sidcow Posted January 25 VT Supporter Share Posted January 25 (edited) Just on the issue of it makes no financial sense. We own the land, we don't need to buy it. The following are all fairly recent examples of clubs who have invested money in major new stand projects or new stadiums. It's just a complete nonsense that it makes no sense: Brentford Community Stadium Plough Lane York Community Stadium Riverside Stand, Craven Cottage The Everton Stadium Liverpool – Anfield Road expansion The American Express (AMEX) Community Stadium Ashton Gate, Bristol City Cardiff City Stadium Coventry Building Society Arena Huddersfield Town's Kirklees Stadium Hull City KCOM Stadium Riverside Stadium Madejski Stadium reading ASSEAL New York Stadium Rotherham Stoke Bet365 Stadium Swansea Liberty Stadium Stadium of Light Wigan DW Stadium University of Bolton Stadium Derby Pride Park Edited January 25 by sidcow 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 6 hours ago, ThunderPower_14 said: That's very simplistic and doesn't take into account the opportunity cost of what else we could do with 100 million pounds to increase our revenue. Does this take into account what we'll be borrowing/repaying etc? If it's such a clear financial uplift, why did we cancel it? Have I not already said during this conversation i don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, sidcow said: Just on the issue of it makes no financial sense. We own the land, we don't need to buy it. The following are all fairly recent examples of clubs who have invested money in major new stand projects or new stadiums. It's just a complete nonsense that it makes no sense: Brentford Community Stadium Plough Lane York Community Stadium Riverside Stand, Craven Cottage The Everton Stadium Liverpool – Anfield Road expansion The American Express (AMEX) Community Stadium Ashton Gate, Bristol City Cardiff City Stadium Coventry Building Society Arena Huddersfield Town's Kirklees Stadium Hull City KCOM Stadium Riverside Stadium Madejski Stadium reading ASSEAL New York Stadium Rotherham Stoke Bet365 Stadium Swansea Liberty Stadium Stadium of Light Wigan DW Stadium University of Bolton Stadium Derby Pride Park I know nothing about the others, but Liverpool and Everton builds are both great examples of it not being financially sensible. Everton will probably get relegated because of the costs, Liverpool have spent way more than they planned and its still not done. I should add, I did say that the argument doesn't make sense, because if it did nothing would ever happen to the North stand. And clearly, something will. But it is going to need something more important than a short term loss to trigger it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, MrBlack said: The Warehouse may serve the same purpose as Villa Live (glad that name wont be used) would have. If there's someone decent to watch the late matches after an early kick off, or somewhere to have a pint with your mates before you all go your separate ways, then it will make some money, and it will reduce the strain on the railway. It is right that we had expansion approval with no dependency on the railway improvements, but it's also right that getting a train after is a nightmare already. I'd happily hang around for a pint or two waiting for the queue at Aston to go down. I already get the train, but there will be those that drive because its easier, that may look at getting the train if it becomes a less time consuming option, and then they may then have a drink at the game because they don't have to drive. There's a lot of benefits to the Warehouse proposals, which I believe are still going ahead. Hopefully that in turn triggers a revisit of the north stand rebuild sooner rather than later. The first job is to find as many "quick wins" as possible in terms of raising revenue (the added investment / minority owners, change of shirt manufacturers, Warehouse plans and the new shop / bringing some of the retail back in house - are early examples) so that we're in a better position to strengthen the team and shoulder the burden of bigger projects. The clubs around us are all in relatively new stadia and so will not be expanding any time soon - possible exception being Newcastle - so delaying redevelopment won't mean that we're falling further behind as the other clubs won't be adding in more numbers themselves. The minority ownership thing was quick to implement, probably cost very little to do and had an immediate plus £80m line in the books of VSports. The money generated in basketball, etc where the stadia are considerably smaller suggests that there's plenty we can do better in the short-term that will reap benefits quicker. Sort that out and then like you say it's possible to then look at Villa Park and re-visit the idea of expansion, redevelopment, replacement or relocation. But let's do the easy stuff with immediate wins first. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, MrBlack said: Moving on from Heck... The argument that this financially doesn't make sense is pointless. It will never make financial sense in the short term. Whether we do it now or in 50 years. It will always take many many years to recoup that money. If you're thinking you won't own it in 20 years, then you probably won't commit. So, if that's the reason, that is never going to change. If, as Heck alluded to, it was a sporting reason then us not making the champions league may bring it back to the table (as it then also becomes less likely that we'll make the champions league next season). Failing that, the only reason to do it would be a safety reason, but if you wait for that then you end up with a stadium that looks like the derelict s#!thole in small heath. The conclusion? Not a clue. But suggests to me we won't see a new stand for a good few years. Bingo, and that’s if we borrow the money if the owners just pay for it as a way of generating more revenue for tightening FFP restrictions it allows more spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, MrBlack said: But you never recoup the construction cost of something when you come to sell it either. Financially, looking at the cost and opportunity cost, it will never make sense in a 10 year time frame. Maybe 20 was a stretch. But my point was, that the argument this was canned for a short term financial boost doesn't hold water. Or if it does, then it will forever, and we'll never improve the stand. That can't be the reason. From a safety perspective, maybe we're not that far off being forced into something, but I've never felt unsafe in the North. Cramped, desperate for a piss, and annoyed I can't get a drink without missing the game, but never unsafe. the opportunity cost is also a good point. No club have built a stadium or stand and continued to invest in the team. Its one or the other. Personally right now i think the club has decided that money in the team is the most important thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 17 minutes ago, sidcow said: It's just a complete nonsense that it makes no sense: It's not though. You are vastly over estimating how much revenue we would get from the extra seats and hospitality. Heck isn't crazy, if it was profitable they would push ahead. The only way it would make sense is if the owners were willing to sink £100m of their own money into the project and not expect any repayment on that money at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 25 VT Supporter Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, cheltenham_villa said: the opportunity cost is also a good point. No club have built a stadium or stand and continued to invest in the team. Its one or the other. I mean, that is patently not true 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, sidcow said: I mean, that is patently not true Maybe "no club" is an exaggeration but Spurs went years without purchasing players in the window, arsenal the same when the emirates were built, Liverpool have a very low net spend on players. Everton is a good exception, theyre building a stadium and theyve also thrown millions at players, that has worked out very well. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 22 minutes ago, paul514 said: Have I not already said during this conversation i don't know Then surely we apply Occam's Razor and deduce that the numbers don't add up as simply as you're saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: Maybe "no club" is an exaggeration but Spurs went years without purchasing players in the window, arsenal the same when the emirates were built, Liverpool have a very low net spend on players. Everton is a good exception, theyre building a stadium and theyve also thrown millions at players, that has worked out very well. Simply non sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 1 minute ago, ThunderPower_14 said: Then surely we apply Occam's Razor and deduce that the numbers don't add up as simply as you're saying. No we apply that people on here ask questions repeatedly that are impossible to answer by a fan as they aren’t the person making the decision Edited January 25 by paul514 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheltenham_villa Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 11 minutes ago, paul514 said: Simply non sense Arsene Wenger and his blatant lies that trigger the VT fanbase https://shorturl.at/uyzY8 He was synonymous with the Gunners after spending more than 20 years in north London, and the former boss has now revealed that he made a big career sacrifice to ensure that the Emirates stadium was built. The club departed their former home, Highbury, in 2006, leaving behind an iconic venue that had seen Arsenal become one of the most successful teams in the Premier League era. Relocating meant that a further 20,000 fans could get through the doors for home games, and the new ground remains one of the biggest in the league. But before the club secured funding to build their new home, banks and the club wanted something from the boss. Speaking on beIN Sports, Wenger said that he encouraged the club to take what he believed was an important step. “I encouraged the club to do it,” he said. “It cost £200 million more than we expected it to be." "We were blocked, we could only spend 50% of the turnover on wages. For example, if the turnover was £500 million we could only dedicate £250 million to wages. “So we always had to sell our best players because the best players want money.” A move to a new, vastly bigger ground allowed the club to maximise turnover, but Arsenal needed Wenger to make a big sacrifice to secure the funding for construction. “They wanted me to sign at the start of that period for five years,” the Frenchman revealed. “I felt always that there was something special at Arsenal that I was proud to represent and to defend. “On the other hand, loyalty is very important, and you cannot ask for the players to be loyal if you jump out at the first offer that you get.” Edited January 25 by cheltenham_villa 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Just now, paul514 said: No we apply that people on here ask