Villa Park Redevelopment

[Ads]

53,000 is enough for a team that's not qualified for the European Cup in 20 years (and even then cocked it up), that plays shite football and has done for as long as anybody can remember, while occupying a small city with one of the biggest clubs in the world.

[chrisw1]

We wont need 60k+ unfortunately.  Everton had a blank sheet of paper and came to a conclusion 53k was the right balance.  Trying to flog the extra 7,000 seats means reduced prices and less demand for the GA+ offer.  So they get a tighter stadium and retain a high demand.  I think it would be sufficient for us too.   

and what if we do have a run of CL qualifications? 53k might be enough to the demand today but I'm not sure that's true longer term. I'm also not sure your idea that more seats means lower GA+ holds up as well as you think. It would in Villa park with the ropey + elements but in a new stadium with those areas built in fully I think you'd still get a strong uptake of those seats even if GA tickets were easier to get.

Under Purslow the plan was always to do the North and then have a 2nd phase to increase again up towards 60k. I see no reason why that wouldn't be the minimum plans going forward.

You don't think Everton have taken this into account? 

We'll have to disagree on likely GA+ demand.  I simply don't see it (or a significant amount of it) at Villa (ie not London or traditional glamour club) if standard seats with reasonable facilities are available.

[paul_e]

53,000 is enough for a team that's not qualified for the European Cup in 20 years (and even then cocked it up), that plays shite football and has done for as long as anybody can remember, while occupying a small city with one of the biggest clubs in the world.

It wasn't just the GA+ seats that were empty against Wolves btw.  Plenty of empty seats in the Trinity lower for example.

We wont need 60k+ unfortunately.  Everton had a blank sheet of paper and came to a conclusion 53k was the right balance.  Trying to flog the extra 7,000 seats means reduced prices and less demand for the GA+ offer.  So they get a tighter stadium and retain a high demand.  I think it would be sufficient for us too.   

and what if we do have a run of CL qualifications? 53k might be enough to the demand today but I'm not sure that's true longer term. I'm also not sure your idea that more seats means lower GA+ holds up as well as you think. It would in Villa park with the ropey + elements but in a new stadium with those areas built in fully I think you'd still get a strong uptake of those seats even if GA tickets were easier to get.

Under Purslow the plan was always to do the North and then have a 2nd phase to increase again up towards 60k. I see no reason why that wouldn't be the minimum plans going forward.

You don't think Everton have taken this into account? 

We'll have to disagree on likely GA+ demand.  I simply don't see it (or a significant amount of it) at Villa (ie not London or traditional glamour club) if standard seats with reasonable facilities are available.

Why compare us to Everton, they're not even the biggest club in their own postcode.

[DB]

A new ground is more likely than a new stand…IMO.

I think so aswell.

Even with a new North stand we can only get to 52k. Getting 60k + is a pipe dream with the housing restrictions behind the Witton.

I struggle to believe in the near year since the North Stand development was shelved that the club haven't been looking at possible sites at a 2-3 mile radius around VP to stick a possible 60k ground but ultimately what are the costings and access links compared to what we have now.

Ideally you place something close to the eventual HS2 station.

Also, not just increase of capacity, but facilities all over and around the stadium. You do get the impression the board / Heck are squeezing as much improvements for corporate they can out of the existing stands. Let’s face it, the DE is awful. They must be looking at a shiny new stadium to increase the profile of the club, than a patched up VP. But who knows…

[chrisw1]

53,000 is enough for a team that's not qualified for the European Cup in 20 years (and even then cocked it up), that plays shite football and has done for as long as anybody can remember, while occupying a small city with one of the biggest clubs in the world.

It wasn't just the GA+ seats that were empty against Wolves btw.  Plenty of empty seats in the Trinity lower for example.

We wont need 60k+ unfortunately.  Everton had a blank sheet of paper and came to a conclusion 53k was the right balance.  Trying to flog the extra 7,000 seats means reduced prices and less demand for the GA+ offer.  So they get a tighter stadium and retain a high demand.  I think it would be sufficient for us too.   

and what if we do have a run of CL qualifications? 53k might be enough to the demand today but I'm not sure that's true longer term. I'm also not sure your idea that more seats means lower GA+ holds up as well as you think. It would in Villa park with the ropey + elements but in a new stadium with those areas built in fully I think you'd still get a strong uptake of those seats even if GA tickets were easier to get.

Under Purslow the plan was always to do the North and then have a 2nd phase to increase again up towards 60k. I see no reason why that wouldn't be the minimum plans going forward.

You don't think Everton have taken this into account? 

We'll have to disagree on likely GA+ demand.  I simply don't see it (or a significant amount of it) at Villa (ie not London or traditional glamour club) if standard seats with reasonable facilities are available.

Why compare us to Everton, they're not even the biggest club in their own postcode.

They've had a similar amount of success (other than the obvious) and fan base over the last 45 years.  Why wouldn't you compare them?

[Sexual Ealing]

So have Nottingham Forest but they're not a helpful comparison either.

