Sport Republic

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

By using SFC as a vehicle to purchase players from Brazil and Japan, and then loan them to Goztepe. Or using our sales as a way to negotiate cheap/player swaps for their club.

Nonsense. Saints only have 2 players on loan at Göztepe. Both were extremely cheap. Those two signings are not the main reason they are doing well.

[FarehamSaintJames]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Nonsense. Saints only have 2 players on loan at Göztepe. Both were extremely cheap. Those two signings are not the main reason they are doing well.

Are you Rasmus in disguise?

[Matthew Le God]

17 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

You’ve got to have people going to the games to generate revenue. If you think 40,000/50,000 people are going to be content to spend an increased price on season tickets to watch us in an inferior division with worse players and less money to spend you’re deluded.

Goztepe don’t generate a lot of money. They’re just the Saints feeder club. Saints buy and loan to them, those players are half decent enough for that league. You can’t compare the scenarios.

We have been absolutely terrible this season. Yet every home game has sold out. That shows the stadium is currently too small and we are missing out on revenue that could be used to make the team better. 

We only have 2 players on loan at Göztepe. Both were extremely cheap. Sport Republic have managed them well enough to get them competing for European places when they weren't previously. Ig shows they can run a club. Sure many Saints fans won't care until they turn  it around for us, but it does shoe they are capable of getting things right in a relatively decent league.

Edited 31 December, 2024 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

Are you Rasmus in disguise?

What about that post is untrue?

Plus I have acknowledged SR have fucked up a lot of things with us.

[S-Clarke]

8 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Nonsense. Saints only have 2 players on loan at Göztepe. Both were extremely cheap. Those two signings are not the main reason they are doing well.

I'm not saying it's just down to that, but there are 4 players there who they gained because of us.

Victor Hugo, cheap deal. We had to take less on Charly.

Matsuki - he is ours and on loan there

Lis - obviously was ours, but wasn't ever truly our player.

Juan - he is ours and on loan there

Upcoming links:

Vanderson - looks like we'll buy him and then loan him there, same 'could' happen with Wellington in January.

So they are massively benefiting from our PL finances to secure players they'd otherwise find it hard to do so. It's not all down to that as I've mentioned, but it's a weaker league and there's less required to be successful there

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

I'm not saying it's just down to that, but there are 4 players there who they gained because of us.

Victor Hugo, cheap deal. We had to take less on Charly.

Matsuki - he is ours and on loan there

Lis - obviously was ours, but wasn't ever truly our player.

Juan - he is ours and on loan there

Upcoming links:

Vanderson - looks like we'll buy him and then loan him there, same 'could' happen with Wellington in January.

So they are massively benefiting from our PL finances to secure players they'd otherwise find it hard to do so. It's not all down to that as I've mentioned, but it's a weaker league and there's less required to be successful there

None of those cost much at all. Plus Juan and Matsuki are Saints assets that hold and may increase value plus may even end up in our first team to benefit us. 

[FarehamSaintJames]

9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

None of those cost much at all. Plus Juan and Matsuki are Saints assets that hold and may increase value plus may even end up in our first team to benefit us. 

“Assets” 

[saintant]

41 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

What checks are you suggesting they should have done that they didn't do? Plus why would Gao care beyond getting the best price possible?

Gao didn't handle the sale of the club it was done by Mark Semmens. The clue that he didn't carry out proper checks and balances on those fronting SR is the total and utter mess they have made of running the club from pretty well day one. 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, saintant said:

Gao didn't handle the sale of the club it was done by Mark Semmens. The clue that he didn't carry out proper checks and balances on those fronting SR is the total and utter mess they have made of running the club from pretty well day one. 

That does not answer the two questions I asked.

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

“Assets” 

Yep, why is that term an issue?

[FarehamSaintJames]

Sport Republic achievement unlocked - top ten finish

 

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

That does not answer the two questions I asked.

To your point 1 I've given my answer but if you think all the relevant due diligence checks and balances were done in full then you crack on - the evidence of how the football club has been run by SR tells me things were missed and not just small things. As to Gao wanting as much money as possible - of course he did but Semmens had a duty not jut to sell to the highest bidder.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, saintant said:

To your point 1 I've given my answer but if you think all the relevant due diligence checks and balances were done in full then you crack on - the evidence of how the football club has been run by SR tells me things were missed and not just small things. As to Gao wanting as much money as possible - of course he did but Semmens had a duty not jut to sell to the highest bidder.

