Villa Park Redevelopment

[paul_e]

He can't say "we're looking bigger/better" because we're not.

Yet plenty of people seem to me (unless I've misread it, and that's quite possible) to think we're going to move to a new stadium or completely rebuild Villa Park.

I do.

Otherwise I don't understand the new investment.

Yep, take away the comcast investment and I'd be much more willing to accept that they've just decided they can't be bothered with it.

That investment makes me think that it was more about taking a pause to be sure we're not backing ourselves against a wall with an investment that makes it harder for us to get where we want to be in the long run.

[Sexual Ealing]

That's what I think too Paul.

[Risso]

The thing with Comcast is that from what I can see, all of their developments are very much "mixed use". So you get shops, leisure offerings, offices etc, as obviously they're not going to see much return on their money from purely investing in a football ground that gets used a couple of dozen times a year.

If finding space for a new ground is the plan, then finding an even bigger area to accommodate all that in the Birmingham area is going to be even harder and more time consuming.

[Sexual Ealing]

But it otherwise makes zero sense as to what they want from their investment. Without offering *something* new, they're getting fuck all by way of return from the status quo.

[chrisw1]

The return on investing in the North stand, beginning work last summer would have been the ability to back an elite manger here and now, increasing our chances of establishing the club as a Top 4 team for years to come and all the wealth and growth that brings.  Surely that alone would have been worth the £100m investment?

The alternative is gamble that we can defy all odds and punch massively above our weight for another 10 years whilst a new ground gets sorted.

[Sexual Ealing]

The return on investing in the North stand, beginning work last summer would have been the ability to back an elite manger here and now, increasing our chances of establishing the club as a Top 4 team for years to come and all the wealth and growth that brings.  Surely that alone would have been worth the £100m investment?

The alternative is gamble that we can defy all odds and punch massively above our weight for another 10 years whilst a new ground gets sorted.

You're looking at it from a Villa perspective. What's in it for them if we're just staying put and no significant infrastructure developments will be taking place? If it's 'just' an investment, £100m is a lot of money to spend hoping a football team slightly improves. There's no return for them there.

[Chris Smith]

I keep coming back to transport infrastructure on this. We’re already struggling with getting fans away from Aston after the game if we  add another few thousand more fans then it would be gridlock and make the match day experience worse for everyone. They need to improve the public transport offering, find more car parking spaces and develop ways to stagger departure from the area post match alongside the development and other than Witton station upgrade I don’t think this has been fully addressed.

[LeeS]

A side-on view is miles better than behind the goals, not even close. Especially for the profile of people who use those corporate seats, who just want it to look exactly like it does when they're watching it on telly.

That's a bit of a stereotype. Every time I've been to a sporting event on corporate I've only ever been there with people who really enjoy the sport. People who aren't into football don't bother giving up their spare time (weekends especially) for a couple of free beers, a plate of sarnies and some boring business chat. Your point about the difference in view from behind or the side is spot on though. I've always had my STs on the half way line for a good reason.

I thought you were a North Stand fella?

How very dare you!

(its actually years since I had a ST so I cant claim to be anything anymore)

[chrisw1]

The return on investing in the North stand, beginning work last summer would have been the ability to back an elite manger here and now, increasing our chances of establishing the club as a Top 4 team for years to come and all the wealth and growth that brings.  Surely that alone would have been worth the £100m investment?

The alternative is gamble that we can defy all odds and punch massively above our weight for another 10 years whilst a new ground gets sorted.

You're looking at it from a Villa perspective. What's in it for them if we're just staying put and no significant infrastructure developments will be taking place? If it's 'just' an investment, £100m is a lot of money to spend hoping a football team slightly improves. There's no return for them there.

If the investment allows the owners to give Emery enough backing to establish ourselves as a top 4 side then the increase in value of the club would dwarf the £100m investment in the North stand. 

Surely it's relative peanuts in the context of the global sums being invested and the potential upside of a club establishing itself in the CL?

[rob_bridge]

I keep coming back to transport infrastructure on this. We’re already struggling with getting fans away from Aston after the game if we  add another few thousand more fans then it would be gridlock and make the match day experience worse for everyone. They need to improve the public transport offering, find more car parking spaces and develop ways to stagger departure from the area post match alongside the development and other than Witton station upgrade I don’t think this has been fully addressed.

