St Mary's Stadium

[Chez]

9 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

The purpose of it is as Solak states to increase revenues so the club aren't as reliant on things like TV money. It isn't one or the other, it is a case of infrastructure helping the other things by raising our income. Especially as incoming financial rules limit spending on transfers and wage to a % of income. Plus infrastructure spending is exempt from the spending rules, so the "hundreds of millions" he talks about doesn't impact negatively on the ability to spend on transfers and wages.

You say that as though the only thing holding us back from spending mega sums on transfers and wages is PSR. It isn't. Our spending is also restricted by our total income and outgoings. Paying off a stadium loan will be another outgoing, reducing the available budget.

What we are talking about here is the club taking out a £100-200m loan and then the repayments coming out of the total operating budget. Income will presumably go up, but will it go up enough to cover the approx. 8% interest rate and any additional payments that help bring down the loan? Realistically, unless we are a fixture in the PL, the figures won't add up. Solak seems to be smart businessman, so he'll know exactly what's affordable. Equally, if he wants to turn a profit when he comes to sell the club, he knows we have to be a reasonably strong PL club backed by modern facilities that combined will attract the next major investor and a price to go with it.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

He said in the Daily Echo interview this week the intention is to spend "hundreds of millions" on "changes on the capacity of the stadium and facilities around".

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/25246799.dragan-solak-interview-southampton-owner-opens-sale-rumours/

 

Couple of grand on the stadium to close a few seats off and the rest on a vanity housing project?

[AlexLaw76]

47 minutes ago, Chez said:

You say that as though the only thing holding us back from spending mega sums on transfers and wages is PSR. It isn't. Our spending is also restricted by our total income and outgoings. Paying off a stadium loan will be another outgoing, reducing the available budget.

What we are talking about here is the club taking out a £100-200m loan and then the repayments coming out of the total operating budget. Income will presumably go up, but will it go up enough to cover the approx. 8% interest rate and any additional payments that help bring down the loan? Realistically, unless we are a fixture in the PL, the figures won't add up. Solak seems to be smart businessman, so he'll know exactly what's affordable. Equally, if he wants to turn a profit when he comes to sell the club, he knows we have to be a reasonably strong PL club backed by modern facilities that combined will attract the next major investor and a price to go with it.

Doesn’t certain costs, like infra, skip PSR restrictions?

[Matthew Le God]

51 minutes ago, Chez said:

You say that as though the only thing holding us back from spending mega sums on transfers and wages is PSR. It isn't. Our spending is also restricted by our total income and outgoings. Paying off a stadium loan will be another outgoing, reducing the available budget.

What we are talking about here is the club taking out a £100-200m loan and then the repayments coming out of the total operating budget. Income will presumably go up, but will it go up enough to cover the approx. 8% interest rate and any additional payments that help bring down the loan? Realistically, unless we are a fixture in the PL, the figures won't add up. Solak seems to be smart businessman, so he'll know exactly what's affordable. Equally, if he wants to turn a profit when he comes to sell the club, he knows we have to be a reasonably strong PL club backed by modern facilities that combined will attract the next major investor and a price to go with it.

Infrastructure costs are exempt from the financial rules. The revenue generated by them increase the amount the club can use on transfers and wages.

Edited 21 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[franniesTache]

Wrong thread

Edited 21 hours ago by franniesTache

[Badger]

On 19/06/2025 at 15:50, Miltonaggro said:

After Dragan's comments today, if it happens we will likely plagiarise LCFC's recent plans as the much vaunted BARR bolt ons will be brought into action:

Interesting that you refer to Barr bolt-ons, as you may not be far from the truth.

I remember reading or hearing when we moved to St Mary's that every stand bar one was built in a way it could accommodate an expansion, or another tier going over it.

I think the exception was the Itchen, the joke at the time being that they had to expand the ground without disturbing Rupert's wine cellar. 

[Miltonaggro]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Interesting that you refer to Barr bolt-ons, as you may not be far from the truth.

I remember reading or hearing when we moved to St Mary's that every stand bar one was built in a way it could accommodate an expansion, or another tier going over it.

I think the exception was the Itchen, the joke at the time being that they had to expand the ground without disturbing Rupert's wine cellar. 

Yep, all their stadiums were built that way, but Lowe then went on a ramble about the cost per seat. I think if it ever happens it will be one of the side stands, taking us up to around 40k, hence the LCFC comparison. 

[Wurzel]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Interesting that you refer to Barr bolt-ons, as you may not be far from the truth.

I remember reading or hearing when we moved to St Mary's that every stand bar one was built in a way it could accommodate an expansion, or another tier going over it.

I think the exception was the Itchen, the joke at the time being that they had to expand the ground without disturbing Rupert's wine cellar. 

You are correct. I knew someone from Barr involved in the project. In layman's terms so even I could understand it, unbolt and remove the roof, add extensions to all vertical supports, drop in extra tier, all electrics plumbing etc use extended conduits, bolt roof back on. All except Itchen. 