The questions were...

1) What checks are you suggesting they should have done that they didn't do?

2) Why would Gao care beyond getting the best price possible?

You have not answered either. What are you basing Semmens 'duty' on?

[saintant]

9 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

Sport Republic achievement unlocked - top ten finish

 

Just goes to show how much we wasted in the summer transfer window.

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, saintant said:

Just goes to show how much we wasted in the summer transfer window.

Why do you think that graphic shows that? What it actually shows is the players we have in the squad have increased in value by €104m in the last year (based on their valuations of player worth). It is actually a positive graphic if you trust their player valuation system.

Edited 31 December, 2024 by Matthew Le God

[saintant]

16 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The questions were...

1) What checks are you suggesting they should have done that they didn't do?

2) Why would Gao care beyond getting the best price possible?

You have not answered either. What are you basing Semmens 'duty' on?

Clearly the checks conducted should have centred around financial stability of buyer, track record of leading personnel including and importantly knowledge of running an elite football club, ambitions and plans for the future development of the football club. I believe if these aspects had been covered off in a due and diligent way SR would not have passed the required levels. That has subsequently been proved unless you feel they have made a good job of running the club.

Gao wouldn't care beyond getting the best price but Semmens had duties other than merely selling to the highest bidder (and we don't even know whether SR was the highest bidder).

Edited 31 December, 2024 by saintant

[SambaMaverick]

5 minutes ago, saintant said:

Clearly the checks conducted should have centred around financial stability of buyer, track record of leading personnel including and importantly knowledge of running an elite football club, ambitions and plans for the future development of the football club. I believe if these aspects had been covered off in a due and diligent way SR would not have passed the required levels. That has subsequently been proved unless you feel they have made a good job of running the club.

Gao wouldn't care beyond getting the best price but Semmens had duties other than merely selling to the highest bidder (and we don't even know whether SR was the highest bidder).

Semmens didn't know his arse from his elbow when he was in charge really, so to suggest he should have had some kind of crystal ball is a bit silly. SR have the money, they clearly had a cogent plan on paper that sounded good - but we know now that they've fucked it up. 

I don't think it's Semmens' fault at all.

[Matthew Le God]

13 minutes ago, saintant said:

Clearly the checks conducted should have centred around financial stability of buyer, track record of leading personnel including and importantly knowledge of running an elite football club, ambitions and plans for the future development of the football club. I believe if these aspects had been covered off in a due and diligent way SR would not have passed the required levels. That has subsequently been proved unless you feel they have made a good job of running the club.

Gao wouldn't care beyond getting the best price but Semmens had a duties other than merely selling to the highest bidder (and we don't even know whether SR was the highest bidder).

Going through your list...

SR have invested large amounts into the club so financial stability isn't an issue.

I know he is heavily derided given what has happened with us. But prior to the takeover Ankersen has experience of being heavily involved in the running clubs. Plus in any case the vast majority of new owners in the PL are new to the sport and many don't appoint football experience to the boards. So it is not a prerequisite. 

We know they have plans to develop the riverside area and stadium itself.

You keep talking about Semmens duties. But why would he be held to any duties to not only sell to the hughest bidder?

Again... please do not take this as a blind defence of Sport Republic. I acknowledge they have fucked up big time in many areas. But it isn't quite as bad as many make out.

Edited 31 December, 2024 by Matthew Le God

[saintant]

12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why do you think that graphic shows that? What it actually shows is the players we have in the squad have increased in value by €104m in the last year (based on their valuations of player worth). It is actually a positive graphic if you trust their player valuation system.

Well, I'm not sure I do believe or trust these player valuations if I'm honest otherwise we should be doing better. Either we've wasted money that inflated our squad value or you believe values of players who are not performing have substantially risen. Which do you think it is?

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, saintant said:

Clearly the checks conducted should have centred around financial stability of buyer, track record of leading personnel including and importantly knowledge of running an elite football club, ambitions and plans for the future development of the football club. I believe if these aspects had been covered off in a due and diligent way SR would not have passed the required levels. That has subsequently been proved unless you feel they have made a good job of running the club.

Gao wouldn't care beyond getting the best price but Semmens had duties other than merely selling to the highest bidder (and we don't even know whether SR was the highest bidder).

