Matthew Le God

Nonsense! You said... "Imagine how much we could spend if we had a 45k stadium." This is not a question it is a statement with an implied thought or reflection rather than a direct inquiry seeking an answer. It lacks a question word (e.g., who, what, where, when, why, or how) and does not end with a question mark to indicate a direct request for information or clarification. Instead, it functions as a hypothetical statement or invitation to ponder, rather than explicitly asking for an answer. Did you miss some primary school English classes?

That wasn't in your post. So answer my question first please.

There was no question in your post.

Why do you think Saints (and other clubs) are looking into stadium expansions?

Ramsdale was on £120k p/w at Arsenal, he'd be on similar here. That'll be more than Bournemouth are paying their big money buy Evanilson.

A message from Rasmus... https://x.com/Goztepe/status/1874097417274220603

What exactly in that post are you disputing is correct?

The amount of money an owner can put into the club for transfers is restricted. If you max that out then any infrastructure investments which are exempt can not impact transfer funds.

Sure, I'm not going to deny it is no where near PL level. But they've still done very well with a club that has struggled to compete at the top end of the top flight for a very long time.

That smaller clubs than Saints can sign £40m players. And that rather than going for quantity and signing Onuachu and Sulemana for £40m, it may have been better to fork out all that money on a single player from a quality bracket above them. Like Bournemouth did this summer.

The Bournemouth owner...

Bournemouth managed it.

It isn't a choice of one or the other for the reasons I've already outlined. Both can be done simultaneously and one helps the other.

Not any that have been publicly announced. I'd be surprised if he didn't have something in it to give him an easy route out as he is far to good for a season in the Championship.

Of course he isn't the player he once was and has fitness issues. But in terms of his current ability, he'd be a stand out player in the Championship.

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.

I'd be amazed if he stayed even if we had the miracle of avoiding relegation. He will be on the radar of the elite clubs this summer. The extra year trigger to 2027 allows Saints to negotiate a higher price.

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.

It won't be 2026, the club (not the player) has a contract option to trigger to take it to 2027. That gives Saints a better position to work from.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.