Villa Park Redevelopment

[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.

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.

His point was, that would be accounted for, and accounts adjusted, and therefore fine, under PL PSR. My point was, it probably wouldn’t be under UEFA’s two sets of rules.

[chrisw1]

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.

No, but we're not talking about just Purslow vs Heck.  We're talking about the decision to downsize the development when it could have been retained or even upsized.  The Bowl optimisation is something Heck deserves credit for, but would have happened whichever decision he took on the stand development.

The same goes for the income whilst closed, Heck could still have chosen to commence the development this summer, so the PSR allowance would have reflected our most recent income from the stand.

[chrisw1]

I'm also pretty sure that with a can-do attitude, we could have done much of the development with the current stand still in place, like Liverpool did.  I know reasons have been given as to why this was difficult (cabling or something), but people keep telling me we have some of the best stadium development minds in the world on board and I can't accept that this was truly an insurmountable issue.

[The Edge]

Im reading here that the proposed extended north stand will give us a final capacity of 48k. When the announcement was made it was just over 50k with adjustments/realignment made to the Trinity Rd. So which is it? It's starting to feel like they're going to waste the opportunity to redevelop the only part of the ground that has no restrictions by not being ambitious enough.
We have extremely wealthy owners, we have a company on board that specialises in huge sporting developments and infrastructure yet it all feels a bit Doug.

[Pat Mustard]

I'm also pretty sure that with a can-do attitude, we could have done much of the development with the current stand still in place, like Liverpool did.  I know reasons have been given as to why this was difficult (cabling or something), but people keep telling me we have some of the best stadium development minds in the world on board and I can't accept that this was truly an insurmountable issue.

That's exactly what we are doing now though.  If you're referring to the Purslow plan, then there's no way we could have done the same as Liverpool where they have essentially built a massive new tier behind the existing stand.  The Anfield Road End had a large lower tier with a tiny upper tier and a cantilever roof that could be built behind, structurally it was completely different to what we have to work with (and that is before getting to the issue of utilities running in under the North Stand).

[VILLA MOLE]

I think it is steady development ,  see how we look at 50 000 plus regarding attendances ,  then if the demand is high they will look at 60k with the Witton Lane which would obviously be more involved