TBF the CVs of the leaders stack up quite well. Dragon a billionaire, Rasmus has been a director at Brentford who did well whilst he was there (seems to be in-spite of not because of though) and also part time chairman of Midtjylland where they are in the most successful period ever. Kraft is meant to be worth £2b himself and an investor.

BTW Kraft seems to be escaping a lot of the flack with most of it directed towards Rasmus. Kraft is chairman of Saints with Phil Parsons as CEO. It seems Rasmus is the president of Goztepe whereas Kraft and Parsons are more involved in Saints.

[saintant]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Going through your list...

SR have invested large amounts into the club so financial stability isn't an issue.

I know he is heavily derided given what has happrned with us. But prior to the takeover Ankersen has experience of being heavily involved in the running clubs. Plus in any case the vast majority of new owners in the PL are new to the sport snd many dont appoint football experience to the boards. So itbid not a prerequisite. 

We know they have plans to develop the Riverside area and stadium itself.

You keep talking about Semmens duties. But why would he be held to any duties to not only sell to the hughest bidder?

Again... please do not take this as a blind defence of Sport Republic. I acknowledge they have fucked up big time in many areas. But it isn't quite as bad as many make out.

You need to learn more about due diligence because one of the important rules is that you don't always sell to the highest bidder. I'm sure you'll find a way of disputing this but it's a common mantra in negotiations.

Ankersen has no real track record in running football clubs and has always lived off the success of Brentford - he wasn't the brains that was Phil Giles and Ankersen has continued to prove he is clueless in this field.

I think we need to develop the football team before we consider the stadium and surrounding area.

[saintant]

14 minutes ago, SambaMaverick said:

Semmens didn't know his arse from his elbow when he was in charge really, so to suggest he should have had some kind of crystal ball is a bit silly. SR have the money, they clearly had a cogent plan on paper that sounded good - but we know now that they've fucked it up. 

I don't think it's Semmens' fault at all.

Which begs the question and partially backs up my point - why the fuck was he put in charge of negotiating the sale of our football club?

[Ted Bates Statue]

9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Why do you think that graphic shows that? What it actually shows is the players we have in the squad have increased in value by €104m in the last year (based on their valuations of player worth). It is actually a positive graphic if you trust their player valuation system.

To be fair to @saintant the increase seems to reflect our summer transfer window performance. We had a net spend of 75M, Dibling came through to add roughly an extra 20M, and the remainder can probably be attributed to Fernandes as the only genuine bargain for us. And unfortunately our rivals are still worth much more - with the notable exception of the other two promoted clubs.

Speaking of our fellow promoted clubs, for some reason Transfermarkt seem very shy about drawing attention to their percentage increase for Ipswich.

https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/marktwerteverein/wettbewerb/GB1/plus/?stichtag=2024-01-01

Just to finish with a bit of positivity, my prediction is our squad value will uplift towards the end of season as results improve marginally and VAR eventually stops screwing us over.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, saintant said:

You need to learn more about due diligence because one of the important rules is that you don't always sell to the highest bidder. I'm sure you'll find a way of disputing this but it's a common mantra in negotiations.

Ankersen has no real track record in running football clubs and has always lived off the success of Brentford - he wasn't the brains that was Phil Giles and Ankersen has continued to prove he is clueless in this field.

I think we need to develop the football team before we consider the stadium and surrounding area.

What reason would Gao have to not sell to the highest bidder if they pass football governance checks? You've failed to give an answer.

Ankersen'a football experience is not only at Brentford. 

Increasing revenue and improving the team are not disconnected. Increasing revenue with infrastructure projects allows for increased spending to help the team. 

[It's There]

I don’t get the ‘get out of our club’ brigade attack on our owners. They’ve tried hard, made mistakes, yet got us back to Premier league.  We all predicted we’d struggle this year, and we have. We could, and should! Be on more points when you consider the Ipswich and Leicester results and some very harsh VAR decisions. It’s not the owners fault that we gave 10 goals away from playing out from the back, not playing players in their correct position etc. They are at fault for delaying the inevitable managerial change and not finding a striker over the summer. 
I think they are good owners who have made mistakes and been let down. 
We should get behind the new manager And hope that we can find a decent striker in January.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

What reason would Gao have to not sell to the highest bidder if they pass football governance checks? You've failed to give an answer.

Ankersen'a football experience is not only at Brentford. 

