OutByEaster? Posted February 29 Moderator Share Posted February 29 I think Heck sees Chelsea as a model for us - the idea isn't so much about increasing capacity as increasing yield and I think the club still very definitely believe that there is an opportunity to do that. That's pounds per person - the amount they can get from each person attending, rather than adding more people who are paying less. Part of that will be converting some of those that currently attend from being regular seats to GA+ and Hospitality seats, part of it will be changing the Hospitality offers to add more 'exclusive' opportunities and higher prices (stuff like a tunnel club and the seats around the dugout) and part of it will no doubt be increasing the prices for matchday fans and season ticket holders. I think the challenge the club see is how to get us from £2m a game to £4m a game without adding additional seating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 In-stadium gentrification, without improving the facilities or the fan experience in any serious way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: I think the challenge the club see is how to get us from £2m a game to £4m a game without adding additional seating. And as businessmen, they should be doing so. But why can't the new stand be built alongside of this attempt? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 8 minutes ago, Mic09 said: And as businessmen, they should be doing so. But why can't the new stand be built alongside of this attempt? The cynical view would be that they've looked at the waiting list and though that there are enough new fans willing to spend £4 a game to come in and replace the current ones only willing or able to spend £2 a game. A new stand could have potentially had room for both but that wasn't financially worth it apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted February 29 Share Posted February 29 Does anyone have any examples of 'stadium bowl optimisation' from elsewhere that we can look at and get an idea of what the **** it means? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 29 Moderator Share Posted February 29 2 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said: Does anyone have any examples of 'stadium bowl optimisation' from elsewhere that we can look at and get an idea of what the **** it means? Arsenal reviewed their stadium a few year back and added another couple of rows at the front of their second tier which helped them maintain their capacity whilst making some other changes elsewhere. It's not impossible to do, but it will be difficult at Villa Park due to the layout with the Trinity Road corner and the weird position of the Doug Ellis Stand. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Don_Simon Posted March 1 Popular Post Share Posted March 1 8 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: That's pounds per person - the amount they can get from each person attending, rather than adding more people who are paying less. On match days, we get the train over from Shrewsbury, (proper Shires, innit), have some beers and food in town, get Uber to the game for 1400, have a couple of pints, watch the game, walk back to the city and have more beers and food. I would say it's a ratio of 80% spending outside of VP and 20% in it. Which is absolutely ridiculous when the whole premise of the day is to watch Villa. If they built a Villa box park, with Villa attractions, classic games on the TV and good beer / food options, we'd be there from 1130 through 1800. The club is losing SO MUCH MONEY from the terrible facilities and have done for decades. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 8 hours ago, sne said: The cynical view would be that they've looked at the waiting list and though that there are enough new fans willing to spend £4 a game to come in and replace the current ones only willing or able to spend £2 a game. A new stand could have potentially had room for both but that wasn't financially worth it apparently. Someone calculated that a new stand would possibly bring a return of investment in 10-15 years. I guess it would also increase the value of the club dramatically so maybe the return would be closer to 5-8 years. I just can't see a reason why they wouldn't do it. If I had a chance, I would buy a season ticket right away. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Mic09 said: Someone calculated that a new stand would possibly bring a return of investment in 10-15 years. I guess it would also increase the value of the club dramatically so maybe the return would be closer to 5-8 years. I just can't see a reason why they wouldn't do it. If I had a chance, I would buy a season ticket right away. Indeed. And they have also had the benefit since 2018 from facilities that were there before they rocked up. The Trinity cost £15m in 2001. I bet no regime has seen it rake in the money like the current one has. Edited March 1 by Captain_Townsend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 9 hours ago, Mic09 said: And as businessmen, they should be doing so. But why can't the new stand be built alongside of this attempt? Because building a new stand means reducing the capacity for 2 seasons whilst it is being built and so is likely to reduce our match day revenue (even with the other measures) rather than increase it in the short term. Also it has to be remembered that the next 2 seasons are predicted to be the toughest period for clubs with regards to maximising their revenues because of the transition to the new FFP limits. Therefore, it is entirely possible that a decision that is wrong for the mid-long term