Jump to content

Villa Park redevelopment


Phumfeinz

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

It’s not going ahead now because we aren’t selling out enough games . Seems the season ticket waiting list is a myth .

I pretty much agree with this, but was speaking to Roger whose 98-year-old dad lives near to us yesterday and he says he’s been on the waiting list now for four years and has given up because he never went anywhere forward on it. I think the truth is probably somewhere in between, I think we could find another 10 to 12,000 season ticket holders, 6000 seats available every match day to members and nonmembers and probably 4000 to away fans 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Villa park is being turned into a bowl then! 

"A strong reasoning given for the change in redevelopment plans is that Villa Park is not selling out. Average 200 unsold for Premier League games, and no sell outs for European games."

 

 

 

Edited by Pongo Waring
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they talked about the stadium bowl, they mean the existing stadium bowl - they're not talking about creating a bowl seating shape like Leicester/Boro/Southampton - Villa Park doesn't have the right stand layout to do that. The 'Stadium bowl' is just a generic way to refer to the seating arrangement.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regards to the season ticket waiting list many will probably have signed up when prices were reasonable.

They have increased a lot in the last 2 seasons and match day prices too.

Heck will just see it as numbers and squeeze prices to get what he could from 50000 seats out of 42000.  

Worrying times Birmingham is not London and not full of the tourist dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deeply depressing turn of events, far worse than the recent results on the pitch. I am still finding it hard to process that the north stand has been binned off given the huge amount of work on it in the last few years, hiring consultants, architects, etc. If Heck opposed it as soon as he walked into Villa then why on earth did we put in a revised application?

I am very skeptical of any talk of shoe-horning additional capacity in the current stands. Has any work been done on this? Would it be cost-effective? Why have concerns about closing one stand for 2 years and then disrupting possibly all of the lower tiers at the ground? How is it going to work to have more people in the same-sized concourses?

I have concluded nothing will happen apart from a significant ticket price increase and skin deep cosmetic work around the ground. We were sold a vision which they have all but given up on. Does that reflect NWSE's short-term view of their ownership of the club?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like they are favouring the footballing side over the new north stand. Possibly backing Emery in the short term? Does it help us with FFP? If it is for those reasons I could understand pausing the rebuild but I don't fully trust Heck and Hatton yet. The communication is terrible.

Edited by Villa_Vids
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Villa_Vids said:

It seems like they are favouring the footballing side over the new north stand. Possibly backing Emery in the short term? Does it help us with FFP? If it is for those reasons I could understand pausing the rebuild but I don't fully trust Heck and Hatton yet. The communication is terrible.

Spending on stadiums and any other infrastructure doesn’t count towards FFP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Villa_Vids said:

It seems like they are favouring the footballing side over the new north stand. Possibly backing Emery in the short term? Does it help us with FFP? If it is for those reasons I could understand pausing the rebuild but I don't fully trust Heck and Hatton yet. The communication is terrible.

Perhaps they are thinking if we qualify for the Champs League this season, the revenue will go up and we can use the additional money to fund the North Stand further down the line.

Either that or they are waiting until the end of next season when Emery wins the Champs League so that they can rebuild and rename the North Stand after King Unai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cheltenham_villa said:

Interest on any loans towards funding does though I believe. That's one of the things that caught Everton out. 

The club doesn’t even own the stadium, I don’t see how we could incur any costs for upgrading it towards FFP, even interest on loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The Fun Factory said:

Deeply depressing turn of events, far worse than the recent results on the pitch. I am still finding it hard to process that the north stand has been binned off given the huge amount of work on it in the last few years, hiring consultants, architects, etc. If Heck opposed it as soon as he walked into Villa then why on earth did we put in a revised application?

I am very skeptical of any talk of shoe-horning additional capacity in the current stands. Has any work been done on this? Would it be cost-effective? Why have concerns about closing one stand for 2 years and then disrupting possibly all of the lower tiers at the ground? How is it going to work to have more people in the same-sized concourses?

I have concluded nothing will happen apart from a significant ticket price increase and skin deep cosmetic work around the ground. We were sold a vision which they have all but given up on. Does that reflect NWSE's short-term view of their ownership of the club?

100% agree with this. While I have to admit I was never the biggest admirer of the plans (It is an obvious improvement on the Trinity, Witton Lane and current North stands but I didn't think it had anything uniquely Villa about it, lacked character and bared too much of a resemblance to Anfield) I do think the way it's been handled by not just Heck but the Club has been awful. Like you say; How does the Club go through the process of hiring Architects under one CEO to scrapping the plans under another. It almost appears as if such important decisions rest solely on the whims of one CEO rather than a plan put forward by the Owners that any CEO would try to deliver.

If only it had been this difficult to get the old Trinity demolished!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by fruitvilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

The club doesn’t even own the stadium, I don’t see how we could incur any costs for upgrading it towards FFP, even interest on loans.

Yeah, I don't know how many times it needs to be stated that stadium development falls outside of FFP for people to get the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sidcow said:

Yeah, I don't know how many times it needs to be stated that stadium development falls outside of FFP for people to get the point. 

In fairness this was a special case of interest on loans for stadium work. But our club wouldn't be paying for any stadium work anyway, let alone paying interest on loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

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.

Why 5 years? It almost certainly won't pay off after 5 years. I doubt any stadium development ever has paid off in 5 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Why 5 years? It almost certainly won't pay off after 5 years. I doubt any stadium development ever has paid off in 5 years. 

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.

Edited by fruitvilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â