World. Guardiola has virtually unlimited funds at City, but no experience of managing in England. Will he do better than Pellegrini? Even though it is most unlikely that they will not be first or second, the recent hierarchy for the top four would historically be chosen from Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, United and Liverpool.

 

Who would have thought that at this stage of the season, Leicester would be 3 points clear at the top and 10 points clear of United, that Spurs would be in 4th, 5 points ahead of United. West Ham 6th, two points ahead of the once mighty Liverpool, who are only a point ahead of us, having bought half of our team.

 

Why should this next season be any different? Why should there not be one or two of the glory teams misfiring through over rated players not performing, like Hazard at Chelsea, or key players like Kane being injured? Why shouldn't there be other teams like Leicester coming up the division because of clever management of their team, bringing out the best of them. Ultimately, the size of stadium is becoming less of a factor financially compared to the vast sums coming into football through the media and sponsorship.

 

But at the end of the day, teams can only have 11 players on the pitch and sometimes the most expensively formed team of world superstar individuals is beaten by another with a squad costing less than one individual in the glory team. Although we have had our customary dip and a poor start to the season, we have beaten United, Chelsea and Arsenal so far and we are showing how disadvantages of size and money can be countered by good management, investment in infrastructure and canny dealings in the transfer market. But if Leicester hold on to finish the season as champions, then that will do more to upset the apple-cart by proving that the top four is not the sole preserve of the richest glory clubs.

 

I agree with most of this. The TV money will make it more likely that non-top 6 clubs will compete with the top clubs every year. But it will make it harder for any one of them to do so consistently. And good management is something that can go away just as easily as good form for a club or a player. We are not guaranteed to always have good management. Les Reed could have a bad year or he could be hired away and his replacement could underperform.

 

Adding 13,000 seats would cost around £40m which has already been stashed away from transfer profits the last two seasons. What we should do is add those seats to SMS and make all tickets £15. That way we'd definitely sell out every week and attract fans all across the south of England who want to see premier league football. Plus we'd sell more hot dogs and kit Kats so commercial income would go up as well. I'm can't really see a downside. it begs the question would 45,000 be enough? There is huge catchment area to tap into.

 

There is no "stashed away" transfer profits. That is not how it works. If the stadium is going to be expanded it will have to be done by Liebherr putting the money directly into the club (which is perfectly acceptable under Financial Fair Play rules). Borrrowing the money is probably too risky, but the loan payments would drain off too much money that would be needed for things like players to keep us in the Premier League. Will she do this? My guess is no, but anything is possible.

 

I would rather yoyo between the top two leagues than be a supporter of a plastic club. Annual fights against relegation, especially when the odds are stacked against us, are w

hat made Saints great in the 90's.

 

Why not just go bankrupt and drop all the way down to league two and then become a fan controlled entity. I hear that is a popular thing to do. That way plastic American fans like me will be unable to follow the club and everything will be like it was in the good old days.