The Kraken

I've said before FC; I appreciate the idea of the range of pricing or whatever, and while it's a commendable notion I simply don't see a business case whereby it could work in the environment of football where you simply have to have a "fixed" price in terms of what a season ticket costs. If we didn't sell season tickets and only sold tickets on a match by match basis then I could certainly see value in what you're suggesting. But as I've said, season tickets are THE most important type of ticket that the club will sell, and therefore they provide the benchmark in terms of cost. All other ticket sales have to be above the season ticket mark; which is why we get the sliding scale of Cats A, B and C. I don't really see too much other scope for movement within that. My view of discounting is this: Cat A games are the full price. They are the most attractive games, they'll likely get the highest attendances and the effect of price on these games is not massively significant (within reason). Subsequent to that, Cat B and Cat C games undergo a form of discounting; they are less popular and perhaps more succeptible to price reductions to get people through the gate.

You can throw insults if you like, but maybe I'm not "grasping" it because I either don't agree with you, or because I don't feel your argument makes business sense?

And this is one of the calculations that the club will surely be looking at. From a cost/revenue point of view, is it worth increasing in size or shoud we just stay at 32K and maximise profits by keeping prices at the higher end of the scale. The devaluing comes if you have to sell tickets at around £15 or so just to get people through the door. You can't sell all of the tickets that low. And Cat C games will be heavily discounted from Cat A games as it is.

How many more times? There already are different prices. We have three bands of ticket prices for league games, Category A, B and C. Cats B and C are discounted versions of Cat A. Doubtless there will also be discounting for League Cup games (and based upon our pathetic attendances for those in the last couple of years there needs to be). So of course I think additional discounting is bad, when we already have it in place. Especially when we'd be building a new stadium to have extra seats, to then extend the discounting even further just to fill those very seats.

Its relative to whatever the club determine the full price for a match ticket. That's the point at which you'd hope/expect the club could sell to capacity for some games without discounting. We're already going to be discounting Cat B and Cat C games, really. And if our previous time in the PL is anything to go by we probably won't even sell 32K tickets at those discounted prices, let alone 40K. Which is why I'm a little sceptical about even the effectiveness of even further discounting, and more so concerning the whole notion of a much bigger stadium and its actual viability.

For me, the crunch is whether we could sell 40K tickets for the more popular games at the full price. If we can't do that, then the whole talk of a 40K stadium is redundant and we don't need one that big. That's the first benchmark to try and establish. Then try to establish how many games would sell out. Price schemes etc etc are all well and good; but at the risk of again repeating myself, we should be building a stadium with a capacity to fit the level of demand, and not devaluing the ticket pricing just to put bums on a large number of otherwise empty seats.

Well that's all well and good; but I think we've already agreed that perhaps the best policy is to prove the demand first and then build to suit that, as opposed to the other way round. Which is also (surely) what the club will look to do.

Yep, and its exactly what would happen. Referrals work in other sports because there are natural break points. Rugby referrals after a try; there's a conversion to wait for anyway, (which the kicker is allowed 1 minute to prepare for) so adding a few seconds on top of that is nothing. Cricket, you have the time it takes the bowler to get back to his mark so again a natural break. Tennis stops after each point. Football is entirely based around a fast paced games with few interruptions. There have been many innovations to make this happen better (backpass rule, offside rule changed, advantage rule adapted, injured players get treated off the field etc etc). Video replays would be a massivley detrimental change IMO.

Again; we already have different price categories. Man U are Cat A, Norwich cat C. It already exists. For the Cat A games, we've got to be looking at selling all tickets at the original price. If we can't sell 40K tickets against Man U with regular prices, then we simply don't need a 40K stadium. The idea of prices rising against Norwich as the game gets closer is a bit weird IMO; and does very little to encourage the walk-up crowd (i.e. those who make a last minute decision to go to the game). It seems you're trying to recreate the wheel on ticket pricing whilst perhaps ignoring the real question; do we actually need a bigger stadium to satisfy current demand. If you think we need all sorts of innovative pricing schemes just to get customers through the door then it suggests we don't.

No, no and thrice no for me. I absolutely think it should be brought in for GLT. But I simply don't think football would stand up to referrals for all the things you mention. Technology will only work IMO for issues which are 100% cut and dried such as a ball going out of play. Fouls, dives etc etc are sometimes subjective and you'd completely dimish the authority of the ref by taking that sort of decision making out of his hands.

Yeah I've heard the easyjet argument before and couldn't disagree more with it. Selling flights and selling match tickets are completely incomparable IMO. Let's say, for instance, you're thinking about going to Saints v Fulham. Or Norwich. Basically, one of the least attractive fixtures. And lets say you know that prices will come down the closer you get to kick off if there's plenty of tickets available. What is there to incentivise you to buy your ticket earlier, and therefore more expensively? I don't see us selling out 40K against these sides so there's no need to get in there early. Everyone will surely just wait until the price comes down and therefore buy at the lower price. All you're doing is pushing sales back and lowering prices. Against the higher ranked sides I'd imagine tickets would be priced high anyway (they are, for Cat A games). Sorry, i think that one's totally unrealistic and always have.

First point: cheap pricing has already been introduced for less attractive games, we have Cat A, Cat B and Cat C. Second point: I'm not so sure. I know that we already have different prices for goals, wings, sides and now premium seating. I'm not sure how viable it would be to introduce another (cheaper) banding of tickets. Besides, I'd suggest that at the size of stadium we're looking at, even a seat high in the corner is going to be a great view. And again, it goes back to the idea of putting in extra seats if you need to discount them to shift them on.

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.