Matthew Le God

He is 3 years older than Shaw, I'd say that is quite signifcant.

We've had players play on Friday for the under 21's at Staplewood and then appear on the bench at St Mary's the following day this season. Why not again?

[video=youtube;KDG-eKGsTEA]

I think the same as what happened with Shaw, Chambers and Ward-Prowse. None of them have been out on loan as teenagers.

Why? He didn't say we'd never loan out a player, he said in certain circumstances we would.

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.

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". 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.

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.

Indeed.

I'm lost as to your point. If Plymouth and Brentford can do it, why not us? Chelsea did it with Chelsea Village many years ago.

As long as he keeps to his word of delegation to those skilled in each area and takes onboard advice I don't see that as a problem, for example Les Reed is still director of football and he clearly knows his football.

Both of these have been granted planning permission... Plymouth Argyle - new grandstand, an ice rink, ten-screen cinema, a hotel, shops and restaurants... Brentford - new stadium with hotel, apartments, shops etc... With FFP developments such as these are the future for clubs as they look for new revenue streams. It is things like that which help sustainability of a club and isn't dependant on league position.

Why have you made that up?

Where have you plucked £500k from? Looks like a huge number of apartments in that image, not to mentioned the shop/office rent and the money a large hotel would make. Just look at the scale of the development and the size of some of the buildings. If it really is a daft suggestion, why is the club looking at it? Maybe its not a goer, but it isn't daft and is worth considering. Which is what is happening.

By buying the surrounding land.

Well as your question was... "How long would it take such a development to return significant funds to Southampton Football Club?" And all I have to go on is one concept design from an architect with no annotations it is impossible for me to answer! For a start we can only guess at the use for each of the buildings let alone their potential income or cost to construct. The tall building on the left looks like it might be a hotel, but as for its size and potential income it is hard to tell. Other buildings look like apartments with shops/restaurants below, maybe some offices and the red building has similarities with a banqueting/conference suite at a Edgebaston cricket ground. But its still only guesses from one picture. Why does it even matter if it is a long time? The football club will still exist in many decades to come, such a development provides a new revenue stream to it for many years and also raises the value of the company.

You'd have a point if a) it was just my idea and not something the chairman of the club said today they were looking into and b) it was a larger expansion than only another tier on the Kingsland. I think 40k will be fine for us, yes we won't sell every game out at that size but we would for some. People tend to focus on the "stadium expansion", I think that will end up being only one part of any development. It is monetizing the surrounding area to the club's benefit that will be key.

The outlay for such a development would be exempt from FFP, yet the income from the rent and sales of apartments/shops/offices and the hotel wouldn't. Those new revenue streams would benefit Saints in the short/medium/long term and that money could be used on the team as well as increasing the value and profile of the St Mary's Group Ltd.

As Krueger talked about monetizing the area, and it is land not currently owned by the club then that suggests it is the club rather than an external entity that will benefit from it. In which case it is the club that would be looking to buy the land and then build the hotel, offices, apartments, shops etc. Large initial outlay, but all provide income for many years to come. Other clubs have done similar and/or are looking to do similar on larger/smaller scales.

If all property developers used that logic nothing new would ever be built.

No I wasn't. I'd be happy with an expansion to the Kingland to 38k/39k/40k as a first stage and the club owning and developing the surrounding land like in that picture with hotels, apartments, shops etc. It would provide new revenue streams for the club and also improve a less than impressive area of the the city. It also raises the profile of the club, a development like this makes the club more attractive for commercial sponsorship. Something we are lagging behind in compared to those clubs above us.

Its not just about capacity, "monetizing area" is term used. You can see that from the AFL designs it is only the Kingland that has been expanded in capacity, a new facade on the outside of the stadium which has a larger footprint and a large amount of land developed surrounding the stadium. If the club owns all of that it could be a nice earner for them. It may only be an expansion to 38k or 40k, the club clearly aren't dismissing it as our current chairman has stated today.

Krueger said the plans for the stadium expansion and development of the surrounding area are... Simon Peach ‏@SimonPeach 4m @MatthewLeGod Being reassessed & he seemed keen to look at ways of monetizing area.

Krueger said the plans for the stadium expansion and development of the surrounding area are... Simon Peach ‏@SimonPeach 4m @MatthewLeGod Being reassessed & he seemed keen to look at ways of monetizing area.

Only a maybe for the all time Premier League top scorer? At their peak, both were exceptional players for their positions on a world stage.