Increasing revenue and improving the team are not disconnected. Increasing revenue with infrastructure projects allows for increased spending to help the team. 

I gave an answer - it may not be to your liking but it's an answer all the same.

Ankersen has no experience at elite level football other than what he's gained at Southampton and we've all seen how well he's done for the club.

Cart before horse syndrome - available money needs to be spent on players but not much point when SR are doing the spending. 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, It's There said:

I don’t get the ‘get out of our club’ brigade attack on our owners. They’ve tried hard, made mistakes, yet got us back to Premier league.  We all predicted we’d struggle this year, and we have. We could, and should! Be on more points when you consider the Ipswich and Leicester results and some very harsh VAR decisions. It’s not the owners fault that we gave 10 goals away from playing out from the back, not playing players in their correct position etc. They are at fault for delaying the inevitable managerial change and not finding a striker over the summer. 
I think they are good owners who have made mistakes and been let down. 
We should get behind the new manager And hope that we can find a decent striker in January.

I agree with most of that post, apart from the bit in bold. They hired a manager that they knew would stubbornly stick to a style of play where that would likely happen (especially at PL level).

[trousers]

31 minutes ago, It's There said:

We all predicted we’d struggle this year, and we have

There's a significant difference between predicting a common-or-garden "struggle" and predicting a record breaking capitulation. The latter has happened, not the former, and I don't recall anyone predicting it would be as bad as its turned out...

Edited 31 December, 2024 by trousers

[CB Fry]

3 minutes ago, It's There said:

I don’t get the ‘get out of our club’ brigade attack on our owners. They’ve tried hard, made mistakes, yet got us back to Premier league.  We all predicted we’d struggle this year, and we have. We could, and should! Be on more points when you consider the Ipswich and Leicester results and some very harsh VAR decisions. It’s not the owners fault that we gave 10 goals away from playing out from the back, not playing players in their correct position etc. They are at fault for delaying the inevitable managerial change and not finding a striker over the summer. 
I think they are good owners who have made mistakes and been let down. 
We should get behind the new manager And hope that we can find a decent striker in January.

They "got us back" in the Premier League after relegating us in the first place. They're not doing us some massive favour.

Two full Premier League seasons and two bottom place finishes. Not just relegated, bottom both times. Fucking useless.

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

I agree with most of that post, apart from the bit in bold. They hired a manager that they knew would stubbornly stick to a style of play where that would likely happen (especially at PL level).

I agree with MLG!

[saintant]

Just now, CB Fry said:

They "got us back" in the Premier League after relegating us in the first place. They're not doing us some massive favour.

Two full Premier League seasons and two bottom place finishes. Not just relegated, bottom both times. Fucking useless.

Succinct and to the point 🙂

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, saintant said:

I gave an answer - it may not be to your liking but it's an answer all the same.

Ankersen has no experience at elite level football other than what he's gained at Southampton and we've all seen how well he's done for the club.

Cart before horse syndrome - available money needs to be spent on players but not much point when SR are doing the spending. 

You did not. Because you said "due diligence because one of the important rules is that you don't always sell to the highest bidder". Who has made that rule and why should Gao follow it?

See Turkish's post regarding Ankersen's involvement compared to Parsons and Kraft.

When investor spending on transfers and wages is maxed out within the rules, infrastructure investment is not included in financial rules, so it allows a club to invest in capital projects that increase revenue so that it can then be spent on transfers and wages.

Edited 31 December, 2024 by Matthew Le God

[egg]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

You did not. Because you said "due diligence because one of the important rules". Who has made that rule and why should Gao follow it?

See Turkish's post regarding Ankersen's involved compared to Parsons and Kraft.

Investor spending on transfers and wages is maxed out within the rules. Infrastructure investment is not included in financial rules, so it allows a club to invest I  capital projects that increase revenue so that it can then be spent on transfers and wages.

I'm intrigued. What capital projects would generate enough revenue to buy players for next season and pay their wages? 

[Matthew Le God]

7 minutes ago, trousers said:

I agree with MLG!

[saintant]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

You did not. Because you said "due diligence because one of the important rules". Who has made that rule and why should Gao follow it?

See Turkish's post regarding Ankersen's involved compared to Parsons and Kraft.

Investor spending on transfers and wages is maxed out within the rules. Infrastructure investment is not included in financial rules, so it allows a club to invest I  capital projects that increase revenue so that it can then be spent on transfers and wages.

