Caravella82

Keinan Davis: Udinese Legend.

Sometimes I just love Football! 

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

20 for the fans to vote on ? That would im afraid be a disaster.

It would be so messy it was hard enough between 2 than having 2o to choose from!

Im not having a go at you by the way as i understand why you feel this way but i think its not for fans to decide its for the people in charge to do what they think. As long as its not a complete rebrand like that awful leeds one years ago. You arr never going to find a crest everyone loves. Some one will always hate it.

Im done with all these new crests now tbh. It just feels we are changing so regularly now. I was happy with this one and wish we never changed it. Loved it.

I think if 20 were put forward then there would be a clearer indication of which ones are the standout quality designs. Kind of like a studio album. An artist will always know which four or five songs they will be releasing as singles.

Agree with you that it isn't for fans to decide but I do believe that they should feel involved in some manner. By the club offering a selection for fans to vote on, they are giving them an elusion of choice. Especially if the choice of the majority of fans match the preferred option of the owners.

What is producing awful crests are surveys. Questions like "Would you like the European cup victory represented by a star?" Or "Would you like 1874 to be located on the crest?" People mark yes but when they see how the club have adhered to their responses, people inevitably say " Well, that wasn't how I meant for them to do it. That looks rubbish."  That happened to me with the star back in 2007 and I have hoped they would remove it ever since.

2 options presented to fans from survey answers is not enough to produce a quality crest. I do believe a design competition can find a gem to polish up though.

And don't worry. I never took your reply as anything like having a go. Just a fellow fan with a different opinion.

The crest isn't good. Far from it.

What it is though is another example of Fan concerns not just being overlooked, but being completely ignored. I'm sure if it lasts a decade the manner in which certain club employees (who will have long left the clubs payroll before then) forced this crest upon supporters will be forgotten but, right now, it is hard to ignore.

I'm not a fan of design by survey but should one be taken, it's results should be adhered to.

Why not run a competition for anybody (and amongst them some very talented professionals) to design a new crest, then put forward the 20 best designs chosen by club officials for supporters to vote upon. The club doesn't get a design they don't like and neither do the fans.

But, nevermind, here we are. Here's to 10 more years of having to have a badge grow on us. A champions league win or a league title will certainly make that process easier! 

Up the Villa!

4 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I would think if we're looking at ducks, there are two.

• A new stadium built on land adjacent to Villa Park with us continuing to play at Villa Park alongside it while it's built.
• The big duck shaped duck that people don't like looking at - that Chris Heck doesn't want to raise the capacity and that he'd prefer to spend a couple of million to get a thousand more £400 a game supporters than £100m building 10,000 more seats at £40 a time.

 

Duck No. 1: The  Bill would be huge.

Duck No. 2: Will definitely fall Fowl of a few on the waitlist, but maybe it's time we lowered our Eggspectations.

15 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Cost definitely played a part, the North Stand cost us more than you might think.

Here's an article from 17 years ago when we thought we might be on the eve of change, and yet the North Stand remains, like some sort of ancient monument.

 

 

 

That's a great read. For some odd reason I've never really connected the down period of the mid to late eighties to the need to claw back money spent on the North stand but it's great to hear that perspective. As a child of the Eighties I can only put this down to being too young at the time.

Remembering stadiums constructed before the Taylor report, I can understand that it looked favourable when compared to most stadiums in the early Nineties but the architectural period to which it belongs has aged so badly I struggle to think of any other club of our stature that would have allowed the stand to remain for anywhere near this period of time. Everton maybe but, as we know, their move is imminent.

Where I'm conflicted is that while I absolutely believe the North stand is long past its use by date, I have little to no faith that I will like any replacement for it because of a universal lack of lasting modern architectural work. Everything seems to be built for easy convenience at the cheapest cost possible.

I did not like the plans for the North stand and I'm glad that the plans were paused for that reason. If our name and crest had been removed from the plans nobody would be able to guess the work had been done for Aston Villa and Villa Park.

I would just like an Architect to design something that can be unique to Villa and still looked upon fondly in 100 years rather than a design with half of its frontage consisting of glass forcing me to think its Anfield 2.0 rather than a modern representation of what most people believe to be iconic Villa Park.

1 hour ago, MaVilla said:

amazing isnt it.

The Romans built the Colosseum.

All went a bit downhill from there didnt it, and we ended up with some.......stands.

I really struggle with most modern architecture as I don't believe anything is constructed with any permanence in mind anymore. 

The old Trinity would have been looked upon fondly if it had stood for another 200 years while the current North, Trinity Road and Witton Lane stands are all in various levels of poor quality, and in the Trinitys case, less than 25 years after construction.

The plans for the new North stand were no different as cost clearly played a part and any permanency did not. In 30 years we'll all be hoping that will be demolished too.

