The Kraken

Right. I'm really not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting that there's actually more than 8,000 seats being added to the Kingsland? Or more behind the goals? Maybe if you provided what numbers YOU think the stadium expansion encompasses you might clear it up a bit.

I think you miss the point a bit Pat. It's all well and good playing in a stadium of 45,000. Or 50,000, for that matter. The important factor is, "would we fill it"? And is it commercially viable to do so? Entire speculation is the only answer, of course.

Um, ok. What point are you making?

First of all, your 40K statement. I'm not going to get into it but the proposal has previously been put forward that we sold out 32K in our relegation season, so the argument was made that 32K wasn't big enough then. Without seeing current ticket prices its difficult to ascertain, but I'd certainly speculate that we could potentially fill 40K against the top 2, 3 maybe 4 sides, even with a struggling Saints side. Against the rest of the division I very much doubt it. Your second post; it seems to suggest that because we don't know the answers we shouldn't speculate. Message boards are a forum to do just do that; we've all made some outlanndish statements that have come back to bite us on the arse. I've certainly made a few; I doubted whether Lambert would step up the Championship, and I certainly didn't think we'd go up last season. I was proven wrong, and I'm happy to accept my judgement wasn't good in those circumstances. If you're saying we shouldn't do that, and shouldn't re-examine previous statements or projections, then I think this would be a pretty quiet place.

Ah yes, indeed I read your question wrongly.

I think I posted this on the other thread. as you say hard to tell, but I'm happy to give it a stab. Basically, my benchmark would be the old expansions possible when first building St. Marys, which was a potential extra 8,000 on the Kingsland, and 4,000 each on the Northam and Chapel. From the design, it's very difficult to get a banchmark on just how much bigger the stands are going to be. For a start, the exit points are not really in the correct place (in reality they're much lower down). In any case: I'd suggest the Kingsland is probably not far off the 8,000 extra seats. I'd guess that the Chapel and the Northam don't actually provide a huge amount of extra seats. Certainly not the 4,000 possible if the stand went round at the same level as the top of the Kingsland. In the corners you can actually see a significant step up from the ends to the side. So I'd guess at maybe only an extra 1,000 per end. So probably a capacity of around 42,000 maybe. Like I say it depends how many extra seats we can get in the Kingsland. There seems to be a new "skin" to the stadium, so that could potentially limit the numbers. We also may look to put in corporate boxes, which again could potentially cut down on numbers.

Where have I said the vast majority? I think you're the one who maybe needs to try reading properly.

Utter rubbish. At least one poster in particular was vehemently of the opinion, when posed the question, that stadium work should begin immediately if we have genuinely got lofty ambiotions for the club.

Oh God, MLG is going to have a hissy fit when he reads that!

Without wishing to dredge up this age old argument (because its tedious in the extreme); I'm yet to encounter more than maybe 2 or 3 people who have said we should rule out the possibility of extending the stadium. The vast majority on here seem to agree that there is definite scope for an increase in capacity. The debate has always been into whether there is enough evidence already to justify extending right now (or whether we need to wait and see what our Premier League attendances are first), and then what the potential new capacity of an extended stadium should be.

Perhaps because it's non-committal and ties the club to no promises. SFC have rightly avoided coming out with ridiculous statements akin to "we should be building a new stadium, and we should be doing it right now". The build-it-now brigade will look into it all very differently, for sure, but it's an optimistic and vague roadmap for the future based upon factors which haven't yet been achieved (which is all a potential stadium expansion has ever been up to now).

In other news, Pompey have just announced similar plans...

All looks very nice, although of course much more of a concept that the actual plan. I really like the idea of changing the stadium shape to give it its own identity; and if it involves something along the line of the exterior of the Allianz then great. It looks like the Kingsland will house the majority of the new increased seating, which I would estimate then allows the capacity to go up to somewhere around 40K, maybe a bit higher (judging from the pics alone the Chapel and Northam don't instantly seem to be increased in size to a hugely significant degree. Nice to see though. I've always thought the club must have at least had some concept designs knocked up for what could possibly be achieved in the future so its good a little bit of insight into that.

I've only been emailed it, but apparently this picture is part of it all? As I say, I've only been emailed it so I don't know what context its in, but it obviously looks like a design to increase capacity of St. Mary's by working on all three ends to some degree. Glad they've published this, I've always thought that the club must have at least put together some designs of future expansion plans. I guess we'll see if this leads to a formal planning application!

BT's contract doesn't begin until season 2013-14, so no.

I'd imagine the person who owns the ticket might be; being as you're displaying the name, membership number and customer number Send a message to the mods and get it taken down FFS

His next tweet:

If his new wages have only been activated on Premier League promotion then its not quite the same as choosing to take a big pay cut from a salary you've been on for a while. I imagine he will have been told by the club that he won't be in the 25 man squad (and maybe even that we won't look to loan him out unless a club pays 100% of his wages), and therefore he won't feature at all. So he has a choice; either accept a deal from another club on lower wages (and a lot lower than his new found wealth), or take the cash and play for the development squad.

Andy Johnson also scored 8 goals from 12 games in the Europa League. A total of 11 goals from 26 starts (1 in the FA Cup) is a decent return. I also prefer JRod to AJ, but that's why we paid an extra £6M on the transfer fee. And I sincerely hope we sign someone like Nelsen. I think we genuinely need an older head at the back; someone like Jaidi when he came in. Its great that we look to invest in youth but we've got a pretty young side, hardly any Premier League experience, and i think we need a wise head like that at least in the squad. I don't know why he played so little for Spurs, whether it was injury or manager's choice. But if he is fit then he'll be fairly fresh and if only for one year I think will add a great deal to the QPR squad.

If a member of the royal family is the head of a particular arm of the miltary, whether as an honorary title or not, I can't see why so many people are getting their knickers into such a twist about the idea of them actually wearing the uniform. Especially when those in the military (i.e. those who it should in theory be offended the most) are actually very supportive of it. Weird. It seems like some people just like to try and act offended on behalf of others.

Nelsen and AJ are two very good, if short term, signings IMO. A wise old head at the back (still only 34), and proven PL goal scorer up front. They won't win any titles with those two but its an excellent introduction of quality and experience in the spine of the team, and anh youngsters in team or coming in will learn a lot from them. I certainly wouldn't have minded signing either of them.

They've also just signed Andrew Johnson. Both decent (if short term) signings IMO.

Ah ok, if you're instead saying "as much" then fair enough. Your original statement stated that hardly any other clubs are spending on infrastructure, which is clearly not true. Man City with their huge project, Spurs £45M training ground, Arsenal's improvements to London Colney, Chelsea's new stadium search, Reading & Wolves investments in stadium and academy, Brighton increasing their ground further, Cardiff's new owners plans to improve infrastructure, West Ham with the Olympic Stadium, and that's just the ones I can recall right now. It's great though that we're improving in the right areas, mind.

That's not really what you claimed though, was it.

A few media outlets reported on it, this was the first result froma quick google searc. http://www.expressandstar.com/sport/wolverhampton-wanderers-fc/2012/01/19/wolves-to-stall-molineux-stadium-revamp/ "But construction has been stalled to plough funds into ensuring the club’s new football academy at Compton Park is up to the top Premier League standard. That £6 million development work will also include a new training ground."