blandy Posted January 4 Moderator Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, Risso said: Revenue, you say. I've got an idea, let's take our oldest and smallest stand, and then increase it in size so we've got an extra 10,000 fans in the ground. The problem, from his perspective with that, is that it decreases revenue while you're taking 2 years doing it. And at precisely the time we're hoping to be competing in Yurp and trying to attract better, higher paid players to make that competing in Yurp successful, which means FFP gets in the way - you can't offer better wages on lower revenues in the short term. Get established in Yurp and increase Euro TV income etc. and perhaps also increased existing stand capacity, and then do it. The transition in Europe FFP rules from 90 - 80 - 70% of income, over the next 3 years, on player expenditure combined with being "new" as a club to modern European competition means delaying the North Stand rebuild probably makes sense from Heck and the owner's perspective. Yes, his communication and apparent people skills are somewhat lacking, looking from the outside, anyway, but there is a logic if you look at it dispassionately (which is his job). 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 (edited) 13 minutes ago, blandy said: The problem, from his perspective with that, is that it decreases revenue while you're taking 2 years doing it. And at precisely the time we're hoping to be competing in Yurp and trying to attract better, higher paid players to make that competing in Yurp successful, which means FFP gets in the way - you can't offer better wages on lower revenues in the short term. Get established in Yurp and increase Euro TV income etc. and perhaps also increased existing stand capacity, and then do it. The transition in Europe FFP rules from 90 - 80 - 70% of income, over the next 3 years, on player expenditure combined with being "new" as a club to modern European competition means delaying the North Stand rebuild probably makes sense from Heck and the owner's perspective. Yes, his communication and apparent people skills are somewhat lacking, looking from the outside, anyway, but there is a logic if you look at it dispassionately (which is his job). I think this is bang on the money, the only viable solution is to build a completely new stadium during the period and move into that when completed to get the instant uplift. But apparently this is something that is not on the cards. So 42,000 it will be for the foreseeable. Was rather looking forward to getting 50,000 attendances again as the last one was almost 50 years ago. God I feel old Edited January 4 by Follyfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Scorpio Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, Risso said: Revenue, you say. I've got an idea, let's take our oldest and smallest stand, and then increase it in size so we've got an extra 10,000 fans in the ground. It seems so simple. Actually no, lets shoehorn in an extra 3k seats into an existing structure that can't cope with the current capacity, and charge the marks more money for the pleasure. Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 9 minutes ago, HeyAnty said: we need to stop letting our hearts rule our head here. Get established in top 6/4, for a couple of years then visit the building of the new stand. To become established we need revenue and atmosphere. Something that would be totally hampered if we start replacing now. Am I the only person that can remember us doing just fine while the Holte, Witton and Trinity were all being rebuild mid season?! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 hours ago, sidcow said: You're missing the point. If this is the case, fine, then tell us. It's the insulting clear bullshit explanation given along with the muddled way it was delivered that has got people riled. We're (mainly) intelligent grown ups and don't appreciate the lies. We expect some respect and honesty surrounding OUR club from a club employee. I would guess there was not just one factor but a number. The outlay and reduced revenue for a number of years becoming a millstone right when we are pushing the boat out to establish ourselves as a champions league club could well have been a genuine reason. The increase in costs of construction making it an even bigger millstone might have made the decision a no brainier. There seems to be a lot of frustration because our shiny new stand has been taken away from us and Heck is copping the brunt but there is the possibility that it is the correct decision for this moment based on whatever financial assessment they have made. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, blandy said: The problem, from his perspective with that, is that it decreases revenue while you're taking 2 years doing it. And at precisely the time we're hoping to be competing in Yurp and trying to attract better, higher paid players to make that competing in Yurp successful, which means FFP gets in the way - you can't offer better wages on lower revenues in the short term. Get established in Yurp and increase Euro TV income etc. and perhaps also increased existing stand capacity, and then do it. The transition in Europe FFP rules from 90 - 80 - 70% of income, over the next 3 years, on player expenditure combined with being "new" as a club to modern European competition means delaying the North Stand rebuild probably makes sense from Heck and the owner's perspective. Yes, his communication and apparent people skills are somewhat lacking, looking from the outside, anyway, but there is a logic if you look at it dispassionately (which is his job). Like all investments, there's never a perfect time to do it, but the sooner you commit to it, the sooner you start to see the benefits. The FFP rules were updated last year, and allowances are made for anything that improves the facilities at a club. So for example, knocking a stand down would mean less income obviously. The loss of this income would be allowed in the FFP calculations. So effectively, the calculations would still be made as if the stand were still there, which wouldn't alter the ability to bring in new players etc. Other than that, the majority of the increased income from being in the Champions League comes from commercial sources, and wouldn't be affected by not having the North Stand there at all. Sorry Pete, it makes no sense at all. Villa Park isn't big enough, and the longer we take to make it bigger, the more and more we'll fall behind in revenue terms. In 2026 we could have a 50,000+ stadium, with enhanced facilities and a much better corporate offering, and we'd be bringing in millions more a year. Now we won't, and we're stuck with an eyesore of a stand with terrible facilities. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 4 Moderator Share Posted January 4 It's interesting to see people talk about the lost revenues while the North Stand is out of action. The reason they want to knock it down is because it doesn't deliver revenues - the hospitality offer is extremely limited, the capacity is too small and the seating and concourses aren't really commensurate with increasing prices for a better yield. I would be surprised if more than 10% of our matchday revenues are generated out of the North Stand. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: 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. Why are Liverpool, Everton, West Ham etc all expanding or looking for bigger stadium? Utter nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, est1874 said: Oh sorry, shame on the fans for wanting to be able to readily get a hold of tickets to every game, shame on the people who've been sat on the waiting list for ages for wanting to become season-ticket holders. Is club revenue and FFP really all that you can see? Wtf is the point in becoming a Champions League club if we don't have the capacity for the average fan to be able to see those games in the flesh? What's the point indeed if fans won't want to afford watching the game at Villa Park? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 4 Moderator Share Posted January 4 8 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: This sort of logic, I have never seen it applied before. It didn't stop us expanding in the past or, for example, Liverpool recently expanding. It's a different situation. Heck (I assume) is aware that Liverpool built their stands while leaving the previous ones in place, pretty much - for the Anfield Road and Main stand. Villa can't do that with the NS. Older stand demolitions and rebuilds were before FFP, and generally were much faster than a 2 year timeframe. The Holte was down and People (including me) were back in it for the first game of the next season after it was knocked down in the summer. Albeit it had no roof, no reserved seats and no upper tier, but people were in it within weeks of the old one being gone. So none of that affects Heck. It's not relevant to what he and NSWE decide to do. It's clear the owners were on board with the New North stand 6 months ago. So really it does look like a Heck "review" has spread some doubt in their minds. It's not (formally) cancelled, and because it absolutely needs doing, it will happen at some point, but maybe Heck departing, maybe different economic outlook generally, maybe lower material prices...something will eventually trigger it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Question one day will be is it worth getting best part of a billion pounds in debt for a nice new shiny multi use stadium, Vs upgrading a compromised limited Villa Park location…. We’d still be lagging behind London teams regardless due to the prices they can achieve and with interest rates and lack of suitable locations inner city I sadly cannot see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 6 minutes ago, thabucks said: Question one day will be is it worth getting best part of a billion pounds in debt for a nice new shiny multi use stadium, Vs upgrading a compromised limited Villa Park location…. We’d still be lagging behind London teams regardless due to the prices they can achieve and with interest rates and lack of suitable locations inner city I sadly cannot see it happening. Interest and inflation might drop maybe another percent or so but not much, but there's no way materials will get cheaper, just can't see that happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 9 hours ago, Stevo985 said: a need to maximise revenues 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, fruitvilla said: 