[Badger]

7 minutes ago, Miltonaggro said:

Yep, all their stadiums were built that way, but Lowe then went on a ramble about the cost per seat. I think if it ever happens it will be one of the side stands, taking us up to around 40k, hence the LCFC comparison. 

That would no doubt be the preference but I’ve always thought that close proximity to the rail line might limit the Kingsland potential.
 

Having said that no real idea how far they’d have to go back to go up. 

[The Kraken]

Just now, Wurzel said:

You are correct. I knew someone from Barr involved in the project. In layman's terms so even I could understand it, unbolt and remove the roof, add extensions to all vertical supports, drop in extra tier, all electrics plumbing etc use extended conduits, bolt roof back on. All except Itchen. 

Yep, that was the word at the time. £1K per seats build cost but £3k per seat extension cost according to Lowe. Up to 8000 seats on Kingsland, 4000 each on Chapel and Northam.

[Badger]

1 minute ago, Wurzel said:

You are correct. I knew someone from Barr involved in the project. In layman's terms so even I could understand it, unbolt and remove the roof, add extensions to all vertical supports, drop in extra tier, all electrics plumbing etc use extended conduits, bolt roof back on. All except Itchen. 

Any idea why the Itchen was different? 
As I set out in a later post the railway line behind Kingsland could scupper major development there, whereas Councils can agree to reroute roads and closures a lot more easily. 

[Kenilworthy59]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Any idea why the Itchen was different? 
As I set out in a later post the railway line behind Kingsland could scupper major development there, whereas Councils can agree to reroute roads and closures a lot more easily. 

From what was said at the time, the foundations would be a problem with expanding the Itchen. The 32,000 capacity wasn't set by Saints, it was set by the council who were concerned about the impact on traffic flow. I went into this in some detail with Andrew Cowen at one of the supporters groups meetings they used to have. They did discuss building the ground with a higher roofline, leaving empty space to fill in when we proved to the council that the volume of traffic can be handled (although as someone frequently caught in grid lock trying to get past West Quay I might doubt that). But then they decided it would look odd - like MK Dons stadium used to look - and would give the media something to berate the club about as to why the seats weren't added.

[sfc4prem]

2 minutes ago, Kenilworthy59 said:

From what was said at the time, the foundations would be a problem with expanding the Itchen. The 32,000 capacity wasn't set by Saints, it was set by the council who were concerned about the impact on traffic flow. I went into this in some detail with Andrew Cowen at one of the supporters groups meetings they used to have. They did discuss building the ground with a higher roofline, leaving empty space to fill in when we proved to the council that the volume of traffic can be handled (although as someone frequently caught in grid lock trying to get past West Quay I might doubt that). But then they decided it would look odd - like MK Dons stadium used to look - and would give the media something to berate the club about as to why the seats weren't added.

Traffic and access routes to St Mary's must still be a major hindrance to any potential ideas of expansion.

[Badger]

Perhaps I’m being thick, or just asking the obvious, why are the foundations for Itchen any different? 

[Kenilworthy59]

1 minute ago, sfc4prem said:

Traffic and access routes to St Mary's must still be a major hindrance to any potential ideas of expansion.

That is a reasonable point of view. But it didn't apply to Spurs who just dumped an extra 20,000 or more on to the existing traffic infrastructure, resulting in absolute chaos in trying to get away after a game.

[Kenilworthy59]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Perhaps I’m being thick, or just asking the obvious, why are the foundations for Itchen any different? 

I believe it was down to the condition of the ground in that area in terms of what weight it could bear.

[Matthew Le God]

20 minutes ago, Kenilworthy59 said:

From what was said at the time, the foundations would be a problem with expanding the Itchen. 

 

15 minutes ago, Badger said:

Perhaps I’m being thick, or just asking the obvious, why are the foundations for Itchen any different? 

 

12 minutes ago, Kenilworthy59 said:

I believe it was down to the condition of the ground in that area in terms of what weight it could bear.

I'd be surprised if there weren't ways to make it workable and spread the load so it works, as it is now over a quarter of a century later. A lot may have changed as to what is possible in construction in 2025 vs the late 1990s when St Mary’s was being designed and constructed started.

Edited 18 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[suewhistle]

When St Mary's was built a condition was that all tickets would have a public transport bus ticket included. This fell by the wayside of course when the club fell on hard times, but there is no reason such a condition could not be reinstated. Free rail tickets to Totton, Swanick, Eastleigh, Romsey (?) would also all help with traffic. 

Was it this thread or another where a poster was complaining about cycle lanes and speed limits? Mate, it's a city, and if you are in a jam you are part of what makes that jam. I've dropped people off for the cruise ships and it's a pain, and occasionally I drive to the match, but I'm under no illusions that traffic is worse just because of the odd cycle lane or 20 mph limit. 

Southampton is a waterside city but you'd often be hard pressed to know. I'd love for there to be a jetty where you could be dropped off by a water taxi straight from the IOW ferry or Hythe, or a mate with a RIB!

