Villa Park Redevelopment

[Drummond]

I've always wanted to stay put and been proud of the history and high status the ground is held in by others, but the last 12 months have made me reflect on that and part of it was in the absence of actually competing anymore.

That's changed, we celebrate our wonderful history but we have that history because we were bold and thought big and we need to be that once more if we're going to sustain what we're doing now.

We're a football the club, the greatest of all, not a museum.

Exactly. The fact the ground is like Trigger's broom should alleviate sentimentality. A pointless emotion that anchors you from moving forwards. Stadiums are imperial. Nothing has changed since Vespasian built a pretty famous one in Rome. Villa Park is glorious, but its a faded legacy. Want to make a statement? Build and think bigger- a seemingly impossible task these days for the UK and lamentable self deprecating Brummies. Good job we have some Americans at the helm.

I do get what you're saying, but if you look about, which fans, with new grounds, are happier than they were in their old ones?

[Villan82]

OK. I must have totally imagined the reaction to Terrace View, Lower Grounds etc.Never mind me!

[LeeB]

"Why can't we do what Liverpool did?" is funny, like the worst example you could choose. Actually behaving like that might be enough to make me stop going.

The fact that Liverpool and Man Utd are such massive behemoths worldwide and pull in merch and sponsorships that dwarf everybody else is the reason why we need to maximise commercial matchday revenue to compete.

[Villan82]

Is it not obvious 'doing a Liverpool' refers to the concept of redeveloping a historic ground. a new stand, maybe exploring an additional tier somewhere. It doesn't mean necessarily buy up the houses behind the Witton.

Some serious word twisting happening in this thread.

[Dogtanian]

Liverpool were awful. They bought houses as they became available, but then left them to rot. This attracted squatters, drug users, vermin, etc. and brought everybody else's house values down and had a massive negative effect on the local community.

I wouldn't have a problem with us buying up houses, but we can't follow their example, we would have to let them back out to the community until we need to use them.

[AV82EC]

OK. I must have totally imagined the reaction to Terrace View, Lower Grounds etc.Never mind me!

Those ideas aren’t anything to do with class though are they? Theyre additional revenue generators for anyone who can afford it. The fact I think they’re woeful, poorly thought through and poorly communicated and implemented has nothing to do with the economic make up of the support.

[Chris Harte]

Although I'm pro the North Stand development, I think people are too optimistic about the likelihood of a Witton Stand redev to follow.  CPOing residential property is always very difficult, incredibly controversial and time-consuming.  And at current house prices, it would also be eye-wateringly expensive. 

Getting the North Stand built, with as much corporate/GA+ as the club thinks is appropriate keeps us iwithn touching distance off the Everton's. I believe the plan included an upgrade to the corporate in the Trinity too.

Once this was done an assessment can be made on whether a new Witton Lane stand is needed. The talk is of pushing to 60,000 (so a WLS with an extra 10k seats). This may not be necessary.

Another though that I don't think has been mentioned. White Hart Lane, The Emirates and Everton. They will struggle to expand beyond what they have in terms of capacity. Keeping VP of a modular design (I.e, broadly separate stands) allows the potential to further grow the ground.

[PeterWithe]

Liverpool were awful.  This attracted squatters, drug users, vermin, etc.

And Stewart Downing.

[Dogtanian]

Liverpool were awful.  This attracted squatters, drug users, vermin, etc.

And Stewart Downing.

 

[Simon Page]

One of the reasons I struggle to get too worked up about this is we seem to be arguing over what would be the best way to be able to charge more for attending matches. I'm guessing, but I don't think a new Witton End, Witton Lane or ground will do anything to improve access for the average fan. Better corporate offer, more padded seats, higher prices. All lovely if that's what you'd like football stadia to be full of. But if charging top prices and providing meals and champagne equalled success, Spurs would have swept the board for the last 35 years.

[Risso]

I've always wanted to stay put and been proud of the history and high status the ground is held in by others, but the last 12 months have made me reflect on that and part of it was in the absence of actually competing anymore.

That's changed, we celebrate our wonderful history but we have that history because we were bold and thought big and we need to be that once more if we're going to sustain what we're doing now.

We're a football the club, the greatest of all, not a museum.

Exactly. The fact the ground is like Trigger's broom should alleviate sentimentality. A pointless emotion that anchors you from moving forwards. Stadiums are imperial. Nothing has changed since Vespasian built a pretty famous one in Rome. Villa Park is glorious, but its a faded legacy. Want to make a statement? Build and think bigger- a seemingly impossible task these days for the UK and lamentable self deprecating Brummies. Good job we have some Americans at the helm.

I do get what you're saying, but if you look about, which fans, with new grounds, are happier than they were in their old ones?

Well, the ones who never went to the old one for a start. Anybody mid twenties or younger isn't even going to remember Highbury very much, if at all. I don't think many Tottenham fans would choose to go back to WHL as it was, but you'd probably get more of a take up for Upton Park from Spam fans. They key is therefore, make it good. Even with West Ham, if you point out the advantages it's given them, ie 60K stadium for the princely sum of fuck all, I don't think they'd go back to being a yo-yo team at Upton Park.

[Risso]

One of the reasons I struggle to get too worked up about this is we seem to be arguing over what would be the best way to be able to charge more for attending matches. I'm guessing, but I don't think a new Witton End, Witton Lane or ground will do anything to improve access for the average fan. Better corporate offer, more padded seats, higher prices. All lovely if that's what you'd like football stadia to be full of. But if charging top prices and providing meals and champagne equalled success, Spurs would have swept the board for the last 35 years.

A nice sentiment, which ignores the fact that Heck is clearly going to rinse everybody until their pips squeak for each and every seat in the ground.

[Simon Page]

I'm sure he is. I was merely commenting on how it feels to me like arguing about someone else's house.

[pauliewalnuts]

I'm sure he is. I was merely commenting on how it feels to me like arguing about someone else's house.

Yeah, one thing I'd say about our house is there's always something happening and it's usually quite loud.

[FatSam]

Although I'm pro the North Stand development, I think people are too optimistic about the likelihood of a Witton Stand redev to follow.  CPOing residential property is always very difficult, incredibly controversial and time-consuming.  And at current house prices, it would also be eye-wateringly expensive. 

Getting the North Stand built, with as much corporate/GA+ as the club thinks is appropriate keeps us iwithn touching distance off the Everton's. I believe the plan included an upgrade to the corporate in the Trinity too.

Once this was done an assessment can be made on whether a new Witton Lane stand is needed. The talk is of pushing to 60,000 (so a WLS with an extra 10k seats). This may not be necessary.

Another though that I don't think has been mentioned. White Hart Lane, The Emirates and Everton. They will struggle to expand beyond what they have in terms of capacity. Keeping VP of a modular design (I.e, broadly separate stands) allows the potential to further grow the ground.

Everton's new ground will initially be 52k, with the designed potential to expand to 62k. I understand your thinking that it would be easier to replace individual stands to increase capacity, but Man City have already expanded one end (and are set to do the other) in a purpose-built bowl stadium. The issue is more about the amount of space around the ground I would argue, and Witton Lane is no different from Arsenal and Spurs in that respect. At Villa Park it is only the sides that could ever really be expanded anyway, as the ends (with the new Witton End) would already be at the maximium distance from the pitch. I don't think anyone is realistically suggesting that we could extend the Trinity Road stand backwards towards the park, and Witton Lane is obviously very constrained.

The issue with the new Witton End stand is that it would obviously keep us on the same site indefinitely. We aren't going to spend a large chunk of the cost of a new ground on a new stand at Villa Park, and then relocate within the next 20-30 years. Especially as the cost per seat for new stands has increased significantly recently, as indicated in that Athletic article. If the 2-3k additional seats elsewhere around the ground can be delivered cost effectively, and independently from the new stand, then it makes sense to bring them forward. You could argue that they should even have been done before now, but it all comes down to the decision early in the process to discount the idea of a new ground. We are all assuming that something must have happened to change the club's thinking, and it seems more likely that it is either our form under Emery, or the new infrastructure investment.