Matthew Le God

I'd imagine the rest of the Football League (plus Luton) would kick up a fuss if the rules say they should get a points deduction but then don't. Easier for them to punish 1 team, than it is to not punish them and annoy the 71 other member clubs.

Luton Town had 10 points deducted for "irregular payments to agents" along with another 20 points for the way they exited their CVA. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/luton_town/7507736.stm "The club argued that the old owners were responsible and that the club should not now be punished for their mistakes, but at a hearing in London on Tuesday the FA rejected their appeal." Could be bad news for Pompey early in the New Year...

http://web3.newforest.gov.uk/planningonline/acolnetcgi.gov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeDocs&TheSystemkey=173436

Nor will we have a Saints team of Premier League players playing against Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City etc whilst in the Championship. West Ham are the size of a mid Premier League club, however the recent 32,152 Tuesday night game wasn't for a Premier League fixture with both sides packed full of internationals to draw the crowds, instead it was a top of the table 2nd tier game. But we would if back in the Premier League. The prices in 2005 for Premier League games at St Mary's weren't a lot higher than the £30 it costs for a Championship game today. Well an expansion would be done if the club intends to compete in the top half, if it doesn't have the funding/ambition for that it won't expand, the two go hand in hand.

As I later said, it wouldn't be every seat in the stadium, plus in the short term it might be seen as "giving them away". But what it does is creates future generations of fans that will be paying adult prices in years to come. It also allows those with families to attend games they may otherwise not have gone to due to cost (thus it is additional revenue the club wouldn't have got if the price wasn't discounted).

You were the one that claimed £100m, not me. The stadium, main steelwork, foundations etc already exists. Do you then think it costs more to add the extra tier to a 32k stadium than to build from scratch a 50k stadium? The Molineux development is costing £40m for phase one and two and that is rebuilding stands from scratch.

He is out of contract in the summer and is refusing at the moment to sign a new deal. He could be available for a knock down price in January or for a compensation fee due to being under 24 in the summer. So he might not cost that much... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2054784/England-cards-Nathaniel-Clyne-Premier-clubs-eye-Crystal-Palace-defender.html

Why are you using the Wolves figure? They are completely knocking down the stands and building them again. Saints would add an extra tier on an existing stadium. Brighton built a completely new high spec 22,500 stadium for £95m. You are suggesting adding 18,000 seats to an existing stadium will cost more.

But if it is a similar figure to what Saints would have to pay for a loan for an expansion, why are you dismissive of a comparison between the two?

What leads you to believe this? Cortese stated after Liebherr's death that the resubmitted plans for the Staplewood development are now costing three times the original amount. Where has this extra money come from then if it is as you say a predefined "pot of money"? On what do you base a 13,000 increase in capacity costing £100m? Evidence for this claim please?

Yes, they are presumptions. But pre-sumptions based on things like Cortese telling the press and fans dinners of plans for expansion to 45k+ and aims of Champions League football in conversations between him and Markus. So not exactly plucked out of the air by me.

"Only incur a £2m per year tenancy charge" You are very dismissive of a £2m fee each year. If Saints had a loan for a stadium expansion, how much do you think it would cost per year. Lets say it cost the £50m you previously mentioned and a 25 year period. Oh look, that comes to £2m a year, so in fact very similar in terms of costing.

Where do you think the money for the training ground at Staplewood is coming from? That hasn't been designed to hang about in the Championship or lower reaches of the Premier League, it has been designed on a par with some of the best in the country.

Well if West Ham have to pay a great deal for the new stadium and Saints have to pay to expand St Mary's, why can't a comparison be made?

How do you know that?

What makes you think the Liebherr's/Cortese would borrow the money? The Liebherr dynasty has a history of not having debt in business going back to Markus' father. They may have capital reserves themselves that could easily cover the cost. Pointless paying interest to a bank etc when it can be privately funded. Have you considered the Liebherr's may be in this for the long term and not looking for a quick profit? They don't exactly need the cash and this is all relatively small fry numbers to them.

West Ham if the original deal had gone through wouldn't have got the stadium for free. It was still costing them a great deal of money. Newham council for example were going to be providing a £40m loan, that would have had to be paid back along with any other costs. In any case St Mary's will be around for a lot longer than 10 years.

In the short term it might be seen as "giving them away". But what it does is creates future generations of fans that will be paying adult prices in years to come. It also allows those with families to attend games they may otherwise not have gone to due to cost (thus it is additional revenue the club wouldn't have got if the price wasn't discounted).

Real world precedent, West Ham are intending to do just this should they move to the Olympic Stadium i.e. take advantage of the extra seating by offering family discounts, school tickets etc in larger numbers than they can if the stadium is close to sold out every week in a smaller stadium like Upton Park. I'm not saying every extra seat will be discounted, but some can be.

https://twitter.com/#!/PaulHayward_gnm

Yes it is "done". I answered your question with a "no". I then turned it back to you by asking you a question as I don't believe your question is relevant. Has a waiting list for season tickets been a prerequisite for every stadium expansion in the past? If not, then it is not really particularly relevant is it?

That was buying a business when in a financial disaster. Should the club be financially secure and in the Premier League when the Liebherr's do sell up it will be worth more if the infrastructure at Staplewood and St Mary's is improved. You keep on about "waiting lists", however answer this... Has a waiting list for season tickets been a prerequisite for every stadium expansion in the past? If not, then it is not really particularly relevant is it? That doesn't mean by default those 40k won't sold. In any case more seats allow for more flexibility in pricing for season tickets, match tickets, family deals, free school offers etc etc.

Yes, CB Fry always overlooks this! Improvements to the infrastructure raise the price of their asset should they ever sell it on, so it is not lost money.

No Here is a similar question for you.... Has a waiting list for season tickets been a prerequisite for every stadium expansion in the past? If not, then it is not really particularly relevant is it? The new financial regulations don't allow for large amounts of cash from the owner to be spent on players transfers and wages. What they do allow is for as much money as you like to be spent on infrastructure. CLubs around England and Europe are looking for ways to increase revenue streams and turnover to see them through the changes, a good way to do this is to increase capacity. Hence what Wolves are doing right at the moment and other clubs have plans to do. Another way to do it is to do what Derby are doing with Pride Park Plaza, and MK Dons with the area around them and developing the site around the stadium. Done. And you edited my post to say "usual rubbish", despite it raising a number of points that in all the discussions we have had about this you have struggled to counter.

Those figures are from the least successful Premier League campaign Saints ever had. Yet they still show demand from the public to watch a poor Saints side led to an average for the season of over 30k and that only 6 league games didn't sell out. Currently only 10 teams in the Premier League average over 30k, Saints were able to do this whilst in the season of a relegation and Rupert Lowe in charge in 2004/05. It isn't on the "off chance". The two go hand in hand, a successful season leads to more demand and investment in the team along with the infrastructure also helps have a successful season and larger demand. My point was that a successful season will see a rise in demand compared to that of 2004/05. That season saw the team come bottom of the league and yet it still had 13 out of 19 games sold out and an average of over 30k for the season. 2003/04 was the season after the 8th place finish and cup final, Saints that season had an average of 31,699 which indicates most games were sold out in the year after a successful one. That was with Rupert Lowe in charge, and he didn't exactly improve the team much that year and Saints still managed 31,699 as an average for a team that came 12th in the Premier League!