Villa Park Redevelopment

[pauliewalnuts]

The 2-3,000 extra seats thing is an absolute red herring thrown out there to distract people from the bigger story.

It just turns "we're not expanding as we said we would" into "we are still expanding, just not as much".

I flat out don't trust them to be truthful with us.

[Des Little]

I have a nagging feeling that the North Stand will outlive me, and I’m an extremely young looking 52.

[FatSam]

People talk about space, as we saw with Villa Live there are other ways to deliver the bells and whistles of a modern stadium. We have acres of space behind the North for hotels, conference centres, shops, music venues and whatever else.

I’m not sure that the location would support the hotels, conference centres, shops and music venues that you mention. They would all be on a relatively small scale, and isolated from anything else in a residential area. I think you have to accept that remaining on the same site has its limitations.

[Villafirst]

What about the Euros in 2028? Villa Park has been chosen as a host venue with a proviso of a capacity of minimum 50,000 if I'm correct? Also, it's estimated that the tournament will bring in around £117m to the City. Have they now abandoned this completely??

[Villan82]

What about the Euros in 2028? Villa Park has been chosen as a host venue with a proviso of a capacity of minimum 50,000 if I'm correct? Also, it's estimated that the tournament will bring in around £117m to the City. Have they now abandoned this completely??

I think that's another issue Heck doesn't seem to care about. He is a wrecking ball.

[Dante Lavelli]

I suspect they’re scrambling around looking to see whether there is any land available in the city centre for a stadium.  After a year they will have a good idea in that regard and then a plan may materialise.  No land then I suspect the North Stand will proceed as planned, the alternative …well is a new stadium.

In theory, Stage 4 design and tendering for the North Stand can be continuing at risk.  If they do this, there could be minimal impact on the original programme as these activities were needed anyway.

[Mister E]

If we agree that a stadium closes the gap, then timescale is irrelevant, it is what must be done and the sooner it commences, the better.

Based on what we have seen  so far it is just as likely they ramp up prices next year, demand for ticket actually reduces and they announce that 42k is fine.

Honestly, Heck gives me such a bad vibe.

I think that is exactly the short-term strategy they're pursuing: but it has limitations - they will still only get 42k worth of earnings every other week, where others are leveraging 60-74k worth.
It still won't generate the sort of revenue required to compete with other, more cash-generative clubs. Stadium expansion is becoming a critical success factor, since the owners can't be expected to fund the future indefinitely.

[chrisw1]

If we agree that a stadium closes the gap, then timescale is irrelevant, it is what must be done and the sooner it commences, the better.

It's not irrelevant if it means we spend the next ten years in the same sized stadium we have now.

That's a difficult choice that has to be made. You can't do both.

So we waste the Emery years in the hope that we do something long in the future?  Don't worry, there will be jam tomorrow.

[LeeB]

I suspect they’re scrambling around looking to see whether there is any land available in the city centre for a stadium.  After a year they will have a good idea in that regard and then a plan may materialise.  No land then I suspect the North Stand will proceed as planned, the alternative …well is a new stadium.

In theory, Stage 4 design and tendering for the North Stand can be continuing at risk.  If they do this, there could be minimal impact on the original programme as these activities were needed anyway.

Thats my view too.

[Ads]

If we agree that a stadium closes the gap, then timescale is irrelevant, it is what must be done and the sooner it commences, the better.

It's not irrelevant if it means we spend the next ten years in the same sized stadium we have now.

That's a difficult choice that has to be made. You can't do both.

So we waste the Emery years in the hope that we do something long in the future?  Don't worry, there will be jam tomorrow.

I dont understand your conclusion.

We have a capability gap. The new North would not remove that gap. So we shouldn't start work on the solution that does remove the gap, maybe even puts us in front of a number, because it's a long term plan?

This is a very UK attitude. I'll use an analogy we've all felt, rich or poor these past few years. The sort of thinking that saw reactors like the (now) Madox site in Ffestiniog decommissioned in 1991 and nothing built to replace it (when strike prices were much lower) and yet here we are with increased energy prices. Susceptible to wilder variation because we didn't bridge capability gaps.

I want jam tomorrow and for the next 50 years because that's what we need, not marmalade. Nobody wants marmalade.

[VILLA MOLE]

sorry I like Marmalade , me and Paddington but I hear you

[Risso]

If we agree that a stadium closes the gap, then timescale is irrelevant, it is what must be done and the sooner it commences, the better.

It's not irrelevant if it means we spend the next ten years in the same sized stadium we have now.

That's a difficult choice that has to be made. You can't do both.

So we waste the Emery years in the hope that we do something long in the future?  Don't worry, there will be jam tomorrow.

I dont understand your conclusion.

We have a capability gap. The new North would not remove that gap. So we shouldn't start work on the solution that does remove the gap, maybe even puts us in front of a number, because it's a long term plan?