[LeeB]

So have Nottingham Forest but they're not a helpful comparison either.

They're also planning to increase capacity but only up to what ours is now, the poxy twats.

[Ads]

We're not a good comparison to Everton because the neighbours across the way don't have 6 European Cups, a recent league title, more fans in Cork and Oslo than you can shake a stick at or average 60,000 every week, with a 30 year waiting list for season tickets. That sort of presence tends to deflate your support and support potential.

[chrisw1]

So have Nottingham Forest but they're not a helpful comparison either.

Forest have nothing like our and Everton's fan base.

[chrisw1]

We're not a good comparison to Everton because the neighbours across the way don't have 6 European Cups, a recent league title, more fans in Cork and Oslo than you can shake a stick at or average 60,000 every week, with a 30 year waiting list for season tickets. That sort of presence tends to deflate your support and support potential.

Yep.  Same reason Man City have struggled I guess.

[paul_e]

Why compare us to Everton, they're not even the biggest club in their own postcode.

They've had a similar amount of success (other than the obvious) and fan base over the last 45 years.  Why wouldn't you compare them?

I mean, it was 1 sentence and it's right there. However well Everton do they're gonig to be the 2nd club in the city and 4th club in their region, the limit for daytrippers, casuals, etc is far lower for them than for almost any other club outside London. Even Man City suffer from that, often struggling to sell out despite being all their trophies.

I'm not saying we could fill a 60k stadium tomorrow but a few years competing for the CL and we have far more potential to expand the fan base than most clubs.

[Dogtanian]

One thing I am definitely less sure of now than I was 12 months ago is that the club wouldn’t go down the line of trying to get CPO’s….i know it’s probably paranoia but when you have a clear uber-tw@ at the helm with zero humility he isn’t going to look at the moral and human issues with a decision like that

While I don't subscribe to the 'CPOs are inherently evil' point of view*, I do think the pros and cons of people having to move home for the expansion of a football club would need to be very carefully considered.

But where there is money there is a way and you are right, any moral aspect of this won't be taken into account by Chris Heck if it means he can hit his revenue targets. Potentially the political aspect of applying for CPOs would be one of the reasons that silence is maintained so that the anti-campaign won't kick off before they are ready to move.

* I really do believe society needs a mechanism where important, benefit-bringing projects can take precedence over current land ownership. Unfortunately in our dysfunctional society, the danger is that they are used merely to billionaires richer or keep politicians in jobs.

[chrisw1]

Why compare us to Everton, they're not even the biggest club in their own postcode.

They've had a similar amount of success (other than the obvious) and fan base over the last 45 years.  Why wouldn't you compare them?

I mean, it was 1 sentence and it's right there. However well Everton do they're gonig to be the 2nd club in the city and 4th club in their region, the limit for daytrippers, casuals, etc is far lower for them than for almost any other club outside London. Even Man City suffer from that, often struggling to sell out despite being all their trophies.

I'm not saying we could fill a 60k stadium tomorrow but a few years competing for the CL and we have far more potential to expand the fan base than most clubs.

I haven't googled it, but I'd be surprised if their attendances haven't been very similar to ours for the last 40 years.  That seems pretty comparable to me whether they have big neighbours or not.  The truth is, some areas of the country attract more football fans than others.  And whilst they have one big neighbour we have 3 small ones who like it or not between them do nibble at the local fan base.

I accept your point about there being only one club for daytrippers though, that's a fair comment.  Whether we attract many remains to be seen.  Even so, I think 53k would be plenty for the next 10-15 years and at that point we could look at the Witton Lane stand.

[Sexual Ealing]

So have Nottingham Forest but they're not a helpful comparison either.

Forest have nothing like our and Everton's fan base.

They've had more success over the last 45/50 years than us or Everton. And yet - their situation tells us nothing about our own.

[Pat Mustard]

One thing I am definitely less sure of now than I was 12 months ago is that the club wouldn’t go down the line of trying to get CPO’s….i know it’s probably paranoia but when you have a clear uber-tw@ at the helm with zero humility he isn’t going to look at the moral and human issues with a decision like that

While I don't subscribe to the 'CPOs are inherently evil' point of view*, I do think the pros and cons of people having to move home for the expansion of a football club would need to be very carefully considered.

But where there is money there is a way and you are right, any moral aspect of this won't be taken into account by Chris Heck if it means he can hit his revenue targets. Potentially the political aspect of applying for CPOs would be one of the reasons that silence is maintained so that the anti-campaign won't kick off before they are ready to move.

* I really do believe society needs a mechanism where important, benefit-bringing projects can take precedence over current land ownership. Unfortunately in our dysfunctional society, the danger is that they are used merely to billionaires richer or keep politicians in jobs.

With Heck in charge I would be less worried about us going down the CPO route and more worried we go down the Liverpool route, of slowly purchasing any properties in the area that go on sale and allowing them to become derelict, eventually rendering the whole area a crime magnet and unihabitable for those who want to remain.