Totally agree Chris  I am able to get to 3 or 4 games a season nowadays . When the crowds under Lambert and prior in the low to mid 30ks it was fine. The extra 6 or 7k now every game makes a huge difference. If we added another 7k with North Stand refurb it would be carnage without significant transport upgrades.

[Villan82]

How did the ground cope in the past when it had in excess of 50,000?

f there was a green field site somewhere beside two railway stations we'd be saying 'build it there'!

We actually have a good site if we could only be clever with how it is used.

[rob_bridge]

How did the ground cope in the past when it had in excess of 50,000?

f there was a green field site somewhere beside two railway stations we'd be saying 'build it there'!

We actually have a good site if we could only be clever with how it is used.

Not being funny but wasn't that about 50 years ago. I remember big crowds and long waits for the 11C in 1990s but not the traffic gridlock.

I assume as more people travel further as middle aged people have been more socially mobile, more people travel to Villa Park by car and more homes in the vicinity own more cars then there is more logjams.

[Sexual Ealing]

The return on investing in the North stand, beginning work last summer would have been the ability to back an elite manger here and now, increasing our chances of establishing the club as a Top 4 team for years to come and all the wealth and growth that brings.  Surely that alone would have been worth the £100m investment?

The alternative is gamble that we can defy all odds and punch massively above our weight for another 10 years whilst a new ground gets sorted.

You're looking at it from a Villa perspective. What's in it for them if we're just staying put and no significant infrastructure developments will be taking place? If it's 'just' an investment, £100m is a lot of money to spend hoping a football team slightly improves. There's no return for them there.

If the investment allows the owners to give Emery enough backing to establish ourselves as a top 4 side then the increase in value of the club would dwarf the £100m investment in the North stand. 

Surely it's relative peanuts in the context of the global sums being invested and the potential upside of a club establishing itself in the CL?

Maybe you're right, but I can't see it. There are so many other, better, quicker ways to make a return on £100m than an under-achieving football club. And why us? And for us, why them? It doesn't add up unless there's something afoot.

[chrisw1]

The return on investing in the North stand, beginning work last summer would have been the ability to back an elite manger here and now, increasing our chances of establishing the club as a Top 4 team for years to come and all the wealth and growth that brings.  Surely that alone would have been worth the £100m investment?

The alternative is gamble that we can defy all odds and punch massively above our weight for another 10 years whilst a new ground gets sorted.

You're looking at it from a Villa perspective. What's in it for them if we're just staying put and no significant infrastructure developments will be taking place? If it's 'just' an investment, £100m is a lot of money to spend hoping a football team slightly improves. There's no return for them there.

If the investment allows the owners to give Emery enough backing to establish ourselves as a top 4 side then the increase in value of the club would dwarf the £100m investment in the North stand. 

Surely it's relative peanuts in the context of the global sums being invested and the potential upside of a club establishing itself in the CL?

Maybe you're right, but I can't see it. There are so many other, better, quicker ways to make a return on £100m than an under-achieving football club. And why us? And for us, why them? It doesn't add up unless there's something afoot.

I think we're talking at slightly cross purposes here.

I was giving reasons why I thought a £100m investment in the NS could (in theory) give a major return in terms of success and club value - and hence why I think the club are being daft by deferring it.  You are commenting more specifically about why the identity of our new investors would indicate a new stadium in due course is more likely and you certainly may have a point. 

[PeterWithe]

I keep coming back to transport infrastructure on this. We’re already struggling with getting fans away from Aston after the game if we  add another few thousand more fans then it would be gridlock and make the match day experience worse for everyone. They need to improve the public transport offering, find more car parking spaces and develop ways to stagger departure from the area post match alongside the development and other than Witton station upgrade I don’t think this has been fully addressed.

I went past Anfield the other day, on the face of it they seem to have exactly the same issues as us, houses all around, a short distance to arterial roads, no tram and, as far as I could see no train station close by either. And a fair walk back to the city.

It doesn't seem to have stopped them increasing the size of the ground.

I'd guess that our owners didn't get to be billionaires by thinking 'that looks a bit hard, lets not bother'