I bow to your superior knowledge in everything and apologise profusely for questioning anything you posted. I will try to do better in future as, only a fool, would attempt to cross examine you and expect to come out on top. I'll slink away and lick my wounds oh great one and thank you for putting me right.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, egg said:

I'm intrigued. What capital projects would generate enough revenue to buy players for next season and pay their wages? 

I wasn't talking about next season. It would take the big riverside development and/or stadium expansion project to make a notable difference. Infrastructure investment is excluded from the rules so wouldn't impact transfer funds if that is also maxed out from an owner.

[saintant]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

I wasn't talking about next season. It would take the big riverside development and/or stadium expansion project to make a notable difference. Infrastructure investment is excluded from the rules so wouldn't impact transfer funds if that is also maxed out from an owner.

How much would a stadium expansion cost? (sorry, I know I promised to try to do better but this is very relevant to your point)

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, saintant said:

How much would a stadium expansion cost? (sorry, I know I promised to try to do better but this is very relevant to your point)

Depends on the specification and size. It will be a large amount of cash but the amount could vary significantly on how many additional seats and what other facilities are included. But it is exempt from financhial rules. So if SR are maxing out the amount they are allowed to invest on transfers/wages, then the infrastructure money has no negative impact on their ability to invest short term in the team.

Edited 31 December, 2024 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, saintant said:

How much would a stadium expansion cost? (sorry, I know I promised to try to do better but this is very relevant to your point)

Lowe said it cost £1000 per seat to build St Mary’s and £3000 per seat to expand it. This was obviously many years ago but even using those numbers it would cost more to expand to 45,000 than it cost to build it in the first place. 

[saintant]

8 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Lowe said it cost £1000 per seat to build St Mary’s and £3000 per seat to expand it. This was obviously many years ago but even using those numbers it would cost more to expand to 45,000 than it cost to build it in the first place. 

So the obvious question is whether it's sensible to do it now in terms of a financial decision? Sounds like it will cots the club a huge amount of money at a time when fans are not confident about the direction the club is travelling in. What we don't want is a 'white elephant' in the form of a bigger capacity stadium that ends up being half empty. I'm not against expanding but I don't think now is the time.

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, saintant said:

So the obvious question is whether it's sensible to do it now in terms of a financial decision? Sounds like it will cots the club a huge amount of money at a time when fans are not confident about the direction the club is travelling in. What we don't want is a 'white elephant' in the form of a bigger capacity stadium that ends up being half empty. I'm not against expanding but I don't think now is the time.

It is exempt from financhial rules. So if SR are maxing out the amount they are allowed to invest on transfers/wages, then the infrastructure money has no negative impact on their ability to invest short term on the team.

This season  has shown even when losing every week we sell league every league game. So it shows thd current capacity is too small. We could sell more tickets this season if the stadium was bigger even though the team is dreadful. If the team was half decent we'd sell even more.

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, saintant said:

So the obvious question is whether it's sensible to do it now in terms of a financial decision? Sounds like it will cots the club a huge amount of money at a time when fans are not confident about the direction the club is travelling in. What we don't want is a 'white elephant' in the form of a bigger capacity stadium that ends up being half empty. I'm not against expanding but I don't think now is the time.

People seem to forget that although you earn more money from more seats it also costs money to put them there. We've had this discussion over and over again during the years and people scream, "expand expand expand" without realising it'll also give us a debt of at least £40m when we already have significant debt. If we sold out every week it would still take a good few years to actually see any profit from them. The only way it would be viable is if we knew we could sell the seats for a good few years, ie a waiting list for season tickets running into the thousands. Also no relegation on the horizon, no point spunking 10s of millions now so fans can boast about the size of the stadium when we wont sell out every week in the championship.

[S-Clarke]

Only Southampton, under SR, would expand St Marys by 10k seats for £60m before buying a centre forward.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

People seem to forget that although you earn more money from more seats it also costs money to put them there. We've had this discussion over and over again during the years and people scream, "expand expand expand" without realising it'll also give us a debt of at least £40m when we already have significant debt. If we sold out every week it would still take a good few years to actually see any profit from them. The only way it would be viable is if we knew we could sell the seats for a good few years, ie a waiting list for season tickets running into the thousands. Also no relegation on the horizon, no point spunking 10s of millions now so fans can boast about the size of the stadium when we wont sell out every week in the championship.

