FFP

[paul_e]

All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.

If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.

I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.

But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.

If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.

This and the post from Risso sum it up for me. We all love Villa park but as it stands it's a shackle to the past that risks damaging our future.

I see 3 options:
Knock down the North and DE, make the best of it and eek our way to 55k-ish stadium which would just about hang onto the coattails of teams around us.
Rebuild on the same site, taking a couple of seasons away from Villa Park and maybe getting a little over 60k but still ahving a lot of the problems we have now.
Build new elsewhere, only move when it's complete and find a site with better opportunities on non-match days, with room for more pre and post match facilities and with better transport links.

It's definitely more '70s concrete eyesore' than 'brutalist masterpiece', and i don't like sitting in it at all, although i do like sitting in the '90s cheap as chips piece of shit that looks like a warehouse' upper, just don't try to get a drink or go for a piss at half time. On the whole the other parts are ok, but i do get proper fucked off with the performance trying to get to and from the ground.

I'd really like us to stay there and make it 10k or so bigger and improve the transport side of it but if it's not possible then maybe move. I'd like us to build something unique though rather than have the same old shitty soul less bowl that many have these days.

Absolutely agree on this bit, it's why I've posted a few AI-generated ideas in the past that some people find so upsetting.

[Pat Mustard]

All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.

If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.

I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.

But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.

If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.

This and the post from Risso sum it up for me. We all love Villa park but as it stands it's a shackle to the past that risks damaging our future.

I see 3 options:
Knock down the North and DE, make the best of it and eek our way to 55k-ish stadium which would just about hang onto the coattails of teams around us.
Rebuild on the same site, taking a couple of seasons away from Villa Park and maybe getting a little over 60k but still ahving a lot of the problems we have now.
Build new elsewhere, only move when it's complete and find a site with better opportunities on non-match days, with room for more pre and post match facilities and with better transport links.

If we take those as the 3 options then surely we need to factor in the costs of doing each of them:
1 - Disruption for 3-4 seasons, but could eventually get to around 60k using Anfield type approach.  Would cost IRO £300-500 million.
2 - No home ground for 2 years, build Tottenham-esque stadium on current site - at least £1 billion+
3 - Find and purchase land close to transport links then build stadium as above - looking at close to £2 billion, and at least 10 years before it's ready.

If this is why Comcast have got involved then options 2 or 3 might be possible, but I struggle to see how the ROI on either is going to be that much better than option one that it would justify the mega outlay.  Also, the longer we wait to do anything the more expensive the whole thing is likely to get.

If we were going to build elsewhere in the city, the time to plan it was probably 10 years ago, and if we had our current owners at that stage it probably would have made sense.  I just can't see how or where we will find somewhere now that is available and will improve on the location we already have - surely between the club and the council there are people who can see the benefit of using Villa Park as a catalyst to improve the surrounding area.

[Brazilian Villain]

All that is great, if we just want the club to be some monument to Victorian-era success and long-lost status.

If we want to actually be what we were, we need to have the ground we can make the next load of history in.

I love the Holte End exterior, it's like nothing else I've ever been to and I'm proud walking up those steps. I'd have it over anything anyone has got.

But it's the fibreglass castle at Disneyland. It's a cheap nod to glories over a hundred years in the past. Three out of the four stands have hardly ever seen us be anything other than mediocre.

If we want people to still be looking up at our great club in another hundred years we need to un-shackle ourselves from all this manufactured sentiment and build the foundations we need to be great here and now.

It's not just about the bricks & mortar, it's deeper than that

Exactly, and as Taylor Swift put it, "i like shiny things but i'd marry you with paper rings".

*Not you Luke, obviously.

[Somniloquism]

When do Everton hear their 2nd potential charge ?

Well they have heard the charge, but if you meant the result it will be a couple of weeks time as their appeal for the other one had to be completed where Forest did not.

[eamonn]

Did Taylor really say that? It's a good line.

[pelty]

Its not fair play anyway is it. How is it fair that a newly promoted club would have around 10% the spending power of one of the wanker 6 clubs, forever, unless somehow you can gain sponsorship deals worth hundreds of millions of pounds above your market value.

No more Jack Walkers, buying Blackburn the league. No more Leicesters winning the league then sacking their manager ungraciously a few months later.

Basically the league table, in stone, for the forseeable future.

This is spot on. Thank you for saying it.

[PaulWinch again]

Well technically it’s profit and sustainability as opposed to FFP.

[chrisw1]

Exactly.  It's an attempt to take a snapshot in time and fix the wealthiest teams right now as the dominant teams forevermore.  Whitewashing 150 years of history and destroying competition as we know it.

I urge anyone to google Stamford Bridge 1992 or look at Manchester City's average league placings in the 90's and early 2000's before oil, and then argue that their place as the game's elite should be crystallised forever.

******.

   

[PaulWinch again]

There’s a good point in the articulation of Forest’s deduction, it’s not so much punishment for Forest as it is fairness on other clubs. I think that’s the point really, they fully deserved what they got. Yes they might argue it was more financially prudent to wait and get more money for Johnson - but it was their poor management up to that point that had got them in the position that they should have accepted less and met the required deadline.

[Bad English]

Absolutely agree on this bit, it's why I've posted a few AI-generated ideas in the past that some people find so upsetting.

I think people mainly roll their eyes to be fair.

[Dante Lavelli]

Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......

Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.

The trouble is they are in the same boat we are that the surrounding land doesn't give much options in expanding further. The canal and railway pinch off three sides and then what looks like a very busy freight terminal further up. So they would either have to "do a Spurs" and play elsewhere for two seasons whilst a new ground is built on part of the old ones foot print, rebuild a stand at a time with the loss of spectators that will now bring, or build elsewhere and move across.

There's enough space behind the Stretford End to build a complete new stadium that's just a car park at present.

I covered that in do a Spurs bit where they would need to knock down Old Trafford and move the whole stand to encompass the car park. If they can buy out the railway freight yard as well then they could build without ground sharing for two years.

As I understand it, most of the land around there is owned by Peel, a massive developer.  They would probably bend over backwards to accommodate Man U because a new stadium could be the catalyst to regenerate the whole area. 

We need that bit of luck where BCC/the government are trying to shift a parcel of land big enough for a stadium as I think the other pieces (Atairos, fanbase etc) are already in place.

[Percy McCarthy]

Did Taylor really say that? It's a good line.

She’s got quite a few.

[Percy McCarthy]

Ratty's plans are to build in the general area of Trafford, but not on the exact same spot which is very similar to what Arsenal did. And isn't Old Trafford falling apart now if he wanted to talk Shitholes......

Most Yanited fans would acknowledge Old Trafford is in a very poor state, but many would still rather redevelop their historic home than move to a new stadium (even if it's in the area). Can't say I blame them.

The trouble is they are in the same boat we are that the surrounding land doesn't give much options in expanding further. The canal and railway pinch off three sides and then what looks like a very busy freight terminal further up. So they would either have to "do a Spurs" and play elsewhere for two seasons whilst a new ground is built on part of the old ones foot print, rebuild a stand at a time with the loss of spectators that will now bring, or build elsewhere and move across.

There's enough space behind the Stretford End to build a complete new stadium that's just a car park at present.

I covered that in do a Spurs bit where they would need to knock down Old Trafford and move the whole stand to encompass the car park. If they can buy out the railway freight yard as well then they could build without ground sharing for two years.

As I understand it, most of the land around there is owned by Peel, a massive developer.  They would probably bend over backwards to accommodate Man U because a new stadium could be the catalyst to regenerate the whole area. 

We need that bit of luck where BCC/the government are trying to shift a parcel of land big enough for a stadium as I think the other pieces (Atairos, fanbase etc) are already in place.

Birmingham Wheels fits that bill.

[KevinGage]

There’s a good point in the articulation of Forest’s deduction, it’s not so much punishment for Forest as it is fairness on other clubs. I think that’s the point really, they fully deserved what they got. Yes they might argue it was more financially prudent to wait and get more money for Johnson - but it was their poor management up to that point that had got them in the position that they should have accepted less and met the required deadline.

I didn't agree with Everton's points deduction and don't agree with Forest's.

Divide and rule.

It's convenient for the PL to pick off and effectively blame smaller fry for being ambitious (initially, as Everyon were under Koeman and then Ancelotti). Or merely just wanting to survive, as Forest did last year.

Whilst ignoring the petrodollar sugarbags at the top gaming the system.

[adrenachrome]

Well technically it’s profit and sustainability as opposed to FFP.

Yes, and the part of this that pertains to Forest was to stop promoted clubs overstretching, getting relegated and then becoming bankrupt. In this case, the timing of the Brennan Johnson sale has complicated matters.