The Kraken

How is this an argument? What a silly suggestion. I can see you're still struggling with this so I'll clarify it again. You said that west Ham only sell out as they do kids for a quid. As I showed you, they actually do 6 games a season with kids for a quid (and its a kid with one full paying adult, which Saints and many other clubs have done in the past or continue to do, and is a good idea). And those games are the ones that are the least attractive, so it makes common sense for them to do that. Premium games don't need the price reduction. I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand, if I'm honest. If QPR want to get close to filling a bigger stadium on a consistent basis then that's exactly what they should be doing.

Who do Newcastle have up front? Can only think we're going with Hooiveld to combat a bigger striker??

I'm genuinely interested to know what you're basing this on? I think 40K is too big for, say QPR v West Brom. They won't fill that, but an awful lot of clubs wouldn't, including us. But against the bigger sides I'd say they have a very good chance. We went from 15K to 32.5K over one summer; and you say that we got that wrong, we should have gone higher. Why do you say that its different for QPR and that they should only look to go from 18.5K to 32.5k? Genuine question, I'm interested to hear the rationale.

Have another read. I said they sell out 13 of 19 matches a season that AREN'T kids for a quid. They also sell out the 6 kids for a quid games. The ones that you originally raised as being the only reason that West Ham sell out all their games. The article I linked was also quite clear in highlighting the number of consecutive games that West Ham had sold out. In fairness, while your original post was littered with sarcasm it was actually unintentionally correct. You said "Fulham and West Ham will be in touch with you asap for the secret solution" ​and I guess you were more accurate that you originally thought. West Ham may be owned and run by a bunch of tw*ts but their approach to ticketing and pricing is admirable. Records crowds at Upton park suggest, discounts or otherwise, West Ham have got something absolutely right. Shame its so hard to admit it. Fair play to them; personally I wouldn't be inclined to pay a tenner to go and watch their turgid football game in game out, so they've done well to find so many who will IMO.

. They're looking at redevloping Craven Cottage to increase capacity. 96% is just about full. When Saints had our best ever season in 2003/04, with average gates around 1,000 above anything we'd had before or since, we averaged 97% of capacity at St. Mary's. Quite easy to see why fulham want a bigger stadium; they think they can get more fans in, and they're right. I'm not ignoring facts at all. West Ham do kids for a quid for 6 games a season. Six. So that's 13 other games that they sell out where they don't discount. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24045505 "West Ham United will offer a "kids for a quid" deal at as many as six home games this season as they continue efforts to attract a new generation of fans.The Hammers, who have sold out their past 18 home league matches, will have almost 20,000 more seats available when they move from Upton Park to the 54,000-seater Olympic Stadium in 2016." You said "fair play to anyone selling 35,000 tickets at full costs", is that not what they did for the other games that weren't kids for a quid? But its good to hear that "QPR will not get 35k". Strong argument that one.

Why are you trying to ignore the facts? Fulham are 96% full this season despite being in the bottom 3 for most of it. Pretty much the same last season. If they can't fill it now, why are they looking to make it bigger? Genuine question. 99% capacity this season despite playing one of the ugliest brands of football in the division. Whatever they're doing to market it, they're doing it well. They sell out every week.

Getting nominated in one category would have been amazing in itself. Getting nominated in two is the stuff dreams are made of. Glad to see that rallyboy's contributions to the Lounge have been rewarded with a well deserved nomination. I'd also like to nominate the bear's "match preview / playing Tiger Woods while having a dump at work" for moment of the year. That one did make me laugh.

Precisely James. When capacity was being chosen for St. Mary's, the 32,000 figure was arrived based on a sliding scale of figures in that we could achieve that sort of crowd for 6 or 7 games a season. It was anticipated at the time that most of our crowds would fall well short of 30K.

And yet they're still looking to increase the capacity of Craven Cottage. Why? While that's true you'd have to be an idiot to suggest that West Ham wouldn't benefit from a larger stadium. 99% of capacity this season playing a very ugly brand of football. It remains to be seen how close they'll get to capacity in the Olympic stadium but its a fantastic deal for them in any case. I reckon 40k - 50K against the bigger sides is about their level, but we'll see. QPR won't hit 40K every game. Obviously neither would we if we had one. But they'll do it against top sides. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a club's size by the capacity of its stadium that they're looking to upgrade from. I think the parallels with Saints are quite striking, we're just 10 or 15 years ahead. In the 70s QPR were a fashionable side and had a record attendance of 35K. So they clearly have a history of decent crowds. Our record in the Dell was 31K and we very easily went from 15K to 32K over the course of a summer. QPR could easily do something similar IMO.