This is a very UK attitude. I'll use an analogy we've all felt, rich or poor these past few years. The sort of thinking that saw reactors like the (now) Madox site in Ffestiniog decommissioned in 1991 and nothing built to replace it (when strike prices were much lower) and yet here we are with increased energy prices. Susceptible to wilder variation because we didn't bridge capability gaps.

I want jam tomorrow and for the next 50 years because that's what we need, not marmalade. Nobody wants marmalade.

If you want to bridge a capability gap, then first of all you need capable people, but unfortunately we seem to have appointed a fraud in Heck who can't even do the simplest things right, and they're supposed to be the things he's good at. I'm not wedded to the idea of a new North Stand or even staying on the same site, but I strongly suspect there are no major plans that are going to see us in a bigger stadium in the next ten years. If we planned two new stands; a new North that joins the Trinity and the Doug Ellis; and a new Doug Ellis that joins the Holte; all with filled in corners, you'd be at 60,000 without having to knock the whole thing down. If you then looked at making more use of the areas outside the Holte and the North, you massively improve the facilities as well.

All we're really left with though, is Heck trying to squeeze a bit more revenue out of the 42,000 we've got already, and that's not going to bridge any sort of gap at all. We're competing with the likes of Spurs and Arsenal who charge more and have 20,000 more fans paying those higher prices.

[algy]

If we agree that a stadium closes the gap, then timescale is irrelevant, it is what must be done and the sooner it commences, the better.

It's not irrelevant if it means we spend the next ten years in the same sized stadium we have now.

That's a difficult choice that has to be made. You can't do both.

So we waste the Emery years in the hope that we do something long in the future?  Don't worry, there will be jam tomorrow.

I dont understand your conclusion.

We have a capability gap. The new North would not remove that gap. So we shouldn't start work on the solution that does remove the gap, maybe even puts us in front of a number, because it's a long term plan?

This is a very UK attitude. I'll use an analogy we've all felt, rich or poor these past few years. The sort of thinking that saw reactors like the (now) Madox site in Ffestiniog decommissioned in 1991 and nothing built to replace it (when strike prices were much lower) and yet here we are with increased energy prices. Susceptible to wilder variation because we didn't bridge capability gaps.

I want jam tomorrow and for the next 50 years because that's what we need, not marmalade. Nobody wants marmalade.

Agree totally here (except that, like Villa mole, I'd pick marmalade over jam any day of the week).  Villa Park as it currently stands was built at a time when we had an average attendance of about 30,000.  I don't know what our current average attendance is, but it must be over 40,000 - and the only reason it's not higher is because the ground is at it's physical limit more often than not.

To me, we either knock down Villa Park and rebuild there, or we build a new ground somewhere else.  There aren't any other options if we want to compete at the top end of the table, because no matter how big a stand we replace the current North Stand with, we've still got a hard limit of (about) 50,000 capacity as we can't make the Holte End, Trinity Road, or Witton Lane stands significantly bigger than they currently are.

[Risso]

To me, we either knock down Villa Park and rebuild there, or we build a new ground somewhere else.  There aren't any other options if we want to compete at the top end of the table, because no matter how big a stand we replace the current North Stand with, we've still got a hard limit of (about) 50,000 capacity as we can't make the Holte End, Trinity Road, or Witton Lane stands significantly bigger than they currently are.

Yes we can, we could fill in three of the corners as part of plans to redevelop the North and Doug Ellis. There's a huge amount of space between the North and the Doug for a start. Plus they could make the North even bigger.

[Ads]

I dont want to turn this into a discussion about Heck, but I think you're quick to judgment there calling him a fraud. He's not by any definition of the word. He's abrasive for sure; somebody posted an article about roughing up the New Jersey York Red Bulls fans. He's ruffled feathers a plenty here by redelivering the Lerner badge with some minor alterations. That badge wasn't popular already, the manner of its rebirth isn't going to ameliorate that.

But there's also been articles on the 76ers etc about making money, more than we make in 8 years and from Americas working class sport. Can he ride roughshod over fans? He shouldn't, but I think he can given Purslow's greatest achievement was to remove any elasticity from the supply of tickets. Supporting us now is unique in that 150 year history. We are all SeattleVillain now.

A major event has taken place with de facto Comcast buying a chunk of NWSE and by virtue now owning a chunk of Villa Park. You don't see plans, I don't see coincidences. Comcast are here because of Heck and strategically NWSE are obviously satisfied with the strategic change to give up a piece of the pie.

If we don't think Swaris in particular hasn't a handle on it, then we're perhaps ignoring his booting of Gerrard, pursuit of Emery, throat clearing at the Adidas board meeting etc. Swaris is a hands on chap.

A new ground on a different site, around the area where the old Albion at Aston is (derelict sites and old factory mixed with [cheaply!] built newer units, some early 20th student housing, the abandoned Office wearhouse, the Old BRMB unit, gas works- fundamentally around Chester Street. That's what I'd do. Maintain the highest possible attendance and build afresh adjacent to the city centre- New Street the station of choice; A38, A45 all easy reach. I think that's being considered (the new build, not my suggested location).