You keep overlooking how the new financial rules are tied to % of income. So an expansion increases revenue and increases the amount you can spend on transfers/wages. Plus infrastructure spending is exempt from the rules even if owners have maxed out how much they put into the club each year.

So it is still beneficial from match day one of it being finished even even you take on debt to pay for it and it takes a long time to make a profit. That is why many clubs are looking to do similar... because it helps with the incoming rules!

[Matthew Le God]

8 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Only Southampton, under SR, would expand St Marys by 10k seats for £60m before buying a centre forward.

It isn't a choice of one or the other. An owner can max out how much they can invest in the team in a year, they can't max out infrastructure spending and infrastructure spending increases the amountyou can spend on that elusive striker!

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

You keep overlooking how the new financial rules are tied to % of income. So an expansion increases revenue and increases the amount you can spend on transfers/wages. Plus infrastructure spending is exempt from the rules even if owners have maxed out how much they put into the club each year.

So it is still beneficial from match day one of it being finished even even you take on debt to pay for it and it takes a long time to make a profit. That is why many clubs are looking to do similar... because it helps with the incoming rules!

You keep banging on about this but also missing the point that if we dont come straight back up we will have a debt of £40m+ for seats we dont need and cant sell.

[Matthew Le God]

18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You keep banging on about this but also missing the point that if we dont come straight back up we will have a debt of £40m+ for seats we dont need and cant sell.

It might not be done as debt. The club accounts show Solak has put into the club accounts significantly more than that into the club since the takeover. So he has available funds for that, so why not for this?

Even in the Championship we averaged 29k+ last season, with numerous sold out games that would have sold more if the extra seats were there. A key reason why it wasn't even higher than 29k in the Championship was away teams not selling out 3k allocations.

Plus, infrastructure developments shouldn't be decided on short term fluctuations between leagues. That can happen to any club. A long term approach is needed and if you keep putting it off even when you sellout to watch one of the worst top flight teams we've ever had, it shows current capacity is too small.

Edited 31 December, 2024 by Matthew Le God

[S-Clarke]

22 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It isn't a choice of one or the other. An owner can max out how much they can invest in the team in a year, they can't max out infrastructure spending and infrastructure spending increases the amountyou can spend on that elusive striker!

They are yet to buy a capable centre forward, we last signed one in 2019.

But we do have a new pub, lounges and TV screens at St Mary's. I'm not saying that you can't do both, but their focus is on maximising commercial revenue which is all well and good - but for that to make any sense, you need a viable product to sell. Since they have been in charge of us, they have created the worst product in the entire country.

So stadium expansion is all a bit moot to me, irrelevant. Sort the important stuff out first.

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

They are yet to buy a capable centre forward, we last signed one in 2019.

But we do have a new pub, lounges and TV screens at St Mary's. I'm not saying that you can't do both, but their focus is on maximising commercial revenue which is all well and good - but for that to make any sense, you need a viable product to sell. Since they have been in charge of us, they have created the worst product in the entire country.

So stadium expansion is all a bit moot to me, irrelevant. Sort the important stuff out first.

That is due to recruitment issues and in some ways due to opting for quantity over quality. No guarantee, but signing a £40m striker might have been better for us than signing two £20m attacking players like Onuachu and Sulemana. That doesn't mean infrastructure investment couldn't be done at the same time, the funding of them is exempt from rules so doesn't impact transfer funds.

[saintant]

25 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It might not be done as debt. The club accounts show Solak has put into the club accounts significantly more than that into the club since the takeover. So he has available funds for that, so why not for this?

Even in the Championship we averaged 29k+ last season, with numerous sold out games that would have sold more if the extra seats were there. A key reason why it wasn't even higher than 29k in the Championship was away teams not selling out 3k allocations.

Plus, infrastructure developments shouldn't be decided on short term fluctuations between leagues. That can happen to any club. A long term approach is needed and if you keep putting it off even when you sellout to watch one of the worst top flight teams we've ever had, it shows current capacity is too small.

More capacity would be great but Bmuff are a fine example proving that what you have on the pitch is more important than how many you have sat in the stands. I'm sure they'd love a new stadium but right now their team is streets ahead of ours. And I get that you are now going to completely rubbish the way I've argued my point so fire away 🙂