The Kraken

To use FC's notion of a 40K stadium. I personally believe (at least in the PL) that a 40K stadium would actually satisfy the demand for tickets against the top few sides in the PL. Against Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool I think we'd get close to sell out even if we were struggling. And I think we could possibly get close to 40K against the likes of Man City, Tottenham and Chelsea if we had a team performing well. Against the lower ranked sides I still think we'd only see attendances around 30K or so. So I think FC's idea of a 40K stadium both satisifies the extra demand that the bigger games would create and also keeps the ticket prices high. It also leaves the possibility for us being able to push on as a club and drive the attendances against the lower ranked sides higher in the years to come, as you mention. That said, I'd still be concerned about the business case of building a bigger stadium and having it 3/4 full most of the time. As I've previously said I don't think you can arbitrarily significantly discount match tickets for less popular games just to put bums on seats; wouldn't work IMO. This is why, as we've been saying for some time, I'm sure that SFC will in the next season or two (or longer) be looking very closely at a number of factors including ST sales, match ticket prices, home attendances, how quickly match tickets sell out, waiting lists etc etc before they actually commit to a bigger stadium.

Even if it is cup games, we'll only be in the League Cup before Xmas. The FA Cup kicks off for us in January. We enter the League Cup in round 2 and, if successful, could play a maximum of 4 ties before Xmas. If we go out in round 2, then its obviously just one game. And yes, it could change in January, but you'd be hard pushed to come up with a good reason (other than injury to other players) as to why he is being told there is no place for him right now but there would be in 6 months time (with very little competitive football behind him).

That's the question that rugby referees give to the video ref; to clarify if there's anything they are uncertain of. Referees are not obliged to go to the video ref; it is their choice if they have even the slightest of doubt. A bit like run outs in cricket, the umpire can refer it if there is any doubt whatsoever, or give it in/out if he is already 100% certain. If the ref is 100% certain its a try, he gives it. If the ref is in any doubt, he can refer it. And if the video is not 100% conclusive that it's a try, then the try isn't given. Exactly how it should be. I'm genuinely surprised this approach is seen as a bad thing.

Says you. The head of FIFA and many, many people within the game see it as an entirely logical and necessary next step. It's not supposed to work for every decision all over the pitch. Its extremely focussed on one minor but important area. If it works as FIFA demand, it has no downsides. At all. Edit: And I don't consider that English try decision was a bad one by any means. The referee had doubts that the player had stayed in play, so referred it to video. The video couldn't conclusively prove that the player hadn't stepped in to touch, therefore (rightly) the referee couldn't award the try. That's how its supposed to work in rugby (although IMO video replays would never work in football and should never be implemented).

In any case, I'm in no way convinced the whole idea of turning the Northam into a home "kop" would work. It doesn't seem to be what a lot of our fans actually want. I remember when we moved from the Dell, there was a lot of activity of the Saints list and such like on where to get a season ticket; majority opinion went for the singers was the Northam and a lot of that was because it was close to the away fans. Since then the Itchen corner has developed its own singing section that envelopes the away section, and it works well. I can see that if the away fans were moved to the Chapel a lot of the Northam fans might just want to move there. Also, in the current incarnation, moving the away end to the Chapel would put it right next to the family section. Not sure how wise that would be. I know it seems a bit weird we give some of our home end to the away fans, but I actually think it works quite well.

. If he doesn't make the 25-man squad then he isn't available for selection

No, they just made it smaller.

No. the point is that its IS possible to utilise the same set of rules at any level of football. We already have deviations of numbers of officials from top to bottom, from 6 at the top down to a manager reffing with subs as linesmen at local level. So i don't know why its inconceivable to add in one further level.

First of all; it can. It is not a new rule; just like having 6 officials at the very top level. Extra officials and GLT can be replicated at any league level. Of course the cost could prove prohibitive, but it can be implemented. Without seeing costs yet, I wonder how a season of GLT stacks up against the addition of extra officials. Especially over, say, a 5 year period. Secondly; cricket, rugby and tennis have all benefitted from Hawkeye and video replays, which only exists at the top level of the game, and this is not a problematic factor. Football would be just the same; officiating gets better in quality (and numbers) the higher up the pyramid you go, GLT is a further extension of that.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. But I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. People are saying GLT should not be brought in, simply because its a different set of rules to lower league football. I'm saying that's not true. And I'm saying ANY football team can emulate the top level of football; whether that be by using 6 officials, or by implementing GLT.

And that's your opinion. I simply don't agree; particularly for decisions which can be proven 100% without impacting the flow of the game. If those decisions can be made correctly every single time and without as I say negatively impacting the game's flow (which is what we have right now and what the benchmarks of GLT will ensure) then I really cannot see a down side to it.

The point is that they can; if they can afford it. People are saying its a different set of rules; it clearly isn't, its just a cost issue. Some clubs can barely afford linesmen so don't have proper officials. Some clubs have designated linesmen. Further up the league you have fourth officials. Further up still, you have the extra official by the goal. Goal line technology is simply an extra step on top of that.

Is there a significant cost stopping park's football from having the tech? We simply don't know yet what the costs will be. But there is the possibility, if they choose to do so, for any team ti implement either 6 officials or the technology. And kets be honest here, even at local level officiating costs a fair bit of money. Add 6 officials, based over 20 odd games per season, and that's already a hefty bill.

Technology has made these games better by ensuring the decisions made by the officials are correct more often. That is clearly a good thing. And as you say they are just as exciting, so the introduction of technology has not diluted the viewing enjoyment. If a machine makes a more accurate job of officating (in conjunction with a human referee) and the sports content is just as exciting, I don't see how that is a bad thing, or why people are scared of it.

So there's already a difference between officiating at the top level and at parks level. Technology is just a further extension of that.

How does goal line technology create an artficial break between the top level of football and everyone else, but having 5 officials doesn't?

Collina isn't. He's clearly at least part robot.

He works for UEFA. UEFA run the tournament. Collina has said the ball crossed the line. UEFA's general secretary has said the ball crossed the line. I think its fair to say they had a good look at the footage and concluded that the ball definitely crossed the line. And probably not just some grainy low resolution images that we have seen, they would have been in posession of much better imagery to confirm it one way or the other. Michel Platini is desperate for his 5-officials approach to work and make technology redundant. If there was even the slightest doubt that the ball didn't cross the line then UEFA would have challenged it. They haven't done that, and for good reason.

if that is truly the case, why on earth has Pierluigi Collina, UEFA's Head of Referees, admitted that one of his members made a mistake?

I think that's a bit of a frightened way to look at technology and how it can improve the game. Which is the be all and end all; has technology improved the games of rugby, cricket and tennis? Irrefutably yes. Would goal line tech improve football, within the benchmarks laid down by FIFA? Irrefutably yes, it would be more accurate and with no interruption to the game. FIFA have consistently stated that they only want technology when it will not disrupt the flow of the game. There will always be some features of the game that will only be determined by human choice; whether a tackle was a foul, whether a player dived, whether a player in an offside position was interfering with play. Technology has got no chance of taking over football with the benchmarks that FIFA have insisted upon; that it can only be used for 100% factually based decisions, i.e. a ball going out of play. Technology will never replace a referee, only make some of his decisions much easier. Its a backwards step to disregard goal line technology, on its own its only logical to implement if it works as prescribed.

Does your local park have 5 officials? They could, if they could afford it. They could also have technology, if they could afford it.

As I said, ITV fed the information into a computer model and it confirmed it as over. If the head of referees is admitting that one of his members made a mistake, I give his opinion the ultimate credibility. He formally represents the man that made the mistake. If the ref's assistant was in any way of the opinion that he got it right, and if the TV evidence didn't prove him wrong, then there is no way on earth Collina would have made that statement.

Why would goal line technology mean that couldn't be the case?

Not quite. There is one lone lunatic who refutes that Saints are a smaller club than those two; or at least he claims its too close to call.