questions repeatedly that are impossible to answer by a fan as they aren’t the person making the decision If you're going to claim that "there is no way the new stand wouldn't pay for itself if we decided to do it", i'm surely allowed to ask you to expand on and clarify that claim? I don't agree that it's automatically a sound investment. Major stadium work is almost never a sound investment long term unless you're forced into it by rule changes or safety. Most major professional sports stadiums get built using public money for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, cheltenham_villa said: Arsene Wenger and his blatant lies that trigger the VT fanbase https://shorturl.at/uyzY8 He was synonymous with the Gunners after spending more than 20 years in north London, and the former boss has now revealed that he made a big career sacrifice to ensure that the Emirates stadium was built. The club departed their former home, Highbury, in 2006, leaving behind an iconic venue that had seen Arsenal become one of the most successful teams in the Premier League era. Relocating meant that a further 20,000 fans could get through the doors for home games, and the new ground remains one of the biggest in the league. But before the club secured funding to build their new home, banks and the club wanted something from the boss. Speaking on beIN Sports, Wenger said that he encouraged the club to take what he believed was an important step. “I encouraged the club to do it,” he said. “It cost £200 million more than we expected it to be." "We were blocked, we could only spend 50% of the turnover on wages. For example, if the turnover was £500 million we could only dedicate £250 million to wages. “So we always had to sell our best players because the best players want money.” A move to a new, vastly bigger ground allowed the club to maximise turnover, but Arsenal needed Wenger to make a big sacrifice to secure the funding for construction. “They wanted me to sign at the start of that period for five years,” the Frenchman revealed. “I felt always that there was something special at Arsenal that I was proud to represent and to defend. “On the other hand, loyalty is very important, and you cannot ask for the players to be loyal if you jump out at the first offer that you get.” Done in a much higher interest era, how’s it going for Arsenal now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, ThunderPower_14 said: If you're going to claim that "there is no way the new stand wouldn't pay for itself if we decided to do it", i'm surely allowed to ask you to expand on and clarify that claim? I don't agree that it's automatically a sound investment. Major stadium work is almost never a sound investment long term unless you're forced into it by rule changes or safety. Most major professional sports stadiums get built using public money for a reason. I already have and you posed the same question. Get a new line, I don’t agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderPower_14 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, paul514 said: I already have and you posed the same question. Get a new line, I don’t agree. You simply adjusted the matchday revenue up by the percentage the capacity will increase. I'm sorry but that's wildly simplistic given how bullish you're being about the financial implications of a new stand. If you've got something more detailed i'd love to read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul514 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said: You simply adjusted the matchday revenue up by the percentage the capacity will increase. I'm sorry but that's wildly simplistic given how bullish you're being about the financial implications of a new stand. If you've got something more detailed i'd love to read it. That simple calculation shows it wouldn’t be far off servicing the debt created if we borrowed the money to do so. its simplistic because it doesn’t calculate the unknown extra revenue you get from corporate/catering/villa live etc….. that’s extra revenue. You are like a dog chasing its tail, you keep asking the same questioning thinking it’s some clever retort, it’s not those intangibles to us fans just increase the revenue making it viable to borrow. This completely just ignores they could pay for it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas10 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 21 hours ago, Wainy316 said: Maybe it's a joint farwell to Ozzy and the old North Stand and then we can embalm him and have him on display in the new North Stand lobby? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caravella82 Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, sidcow said: Remember when Ellis knocked that down and everyone was absolutely horrified because of the amount it had cost to build? I remain horrified because even though it should have been protected, no chairman with any affection for Villa's history or stadium architecture in general should have allowed that change to happen, let alone for something akin to it's replacement. For me, the red brickwork, stained glass and mosaics made Villa Park unique. Ellis turned it into just another stadium and in the case of the new Trinity, worse than many others. I visited Ibrox in September last year and couldn't help but be envious at the preservation of the Bill Struth Stand. Leg room is almost non existent but I can forgive that when I feel that I'm sat in such a historic stand. Edited January 25 by Caravella82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts