Wes Tender

No, I'm not. And there is no basis particularly for your assertion that just because some other clubs had that sort of attendance in the second division, we must achieve it also in order to be able to make 40,000 in the Premiership. The reasons are quite simple really. We have only just been promoted and undoubtedly our attendances will begin to rise over last season. But in my opinion, the numbers will only rise substantially on results, from success on the pitch. Yes, there will be higher attendances from certain matches this coming season, a sell-out against the Skates, of course for one and if we are doing well and look as if promotion is a reality a la Norwich, then towards the end of the season, numbers will increase dramatically. Therefore, plainly an average of 30000 is improbable because lower attendances early on will distort the average attendance downwards. The same scenario would apply to the Premiership, where we would sell out several games but not necessarily all of them, unless we were winning more than we were losing. Some games against the glory teams, we could probably sell 40000 tickets for. But other matches against lesser teams, I had suggested lower ticket prices for, much as we had done before with the gold, silver and bronze system. I take much the same view as Tamesaint, which seems eminently sensible to me and perhaps you might care to pick holes in his stance, if you can. And typically, when the argument put forward that we are on a par with teams like Bolton, Fulham and Stoke is shot down, then those who put forward those arguments sneer at the response as if geographical location, number of rival clubs in the area and population have nothing to do with anything. Obviously they are significant factors and I don't see any intelligent debate disproving them.

Originally Posted by Wes Tender: Egg: What's priceless is you making assumptions, just as Turkish and CB Fry have, that if the response to your questioning doesn't suit your own agenda, it must mean something else. I was asked to justify my position that under certain circumstances it might be feasible to fill a stadium increased in capacity to satisfy demand. When sneered at and asked for supporting evidence, it is surely permissable to counter by asking for evidence that it is not possible. Of course Cortese would not go cap in hand to the Liebherrs asking for £50 million to extend the stadium capacity without evidence that we will expect to fill it for many of the matches. But then the suggestion that anybody on here thought that he might do was yours alone. On the other hand, if the evidence was strong, that with increasing success on the pitch and demand increased substantially, there is no reason at all why he should not put forward the plans to the Liebhers to spend money on improving the stadium, or indeed relocating. A few narrow-minded individuals on here do not have the imagination to accept that such a thing is possible, possibly because they have become blinkered by the club's history of mediocrity.

It was impossible to climb Everest until somebody did it. It was impossible to put a man on the moon until somebody did it. Just because we never have had crowds at that level does not mean that it will never happen. We have been limited in the past by all sorts of factors, like the capacity of the stadium. Matches have sold out when the capacity was 32000. How many more tickets could we have sold? Admit it; you don't know. When the sold out sign went up, people stopped buying.

I'm not being offended for her. I just pointed out that you ought to read what is said more carefully and don't misconstrue its meaning to suit your viewpoint. If you read my last sentence, you will see that my position is that it is not possible to assess with any accuracy what the situation would be regarding the potential capacity requirments until we reach a position of success that might justify them. But to counter your position, where is your evidence that it would not be possible to fill a 40,000 seater stadium?

Once again, I point out that neither Fulham or Bolton are good examples to compare against us, because of the proximity of other big glory teams in their immediate vicinity. Within a 20 mile radius of Bolton are both ManUre and City, Blackburn and Wigan of the top flight clubs. Also within that radius are Rochdale, Bury, Burnley, Oldham and Stockport. I trust I don't have to list the number of London clubs within an even smaller radius of Fulham. Stoke are the only reasonable exception on your list. But then again, there's not much in the way of large urban development to match that which we have within a reasonable travelling distance to us.

According to this article in the Blackpool Gazette, Varney can't stay at Blackpool, because his wages would be too high. http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/sport/football/blackpool-fc/varney_s_wages_stopped_pool_return_1_3507318 So Blackpool, recently relegated from the Premiership, with parachute payments, can't afford him, but the Skates can, even so soon after administration? Bloody typical of the dirty cheating bastards. And you have to laugh at Varney's sheer ignorance, believing that the Skates' ambitions to be back in the Premiership are more realistic than those of many other second division clubs.

To an extent, you're right. But greater attendances also have other repercussions on the club's income streams. Such as increased takings from merchandising, sale of food and drink in the concourses, additional revenue from Corporate hospitality, etc. Additionally, nothing is better for gaining longer term fans than actually getting them hooked from attending matches, rather than watching them on the box. A full larger stadium might be vanity, but it is also the greatest visible yardstick of the success of the brand and success breeds success.

Kindly read Suewhistle's post again, this time with a bit more objectivity and tell me where she said that prices would be lower with a larger stadium. What she actually said, was that attendances could be higher "if prices are reasonable". That does not infer a price reduction, so I believe you owe her an apology for calling her mental. And I note that CB Fry also made exactly the same mistake in misinterpreting what she had said too, although that is not a great surprise. It seems to me, that those who label anybody else as being a sandwich short of a picnic if they express the opinion that we could regularly fill a 40,000 seater stadium, are basing a lot of their arguments on historical precedents, or false comparisons. What relevance attaches for example to comparisons of our club in the past, when we have a completely different set-up now than ever before in our history? We've struggled to fill the stadium in the Premiership before, so naturally that is set in concrete that we will struggle again. Factors then, such as having to sell the better players to stay afloat are overlooked now that our fortunes have changed. What if we not only kept the promising players, but added a smattering of big names, who could draw in more fans? You have to go back to probably Keegan as the last player that had that affect. Another flaw in the arguments against our ability to increase attendances in a larger stadium, is that we are compared with clubs where there is much more competition from their localities. Look at all the competition for bums on seats there is for clubs like Fulham and Bolton from the surrounding areas. Hardly a good example, comparing them with our situation where the nearest serious rival has been the Skates, who are on their way down. If we were successful for a sustained period in the Premiership, we will have one of the biggest catchment areas of any top division team. As for the pricing, the sensible policy is the one adopted by the previous regime when we were last in the Premiership. Matches will sensibly be graded Gold, Silver and Bronze and priced accordingly. Naturally, in case anybody misreads this as advocating reduced prices, those bronze prices will be higher than the prices now in the second division. But they should be set at the reasonable level mentioned by suewhistle. There is an optimum price that enables the club to operate successfully financially, but encourages attendances because it is deemed to be attractive and reasonable. It is up to the club to achieve that price structure. Nobody in reality can assess with any accuracy what our optimum capacity will be under any set of circumstances, from top ten in the Premiership, right up to Champions league football, until we actually achieve those situations.

