fruitvilla

The problem is it won't increase revenues that much ... unless prices are increased dramatically. These people are businessmen first. One of the questions we should be asking is, how much extra are we willing to pay to increase the capacity by ten thousand? I get more people want to see Villa play. I probably won't get a chance unless they come to Portland, Seattle, or even Vancouver. Incidentally, I've been to Villa Park twice, The second time the North Sand was not built it was the old stand. The first time was when the stand had no roof.

What's the point indeed if fans won't want to afford watching the game at Villa Park?

Thanks ... this is interesting info. If 'we' want to increase our capacity by about 25% our revenue will go up by about 9 million a year (unless more is charged). So for an expenditure of some 100 to 150 million plus a loss of probably two years' worth of North Stand revenue, and interest on loans ... say 5%. I would not invest my pension in this project. It may be useful to get around FFP regs. But people arguing for an increase in attendance need to give their heads a shake.

An optimist?

How would the world look?

I believe the 80 quid ... it's the twenty I don't get.

Something is off with these numbers .... that's about 80 quid per matchday punter for Spurs and 20 quid for a Villa fan

Hibs?

What did Monchi say?

Quite ... but I can't see a business walking away from even more profit. End of the day NPV is king, but one better make sure the assumptions that go into calculating the NPV are accurate/safe. If Villa plays an entertaining brand of football, bums on seats will be a safer bet than Champions League revenues (I think).

Judging by the mining industry ... the cost of construction has been high for a decade or more. I am wondering about the cost of capital, Is there something that has changed behind the scenes that we don't know about? Yes ... the loss of perhaps two seasons of premier and perhaps Champions League football which was not anticipated. Can't blame Heck for taking a fresh look at the project, but saying the demand was not there is nonsense.

The return on investment (ROI) is too low.

Just about every time I post it is double. I went as far as buying a new mouse. No luck There is a setting somewhere on Invision Community that prevents people from posting in quick succession. Any chance of enabling that capability/setting please?

I hope your New Year is as good as my current old year @ozvillafan Or even better

The yellow was probably for dissent. Ref made a mistake, nothing to see here.

But our 2023 points are 79 and it would make us 4th. Unless I’m being dumb. It is our home points in 2023

This is what I saw ... Martinez was OK ... I thought he might have stopped the breakaway goal on another day The backline were OK. Konsa seemed "wobbly" a couple of times, Carlos was better than in the last game. Lenglet did OK, Moreno was good going forward, though both of them looked slow chasing back at times. Must admit Foster looked useful. McGinn and Luiz did OK, did not seem that involved. Luiz a little bit lucky with the penalty. I wonder if the ball crossed the line before is spun back onto the cross bar. Bailey, my PotM, Ramsey slowly coming back Diaby had a good game, I'd like to see more shots on target. Watkins, a lot of hard work and two assists. Good to see Pau back, and Duran, got a soft penalty and perhaps deserved a yellow for one of his tackles. Emery .. average for Emery. a change in tactics a little bit. A bit more over the top and chase down the ball, which seemed to work Referee average ... mostly got it right.

I know. Thanks Having Konsa, Carlos, Torres and Lenglet as centre-back options is a bit of a luxury. Hope Mings comes back strong. Today Carlos and Lenglet were OK.

Comments like this one make me think Villa Talk is a portal where people from different universes can comment on their own little worlds.

Funnily enough, I thought it was one of his better games ... compared to the last few months.

I live in a rural bit just north of the 49th. We have rural airports that connect to Vancouver, even Spokane is only three hours by car, the US border gods permitting. My experience of Americans is a little bit select. By and large, they are well-to-do educated. The so-called "deplorables" I sort of understand. It's the 'nice" people who vote for Trump I really don't understand.

So Leicester, WBA and Coventry it is.

It's not the payback time, it's whether the project makes money. The five years is a reflection of an aggressive rate of return ... it's probably about 15%. I don't know how much the construction is going to cost say 100 million; what rate of return are you going to accept, bearing in mind a 20 million overrun or delay is not impossible. Like I said it is a conservative estimate. I would hope the senior management doesn't put the club at risk. edit plus it is not really five years as such ... the construction time and spending rate need to be factored in.

A rough conservative estimate for the financial viability of a project might be assessed by this simple formula: Five years of the increased revenue - capital cost of the project - lost revenue during demolishing/construction If positive then go for it, if negative don't do it. The five years can be varied, depending on interest rates, risk tolerance etc.

I suspect he should be maximizing NPVs