 

 

[Willo of Whiteley]

When I come to power:

The Itchen Bridge will be flattened and replaced with a lower, and free to use bridge.

The entire waterside up the river will become affordable and nicer apartments, homes, restaurants with scenic walks and open green space in between the water and the stadium.

The concourse around the stadium will be widened, Britannia Road moved and larger outdoor areas available.

Naturally St Mary’s will be made bigger.

24/7 security so none of the city’s nutters and druggies move in from the city centre.

Fast access train exclusive for events with three stops: The docks, St Mary’s Stadium and Southampton Central.

 

My time will come 😇

[Give it to Ron]

9 hours ago, suewhistle said:

When St Mary's was built a condition was that all tickets would have a public transport bus ticket included. This fell by the wayside of course when the club fell on hard times, but there is no reason such a condition could not be reinstated. Free rail tickets to Totton, Swanick, Eastleigh, Romsey (?) would also all help with traffic. 

Was it this thread or another where a poster was complaining about cycle lanes and speed limits? Mate, it's a city, and if you are in a jam you are part of what makes that jam. I've dropped people off for the cruise ships and it's a pain, and occasionally I drive to the match, but I'm under no illusions that traffic is worse just because of the odd cycle lane or 20 mph limit. 

Southampton is a waterside city but you'd often be hard pressed to know. I'd love for there to be a jetty where you could be dropped off by a water taxi straight from the IOW ferry or Hythe, or a mate with a RIB!

 

 

I was complaining about the council and things they have cocked up - the Avenue bike lane for one if you don’t think that causes more traffic hold ups then fine. It used to be 2 lanes on one of the busiest routes into the city now one and hardly anyone uses the lane because they cycle through the Common!

The context which you missed is about the cock ups SCC do and if the expansion and partnership is reliant on them it won’t happen.

Edited 6 hours ago by Give it to Ron

[Wurzel]

14 hours ago, Badger said:

Any idea why the Itchen was different? 
As I set out in a later post the railway line behind Kingsland could scupper major development there, whereas Councils can agree to reroute roads and closures a lot more easily. 

The other 3 sides are "just" stadium. The Itchen has too much infrastructure - offices, hospitality, dressing rooms etc - in the way

[Yorkshire Saint]

5 hours ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

When I come to power:

The Itchen Bridge will be flattened and replaced with a lower, and free to use bridge.

The entire waterside up the river will become affordable and nicer apartments, homes, restaurants with scenic walks and open green space in between the water and the stadium.

The concourse around the stadium will be widened, Britannia Road moved and larger outdoor areas available.

Naturally St Mary’s will be made bigger.

24/7 security so none of the city’s nutters and druggies move in from the city centre.

Fast access train exclusive for events with three stops: The docks, St Mary’s Stadium and Southampton Central.

 

My time will come 😇

5 hours ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

When I come to power:

The Itchen Bridge will be flattened and replaced with a lower, and free to use bridge.

The entire waterside up the river will become affordable and nicer apartments, homes, restaurants with scenic walks and open green space in between the water and the stadium.

The concourse around the stadium will be widened, Britannia Road moved and larger outdoor areas available.

Naturally St Mary’s will be made bigger.

24/7 security so none of the city’s nutters and druggies move in from the city centre.

Fast access train exclusive for events with three stops: The docks, St Mary’s Stadium and Southampton Central.

 

My time will come 😇

😀 So you have isolated and upset the capitalists, sailors, the deprived and the environmentalists ...

Not sure there will be anyone left to come to the games..

I bet you are crap at SIM city 

[Badger]

2 hours ago, Wurzel said:

The other 3 sides are "just" stadium. The Itchen has too much infrastructure - offices, hospitality, dressing rooms etc - in the way

Fair point, but other clubs have managed to build on, or expand what you might term their ‘main stand’ before. Everton for example had a third tier put on their main stand all housing the facilities you mention, in the early 1970’s.
 

I’d have thought construction techniques and knowledge would have moved on since then to make it possible. Fully accept it might cause some disruption and timing of works might be critical. 

[Backrow91]

Everything has been spoken about in very general terms. A MofU with SCC. Solak alluding to grand plans.  What do we think could be done? ( no bleeding 🐵 petting zoo) Waterfront development inc. bars / restaurants,   Concert/ conference centre, housing, hotels etc, increased fan zones? Increase capacity, open up train access. Has anybody actually seen or heard of any of what these grand plans may include? Or is this just “words” to keep fans on board with the owners? 

[Wade Garrett]

6 hours ago, Give it to Ron said:

I was complaining about the council and things they have cocked up - the Avenue bike lane for one if you don’t think that causes more traffic hold ups then fine. It used to be 2 lanes on one of the busiest routes into the city now one and hardly anyone uses the lane because they cycle through the Common!

The context which you missed is about the cock ups SCC do and if the expansion and partnership is reliant on them it won’t happen.

If that commie twat in the council, Keogh, has anything to do with it we won’t get the expansion. 
The fucking prick wants to get rid of all cars and have everyone ride a fucking bike like we’re Chinese.

Wanker.