Fulham averaging 96% of their capacity this season and with plans afoot to significantly increase capacity of Craven Cottage. West Ham averaging 99% of capacity this season with plans to move to a new stadium almost twice the size. Sorry, what was your point?

Thankfully stug, you've turned the thread around by adding to the original OP. Actually, no, you've done nothing of the sort have you? All you've done is what you accuse others of; you've derailed it. You've contributed nothing to the subject matter at all. Troll.

Championship this year yes, but in the promotion spots and should go up. As for the "Always thought of QPR as a small club really. The London version of Reading." I don't disagree but, seriously, what do you think other sides thought of us in the Dell? Much more? I'm genuinely baffled at how many people were prepared to talk us up yet are prepared to write other similar scenarios off.

Some said the same about Saints when we were at the Dell, and averaging 15K, trying to double that to 32.5K. Much difference in QPR doing that? Really??

To be fair MLG and sue are a good couple. Both incredibly dull yet have massively inflated views of their own opinion, and need to vocally express their opinions as to who they have on ignore as if anyone else gives a sh*t. Also serves as a reminder that they can't bear that their idiotic opinions from time to time are challenged by some people. Classic trolling behaviour, if you will.

Some would say that was trolling behaviour, yes?

Is that why you posted on it? Bizarre.

No idea, because if you say that you also have to take into account season ticket prices reducing. But with a 32K stadium I agree with our current pricing policy.

The only argument for "build a stadium that is expandable" is the Brighton model, where they basically built the shell then added the seats a year or two later. Didn't save much on the upfront costs, if I recall, just got around some planning restrictions. Seems utterly barmy to increase by 10K then realise that's too small. Especially when you're bankrolled in part by one of the richest men in history, and very rich backers in general.

Apologies about that one Frankie. Hopefully its more to do with the red wine than my old age that's at fault there.

Have you been on the turps tonight, Toke-Dog?

I'm just waiting for Frank's Cousin to justify QPR's planned stadium increase by dint of the fact that they could adopt a German or EasyJet price model. Mr. Lack-of-Logic aside, I think if QPR are thinking of increasing they may as well put in a bigger stadium than a 28K one. Fernandez is super-rich, as are the Mittals, so finance isn't a question. The difference between a 28K stadium and a 40K stadium will be proportionally low. It future-proofs them to some extent. It allows for decent growth. And there's are bountiful ways that have been put forward on here as to how potential empty seats could be filled; flexible pricing, low prices, increased away allocations, day trippers from wide and far, the list goes on.

Yes it is. But weren't you claiming that Saints 32K stadium wasn't big enough based upon our previous years in the PL? 4 years of gates seemed enough in your eyes to justify expansion up to 40K. Bearing in mind that chucking on additional seats typically costs a lot more than building the seats in the first place (rumoured to be at least 3x times the original cost in our case) the only logic for that can be checking if 28K - 30K is big enough in the first place. And being as Saints went from 15K to 32K then very quickly were told by some fans that the capacity wasn't big enough, I'm not sure I see why QPR shouldn't use that as a benchmark of sorts as to why they might be able to go from an 18K start point to 40K but without the need for the 28K middle ground stadium in between in between. brighton are another example of how a fanbase can be grown from very humble starts to very sizeable crowds in very short times (8K - 32K for Brighton). Plus, for QPR, the difference in cost to them between building 28K and 40K probably isn't a huge proportion in the general scheme of things.

From PompeyOnline, trying to clutch those straws: Keep believing those myths :lol:

Ha ha, that's actually quite funny. The daft tramp.

This and the panic merchants who start shouting "get it awaaaaaaaay!!!!!!!" when our defenders are in perfect control of the ball trying to play their way out, and come within 5 yards of a closing down striker. Just calm down, FFS. We're not about hoofball, we play from the back.