Villa Park Redevelopment

[eamonn]

I liked the idea of the underpass from Brookvale Academy to the North Stand carpark in the original plans.

Thinking back to the day Purslow's initial infrastructure plans at the academy had a press call, both he and JJ in hard hats turning the sod...and now we've lost both of them  Such great fellas (a shame about the Tory donation - Christian, not Jacob).

Cheers for the North Stand comparison diagram, FatSam.

[chrisw1]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of each plan we clearly cannot consider shutting down a large chuck of revenue stream for a season or more, that much has been made abundantly clear over the summer.

It's been well established that an allowance can be made in PSR for revenue lost due to stand closure.

[Dante Lavelli]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of each plan we clearly cannot consider shutting down a large chuck of revenue stream for a season or more, that much has been made abundantly clear over the summer.

It's been well established that an allowance can be made in PSR for revenue lost due to stand closure.

But likely benchmarked against a season where we were in the conference league rather than the CL.

[PeterWithesShin]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of each plan we clearly cannot consider shutting down a large chuck of revenue stream for a season or more, that much has been made abundantly clear over the summer.

It's been well established that an allowance can be made in PSR for revenue lost due to stand closure.

Got a link to where it says that in the rules?

[Villan82]

Going back to the earlier discussion, here is the comparison between the existing North Stand, the Purslow scheme, and the new scheme:





As you can see, the new scheme occupies a smaller footprint than the Purslow scheme, and consequently the upper tier doesn't extend as far back. I'm assuming this is to avoid having to re-direct the below ground utilities which were supposedly preventing the existing stand remaining in use during construction, roughly where the ground suddenly dips in the above.

The fact that the overall capacity for both schemes following redevelopment is comparable can only be due to the bowl optimisation that is now being proposed, and perhaps the seat spacing being tighter in the new scheme (which would make sense given that it is largely an existing stand).

That's incorrect.

The green line in this diagram represents one of the options considered: 'optimised adaptive re-use' which would have got us to 50,065 but we opted for adaptive re-use which gets us to 48,800. There is another diagram showing this, the blue line for the actual option we are going with is between the green line and the end point of the existing north stand.

[FatSam]

That's incorrect.

The green line in this diagram represents one of the options considered: 'optimised adaptive re-use' which would have got us to 50,065 but we opted for adaptive re-use which gets us to 48,800. There is another diagram showing this, the blue line for the actual option we are going with is between the green line and the end point of the existing north stand.

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.

[FatSam]

The stand was bigger than the current plan.  The difference is the bowl optimisation, which could and would have happened with either.

It definitely could have happened, but I don’t recall hearing any mention of ‘bowl optimisation’ until Heck was in position.

[DB]

So when do they actually start building the thing? I thought it was end of August.

[john e]

So this will be built around the existing stand

No supporters were inconvenienced during the building of the stand
Is that correct ?

[Beard82]

So this will be built around the existing stand

No supporters were inconvenienced during the building of the stand
Is that correct ?

Thoughts go out to those unfortunate souls in the North Stand who had an unobstructed view of our first two home games this season

[Percy McCarthy]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of each plan we clearly cannot consider shutting down a large chuck of revenue stream for a season or more, that much has been made abundantly clear over the summer.

It's been well established that an allowance can be made in PSR for revenue lost due to stand closure.

It hasn’t been clearly established if the allowance can be made under UEFA FER & SCR though. We’ve pissed PSR by selling the women’s team, UEFA don’t give a fuck about it though.

[DB]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of each plan we clearly cannot consider shutting down a large chuck of revenue stream for a season or more, that much has been made abundantly clear over the summer.

It's been well established that an allowance can be made in PSR for revenue lost due to stand closure.

It hasn’t been clearly established if the allowance can be made under UEFA FER & SCR though. We’ve pissed PSR by selling the women’s team, UEFA don’t give a fuck about it though.

Even if it was, there was over a year of loss of revenue of around 8k seats, corporate etc. when we were in the CL.

[paul_e]

It is in there but there are a lot of clauses around it to the point where I wouldn't want to be relying on that as the difference between meeting targets or not.

[PeterWithesShin]

Where is it in there? From memory when I looked, the costs of building didn't count for the rules but loss of income was tough shit, you lose that income.

And i'm too lazy to look again!

[paul_e]

Where is it in there? From memory when I looked, the costs of building didn't count for the rules but loss of income was tough shit, you lose that income.

And i'm too lazy to look again!

There's a bit about increased deviation up to 10m a year, in article 88. It wouldn't apply for us though and it may be the risk of that played a part in our choice to look at ways to avoid reduced capacity.