nick76

33 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

He’s not infallible. He’s said the same himself. It’s extremely dangerous to even suggest that any manager is beyond critique or question.

Did I say he’s not infallible, in fact I actually commented he might get things wrong but overwhelmingly gets things right.  I just said I trust what he chooses to do, that doesn’t mean I think he’s infallible.

21 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

It absolutely makes no sense. You and the club just choose not to see that outcome. That’s on you and the club. The club might leave Villa Park at some point far far into the future unless the council CPOs land for us which is highly unlikely.  For the mean time the club have said categorically they aren’t thinking of moving from Villa Park any time soon.

FTFY

1 minute ago, DakotaVilla said:

If we try our best and fail that’s fine. However, in this context right now, if we throw away games and then fail to win the conference or qualify for champions league we would fully deserve that outcome.

Let’s put our best foot forward and pick our best team. 

Or trust in Emery whatever way he decides to go in each match.  Yes, he might get things wrong sometimes but overwhelmingly he gets things right and has a track record that stands up to even the best.

16 minutes ago, tinker said:

It's not really the ground, I love villa Park, it's the surrounding area and it's potential for development into an area for recreation, like Man City. Aston just hasn't got that potential in space alone, add to that it hasn't got great transport links and we have to play somewhere while it's been upgraded, North stand alone would be 12 months add the the other stands....its 4 years playing in a building site of one stand or another, just not going to happen.

But a new stadium isn’t going to happen either, not only doesn’t it make sense at the moment imo, it’s also that the club have stated they aren’t thinking of moving away from Villa Park.

1 minute ago, Don_Simon said:

Ooooh, I like it.

Where from?

Winning

1 minute ago, tinker said:

 You have to have vision. Look at Man City and their ground.  Stick that in the middle of the country with fantastic transport links and the potential is huge.

Their ground capacity is 53,400.  We would have been close to that with the North Stand redevelopment and the adjustment they were planning, so it doesn’t validate the point of a 70k+ stadium and sports complex.

 It just fits my thoughts of about upgrading Villa Park through the North Stand redevelopment, it’s just a shame that’s on hold.

18 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

Only brummies downplay their own city and region as badly as we do. It’s ridiculous a conurbation of our size does not have a 70k+ stadium. People of ambition and vision are required to reframe the potential of our wonderful region. 

Given nobody has done it, maybe you are wrong and it’s just not there.  If the business case was there then somebody would’ve done it.

1 hour ago, DakotaVilla said:

Let me ask you a very simple question. IF we are still at Villa park in 25 years time and the capacity of the stadium is under 60k how competitive do you think we’ll be? 

We already know the answer to that question is that we won’t be competitive at all. Hence the need to get clarity on the scale of redevelopment possibilities asap or we move. Personally, I wouldn’t mess around as the costs of a new stadium are only going to increase without delay. 

I’m still not convinced we have a regular 60k game going fans at the prices of season tickets and individual match tickets.  Yes we have a waiting list but we all question how much of that can be converted into actual season tickets if all was available.  

That aside if we are still at Villa Park in 25 years time and the capacity is under 60k how competitive do I think we will be? Well that depends on many things, from where football is by then, will the PL still be as popular then, are Villa still at the top end.  Not to mention how the next generation after our kids watch football with more kids going to online formats than live events.  

If all things stay the same, we are still around the European places and PL football is still it is what it is today then us being competitive will not be based us increasing our capacity to 60k but how we’ve capitalised on being a top 4 team, our global presence, our marketing, our expended fan base across the world, our sponsorships, how we manage our finances including buying and selling players.  

We really need to take advantage of any new opportunities in the next big things and hopefully our link with Comcast via Atairos as well exploiting all the opportunities that being in the VSports groups will give us.  While the stadium improvement is a good opportunity for increase in revenue, our Birmingham location doesn’t have the desired benefits and attractiveness London does for Spurs.  

Our ways are growing our revenue and being competitive is less about the stadium and more about the other forms of revenue generation imo.  I’m just not convinced the large outlay for the return is there for a new sports and entertainment complex, I think increasing Villa Park to 55k+ is our level at least for the next years and that’s predominantly the North Stand development, so imo it’s a shame that has been put on hold.  I think the idea of replacing DE stand and Holte End eventually is La La land in the medium term.

33 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

We have to move to another location or force the council into a CPO on the land behind the Doug Ellis. 
 

Long term those are the only viable options so best we get this resolved asap. It’s basically as simple as that. 

asap? It’s the same conversation as before we even built the DE stand 30 years ago…the club seem in no rush either.  I don’t think anything will be happening ‘asap’ regarding behind DE stand or a new stadium.

1 hour ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

 I went on 35 minutes to get a pint yesterday. The queues after the 40 minute mark in the upper Doug were a shamble. Went all the way down the concourse.

Why miss ten to fifteen minutes for a pint?  Surely the game is more important than a half time pint? I’d rather miss the pint than the game.

Certainly an area any redevelopment need to improve in regards to service but if the service isn’t there surely better to miss out on the pint?

1 hour ago, Rugeley Villa said:

The Holte looks magnificent there 

Yep there is a reason other clubs players, managers and supporters, and even media talk so positive about Villa Park.  It has its flaws of course but it looks splendid and some would give this up for softer prettier seats and prawn sandwiches….  

13 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

If we don’t make Champions League it will obviously be disappointing after coming so close but it is what it is.  We’ll just have to win the Europa next season instead.

I’m calm about it, there are still so many twists and turns left in the league and Europe that I can’t get worked up about it.

I mean in this kind of season, next week could be anything.

28 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Nothing we can do now if Arsenal lose. It's over then unless Leverkusen **** up

No it’s not, if City and us go through and win each competition which we are both favourites it doesn’t matter what Leverkusen do even if they win Europa, we still end up getting the 2nd CL spot.  Leverkusen need Dortmund to overcome A.Madrid to have the upper hand.

21 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Old swifty is seating 50k a night - I'd wager Pink is a fraction of that. Yes that's right we ARE having a very mature, male argument here.

I’ve seen the pics from that gig and they had Doug Ellis, Trinity, Holte End and all the pitch area for fans.  I’m guessing that was comparable to 50k fans or more.

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Lots of huge new stadiums recently built in London, nearer to Wembley than us, Wembley is not a competitor to them. The national stadium ref was to do with where is it easiest for the most people to travel to. Taylor Swift concerts for example, they locate them in such places. I would wager that location would be the centre of England- and that a new stadium can generate money when we are not watching football in it.

Like we do already you mean given the Pink, Foo Fighters and Springsteen concerts at Villa Park!

7 minutes ago, tinker said:

 

It's either development of a new ground or the old one and both come with hard to solve issues but we need to solve them one way or another and that's what great leaders do, solve difficult issues.

You don't and we won't get anywhere by waiting 5 years, the problem will just grow bigger. Emery goes and we're just another Leeds, sitting in an old ground with no revenue from it hoping to self fund with a top 4 finish year on year isn't a solution, dining on the glory days we/they had a lifetime ago.

I don’t believe the business case for a new stadium stacks up.  The redevelopment of the North Stand did imo but the club has paused the second and said the first isn’t happening.

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

It wouldn't financially damage the club.

It might financially damage the owners. But that in itself is unlikely, if Villa is worth 600-700m now, with the new stand, the new hospitality, new sponsors, I can see that value increasing to over 1bn rather quickly. 

Of course it would financially damage the club, I don’t see how you can’t see that.  Unless the owners fully fund the stadium build which, even though the owners are brilliant, they aren’t going to personally finance a new £1bn stadium thus the only other party will be Villa through whatever financial instrument.

1 hour ago, DakotaVilla said:

From the owners perspective, they won’t necessarily be worried about the debt involved in building a new stadium or even the debt that would be required to rebuild Villa Park to an acceptable level. The only questions they will have about the debt is:

- What rate can they get on the debt and can the debt be serviced through increased revenue that the new stadium and will it provide positive cash flow? (Look at spurs. They have huge debt of nearly 700m but their positive cash flow is now insane and their annual interest charge is circa only 20m)

- How much will the stadium cost and will it increase the overall value of their asset and in that context is it worth it? (Again, look at spurs and how much the new stadium would have increased the clubs valuation. Absolutely more than was spent on the stadium because of the insane cash flow generated). 

The fundamentals for Villa v spurs are slightly different due to Birmingham v London, higher interest rates and higher build costs but for me there’s no way in the world the owners wouldn’t make an absolute shit load of money if they built a new stadium. 

 

Whereas I’m not convinced the owners would make a shit load of money and would likely put too much financial pressure on the Villa.  Comparing us to Spurs and the London bit isn’t a true comparison imo but if the owners do, then go for it but I think there is a reason they aren’t otherwise knowing these owners they would given their ambitions.  The owners wouldn’t just not do it because some of the fans wanted to stay at Villa Park, I think they, at the moment, see the business case stacks up imo.

8 minutes ago, tinker said:

Look who's on that list. They are all top 6 clubs, we are the only one with no plan whether that be a new ground or a development of the existing. The problem with the later is we need somewhere to play and the income it generates while the development is underway,  a new ground gets around that issue. 

We currently aren’t profitable and nowhere near self sustaining and those clubs have far greater revenues than us to support that development cost, that’s why we aren’t doing it.  Doing this would financially damage our club with no real start of return for at least five years until it’s built.  I just don’t see the viable business case at the moment.

16 minutes ago, tinker said:

Standing still has worked for which club? 

Who’s standing still? just because we aren’t building a shiny new stadium doesn’t mean we are standing still as a club.

47 minutes ago, limpid said:

Veering into "finances" territory, but so what? You said you didn't want us going into debt "at the moment". How does someone else owing money for a stadium impact us "at the moment"?

Because the debt and fees will in the short term be charged to us indirectly through higher monthly fees or some other financial instrument.  

There are only two groups that will be paying for a new stadium, either NSWE paying for it themselves personally or for part of it, or through Villa finances in some form.  

The owners are brilliant but realistically while they may invest some of their own funds into building a new stadium, you would assume the vast majority of the cost will paid for by Villa.  

Using various financial and legal vehicles to set up the Villa is to best utilise our finances, comply with any rules and to satisfy accounting treatment.  Again though to a layman, a new stadium will need to be paid for and the only two parties that will be paying for it are our two owners personally or Villa.  The accounting treatment is just what us finance dudes do.

47 minutes ago, limpid said:

We don't own Villa Park. Why would we own a new stadium?

Yeah but it’s within the Villa related companies. If NSWE ever sold Villa in the future that would include Villa Park or the new stadium and related debts.  The transaction for Villa Park was to use a company loophole to get us compliant.

1 hour ago, TRO said:

Villa Park, has changed dramatically over the years, so the nostalgia, is just the site.....The stands are recent, not much history there, sure its traditional looking, but that can be replicated elsewhere.

We are all faced with extending our properties, with changing circumstances, and quite often the decision is better to move.....I have no hard and fast opinion on it, other than what ever the most practical solution is, for the majority.

The area where Villa Park is, has changed so much demographically over the years, and it's debatable if it is still a practical site....is it an asset for the local community? or a hinderance?,.....there is so much to consider.

For me the only thing to consider is that it would cost ~£1 billion give or take to build a new stadium somewhere with all the things to make it worthwhile.

I honestly don’t want our club to go into that much debt at the moment.  

My reasoning is nothing to do with any financial PSR/FFP rules that it may affect or not affect, it’s purely down to having a debt on the club for that amount.  We are losing millions currently in our P&L and throwing more debt and interest payments onto it means we are living totally outside of our means.

I’d rather focus on the pitch for the next few years and try and consistently attain CL football, continuing building commercial revenue off field like we have been doing with new sponsors and kit manufacturers and revisit the idea of a new stadium in the future.

Last year their revenue was £17.5m but now they are going to spend two to three billion on this stadium/sports quarter.  

Something very dodgy going on surely?

There must be oil or diamonds deep under St Andrews that they are trying to get at.

This is just burning cash away.