The Kraken

How is it irrelevant? You were responding to a post which read: "We got promoted so the relative rise would be less than these absolute figures. As a fan base we are not used to promotions and the associated increase in ticket prices, that incidentally happens at every club." That post makes no distinction between season tickets and match tickets; you came to that conclusion on your own. So highlighting that Norwich's match tickets have risen sharply since they gained promotion is entirely relevant to the original topic of discussion. It just doesn't fit with your own argument (which incidentally is contrary to the majority of team's prices when they gain promotion in any case).

You don't understand the notion that less successful teams (i.e. those further down in the footballing pyramid) will typically attract lower crowds than those further up in the pyramid (or also lower crowds than they themselves used to attract when occupying those higher leagues)? It's not exactly a new phenomenon so I'm not too sure where your confusion stems from.

And their most expensive match ticket has risen to a whopping £45.

How do you work that out?

Is there an echo in here?

Yes, of course, it's why I put their previous year's figure of 27,299 which I think is a more realistic level of their support.

If you don't think a 2,000 bump on crowds from last year (almost 10%) is much of an increase; or for that matter than an average over 24,000 is a very good level of support, then it's not worth having the conversation. I think that's a very decent average attendance, if we could push anywhere approaching a 25K average over the season I would say that was excellent. Your comment about the ticket prices being too high; I disagree with that one, I don't think the cost of the match tickets are too far out, and I think as the season goes on and if we're not seen as a flash in the pan by fans (and not about ti implode any minute) our attendances could steadily rise. You say that you can't compare last time we were in the Champ to this time round because we're doing better this time, and because of a promotion? Fair comment, though I don't agree, and in any case I can't think offhand of a better comparison which I why I provided it. If you can come up with something better, fine. All in, i think our attendances are good. I think our biggest disappointment has been the amount of empty seats in the hospitality areas; the prices there are IMO far too high and just don't offer value for money which, in this financial climate, is all important. Without the suites and corporate boxes being anywhere near full we're very much going to struggle to push on much further than 25K or 26K crowds. I've noticed an increased effort by the club lately to promote the hospitality suites further, but I still maintain that the prices are at a prohibitive level no matter the level of marketing.

We already have a backup striker; his name is Jonathan Forte. Any striker coming in needs to be better than that, and capable of disposing Connolly; I would say Lambert too but he's the focal point of our team and, I'd suggest, the first name on Adkins' team sheet every week.

I don't see how we're missing out though by "only" having 4 on the bench. Lets look at the subs bench from yesterday; with Bialkowski we had Martin, Schneiderlin, Chaplow and de Ridder. Obviously they are direct cover for the positions they play in. Martin could also play left-back if asked (not ideal granted but he could do it). Cork can play right back if required with Schnederlin/Chaplow moved to CM. So that's all the defensive areas covered in case of injury. De Ridder can play right wing, left wing or up front, and obviously Schneiderlin or Chaplow can play CM or even wide if we're looking to shore things up. So, very easily, we have cover in all areas of the pitch. We also have the ability to change formation very easily; bring on de Ridder and move Lallana/Guly up front to support the front 2 if we're chasing the game, bring an extra CM on if we're defending it. Yes, 5 outfield subs gives us even more options than that, but I don't think we're losing out in the slightest by having the security of a specialist keeper if required.

Leeds average this season so far is 23,646, so lower than ours. Although last year over the course of the season is was 27,299. Still plenty of time for Saints to push ours towards those heights!

No, can't see us ever doing it. The risk of not having a specialist keeper between the posts compared to the potential benefit of having one extra outfield option (when you already have 4 in the first place) just doesn't make it worthwhile IMO.

I'd be surprised if we got over 30,000 for any league game this season; the Pompey game and Palace Boxing Day game perhaps excluded. For that to happen, you really need the away side to bring close to their full allocation of 3,000. You need it to be a bit of a draw for the home fans to get really excited about it, so a local derby or holiday time. But critically you need the corporate areas to be reasonable full, and as we've seen this season there are huge areas of empty seats for the boxes and the suites, which I think have a total combined capacity of around 2,500. The Pompey game, well it could go one way or the other if its quite restrictive and some fans will just not want the hassle of it all. Still, I do expect them to bring a full allocation, and the suites could get busy again for it, so I'd expect north of 30K for that. Palace on Boxing Day has been a very well supported fixture in the past so I'd also expect to see a repeat of that. and I'd think we'll get 27k-28 for the visits of Brighton and Reading, assuming we're still in the mix of it all.

