Villa Park Redevelopment

[The Man With A Stick]

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.

There was talk towards the end of last season that they'd be speaking with local businesses about opening up their empty car parks for use on match days, did anything ever come of that?  Bet there's shitloads of spaces available within a 2 mile radius and those companies could make a killing out of it.

[eamonn]

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'

I would hope that Heck isn't of the "Fuck the local residents and community, we'll buy every house we need to rebuild" mentality that Liverpool had, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is.

[Gareth]

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.

Exactly and 15 years ago we had the Leisure Centre car park that must have held over a thousand cars…you parked on it knowing it was an hour to get off most games

[paul_e]

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?

but would just the revamped North stand do that? and if not would it make it easier or harder to take the next steps that do?

If we were to build the new North and then maximise things as best we can elsewhere and it led to a £15m per year boost in matchday revenue would that be enough? If the alternative solution takes longer but means £30-40m on matchday and £20-30m a year from other use then is it viable to plan for the alternative whilst carrying on with the original short term plan?

I have no idea what the plans are, same as everyone else on here, but I can see them looking at those sort of scenarios and deciding that what they had planned was a waste of time and money because the long-term outcome wouldn't be enough to make a real difference.

[SamTheMouse]

Assuming they have genuine long term ambitions for the club, there's only one reason for canning the NS redevelopment, and that's the prospect of a whole new stadium.

There's literally nothing else I can think of that makes sense.

[aev]

Assuming they have genuine long term ambitions for the club, there's only one reason for canning the NS redevelopment, and that's the prospect of a whole new stadium.

There's literally nothing else I can think of that makes sense.

Agree, unless the owners just fancied taking some money out.

VP should be good for transport, but clearly isn't at present. And keeping fans in and around the ground to spend cash doesn't seem to work either.

I think perhaps a new site with multi use makes sense, certainly when looking at who the new investors are. Where that is I have no idea...

[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.

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. 

Ah, yes we are!

I did think you were being mental! Wink.

[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?

but would just the revamped North stand do that? and if not would it make it easier or harder to take the next steps that do?

If we were to build the new North and then maximise things as best we can elsewhere and it led to a £15m per year boost in matchday revenue would that be enough? If the alternative solution takes longer but means £30-40m on matchday and £20-30m a year from other use then is it viable to plan for the alternative whilst carrying on with the original short term plan?

I have no idea what the plans are, same as everyone else on here, but I can see them looking at those sort of scenarios and deciding that what they had planned was a waste of time and money because the long-term outcome wouldn't be enough to make a real difference.

No it wouldn't make us competitive in revenue with Spurs, Man City, Liverpool etc.  But, bearing in mind it would have been very hospitality heavy, it might just have bridged the gap sufficiently to give us enough FFP room for Emery to build an established CL team and keep ahead of the likes of Newcastle and Everton.  If he did that I think club value wise it would have been £100m well spent, whether we move in 10 years or not.

It's all speculation of course, we may fall away anyway.  But if I was the owners I'd do everything in my power to back the generational manager we appear to have here and now, not start again in the next decade when 8 clubs will have had a 10 year run of having at least 10k more seats than us.

[pauliewalnuts]

Assuming they have genuine long term ambitions for the club, there's only one reason for canning the NS redevelopment, and that's the prospect of a whole new stadium.

There's literally nothing else I can think of that makes sense.

Agree, the owners just fancied taking some money out.

VP should be good for transport, but clearly isn't at present. And keeping fans in and around the ground to spend cash doesn't seem to work either.

I think perhaps a new site with multi use makes sense, certainly when looking at who the new investors are. Where that is I have no idea...

How have they taken money out? They’ve poured it in.

[Nev]

If the facilities are available people will stay behind. We did for most games because we used the HS for an hour and spent money in there. But not enough evidently.

[aev]

Assuming they have genuine long term ambitions for the club, there's only one reason for canning the NS redevelopment, and that's the prospect of a whole new stadium.

There's literally nothing else I can think of that makes sense.

Agree, the owners just fancied taking some money out.

VP should be good for transport, but clearly isn't at present. And keeping fans in and around the ground to spend cash doesn't seem to work either.

I think perhaps a new site with multi use makes sense, certainly when looking at who the new investors are. Where that is I have no idea...

How have they taken money out? They’ve poured it in.

Yes sorry, I missed out the “unless” (which I don’t think is why the new lot invested anyway).

[FatSam]

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

My understanding is that the population density of the area around Villa Park has gradually reduced (especially where affected by the Aston Expressway and Newtown Middleway), so there are fewer people living within walking distance of the ground. There was also previously an extensive team network connecting Perry Barr and Witton with the city centre.

Also, whilst our record attendances are considerably higher than our current capacity, these were always outliers, and our highest average attendances from the late 1940s are only a few thousand more than we are currently achieving.

[pauliewalnuts]

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

My understanding is that the population density of the area around Villa Park has gradually reduced (especially where affected by the Aston Expressway and Newtown Middleway), so there are fewer people living within walking distance of the ground. There was also previously an extensive team network connecting Perry Barr and Witton with the city centre.

Also, whilst our record attendances are considerably higher than our current capacity, these were always outliers, and our highest average attendances from the late 1940s are only a few thousand more than we are currently achieving.

I remember as a kid in the 70s when we went to matches, you used to see way, way more people walking there, and from further away than you do these days.

[Risso]

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

My understanding is that the population density of the area around Villa Park has gradually reduced (especially where affected by the Aston Expressway and Newtown Middleway), so there are fewer people living within walking distance of the ground. There was also previously an extensive team network connecting Perry Barr and Witton with the city centre.

Also, whilst our record attendances are considerably higher than our current capacity, these were always outliers, and our highest average attendances from the late 1940s are only a few thousand more than we are currently achieving.

I remember as a kid in the 70s when we went to matches, you used to see way, way more people walking there, and from further away than you do these days.

There must be 4 or 5 times the number of cars on the road now compared to back then.

[Richard E]

Especially as they hadn’t been invented then.