John_Lerwill
-
Posts
479 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Downloads
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Articles
Media Demo
Store
Events
Everything posted by John_Lerwill
-
I've had it put to me offline that the North Stand plans have not been submitted as yet. This comes as a bit of a surprise to me as there was quite a bit of activity on this when I was there in 2009.
-
I'm not 100% certain about the North Stand approval, but a dim memory says that permission is there. Don't take that as gospel, though. Whatever actual modifications are done a.f.a.i.k. the max capacity is still 50k seated (according to what I recall).
-
I've seen it stated on several occasions that planning permission was given to provide a 50k total capacity. I've not seen the actual documents, but if anyonne has I'd be interested to hear if they allow for any variation. From the press reports I've read it's 50k max.
-
As I've said, CI, you can't get 55k when planning permission only allows 50k. Sorry. And at the moment the max is about 42k.
-
You're right with your stats, Brommy. I've corrected my previous post on this.
-
The story goes that that 76,5888 figure was one that someone just pulled that figure out of the air!! They apparently did not have a proper control on how many entered. They say the real gate was more like 80,000. Yes, you're right with the above figures, but the general mean since WW2 is somewhere around 28,000 to 30,000. As I've said before, there were times when the attendances were way below 20,000. With proper investment - and trophies - Villa could definitely get 50k. No more, though, as there's no room at VP for a bigger ground than that. Unless stand-up viewing were introduced in parts of the ground.
-
Your going back pre World War 2 at least. There *never* were regular gates of 70k. I'm afraid that's a myth. Even in the 1930s I find only some 3 or 4 occasions when the attendance reached 70,000 or more.
-
Was that before world war II? :? The fact that our average attendance has never been above 48000 for the last 65 years doesn't really support the way that CI has represented his 'fact'. CI raised this chestnut earlier in the thread. The answer is that just after WW2 there were some very high gates indeed - between 1946 and 1949. This was due to men coming back into civvy life after years involved in the War. However, the gates were never regularly 70,000. There was that famous 76,000+ record gate in 1946, but the high gates were between 50,0000 and 60,000 in that 3-year period. Typically, gates were less than that, however. By 1950, the attendances were dropping - mainly in accord with the lack of Villa's success at that time.
-
It could be achieved, but only if Villa started to win a trophy or two. There is a very large catchment area in which Villa have little opposition, but their interest has to be stimulated for the potential visitors to want to visit Villa Park.
-
Your opinion seems pretty sound to me - perhaps a tweak or two here and there, but largely a view I'd share. It seems to me the case that the top brass effectively just let MON do his thing, and then tried to pull it all back when it was realised that the aspirations were not going to be as easily reached as they perhaps thought, plus RL's own re-definition of his financial circumstances. But he can still afford a new jet..! :winkold:
-
And after today's better performance this is exactly why it hasn't got to the organised protest stage. A certain amount of time has to be given to see what transpires. It's now up to the team to take what they've learnt from today and start moving into gear. Perhaps Jenas will make the difference (I hope so!), but if it wasn't for the surprising improvement by Gabby this season, and Bent now having re-found where the goalposts are, where would we be? Perhaps the midfield is in the course of being corrected, but there's summat wrong in defence i.m.o. If Villa's results and level of performance do improve from hereon in then that might (just might) cover the communications cracks and other gaffs that have occurred in the last couple of years. I hope so. As Lancs rightly said, there are a lot of fans that feel emotionally connected with Aston Villa and the tradition of the Villa means that the club is virtually obligated to ensure that our pride is not allowed to seep away.
-
Agreed ... certainly the old hands are. But you'd think that there is spirit in the younger generations if it gets bad enough.
-
Probably because they can't be arsed anymore fwiw, Denis, I'll give my take on this ... I think a lot of people were so carried away with the euphoria of the first 3 or 4 years of RL's 'reign' that they're now bemused as to what's happening. They're probably expecting a phoenix-like resurgence by RL that will prove that the first 4 years were not a mirage. Perhaps the league situation - if it's a poor one - at the end of this season, and if there's further deterioration in the playing staff (e.g. Bent leaving), may cause people to wake up and start wondering what can be done. On the other hand, the world situation is becoming so serious I wonder whether what's happening down at t' Villa might seem like small fry by next summer.
