The Kraken

Except it wasn't. Even Sepp Blatter has admitted the ref got it wrong. ITV also mocked up a computer generation of the ball and confirmed it went in. Pierluigi Collina is UEFA's head of referees; he had this to say about it. Still think it didn't go in? Because UEFA and FIFA seem to disagree with you.

Rugby and cricket have natural breaks in play though, so its much simpler for the play to be halted and videos checked. One of the biggest criticisms you often have of football is that the ref "didn't let the game flow"; inserting video replays would diminish it massively as a spectator sport IMO.

I wonder if he's ever put a bet on in a bookies? He'd probably try and have a debate with the kiosk staff. "Well, you say I need to enter whether it will be a win, lose or a draw. But I contend that it isn't as simple as that; there are many more issues to consider than league position, current form, and game location. Plus a whole host of other factors that we my or may not know about. With that in mind it is utterly impossible for me to fill in this form."

This. Go on any neutral footballing forum and ask which is the bigger club and you'll get a resounding answer. The sheer desperation to not admit that by using utterly irrelavant comparisons and speculation is a bit pathetic.

Yes its very hard for me to understand that not only can you not answer you cannot even guess, based upon the information you do actually have (which is very significant).

It stops at goal line technology. As I said above in this post: FIFA put down benchmarks that this technology MUST meet before it is introduced. It cannot rely upon reviewing the tape, a proven 100% correct system needs to alert the ref to the ball crossing the line within 1 second. Those I guess will be the future benchmarks of any technology. If companies can come up with technology such as that, that works flawlessly within those benchmarks, why on earth would we not introduce it?

Based on the information known to you right now, and that alone, what would be your opinion?

The new image above is a lot clearer.

Disagree. Both zoomed and normal resolution show clear daylight IMO. In any case its redundant, it wasn't given. It was also offside, and we had a couple of decent penalty shouts turned down too, so its just one controversy in amongst a few. Roll on technology I say! Edit: different image but a bit clearer and definitely over the line (normal res and zoom).

I'm not even sure how the technology could be implemented to check for every offside decision. Certainly not without stopping play and rewinding the video tape, which I personally think is a type of system that should never be introduced.

How can you compare Saints' attendance from 2004 with Everton's from last season? Hardly relevant. If you're looking for an accurate comparison then you simply have to compare attendances from the same seasons. So either a comparison in 2004 or a comparison last year. Anything else is massively flawed.

The camera was perfectly placed, and IMO shows clearly that the ball was over the line.

Really difficult to tell with the images we have; but I genuinely don't think there is more than an extra 1,000 - 1,500 seats in each of the Northam and Chapel ends. In the Itchen corners the height of seats still seems to be the same as now. And the seats don't seem to rise as high as the Kingland new tier; hence the raised step of the Kingsland roof. Can't really tell from the pictures but it seems to me that the new Northam and Chapel roofs are level, rather than sloped up to the Kingland (again as evidenced by the step up in roof heights), so I'm not sure how much actual capacity that would allow for. Hopefully we'll actually see some formal designs and planning applications go in soon to answer these questions. There's no reason why not; Reading have had planning approval for their stadium increase since 2007.

I don't quite understand this thinking of being so averse to technology for goal line decision. The benchmarks for the technology being introduced insist that a decision must be automatically relayed to the referee within 1 second of a ball crossing the line. There are no stoppages in play for a decision to be reviewed; if the ball crosses the line the technology reports it to the referee almost instaneously so that he can either give the goal or play on. I really don't know why some people are actually opposed to that form of technology.

Who has argued against expansion?

Eh? Blatter very publicly started the movement for goal line technology after the Lampard "goal" in WC 2010. Its why Hawkeye and GoalRef have already got through a year of testing and are being narrowed down for final selection in the next few weeks.

Potentially, if money is no object. But there are a few limiting factors. Most notably the Kingsland has a train line behind it, and limited space to build into as it is. Not insurmountable by any means, but any expansion on that side of the stadium is going to be a significant challenge, that's for sure.

Their highest attendance last season was 19,000; their average attendance was 16,625. So what does that tell us?

Spurious argument at best. If it comes down to a factor of cost, and the game is available on the internet, then it will be a factor in whether people choose to go to the game or not.

As I'm sure you are aware it was an average figure I quoted. It could be less; it could be more if we're doing well. And the 2013 deal includes significantly more games per season than the current deal, so more games on TV for all.

8K 4K and 4K were the figures previously quoted that the stadium capacity could be increased to, without knocking it all down and starting again. It was also what the foundations of the stadium etc were designed to. And it simply can't be 48K, for the reasons I just explained (and even used pictorial reference).

With Sky's new deal from 2013, each club will be on television on average 2 games out of every 5 games. So around 15 games per season on TV, and no need to spend £40 or whatever on ticket price. Personally I think that's will be a very significant factor in what attendances we can attract.

OK. I'll accept your 7K on the Kingsland. I think your 3K on the Northam/Chapel is way out, and I'll explain why. In the original incarnation of the stadium it was possible for 8K extra on the Kingland, and 4K on the Chapel and Northam. That assumed that seats on the Northam and Chapel would go back as far as the Kingsland extension. In the new design, they clearly don't. Firstly: This is the view of the Itchen/Chapel corner. I think it shows that the seats don't actually go any higher within the Itchen/Chapel corner itself, and they potentially start to rise from the right hand side of the Chapel. Now, using simple mathematics, if that back line of seats goes straight up to the Kingland level, then that adds half of the 4,000 seats possible in a straight extension, so 2,000 on each side. Maybe a touch more if the Chapel/Kingsland corner is included. However, the back of the Chapel/Northam clearly isn't as high as the back of the Kingsland. Hence the significant step up in the roof, and in the area I've highlighted below. So I think there's actually less than 2,000 on the Chapel and Northam. Using that design, and the original 4,000 seat restriction, and that the seats don't start to go further back in the Itchen corner, I think (even taking into account the rise of seats into the Chapel/Kingsland corner) that 3,000 is mathematically impossible, and therefore that your numbers are rather flawed.

How have you arrived at that figure? I think its mathematically impossible to get to that figure given the restraints we know about (8K potentially added to Kingland, 4K to each of Chapel and Northam) and the limited information in the design.

So what do you think the capacity will be?