3 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

I think that is slightly unfair on Doug. We have ended up with a serviceable stadium since the 90s development, albeit with some opportunities missed.  The alternative would have been a completely unfit-for-purpose stadium like what Hillsborough has become or Goodison which is soon to be bulldozed. The 90s was a completely different era with far less money in the game.

People do bemoan the loss of the trinity but by all accounts, it was falling apart and had to go. We could have done a much more sympathetic rebuild,, and it seemed a bit odd that we didn't  when compared what we did to the Holte, but what has happened has happened.

The general opinion for most away fans is that Villa Park is still a classic ground even if we have messes around with it a bit.

I do respect your kinder outlook on the Ellis era changes to the stadium and I am grateful that the club had remained in the same location but I don't agree that the old Trinity was falling down. The manner in which the club went about its demolition was covered in so much denial, broken promises and lies that I detest those involved. A more thoughtful Ibrox style redevelopment was never on their agenda as this would have increased the cost and they were looking to spend the absolute minimum that they could get away with. The result being the mess that is the current Trinity.

I think the classic ground comment often comes about due to the fact that decades of underperformance from Villa has resulted in the Super league 6 gaining more than their fair share of favourable results against us. FA Cup semi finals and the unique exterior of the old Trinity and now the Holte End plays its part in that too though as they gave it that an old stadium feel.

19 minutes ago, Villa_Vids said:

Isn't that the beauty of VP though? It started as a blank canvas that has been built in phases over 150 years. We have speculated about a new stadium and the opportunities it could bring to the club, but the more I see and read about VP the more I think we will lose our soul moving. I hope when the club does redevelop that the whole local community and fans can benefit from the changes.

 

 

Not for me and at the time, not for Ellis either.

Redevelopment was forced upon many clubs in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster and the Taylor report. This is why so many clubs changed stadiums in the Nineties (Eg. Sunderland, Coventry, Middlesbrough and Derby) and why most were redevelopment in some manner.

Villa unfortunately were ran by a man with no care for how the stadium looked as long as it meant as few pennies as possible were spent.

And Ansell's (Financial Director in early 2000's) quote at the time went as follows: 'You can't expect a business, particularly in the service industry, to offer the sort of facilities that are required today in a 76 year old building".

Ellis had many priorities but offering Villa fans value for money was never one of them. Being forward thinking was not his forte either.

Appropriate though that that quote is valid now for two of our current stands. But the advantage is I believe that now we have two far more advanced thinkers in Sawiris and Edens as our Clubs owners.

33 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

There has never been a holistic plan for villa park. That’s the entire problem.

We have a bastardized trinity that replaced the most beautiful stand in the history of football, we have a dual tier holte that bears no resemblance to its previous single stand glory. We have a north stand that is quite frankly rotting and the Doug Ellis is an abomination purely for its name. 
 

100% agree with Dakota on this. Villa park has been irreparably damaged by the Ellis era.

But what it still has in its favour is that it is in the same location that all our fellow Villa fans have made the journey to for over 100 years.

11 minutes ago, PeterSw said:

Good to see this. Hopefully reduce the traffic chaos outside the ground on matchdays

 

I agree but if Kaine Kesler Hayden is having to thumb a lift I worry about cost cutting in other areas!

4 minutes ago, Villa_Vids said:

We are the top club in the West Midlands.

As we have been for most seasons in our history. I don't think that is enough for our owners. They will want to be one of the best in the world.

I really do hope that Sawiris and Edens have ideas for Villa park that far exceed what was previously put forward as in a similar way to how Politicians concern themselves with what their legacy will be, the same can be said with owners of Football clubs.

McGregors legacy was the Football league and its most successful club.

Rinders legacy was the Old Trinity Road stand.

Ellis legacy was decades of underperformance, unspeakable vandalism and the current standard of Villa Park.

Unfortunately Lerners legacy was one of wasted funding and eventual neglect (Although I will always be thankful for his redevelopment o the Holte End and Holte hotel).

Sawiris and Edens, who have mirrored Manchester City's owners on a number of endeavours, could possibly regenerate the Aston area  in a similar manner. It depends on what they would like their legacy to be.

25 minutes ago, thabucks said:

 we are not in Aston but Witton … 

Right next to Witton Hall, The Witton Tavern and The Witton Expressway! 

As much I enjoy reading this thread for opinions that differ from my own, I am yet to read one that can convince me that Villa's stadium doesn't belong exactly where it is right now.

Does it need redeveloping? Yes. I'd even go as far as to say I dislike 3 of it's stands. But it's location isn't the problem. I'm just more than aware that a move will give me infinite things that I'm likely to despise even more than the stadium as it is right now.

At some point change will happen with Villa Park as I believe the owners will not allow us to be left behind any club after working so quickly to turn us into a club capable of challenging the established top 6. When that change happens or in what guise, whether it be redevelopment or a new location, only time will tell.

I guess different individuals will push for their own preferences. Purslow seemed very keen for redevelopment for the European Championships while Heck, I hope has more ambitious reasons to "pause" the plans. From what I've heard from Wes Edens regarding Villa Park is that he considers it our home in a similar manner that Fenway Park is for the Boston Red Sox.

I'm still glad that the option was taken to put it on hold but purely because I think the designs could have been better. I can't help but feel that there was a complete lack of imagination or thought given to our unique heritage when compared to the planned redevelopment of Selhurst Park which appears to be a design unique to Crystal Palace but one absolutely designed in the 21st century.

I don't know. We wait years to have a state of the art inner city academy 500 yards from our stadium ...

... And then we start discussing moving to a new stadium built miles from that academy!

If Quinn does go on to make 100+ appearances for Villa then the references to Gabby on these first two pages will certainly remain an unexpected start to his thread!

Never Change Villa Talk!

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

Remember when Ellis knocked that down and everyone was absolutely horrified because of the amount it had cost to build?

I remain horrified because even though it should have been protected, no chairman with any affection for Villa's history or stadium architecture in general should have allowed that change to happen, let alone for something akin to it's replacement.

For me, the red brickwork, stained glass and mosaics made Villa Park unique. Ellis turned it into just another stadium and in the case of the new Trinity, worse than many others. 

I visited Ibrox in September last year and couldn't help but be envious at the preservation of the Bill Struth Stand. Leg room is almost non existent but I can forgive that when I feel that I'm sat in such a historic stand.

15 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Exactly this - and in addition to exactly this, what if at the same time this was happening, the cost of building the new stand went up enormously and the number of contractors available to do it dwindled?

I think this has been pinched from both ends to the point where it was no longer viable. 

The great Frederick Rinder quote came into my head when I read this. Copied with some backstory for anyone unaware of it.

He led the club with an iron will until his resignation in 1925, when he stepped down largely due to the criticism he received for the cost of the new Trinity Road Stand, which had spiralled to nearly £65,000 (at a time when the country's costliest player cost £5,000). However, Rinder's view was that nothing but the very best was good enough for Aston Villa with its stained glass, Italian mosaics and grand frontage. He said:

"Finance is important, but we should never forget that we are not talking about a mere business. This is the Aston Villa football club, and it deserves nothing short of the best".

3 hours ago, Tayls said:

I’d have us move the stadium without hesitation… 

If we can reconstruct some of the core foundations which gives Villa Park the appearance that it has - ie, the Holte end, then where it is makes no odds to me. If location means better transport links, larger capacity and all sorts of other stuff, then, that’s what needs to happen. 

Im guessing this isn’t in the thinking at all though, and neither is increasing capacity of the current stadium. GLOBAL REVENUE STREAMS are the buzz words for the foreseeable. 

If a new stadium was to be built elsewhere an Architect would be given a clean slate based around wherever that new location is. It would bear no resemblance whatsoever to what The Holte end looks like now. Nor should it.

The Holte End was designed as it was to accompany the old Trinity Road Stand and the Old Trinity Road Stand was designed as it was to represent it's proximity to Aston Hall.

Any designs belong to the locations in which they are situated.

(It's just Cheapskate Owners that create eyesores by refusing to hire architects!)

I haven't seen much of Rogers, but if he joins I hope this move proves to be a great deal. It does make me question FFP even more than I already do, though.

Trust Unai completely but there does seems to be an incentive for Clubs to sell their best academy graduates for profit just to help their accounts.

Does anyone know how Rogers compares to Aaron Ramsey and why, if similar in playing style, Rogers would be a preferred squad member?

23 hours ago, maqroll said:

It doesn't have to be about statistics, or trophies or awards or length of service or degree of talent (but it all helps). It can also be intangible things that you think are important to a player's legacy at Aston Villa Football Club.

My list in no particular order:

Paul McGrath

Gareth Barry

Ian Taylor

Jack Grealish

Dean Saunders

Gabriel Agbonlahor

Emi Martinez

Dwight Yorke

Mark Bosnich

Olaf Mellberg

A lot of others right on the bubble, but I had to make some hard choices. I have 10 more who could be on the second team..

 

 

 

I will never believe that Gabby Agbonlahor belongs anywhere near the other players on your list. For me, his lack of professionalism (To put it mildly) played a massive part in the 2016 relegation and he spent far too many years at the club without making a single positive contribution.

My choices though are for the Premier League Era; Jack Grealish. The single most important contributor to our 2019 promotion and the same again for the 2020 Great escape. Then of course there is the £100m cheque to help keep the FFP Cronies at bay. And for all time: Sid. Our greatest player in our greatest team. He should be mentioned alongside the greats of any football club.

I don't mean to alarm anyone but there is a possibility that the Gold lion will only exist for the 150th anniversary year and then revert back to Yellow!