-
I'm with you all the way ... except saying that Doug was worse is not really getting anywhere, Peter, I'm sorry to say. Richard, I thought, was succinct in saying that we had a bad communications situation before, and now we have it again. What was wrong with the meaning of Richard's message? It's the state of the situation that Richard was trying to get at. May I suggest that all who agree that we have a bad communications situation now and that we also had one up to 2006 should k.i.s.s. and just agree on that? :winkold:
-
In all honesty, Lancs, I don't think it's a question of "lambasting". I think that a football 'club' should continue to have the spirit of a club and in a very positive way. At the end of the day, those holding the reins have the final say, but at the same time the club ownership is dependent on the fans paying their entrance fees. Those fans (customers if you will) should, perhaps, have an elected panel that meets with the board - on the basis of some form of consultation agreement - to at least discuss and find out what is the plan for the future and to put forward possible (alternative) solutions. The fans, in the end, can vote with their feet if the club is not (in their opinion) doing the right things, and that situation is not far different from power held over business by trades unions in some countries. If board/union consultation can work (e.g. in Germany) why can't board/fans consultation work? At least it would restore some notion of 'club' - as it was in those early months of 1969. If the 'club' spirit were to be restored, all things become possible (as in 1969). True democracy always works. There's no point in putting our heads in the sand, i.m.o. Remember Neville Chamberlain?!! (Perhaps not!).
-
You're right, Lancs, that other clubs don't, but that way is all wrong i.m.o. In business there have been some companies (the Co-op isn't the only one) where they take their customers very seriously. The football world is magnetically attracted by loot, I'm afraid, They can't see the wood for the trees. It all needs to change, and why shouldn't Villa lead the way? It always used to in pretty well everything else!
-
Why shouldn't the fans have a right to state their level of hope and expectancy, Lancs? I'm with the Co-op Bank, where they come to you every year and ask you whether you want the Bank to continue with their modus operandi of moral banking. And they ask you in detail too. The idea should get round to other custodians of businesses. The highly-respected Ernst Schumacher (of "Small is Beautiful" fame) sought the same mode of operation for businesses.
-
I think you miss Richard's point.
-
If nothing else, Richard, you're consistent!! We were indeed looking for something better in the early 2000s, and for it all to seemingly slide back to a similar state is beyond comprehension. Lerner's not got the excuse of being an octogenarian and ill (as Ellis was by 2005).
-
Please see Richard's post above. He says it all for me. As to what the world is now compared to 50 years ago ... Well if you're happy with the way the world is going then you must be living in some mansion guarded by iron railings and ferocious dogs. Economically, the world 50 years ago was the poorer, but in terms of values it was hugely better. I prefer the latter - the 1950s was almost an ideal decade, before TV took over. Be prepared for a big shift in world values in the next 2 or 3 years - people are beginning to see the sham that we're living in and the quick-profit merchants are in for a big shock. Just wait and see.
-
Richard, I praise you! :-) That's exactly the kind of reply I was going to write in response to Stan-whatever. Spot on!!
-
Stan, "Bright Future tag was a marketing ploy" - You don't have to "explain" that, it's now very apparent. The world's standards are sinking into s**t. In my dad's day (even in my younger years), if you uttered statements like that you were supposed to mean something by it.
-
I may well be wrong, but I don't think Randy has issued a statement quite of that kind. People have interpreted that is what the situation is, but I feel pretty sure RL has not specifically stated it. If I'm wrong, pehaps someone will put me right with an actual quote. Apart from which, though, he certainly hasn't issued a statement to say why his "... Bright Future" claim has been shoved into the archives.
-
Fuse, I'm setting my stall based on some kind of fact. When Villa went down in 1987, the figures did improve but simply because a good manager - Graham Taylor - was brought in. But the Saturday figures even then hovered between 19k and 25k at that point. The weekday attendances were down as far as 11k!! What would happen now is what I guess you're really saying. Well, it depends. If there's not a manager that's appointed that gives rise to hope then I'd say your 25k would be very optimistic. It rather depends on who is manager and if money is being made available. The question was what is the core support. I'd say that 15k to 17k is still the figure I'd go for as the number of fans that would support their club through thick and thin. If there's a sign of some success, then 25k is possible. That is my case, especially in the current economic climate, which I can't see improving in the next 2 or 3 years.
-
Where it this proof John? My view would be that our core support is nearer to 25K. Proof? I have just completed 18 months of detailed research in the 1945-2010 period to find many facts for my new book of which this is one. If you go back to the early 80s, 15k to 17k was the figure that was attending Villa Park, not long after the Saunders years. Exactly. But just playing decent football will help to keep the crowds happy as a starter.