Matthew Le God

Robinson has had a lot of injury problems. I doubt either of them will make the Saints first team as regulars.

A right back and central midfielder that have both come through our academy. Both have captained our under 18's.

Subs 12 Matt RICKARD 13 Chris JOHNS (GK) 14 Lloyd ISGROVE 15 Joe CURTIS 16 Bevis MUGABI 17 Jordan TURNBULL 18 Corby MOORE

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/celtic/9427210/Southampton-look-to-sign-Celtic-midfielder-Beram-Kayal.html Article also says we are still interested in Gary Hooper.

A few researchers are employees of the clubs they research. They have good access to a lot of information not publicly available, for example I read the initial EPPP document last summer. I don't really need to argue my point about Saints, the academy and Staplewood with them as they are already fully aware.

Do you not think Saints are fully aware of the kind of figures it would take to expand to 50k+? Despite that, they still consider such a plan worthy of continuing with and include on the season ticket DVD in its admittedly very early stages.

Stoke's facilities weren't great to start with and they are only spending a little over a third of what Saints are spending. http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/stoke-announce-6m-training-ground-expansion.html For them to label it "state of the art" is misleading.

As I said...

Wolves knocked down a stand in May 2011 and had spectators in the lower tier of the new stand watching Premier League games in September 2011. A lot of work can be done over a summer and Saints could keep the lower tier open throughout.

"State of the art" is an often misused term. Stoke's is far from the quality that Staplewood will be. Same with Swansea, and they won't even fully own it as it is a deal with the university.

Someone involved with the relatively minor changes this summer. Umm.. no. It is responses like this that put me off sharing things that may be of interest to some people on this forum. I'm guessing The Kraken and Turkish are getting uppity because as more and more info leaks of Cortese's plans for the club their views look to be wrong.

I asked the person that took those photos today in the opening post.

I changed my mind, so edited it before you had even responded. But then you don't think I'm capable of forming an opinion, let alone changing it.

The person that provided the information for the opening post says that the long term plan is for St Mary's to be expanded to 52,000 and would be done all in one go as it would work out cheaper.

Highlights of Pompey being thrashed 5-1 by Brighton last night... http://www.seagulls.co.uk/articles/20120725/video-albion-5-portsmouth-1_2264458_2860480/0,,10433~2860480~1,00.html Lots of arguing amongst themselves.

I said top 8, rather than top 2 or top 4 because Staplewood is to a very high spec that goes over and above many of the aspects of other top Premier League training grounds, but some are bigger. It is hard to rank the top 7/8 clubs. Man City are planning to spend an absolute fortune improving theirs, so they will soon be no.1 but the rest of the top training grounds could be argued which order they fall into. What I would say is that Staplewood will better than what Villa, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Sunderland, West Brom, Wigan, Norwich, Reading, Swansea, QPR, Stoke and Fulham have. Well if we go by those plans (and at the moment we just have 3 pictures so not alot to go on and Buttner saying their are plans for 50k) then only Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal and maybe Newcastle would have a better stadium in England. But it is obviously hard to tell seeing as all we have is those three pictures and no internal shots or spec of the expansion and changes.

"Top 8", means anywhere from 1st to 8th. It is hard to compare Staplewood to for example man Utd's. Staplewood is going to be brand new and high spec, where as Man Utd's training ground is now largely constructed 12 years ago (they have added and improved but still is largely the same). Man Utd's is larger than Staplewood, but Staplewood is more modern. At no point did I say Saints would be one of a tiny elite few with category 1 status. A number of people have confused what I said last summer. I said "as things stand with current plans only Man City, Chelsea and Saints would get category 1 status".

Staplewood (when finished) I think will be in the top 8 in the Premier League.

Shame isn't it. Turkish accuses me of lots of things, yet hijacks every thread I start. If anyone else on this forum had posted the opening post, the thread wouldn't turn out like this with Turkish jumping on them.

In terms of the main Pavillion building, academy facilities, landscaping they are pretty similar in what they offer. Spurs won't have a spectator stand that matches Staplewood's (not that it matters at all )...

The Staplewood site is smaller and so this isn't an option, so emphasise is on the club.

If some of the Spurs pitches are for community use, what does it matter if they have them or not?

Saints have little need to spread their teams out over a huge number of pitches, they have enough for what they need. Plus some of Spurs extra pitches are for community use.

Next stop, 18,000 more seats!

The Spurs price includes the cost the land. Saints already owned the land at Staplewood, plus kept the existing training dome (and are regenerating it) so a new one wasn't needed. There isn't really much (if anything) Spurs have that Staplewood won't have, apart from more pitches which doesn't really matter that much.