OutByEaster? Posted January 23 Moderator Share Posted January 23 2 hours ago, mikeyjavfc said: Still waiting to see what “infrastructure investments” are going to be funded by Atairos now the north stand has been cancelled? In fairness, those are infrastructure investments in V-Sports - it could be anything from academies in Egypt to a stadium in Vegas. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 2 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said: To me it is the obvious next step for this club. To you maybe but to the highly paid professionals and most importantly our billionaire owners it’s isn’t so obvious… We get you wanted a new stand, but if the numbers don’t add up and I trust the money men with the actual inside knowledge to hand than some random rent a quote journalists or self proclaimed specialists. You don’t seem to appreciate we may have budgets to work within and that other areas of the club could suffer due to the expense, all for a relatively small increase in matchday revenue for the outlay presently. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 5 hours ago, allani said: 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. Your not picking on me, and I'm indifferent to the decision to cancel the development as I trust the owners to make good decisions. There is a general point that VP is not getting any younger and if we stayed there the whole ground would require redevelopment at some point in the near to middling future, so in the long run does it make sense to draw that out over an extended period, or do what Everton are doing? One thing is for sure the owners are ambitious, and are serious about being in the top 6 conversation, and for that to happen commercially the club has to grow and quickly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 For me the ROI mustn’t stack up compared to how they had envisaged and that the money earmarked could be put towards better use. Players wages, improved youth and first team facilities, networks like Senegalese academy which will all feed into the first team. Yes a nice new stand would be nice but on the pitch is most important aspect and perhaps they see the money better spent elsewhere currently. Just speculating as no one on here really knows 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 5 hours 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. 5% would be an expensive loan on 1 billion, could probably get 3% in the coming couple of years. Also the debt will devalue as the cash becomes less valuable and as prices go up. It 100% would make commercial success if they found the right site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: 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. has he said that? we have a 30k waiting list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, paul514 said: has he said that? we have a 30k waiting list. He said because we usually have a couple of hundred seats unsold we don't have the demand but ignoring that's probably just last minute tickets that have become available that nobody knew about, nothing to do with actual demand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiezels Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 9 hours ago, thabucks said: For me the ROI mustn’t stack up compared to how they had envisaged and that the money earmarked could be put towards better use. Players wages, improved youth and first team facilities, networks like Senegalese academy which will all feed into the first team. Yes a nice new stand would be nice but on the pitch is most important aspect and perhaps they see the money better spent elsewhere currently. Just speculating as no one on here really knows If chelsea are stopping their expansion because the ROI doesnt work with their fan base and being in london, im sure ours must be even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villarule123 Posted January 24 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24 (edited) Do the club ever put out posts on social media to advertise even on game day that there's a few tickets available? I bet if there isn't, and if they did, they would sell out very quick. Edited January 24 by villarule123 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 24 Moderator Share Posted January 24 4 hours ago, sharkyvilla said: He said because we usually have a couple of hundred seats unsold we don't have the demand …. nothing to do with actual demand. What if, and I’m just speculating here, but what if those empty, unsold seats are mostly the “premium” type seats, TV and that other one? Suppose the case for a new stand assumed high demand for posh seats, but the experience with the TV seats tends to show that there’s actually not a big demand, or much of one at all for paying £120 + per game from our fanbase. That would likely undermine the business case for a fancy new stand with lots of premium seating. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 4 minutes ago, blandy said: What if, and I’m just speculating here, but what if those empty, unsold seats are mostly the “premium” type seats, TV and that other one? Suppose the case for a new stand assumed high demand for posh seats, but the experience with the TV seats tends to show that there’s actually not a big demand, or much of one at all for paying £120 + per game from our fanbase. That would likely undermine the business case for a fancy new stand with lots of premium seating. And they've seen North standers are willing to pay prices akin to those in better stands, for a lesser service. I get most of your ticket price is about the football you're watching, but when you have to miss some of that to get a drink at half time, or have a piss, then it quickly becomes a piss-take. I think a lot renewed expecting to be first in line for the shiny new stand, be interesting to see how far they can push it next season. If we get champions league they'll probably hike them above inflation, and the incentive to redevelop it gets lesser still. Maybe by the time they add these mythical 3k extra seats elsewhere, it dampens the loss of the 7k in the North? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, blandy said: What if, and I’m just speculating here, but what if those empty, unsold seats are mostly the “premium” type seats, TV and that other one? Suppose the case for a new stand assumed high demand for posh seats, but the experience with the TV seats tends to show that there’s actually not a big demand, or much of one at all for paying £120 + per game from our fanbase. That would likely undermine the business case for a fancy new stand with lots of premium seating. Exactly my thoughts on what I believe is the primary reason for the cancellation of Phase 1. Every home game I take a look across the stands from my vantage point in the centre of the Upper Holte. Even sell out games will see single empty seats, perhaps 1 in 100, which is to be expected through illness/holiday or toilet visits (there's a bloke, who sits in the row in front of me, who makes 3 or 4 visits during every game!). The groups of seats visible without fans in the occasional not sold out games are always in the same areas - the very top corners of the Upper North and the very top corners, closest to the Holte, of the Trinity and D.E. stands. Those latter two areas are reserved for those without season tickets who have purchased hospitality in the Lower Holte. In a couple of games there's been an empty group of around 50 to 100 seats in each of those two areas. I fully expect Heck has done the return on investment maths (we can sell out another 8000 seats at season ticket prices of around £40/match but not at £60+/match or £120 with some hospitality) and presented his findings to NSWE. It will then have been NSWE's decision to choose not to replace the North Stand. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlobalVillan Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 On 22/01/2024 at 15:59, villa4europe said: we could have an excellent location if they sorted out the infrastructure around the ground as it is the trains don't work because they aren't frequent enough, the roads are congested, personally I think the club should do more in terms of making walking and cycling a viable option from the city centre Aston is in the inner city circle, and save for Harborne and Edgbaston, (which are on the opposite side of the city) the inner circle is grim and dangerous. We will never have people walking on mass from VP to the city centre regularly. The odd train strike maybe, but its not a route you'd be walking through alone, with your family or at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 14 hours ago, Captain_Townsend said: 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. Clearly the money doesn't line up though. If it was as simple as build a bigger stand and have more money, Ellis would have done it. Every single major stadium work anywhere involves significant public funding. The only one I can think of that didn't was Metlife stadium in New Jersey in 2010, but that was shared between two teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 24 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24 4 hours ago, spiezels said: If chelsea are stopping their expansion because the ROI doesnt work with their fan base and being in london, im sure ours must be even worse. They'd have to spend a billion just go get hold of the property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie09 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 According to his mrs Ozzy is performing a couple of farewell gigs at VP so maybe it’s the start of VP holding regular events such as Ozzy and the Foos. It would be interesting to know how much of a money spinner staging a concert is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, ThunderPower_14 said: Clearly the money doesn't line up though. If it was as simple as build a bigger stand and have more money, Ellis would have done it. Every single major stadium work anywhere involves significant public funding. The only one I can think of that didn't was Metlife stadium in New Jersey in 2010, but that was shared between two teams. Ellis built three new standa at Villa Park, and the new Trinity was built even though we hardly ever sold out the 39,000 capacity in 99-00. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 18 minutes ago, Robbie09 said: According to his mrs Ozzy is performing a couple of farewell gigs at VP so maybe it’s the start of VP holding regular events such as Ozzy and the Foos. It would be interesting to know how much of a money spinner staging a concert is. This is definitely a plan the club have, and from my limited understanding these events are really lucrative. I think they'd want to do even more but it has impacts on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 24 Moderator Share Posted January 24 4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: from my limited understanding these events are really lucrative. I don't see how each event raises more than £0.5mil per event. In that grand scheme of things its a very thin layer of icing on a cake, there's not even any marzipan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 52 minutes ago, sidcow said: They'd have to spend a billion just go get hold of the property. Chelsea had a full feasibility study in to the cost and benefits of expanding their current footprint at Stamford Bridge, adding around 14000 seats for a new capacity of 53000. The cost was approaching £20k per seat giving a break even period of 25 years, even at their high ticket and hospitality pricing. I'm guessing that's around twice the cost of a new North Stand but then our tickets and hospitality would need to be half Chelsea's prices to suit our fan base demographic. Chelsea have decided against the expansion or moving ground, which you correctly identified was also cost prohibitive. I expect NSWE have made a similar decision for us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts