Chindie Posted January 23 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23 And anyone looking around Villa Park can see that, as things stand, you can't magic 3000 seats into it by rejigging layouts. If you could, we'd have done it already. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 8 minutes ago, Chindie said: And anyone looking around Villa Park can see that, as things stand, you can't magic 3000 seats into it by rejigging layouts. If you could, we'd have done it already. Would we? When? Doug would have gone for the cheapest option available and then still moaned about the price. Maybe at the start of Lerner's reign there was scope for doing something - but when the wheels starting coming off there was no way he'd have funded development of the ground. Xia couldn't pay the tax bill let alone invest in the stadium and to be fair NSWE's priority to date has been to get the football team back on its feet. Also just because something hasn't been done already doesn't mean that it is a bad idea - it might but there are also countless examples of where people have ignored the "if it could have been done it would have been" and invented something that has changed the world. That said trying to add 3,000 seats makes little sense to me when you consider that really we need to be getting attendances of 60,000 to be able to compete (revenue wise) with the teams around us (league table not geography). Increasing our capacity to 50,000 would still leave us with the 8th largest ground in the PL (9th after Everton move?). It seems like we'd be spending a lot of money to effectively stand still (yes, we'd be earning 25% more per season but we'd still be committing to be 15% or so behind our closest rivals - based just on seats available rather than price per seat). So I do think we should be taking stock and really thinking about: (a) how important is match day revenue (I think a comparison between the money Spurs earned last season and the amount we earned makes that pretty obvious) (b) what capacity do we think a club like Villa could sustain (season ticket waiting list gives an indication of this) (c) how can we increase our capacity by almost 50% so that we are at least on a par with Spurs, West Ham, Liverpool and Arsenal. Bearing in mind that three of them have pretty new stadium and so won't be expanding any time soon. Given the importance of this then I really don't see much point in spending a lot of money re-developing one stand unless it is part of a wider plan to get the capacity up towards 60,000. At least we should be pausing and taking another look at this. I have to say that I did like much of the proposed redevelopment but it does kind of feel like maybe we weren't being ambitious enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 23 Moderator Share Posted January 23 18 minutes ago, allani said: (a) how important is match day revenue (I think a comparison between the money Spurs earned last season and the amount we earned makes that pretty obvious) I think they've looked at this, held it up against the spiralling cost of construction and the dearth of experienced, available contractors and thought, this isn't worth doing right now. The gains we make in revenue don't add up against the cost and our ability to get it done this side of the Euros, and we can close the gap more effectively in other areas. I think there's a difference between match day revenue and attendance and that's where Heck will most likely be looking to work - in increasing the yield from what we've already got. I don't think we've stopped because we're 'more ambitious' in terms of the stadium, I think we've stopped because our ambitions are focused on other things. As @HanoiVillan said though, Mr Heck's odd way of communicating things means we really have no idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen_Evans Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 35 minutes ago, allani said: Would we? When? Doug would have gone for the cheapest option available and then still moaned about the price. Doug’s legacy is the real problem here. It always used to aggravate me when uninformed media would tell us what a great job he had done of redeveloping Villa Park. He made a pig’s ear of it. After the Taylor report, a generously costed masterplan incorporating our most iconic asset (the old Trinity) would have seen us with an historic and beautiful stadium which was large enough. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: I don't think we've stopped because we're 'more ambitious' in terms of the stadium, I think we've stopped because our ambitions are focused on other things I suspect we stopped because it does not make financial sense at this time. A back of the envelope calculation comes to about 13 000 pounds a seat for increasing the capacity to 50 000. This assumes a100 million rebuild and 5% for the cost of capital. There are probably more efficient ways of increasing profitability. Also a lot of people are focused on increasing 'revenue' which is laudable especially from an ffp point of view. But profitability of the project may well be the focus of the owners. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiezels Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Step dad plays golf with someone at a firm that were approached to do the job and the construction firm didnt want the project. Might not be enough firms willing to even take on the project for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Just watched the UTV podcast on finances and Villa. Confirmed my gut reaction that cancelling the stadium expansion was really short sighted unless there is something else in the works. And having listened to the difference in revenues between the big six and us, I've come to the very sober realisation that if we want to challenge for the top 6 consistently we are going to have to massively increase our revenue and that has to mean moving from VIlla Park to a new 60000 stadium. I get the arguments about history but football is moving into a new era and to have a seat at the table we are going to have to change. Only my uneducated opinion, but I see no other way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: I think they've looked at this, held it up against the spiralling cost of construction and the dearth of experienced, available contractors and thought, this isn't worth doing right now. The gains we make in revenue don't add up against the cost and our ability to get it done this side of the Euros, and we can close the gap more effectively in other areas. I think there's a difference between match day revenue and attendance and that's where Heck will most likely be looking to work - in increasing the yield from what we've already got. I don't think we've stopped because we're 'more ambitious' in terms of the stadium, I think we've stopped because our ambitions are focused on other things. As @HanoiVillan said though, Mr Heck's odd way of communicating things means we really have no idea. I think there are lots of short-term elements that come into play around the decision to stop the redevelopment. Partly it is that there are lower hanging fruit where we can consideraby improve our revenue with little or no expense. Partly I do think that the tightening of the FFP rules (especially in Europe) means that this isn't an ideal time for a huge expenditure (especially taking Everton into consideration). 2 years ago we probably were not quite so concerned about the UEFA rules but now we'd be idiots to risk getting ourselves banned from Europe. However, I would be very surprised if we aren't also looking at the slightly longer term angle. A costly redevelopment now doesn't make a whole heap of sense if we can't get to the 60,000 number - especially when you factor in that more people will be able to spend more money in London than in Birmingham - it will be a really tough sell to have higher prices here than at Spurs or Arsenal (unless we are getting to the semi-finals of the CL). So ultimately match day revenues will need to be looked at. I do think the comms have been poor and haven't helped quell some of the speculation. Although at the same time it's not necessarily that easy either. People have a habit of taking something that's been said and turning it into a monster (see comments about Heck saying that there would be news on the badge in the coming weeks and people already "beating him up" over the fact that we are now 5 weeks down the road and there has been no announcement so he must either have been lying or there's some kind of issue following the "leak" of the new design). I mean if they had said we think we can raise more revenue quicker through improving our shirt sponsor then people would immediately be speculating on how much and which sponsor and then comparing any deal with all the other clubs in the league. If they say / imply anything then those things will suddenly become gospel truths that are hard to get out of - they could become the next NS redevelopment issue (except worse because you can't use the "we have a different vision to the last guy" card). So sometimes saying nothing is better because the fans are going to speculate anyway and at least this way you are better able to control the dialogue / narrative as and when you get to the point when a firm announcement can be made. For example, there was no talk about raising extra capital at all until we announced that we'd signed contracts with a new minority investor. If we'd mentioned 3 months before that we were looking at finding other investors then there would have been 3 months of speculation about who it might be, how much they were looking for, whether it meant that NSWE were looking to sell or reduce their investment, etc. Most of which the club wouldn't have been able to respond to because it was commercially sensitive / confidential and / or because the exact figures / timescales were also unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 8 minutes ago, Wurzel said: Just watched the UTV podcast on finances and Villa. Confirmed my gut reaction that cancelling the stadium expansion was really short sighted unless there is something else in the works. And having listened to the difference in revenues between the big six and us, I've come to the very sober realisation that if we want to challenge for the top 6 consistently we are going to have to massively increase our revenue and that has to mean moving from VIlla Park to a new 60000 stadium. I get the arguments about history but football is moving into a new era and to have a seat at the table we are going to have to change. Only my uneducated opinion, but I see no other way. I'm not picking on you here - but I think this does perfectly highlight a more general point. Lots of people are very annoyed about the redevelopment being cancelled because we need to hugely increase our revenues in order to compete with Man City (until they get relegated), Liverpool, Man Utd (if they sort themselves out), Chelsea (see Man Utd), Spurs, Arsenal, etc. Some people calling Heck an idiot for cancelling it just because he doesn't like it. But as you say in your second point - there's no point sinking a whole load of expenditure or risk into the equation for something that doesn't (in my opinion) change anything. The extra revenue from the additional seats in the North Stand doesn't get us anywhere near closing the gap on the teams above / around us. There are a whole heap of reasons why maybe 18-24 months ago it looked like the right thing to do and why now it doesn't. Maybe the club should have come out and explained what some of those reasons were - but maybe there are also very good commercial / legal / contractual reasons why they can't. I personally think that the most unlikely reason of all is because a new CEO has been appointed and he just wants to rip up everything that the previous CEO wanted to do. If that is the only / main reason then there's a much more serious problem with the rest of the Board and the owners and they need to go because they are clearly not "fit and proper" to do their jobs. Thankfully I am 95% confident that the Board and the owners are not idiots and so don't need to be replaced . I am sure that they will have demanded and expected to see a detailed business case for the original redevelopment plans and that they will have demanded a detailed explanation as to why either the business case was no longer as strong or that a specific issue had arisen that meant that the plans were no longer feasible before allowing the project to be cancelled. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 34 minutes ago, Wurzel said: Just watched the UTV podcast on finances and Villa. Confirmed my gut reaction that cancelling the stadium expansion was really short sighted unless there is something else in the works. And having listened to the difference in revenues between the big six and us, I've come to the very sober realisation that if we want to challenge for the top 6 consistently we are going to have to massively increase our revenue and that has to mean moving from VIlla Park to a new 60000 stadium. I get the arguments about history but football is moving into a new era and to have a seat at the table we are going to have to change. Only my uneducated opinion, but I see no other way. If they had stuck with plan A we would be half way there in 2026 instead of being nowhere there in 2026. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Just now, Captain_Townsend said: If they had stuck with plan A we would be half way there in 2026 instead of being nowhere there in 2026. Do you have any financial numbers to back this up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 I'd love to know the real reason this was cancelled. You can argue over the finances all you like, but we are hardly ever going to have the revenues of Liverpool, Man U or Man City. Even if we heavily increase our revenues, it's going to have to be with a newly refubished 50-60k stadium, we ain't doing it with 80s ole skool VP at 42k. We need to get with the times and quick, Everton are doing it with there 'new' stadium without hardly any success on the pitch, an their revenues are probably the same if not less than ours, but they are investing in the future of the club, an so should we. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 23 Moderator Share Posted January 23 It's interesting that on the one hand Heck is saying "We're not doing this, we don't sell out" and on the other hand, a good chunk of the fanbase are hearing that as "We're not doing this, it's not big enough for us". That's a big gap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Our historic. Average attendance since 1888 is just over 28’000… Also not so long ago the upper trinity was closed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Interest payments alone would be £50+ mill per season before we even start paying down the actual £1 billion pounds plus it will cost for a new ground … Id love nothing better than a new ground but it’s not gunna happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyjavfc Posted January 23 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23 Still waiting to see what “infrastructure investments” are going to be funded by Atairos now the north stand has been cancelled? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 54 minutes ago, thabucks said: Interest payments alone would be £50+ mill per season before we even start paying down the actual £1 billion pounds plus it will cost for a new ground … Id love nothing better than a new ground but it’s not gunna happen. Yeah ... I agree with this line of reasoning. Initially, it will be +50 million but over the life of the loan it will average out to nearer 25 million a year. And as I think you are suggesting plus we have to pay back the loan itself ... say 25 million a year over a twenty year life. All this for an extra twenty-thousand capacity at a value of say at a value of 20 million a year? The secret is to get a really cheap loan. Should the City of Birmingham tax payers (cf Everton) subsidize the Villa? Not that they are in a position to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, fruitvilla said: Do you have any financial numbers to back this up? Mate, I don't know why you keep picking on me over this issue! Haha It's increasingly obvious that our match day revenue needs to improve and we need more people staying longer at the ground and spending more at the ground whether eating, drinking or shopping. We also need more premium offerings etc. It's very low at the moment and holding us back. Some here think we need a new stadium which is, what, 10 years away? And surely you agree a new stadium is a much, much bigger risk financially. I don't honestly see what's controversial about putting forward the argument that the best solution (and cheaper than a new 1bn spend on a new stadium! ) is to go ahead with the £100m redevelopment of the North Stand with all its premium amd corporate offerings to help us keep pace with peer clubs and bridge some of the gap on revenue generating capacity. To me it is the obvious next step for this club. Edited January 23 by Captain_Townsend 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 17 minutes ago, fruitvilla said: Yeah ... I agree with this line of reasoning. Initially, it will be +50 million but over the life of the loan it will average out to nearer 25 million a year. And as I think you are suggesting plus we have to pay back the loan itself ... say 25 million a year over a twenty year life. All this for an extra twenty-thousand capacity at a value of say at a value of 20 million a year? The secret is to get a really cheap loan. Should the City of Birmingham tax payers (cf Everton) subsidize the Villa? Not that they are in a position to do so. The owners are billionaires, I'm sure they could secure the finance with a cheap loan. As for Heck saying it's now going ahead cause we don't sell out, well that's a load of bollocks. Does he not know with Emery at the helm, an the increased success, there will be no problem in future seasons. I have also tried to get tickets many times this season and been told they are sold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 1 hour ago, foreveryoung said: The owners are billionaires, I'm sure they could secure the finance with a cheap loan. How cheap, and why would anyone lend the owners any money below the market rate? 1 hour ago, Captain_Townsend said: I don't honestly see what's controversial about putting forward the argument that the best solution I don't see any analyses that it is the best solution and even if it is a solution. If the project loses money how is it a solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts