Matthew Le God

I could say the same, because you have listed something I didn't say in post #991.

I didn't ask that. I asked "what in post #991 do you disagree with?"

Why do they need to be "big and bruising"? Schneirderlin is the top tackler in the top 5 European leagues, he isn't exactly huge and with Cork the pair break up the opponents attacks well. Any new central midfielder would stunt the development of Ward-Prowse, I think Cork and Schneiderlin with Davis and Ward-Prowse as cover is enough for the rest of the season.

I'm saying what I said in post #991. What about that post do you disagree with?

You have twisted that somewhat. My point regarding Everton was that the gap in averages between the two clubs isn't that great considering one is 5th and the other is 15th. It is more appealing to watch a 5th place side to most fans than a 15th place side. Plus, Everton have the advantage that the average can be boosted from attendances in big games as their capacity is 40k, where as Saints are restricted by the 32k capacity. If St Mary's capacity was 40k this season, the average would be higher as games we've sold out would be capped at 40k not 32k.

From 1979 to 1995 when Matthew Harding invested heavily in the team Chelsea didn't average above 25,000. At points in that 16 year period it dropped as low as 12,000. 16 years is quite a significant period don't you think? Yes, they had crowds of 40,000 in the 1950/60's, but are you saying it is those 20,000 that came back in the early 2000's? That is quite a huge gap in time. An alternative view would be that the success of the team from investment by Harding/Bates and then Abramovich lead to an increase in the fanbase after decades of people not attending games.

Again, I was using it as an example to counter Golac's Cunning Stunts claim that attendances would remain similar irrespective of team performance, not directly comparing the two clubs.

Attendances were rising after spending by Harding/Bates in the mid 90's which lead to better league/cup performances, this was before Abramovich tookover and spent the huge amounts you mentioned. Better team/more success = bigger crowds Which is the point I was making after Golac's Cunning Stunts claimed that attendances would remain similar irrespective of team performance.

I just answered that in the post of mine you just quoted. Why have you ruled that out?

You didn't answer my question.

I've already answered this... - Does Cortese strike you as the type to have ambitions that he knows he doesn't have the resources to fund? - Do you not think he will be fully aware the levels of funding he would need to achieve such goals and if he has those funds available to him? And given our owners are the Liebherr estate, it would be there that Cortese believes he will be getting the funding from, alongside the huge revenue streams from being in the Premier League. Well it is, you should really be happy about that as a Saints fan.

- Does Cortese strike you as the type to have ambitions that he knows he doesn't have the resources to fund? - Do you not think he will be fully aware the levels of funding he would need to achieve such goals and if he has those funds available to him? - As a League One side Saints submitted plans for Champions League quality training ground, as a Championship club work began on said training ground, as a newly promoted Premier League club the club revealed very early ideas for a stadium development/expansion.

Enlighten me then, how did their crowds go from 22k to 42k in such a short time? It just happened to coincide with investment in the playing squad.

No, "must win" indicates something riding on the game that in a relegation battle would mean an inability to stay up. For example, Saturday's game vs Wigan isn't "must win", it is an important game but Saints can still stay up if they lose it. A team in 8th could still get into Europe, a team in 8th is likely to play better football/win more games/more international players etc etc than a team in a relegation battle. So yes, the crowd would be higher as the product would be more attractive and demand for tickets higher.

Because it is an example of how success increases demand. I was responding to someone thinking ticket demand remains constant irrespective of the product on offer.

By describing it as "must win" indicates it is at the end of the season. Which means it isn't representative of a whole season in order to base stadium expansion on, more an anomaly within a season. Thus an irrelevant question.

Wouldn't have to hang on to them. Spurs for example lost Carrick and Berbatov for big money to Man Utd, they then invested it in new players and maintained top 4 challenge.

If we were 6th, 7th, 8th, we'd likely be there because we'd have better players than we do currently, more international players etc etc and a more attractive product on offer to raise demand for tickets.

So you think the demand for tickets would remain the same if Saints were competing for the top 6 or in a relegation battle?

Is this accurate...?

We are a newly promoted side in a relegation battle, Cortese doesn't intend the product on offer to remain that way. If the team improves, so will the demand for less attractive fixtures. If the stadium capacity increases = more revenue for better players, better players = larger capacity required, they go hand in hand.

Yep, just over. So what? It is still a high average for a team in a relegation battle. If the team were competing for 6th spot, attendances and demand would pick up even higher. Also bear in mind with capacity at 32k, every sellout we've had this season could have raised the average higher if the stadium were larger.

As I said... If we can average over 30k in a relegation battle, imagine how many would turn up if we were fighting towards the top of the league. I imagine given Cortese commissioning AFL to come up with early ideas that he shares that viewpoint.