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. You are being somewhat kind of calling it an old stand. It was a grass bank with some terracing on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 4 hours ago, blandy said: You miss the point about wages as a percentage of turnover required by UEFA to reduce down to an allowable 70% from currently 90%. This takes no account of ground building, lost income from a demolished stand or much else. And it's that which is (I think) the catch. I'm not talking about domestic P&S rules, but the UEFA ones, as they're not (yet) aligned. If (and I'm sure they do) the board and Heck want to compete viably in Europe, then that means wages to turnover being no more than 70%. If you reduce turnover by several millions a season for 2 seasons then you have to reduce wages, too. And that's on top of having to reduce the percentage spent on wages from a currently allowed 90%, to 70% by 25/26 season. Look, I agree with you that we've desperately needed the stand replacing and a larger capacity for a long time, and I don't like that they've sacked off doing that, or that the communication has been truly abysmal. Or that Heck in particular seems to fail to understand the nature of involvement fans have in the UK, or any apparent aptitude for being "open" - he appears to be a kind of "I'm doing what I'm doing, I'm not explaining and I'm not listening" kind of bloke. But put yourself in his shoes and there is a logic to it (even if I don't agree with his decision). There are provisions in the UEFA FFP regulations to apply for a voluntary agreement. If this was as a result of having reduced income for two years because of knocking down a stand, I can't see that there's any way that that's not going to be agreed to. So if all other being equal, we'd only breach their break even regs because we were without the 6,000 seats in the Noth, they'd accept this if the future cash flow projections showed that we'd be back well into credit when the stand was finished in two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 5 Moderator Share Posted January 5 10 hours ago, Risso said: There are provisions in the UEFA FFP regulations to apply for a voluntary agreement I’ve read them and couldn’t find such a provision relating to squad costs. Might have missed it, mind. But regardless, if Heck actually explained the thinking and reasoning behind decisions he’s taken, we’d all be a lot wiser. I doubt the man’s an idiot and cancelling/postponing a major project is a big decision. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 14 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said: Why are Liverpool, Everton, West Ham etc all expanding or looking for bigger stadium? Utter nonsense! Everton are a shambles and not a model for us to follow. Liverpool are staying at Anfield so I don't get what that reference is for. It's news to me West Ham are looking for a bigger stadium. I think you've just made that up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) 11 minutes ago, CVByrne said: Everton are a shambles and not a model for us to follow. Liverpool are staying at Anfield so I don't get what that reference is for. It's news to me West Ham are looking for a bigger stadium. I think you've just made that up. OK smarty pants West Ham had a smaller stadium than us all down the decades and since they moved have had a bigger stadium. And Liverpool have expanded Anfield by rebuilding two stands. Are you for real? What a weird post. Villa Park for the guts of 100 years was one of the best grounds, hosting the most FA Cup Semi finals etc. The custodians of the club have failed it in the past 20 years. Edited January 5 by Captain_Townsend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 5 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: OK smarty pants West Ham had a smaller stadium than us all down the decades and since they moved have had a bigger stadium. And Liverpool have expanded Anfield by rebuilding two stands. Are you for real? What a weird post. Villa Park for the guts of 100 years was one of the best grounds, hosting the most FA Cup Semi finals etc. The custodians of the club have failed it in the past 20 years. West Ham had a gift given to them. The opportunity wasn't of their doing, they didn't pay a cent to build the stadium it was the London Olympics. They were then given it for essentially free on a tiny rent. Liverpool expanded Anfield and never knocked down the stand. It was open the entire time it was being expanded. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 8 minutes ago, CVByrne said: West Ham had a gift given to them. The opportunity wasn't of their doing, they didn't pay a cent to build the stadium it was the London Olympics. They were then given it for essentially free on a tiny rent. Liverpool expanded Anfield and never knocked down the stand. It was open the entire time it was being expanded. Leicester have plans to expand. Wolves have expanded in the last decade or so. Clubs always want to expand and grow if they can. Get more restaurants and corporate in so they can male more on a match day But good old post 2001 Aston Villa should never expand because we don't want to invest in our future. Instead we slwant to save a few pounds today! I get you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts