Well in a billion years or so the sun will have probably gone into supernova so I think it would be unwise not to consider a move away by then.
I wouldn't swap our history. If we had a new stadium (without a running track) with a 60,000 capacity which we actually looked likely to fill, we would get over Villa Park, just like Arsenal got over Highbury.It would need to be somewhere sensible, preferably in Aston, not some out of town bowl like a bigger version of Stoke or Bolton.
Quote from: spangley1812 on May 10, 2016, 09:46:48 PMBecause we dont have a very heavily subsidised new stadium and millions of pounds of TV moneyHowever 40k at 300 pounds is 12 Million whilst 20k at 500 is 10 Million and 40k will generate more income in related sales.
Because we dont have a very heavily subsidised new stadium and millions of pounds of TV money
Without meaning to go off on a tangent, I wouldn't be too keen on mirroring The Holte End with The North. Yes it needs updating but I like that The Holte stands alone, to mirror it's style might cheapen it? If The North Stand were to be updated, I would hope it would just be built into a grand stand in it's own right, something that fits Villa Park's legacy but not The Holte End 2.
Quote from: Steve R on May 11, 2016, 12:45:16 AMIf you are missing it I am too. I am completely bemused as to how they got away with it. Yes, it's a complete mystery how West Ham (CEO Tory peer Baroness Brady) got such a deal for the Olympic Stadium from the London Legacy Development Corporation (then-chair Tory MP Boris Johnson) after it had been under the auspices of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (chair Tory peer Lord Coe.)
If you are missing it I am too. I am completely bemused as to how they got away with it.