As you say; so obviously a wind-up by somebody with an extensive wardrobe of boring tweeds.

And as you're so keen to have balance in this matter, neither can you provide one single shred of evidence that there is any grain of truth in this tweet. So, rather pointless conjecturing about it, but the discussion about the role of agents is interesting in itself, so long as nobody credits the original post with any credence without supporting evidence as the basis of their argument.

Absolutely. What a load of tosh it is, stating that if we can't get past the agent we can't get to the player. What is also forgotten in all of this conjecture, is that if a player's agent was being his usual canny self, then it is also in his interests to talk up the interest in his player as much as possible, in order to inflate the price because the player is in demand. Personally, I can't see somehow an agent refusing to mention that Southampton had made enquiries about a player, just because that agent's nose had been put out of joint.

Not really. I suspect that certain people would regard agents saying good things about us as a negative. Would we really want agents putting it about that Southampton are great people to deal with? I don't. I like the way that we do things at the moment, that we keep our own counsel until the deal is done. If that puts some peoples' noses out of joint, like agents, or the media, then who cares?

Whereas the sensible people are those who only formulate their opinions based on sound facts. This particular little story hasn't produced anything factual yet, just idle gossip and speculation.

I agree. Apart from the Lowe factor, the way that the club was run meant that every time we identified a rising talent, we had to sell them to keep afloat or pay a dividend. If we are capable of a Premiership position within the top eight, bringing through talented youngsters via our academy and able to keep them, bringing in the odd big name player, winning matches against the glory teams as often as we lose to them, then we could have the potential to attract the crowds from a good and increased catchment area.

Yes, you're right. 14 I believe. That puts some sort of perspective onto the CMS situation, doesn't it?

Well, I'm sure that there would be plenty of scope to investigate Sepp Blatter himself.

I forgot that Posh had that season in the Championship; I just don't associate them with that level. However, I'd hardly call his 11 goals a good return for a whole season. Perhaps if he'd been putting them away at the rate he did last season, they wouldn't have struggling. Arguably, Lambert had been producing a more consistent return when we picked him up for a million, so on that basis, CMS doesn't appear to be worth a bid much higher. But if some clubs are prepared the splash their loot and gamble on a player producing the goods at a higher level, then good luck to them. We can't complain about it when top clubs are battling for the signature of our 17 year old kid.

What is the going rate? The player did well at the level he played at, but is untested in the division above. The going rate is what some club is willing to pay for him.

Quite. Imagine a parallel. A key worker in a children's home is suspected of abusing his charges. He resigns and the home makes a statement that the investigative procedures against him will now be closed and the presumption of innocense will be maintained. Yeah, right. What a corrupt organisation FIFA is and the higher up you go, the more corruption there is, right up to the very top, with Sepp Blatter. Much the same really as Juan Samaranch and the Olympic Committee. We ought to gain the support of another four or five major footballing nations like France, Germany, Italy and Spain and leave FIFA and not take part in the next World Cup, which will then be a farce without us. Alternatively, as in Boxing, there is always the possibility of setting up a rival governing body. The trouble is, our governing body in this country doesn't even have the balls to act and discipline the cheating Skates, so I won't hold my breath that they will take any serious action to challenge the hierarchy at FIFA.

You must have been mullered not to have countered their taunting about beating us 1-4 in our backyard with the riposte that they were a team two divisions above us and with the England Keeper between their sticks. The next time you discuss it with them, you can point out that at least this time we will be in the same division.

How about this?

delete

No I didn't. If you read my comments again, I clearly stated that "Which I'm afraid to say is how some of these images look, almost cartoon caricatures in their monochrome monotony".

This to me suggests a lack of understanding of marketing and promotions. The very essence of a flyer is that it is capable of grabbing attention immediately and it should also be visually attractive and pleasing. Also, I do not see why, if the design looks good on the screen, why it shouldn't also look good as a flag viewed across the stadium. I agree that the message should be kept simple, but if the actual pictorial element is too simple, it begins to look both dull and Mouse Mouse. Which I'm afraid to say is how some of these images look, almost cartoon caricatures in their monochrome monotony. As I understand it, there is no additional cost for extra colours in the manufacture, so why not utilise the additional colours to make it look more pleasing on the eye, at the same time giving the impression that it not a cheapo flag. The image of Markus on Gecko's design is far and away the best one, the image iconic in the eyes of all Saints fans. It is only the design around it that needs tweaking a little IMO.

Surely this is the work of one of us, making a satirical post to stereotype your average thick Skate? If so, well done, whoever it is; you've captured beautifully the lack of punctuation and the poor grammar that indicates the absence of a decent education that typifies your average Skate. Also the delusional qualities are all there too. Masterful!