fruitvilla

The extra profit (not revenue) goes to paying off the interest first. Not the principal. If we could pay off the project in 8 to 10 years that would be a great achievement. So I agree with you it does not look like a great investment at this time ... unless a really cheap loan (2 %) could be secured over say twenty years. But no lender in their right minds would do this. The question for me is how many of us would buy bonds say at 2.5% over twenty years to finance the new stand? It's in a good cause and for the benefit of Aston Villa.

I mean, that is patently not true I think the opportunity cost(s) comes to: does V Sports have other projects on the books with a better rate of return? My question would be where the data comes from, what the assumptions are, and the math behind it. I have to admit the replies so far have been far from convincing.

Can you go through your assumptions and math please?

I don't have any special insight here ... but according to The Times Plus lenders/investors may have projects that have a higher payback than 5 %. NSWE would likely have to forkout some of the money themselves so are the returns higher than 5 % from their current investments? As yet I have not seen anyone do a ROI calculation either for the new stand or a pie in the sky new stadium.

So far women are head and shoulders better than Sunderland: Faster Stronger More physical More skillful Tactically more astute Better drilled But apart from that not much in it.

Yes, it would be expensive. The current Bank of England rate is 5 % or thereabouts. Looks like it's heading lower. But lenders will tack on a percent or so. They will also look at the profitability of the project and the risks involved. So lenders (and V Sports) would have to assess (bet on) the coming British economy, the sustained success of Villa on the pitch and general good financial management of V Sports.

How cheap, and why would anyone lend the owners any money below the market rate? I don't see any analyses that it is the best solution and even if it is a solution. If the project loses money how is it a solution?

Yeah ... I agree with this line of reasoning. Initially, it will be +50 million but over the life of the loan it will average out to nearer 25 million a year. And as I think you are suggesting plus we have to pay back the loan itself ... say 25 million a year over a twenty year life. All this for an extra twenty-thousand capacity at a value of say at a value of 20 million a year? The secret is to get a really cheap loan. Should the City of Birmingham tax payers (cf Everton) subsidize the Villa? Not that they are in a position to do so.

This is exactly the way I approach this conundrum. Assuming with this season's price hikes, which did not go down well, we are at very optimistically at 25 million revenue. Adding 20% capacity will barely bring us to 30 million matchday revenue. There's something else going on.

Do you have any financial numbers to back this up?

I suspect we stopped because it does not make financial sense at this time. A back of the envelope calculation comes to about 13 000 pounds a seat for increasing the capacity to 50 000. This assumes a100 million rebuild and 5% for the cost of capital. There are probably more efficient ways of increasing profitability. Also a lot of people are focused on increasing 'revenue' which is laudable especially from an ffp point of view. But profitability of the project may well be the focus of the owners.

Two point deduction, fines for the club and Toney ... not a problem.

Exactly ... who can assemble the most effective team around them and take the country in the direction you want it to be taken? The problem is no one person or party will meet an individual's wants on a variety of issues.

I must admit your prowess when it comes to financial matters, I find, wanting; but your acuity to Villa's legends is spot on.

I must admit your prowess when it comes to financial matters, I find, wanting; but your acuity to Villa's legends is spot on.

I am sure if Villa could issue 120 million pounds worth of bonds to fifty thousand Villa supporters at 2 % interest over twenty years, Heck would be eternally grateful and would have the North Stand torn down lickety split.

But was it a foul before the attempt?

OK I checked his Wiki page I could not find any reference to Villa

Philosophically "pride" is something I would not want to go near.

Yeah, and I blame it on the parental generation of these young 'uns. And that gen ... is ... I'll be back in a minute.

Me (I) a plastic Villa fan? Sorta ... But I am Bakelite, through and through, and proud of it.

I sincerely hope this is not true. As a director/owner at Adidas and owner at Aston Villa, he has a conflict of interest here. The decision may well be in the best interests of both companies; but ideally, Sawiris should keep this business deal at a barge pole distance.

Villa were the better team and played like it. The thing I am not sure about is when Villa brings the play to slow motion in front of the low block is the team following Emery's instructions or is there a lack of ability (whatever) to play the ball more quickly?

FIFY

Regarding crests in general. They have an aesthetic quality, (likeable shades, font, direction of lions, etc). Then we have technical quality, (readability, contrast, detail, spacing, info conveyed for example). I'm not going to argue about aesthetics, but from a technical point of view, the 'leaked' logo does not cut it for me. There is also a symbolic aspect to crests/badges. Why was the 1874 lion reversed in the next iteration? Why was the original in the opposite direction to the Scottish one? Aesthetics change with time, symbolic meanings perhaps not. That's why I really liked the AV crest inspired by the old floodlights ... a nod to history. Perhaps crests/badges should also be a nod to the future? eg is the lion chasing the future or looking back at past glory? What the crest should not be is some flavour of the moment.