Sure. Our average attendance for the 4 home league games played this season is 24,033. First benchmark: last season's average attendance was 22,161. The season before was 20,982. So clearly we are already well up on that. Second benchmark: average attendances last time we were in the Championship. 2005/06: 23,613 2006/07: 23,556 2007/08: 21,254 2008/09: 17,849 Hugely up on figures from 2007-2009, and around 500 up on figures from 2005-07. We will of course have some lower gates in future against the lesser lights, but equally we should get very good turnouts against Brighton, Pompey, Reading and Palace that will offset that. So, by any reasonable benchmark, attendances are up this season.

Perhaps a slight effect, but not hugely. There are two decent benchmarks to judge our attendances by; last year's average attendance, and the average attendances the last times we were in the Championship. This season's average attendance (to date) is significantly higher than anything comparable previously. Therefore while some people may stay away for whatever reason, we've clearly attracted more people than we've lost, which is why I can't agree that the actions of the club have had an overall effect of driving people away. You're always going to get people who decide not to games any longer, or go to less than they did. And that is always offset by attracting new customers to the club, or getting existing customers to attend more frequently. That we right now have a higher average attendances than other comparable seasons is not a stick to beat the football club with IMO.

This. It seems to me that Andoverian is desperately trying to find excuses to justify his indignation at refusing to meet the higher price of season ticket. The fact is this team are playing some of the best football I've seen in years. The fact is we're top of the league. And the fact is that our average attendance compared to previous years in this division are significantly increased. So I would absolutely refute the suggestion by Andoverian that actions by the club have put people off from coming; crowds are up and there's a feel good factor about the side that is pretty infectious. Missing out on that just to try and prove a point to yourself is a bit silly, really. As is whingeing about it all on an internet forum.

Our average attendance this season is still more than 24,000. We didn't get near that figure for seasonal average attendances the last times we were in this division in the past few years, so our attendance figures need to be taken in context. We stll have the derby game to push our average up further; yesterday was the lowest home attendance of the season, which while disappointing was perhaps not surprising given that it was a late switch to a Sunday game, and Birmingham only brought 821 fans. If we continue to average anywhere close to 24K or 25K over the whole season, i think that would be quite some achievement for this league, and well above anything we've seen before at this level.

I'm not sure why anybody needs to ask permission to have faith in their football team. If you really think we're going up, why be a sheep and wait for everyone else to believe?

To be fair, the £10 cost is harsh and unnecessary; but it seems your mate has cut off his nose to spite his face for the sake of a tenner.

I would much prefer it if my club decided not to employ people like King, but I do not believe he should be banned from football. You seem to be suggesting he should be, but your examples are not of people being banned from their industries, rather of companies within those industries having much more of a moral compass than football clubs as to not want someone "like that" on their staff. So really the fault is with the morally bankrupt football clubs who employ him, and not the law in general. Banning King from football would be akin to banning another ex-con from the cleaning profession, simply because that's what he used to work as before, he enjoyed it very much, and therefore he should be made to struggle further by retraining for a different job.

It isn't though. It's perhaps just that those companies have higher morals than football clubs and don't want an ex-con on their books. There's nothing to stop those companies hiring him, it's that they choose not to. Perhaps if football clubs were put under much more pressure from their fans, they wouldn't hire someone like King. Unfortunately it's a results driven business and club owners and even the majority of fans will be entirely forgiving if he performs on the pitch.

But is that not just one company choosing not to hire him? It's not a whole industry that was shutting him out.

How do you mean; what type of example?

And that's the part I have issue with; that he is not allowed to continue is his previous profession just because it's high profile and for the image it projects. As I've said, I completely agree from a moral standpoint, I'd much prefer it my club decided not to hire such individuals. But some club will, as they will consider that he has paid his price to society and is entitled to a career doing what he's best at, and as unpalatable as some may find it I think that's the right course of action.

Again, is this not continuing his punishment? He's served his time in prison; making him work as a cleaner or bin man just because his profession pays too well or is in public doesn't sit well with me, aside from my moral will to actually see it happen. If he wasn't a top footballer, and instead for instance played for Eastleigh, would it still be the same and cause as much public outrage?