Villa Park redevelopment

[rubberman]

Thinking about this a bit, we've seen how new stadia in particular (but equally any massive infrastructure project) has really impacted big clubs in what they can do on the pitch. Arsenal, Spurs, Everton have all had to reign in spending on players while they were ongoing. With us potentially breaking into the CL clique, perhaps they don't want to have any other financial distractions. For all our owners wealth there are going to be limits to investment at any one time. Focus on the pitch and supporting Unai and get ourselves firmly established back at the top end, then move onto the stadium in a few years. 

[Sulberto21]

Or maybe we’re getting primed for a sale……

[villa89]

5 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

It's 100% cancelled. I think it has to be because if we went ahead we wouldn't get to host games at Euro 28 because of lack of improvements to transport links. 

Still, we'll be in 2030s with essentially the same Villa Park. Which is shit 

I don't think it's anything to do with euro 2028. There's no evidence at all to suggest it's related. 

[CVByrne]

1 minute ago, WHY said:

If Doug had pulled a stunt like this there would be uproar. No chance there will be a new stand built anytime soon. Something doesn’t add up, more to this than meets the eye imo. 

I think probably a few factors in it.

1. The lack of any transport links improvement which would be a big risk to us hosting Euro 28 games or rule us out 

2. Financially 8000 extra seats doesn't raise our revenue enough, especially as tickets and march day as a % of overall revenue is shrinking not growing

3 Losing a stand for 2 years is not great for the team and home atmosphere. It would also lose us important income for two seasons when FFP is tight.

4 When looking at the pure numbers to Heck there is room for ticket price increases as Villa are doing well and there is a huge waiting list for season tickets. Also improving the facilities at VP can generate more revenue by having people spend more time at VP. 

You add all these up and you get a list of factors to say, this isn't the right time to knock down a stand. Can go back to drawing board and look at something post 2028 that makes more financial sense. 

[sne]

Feels like a sliding doors moment, Hopefully this isn't the one where we get to see the club being screwed by an American. (I'm a bit iffy about what the plot was in that movie)

Edited December 19, 2023 by sne

[AvonVillain]

31 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

One thing that is often said is how much they like Villa Park, that they see it as a proper stadium. There’s always a tinge of envy in their voices.

Simply no way we can allow a move away from VP. Aston Villa no longer in Aston? What next, change the kit from claret and blue to a 'lucky' red?

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

For people who OBS know better than me.

Is there a way in which, the stadium/stands could be massively improved, without tearing anything down?

How about the filling in corners for example, would that require massive structure work?

I don't think they'll do " nothing ".

At minimum I feel they will want to try and improve the ground and experience for fans, commensurate with obviously trying to get more money from fans 

[nick76]

6 minutes ago, Sulberto21 said:

Or maybe we’re getting primed for a sale……

Nah, I don’t see that here given all other things we see with these owners.

[CVByrne]

Always hard to know how much of the VP improvement was part of Purslow ego. Was surely his idea. Maybe Heck is looking at this with fresh eyes and seeing if it makes financial sense. Maybe Emery has had an input too. We would lose and stand and all those seats for two years during big European nights. 

[Hank Scorpio]

I don't get how they will justify the huge price rises for the next many years for fans having to be in the North stand. It was not great in the 1980s. In 2024 its absolutely shockingly dated.

When they ask me for 20/30% on top to sit in there again next season it will be hard to swallow.

I wouldn't mind a big pay rise to help fund a new stand though. But that isn't happening . Despite wasting millions on consultation to build one. 

Mad.

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

For people who OBS know better than me.

Is there a way in which, the stadium/stands could be massively improved, without tearing anything down?

I guess the important question there is what does "improved" mean.

To me it might mean a spruce up, an improved aesthetic and the addition of some seats wherever we can.

For others it might mean changing 4,000 more seats to GA+ or hospitality by providing space in the warehouse or in temporary structures or within existing spaces in the stands we have and removing some of the people that pay £40 a game to replace them with people that pay £140 a game,

 

[villan-scott]

Bit gutted about them shelving the new North Stand. Sat in VP and visualised it filling that end and was excited at the prospect. Seems that they want increase the capacity more gradually so will make improvements bit by bit. Would have been a magnificent structure and complimented the stadium. Have to wait and see what develops I guess. 

[sidcow]

We're going to fall further and further behind. 

Everton are about to open a much larger stadium with far superior corporate and supporter facilities. 

Leicester are about to expand their stadium to near as damn it the same size at Villa Park and you can guarantee it will have  far superior corporate and supporter facilities. 

I don't buy the travel issues either. 

We've got 2 mainline railway stations on site. One being the cross city line which is a highly intensive service. 

The stations may be needing upgrading but they are there and the trains do run. 

Old Trafford is significantly bigger than Villa Park is planned.  Like 20,000 people plus more. 

They have no mainline railway stations at all.  They have tram but 1 train can carry so many more people. You're going to be looking at 500-600 per train v 150 odd per tram.  You're getting a train every 10 minutes on the cross city in each direction and I don't know how many on the Walsall line at Witton. 

That's massively more than the trams can carry for a significantly larger crowd. 

I'm just not buying the transport issues. 

[OutByEaster?]

10 minutes ago, villa89 said:

I don't think it's anything to do with euro 2028. There's no evidence at all to suggest it's related. 

In terms of whether it's postponed or cancelled I think it matters because I have a feeling the planning permission will have expired by the time the Euros are over and if we can't do it before then, we won't be able to afterwards without resubmitting plans.

[Mark Albrighton]

6 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Always hard to know how much of the VP improvement was part of Purslow ego. Was surely his idea. Maybe Heck is looking at this with fresh eyes and seeing if it makes financial sense. Maybe Emery has had an input too. We would lose and stand and all those seats for two years during big European nights. 

But people have been on about doing something about the North Stand for years. We’ve been crying out for it for as long as I can remember.

Whether or not Purslow has an ego the size of Jupiter, I’m not sure wanting a better North Stand is indicative of that personality trait.

[WHY]

1 minute ago, CVByrne said:

I think probably a few factors in it.

1. The lack of any transport links improvement which would be a big risk to us hosting Euro 28 games or rule us out 

2. Financially 8000 extra seats doesn't raise our revenue enough, especially as tickets and march day as a % of overall revenue is shrinking not growing

3 Losing a stand for 2 years is not great for the team and home atmosphere. It would also lose us important income for two seasons when FFP is tight.

4 When looking at the pure numbers to Heck there is room for ticket price increases as Villa are doing well and there is a huge waiting list for season tickets. Also improving the facilities at VP can generate more revenue by having people spend more time at VP. 

You add all these up and you get a list of factors to say, this isn't the right time to knock down a stand. Can go back to drawing board and look at something post 2028 that makes more financial sense. 

So we are never going to upgrade Villa Park based on the above. There is never a good time to knock a stand down.
 

Using the success on the pitch to massively back track on their plans. Don’t even get me started on the joke of a logo.
 

Not having a go at you btw,. I have a bad feeling about all this, that’s all. 

[tomav84]

9 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Always hard to know how much of the VP improvement was part of Purslow ego. Was surely his idea. Maybe Heck is looking at this with fresh eyes and seeing if it makes financial sense. Maybe Emery has had an input too. We would lose and stand and all those seats for two years during big European nights. 

the last 3 owners including the current ones have all talked about redeveloping the north stand. what a bizarre comment

[Hank Scorpio]

1 hour ago, DJBOB said:

I think that's the logical way out from a purely business perspective.

• Make UCL, raise ST
• Upgrade/fix current facilities
• Big push in social media/digital marketing especially outside of the country
• Even more GA+ offerings
• Cheap Warehouse and store expansion reno (even more GA+ for pre-game and post-game)
• Make UCL again for the 2024-2025 season
• 2025 - begin North Stand reno

You're getting brand players now (Emi, Watkins, McGinn) - imagine the lift off if we get anywhere deep in the UCL.

 

That's fine but what happens if this season goes wrong and we don't make CL now? It's insanely short sighted.

Unless the costs are the factor I don't get it at all. And also does Mr Heck think construction costs will drop? They won't.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Hank Scorpio

[CVByrne]

8 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I guess the important question there is what does "improved" mean.

To me it might mean a spruce up, an improved aesthetic and the addition of some seats wherever we can.

For others it might mean changing 4,000 more seats to GA+ or hospitality by providing space in the warehouse or in temporary structures or within existing spaces in the stands we have and removing some of the people that pay £40 a game to replace them with people that pay £140 a game,

 

We could follow what Liverpool did and build around and above the existing stand and keeping it operational. There are a lot of things that can be done to improve match day experience and increase the stadium capacity. 

The increase in average ticket prices is going to be inevitable and they'll take advantage of the on field performances to do so. 

[El Segundo]

Heck has already shown that any decisions he makes will be based purely on commercial factors.  He's obviously been given the mandate to increase and maximise revenue and any sense of tradition, history, or feel for the club and the fans appears to be irrelevant.  See plonking a couple of shitty corporate hospitality features in the middle of the end where the more passionate and voiciferous "old school" fans congregate.  Personally I wish we'd kept Purslow.

I don't buy the transport and infrastructure argument, I reckon it's a smokescreen/excuse.   All that should and would have been covered in the project scoping and proposals which were accepted.  And as others have said VP has dealt with much bigger crowds than 50,000 in the past, and other stadia in similar urban settings manage ok too.  Frankly it reeks of bullshit. I also don't buy that  doubts over whether the waiting list is sustainable is a reason.  I don't recall West Ham having a massive ticket waiting list when their capacity was about 32000, but since their capacity increased to 50,000 + they've pretty much filled it every game.  Similar happened in jawdeeland in the 90s.  If you build it they will come.   

My guess is Heck is taking a punt on raising ticket costs as much as he can to increase revenue in the short term, and test just how strong demand really is.  If it holds up, maybe we'll expand, or more likely he'll push for a new stadium. If the former, we'll lose revenue for a season or two at a later date and it's just kicking the can down the road.  Which is why I think he'll push for the latter.  Part of me wishes he'd just **** off, but part of me thinks maybe this is the only way we'll get to compete at the top table in the longer term.