is the right decision in the short-term. Half the debate on this site at the moment seems to be about the need to sell star players because we are going to miss our FFP targets and then the other half is why have we decided not to reduce our capacity next season and earn less money making it even harder to meet our targets next season? Yes ultimately I am sure we'll need more bums on seats but we need to find a way to do that which won't reduce our revenues for 2 seasons and mean that it's more likely we have to sell players just as we are building a team that is competitive. It is a bit of a Catch-22 situation really and one that highlights that the FFP rules aren't really working correctly. It absolutely should be possible for ambitious (or even less ambitious) owners to upgrade / expand their infrastructure to improve the club's ability to grow or operate more sustainably. Yet the short-term fixation on annual revenue figures seems to prevent that unless you have the luxury of being able to build on a new site, buy a newly-built stadium built for another purpose or have the ability to temporarily move into another big stadium. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 11 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: I think Heck sees Chelsea as a model for us - the idea isn't so much about increasing capacity as increasing yield and I think the club still very definitely believe that there is an opportunity to do that. That's pounds per person - the amount they can get from each person attending, rather than adding more people who are paying less. Part of that will be converting some of those that currently attend from being regular seats to GA+ and Hospitality seats, part of it will be changing the Hospitality offers to add more 'exclusive' opportunities and higher prices (stuff like a tunnel club and the seats around the dugout) and part of it will no doubt be increasing the prices for matchday fans and season ticket holders. I think the challenge the club see is how to get us from £2m a game to £4m a game without adding additional seating. Yes but this is the West Midlands, not West London. There is no way we could pay Chelsea prices. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 36 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said: Yes but this is the West Midlands, not West London. There is no way we could pay Chelsea prices. Maybe a regular fan couldn't, but I am sure there are 5-10k people within a 50 mile radius happy to pay £100+ per game, and that is not including football tourists from abroad/businesses. Especially if we can compete with Arsenals and Chelseas, and even more so if we can offer games on Tuesday nights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David-Copenhagen Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 12 hours ago, cheltenham_villa said: They do also cost money. Yes, BUT Aston Villa does not have to own the stadium. In fact we don't today, if I remember correctly the stadium was sold to NSWE. So building a new stadium does not have to affect FFP negatively, but will make Aston Villa a lot more money, so it is a no brainer really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 2 hours ago, Mic09 said: Someone calculated that a new stand would possibly bring a return of investment in 10-15 years. I guess it would also increase the value of the club dramatically so maybe the return would be closer to 5-8 years. I just can't see a reason why they wouldn't do it. If I had a chance, I would buy a season ticket right away. I think there is a divide between ROI for the club and ROI for the owners. FFP doesn't take into account that the club is worth at least 5 times what it was when the owners took over - which more than covers any accounting loss that the business may have made. Obviously there are fewer people who can buy a club for £500m rather than £50m so the risk associated with the owner walking away is higher. But that doesn't seem to worry the authorities when assessing clubs like City / Chelsea / PSG / etc. They might not go bust under their current owners but are they really viable businesses if the owners walk away? I think it is fair to say that Villa is a more viable option for new owners now that it was 5 years ago but that doesn't seem to count for anything under FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ender4 Posted March 1 Popular Post Share Posted March 1 11 hours ago, sne said: The cynical view would be that they've looked at the waiting list and though that there are enough new fans willing to spend £4 a game to come in and replace the current ones only willing or able to spend £2 a game. One of the obvious problems that someone like Heck just won't have realised - there are fans (like me) who would love to spend £40 a game on extra food and drink but the stadium is so run down and lacking in facilities for the normal fan, that it's impossible for me to spend that extra. So i spend that in Bham City Centre instead before and after the match. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ender4 said: One of the obvious problems that someone like Heck just won't have realised - there are fans (like me) who would love to spend £40 a game on extra food and drink but the stadium is so run down and lacking in facilities for the normal fan, that it's impossible for me to spend that extra. So i spend that in Bham City Centre instead before and after the match. See, you have just nailed the point I am trying to make. I am so uncomfortable with someone new, who came from a different universe of American sport, coming in and making big decisions about not going ahead with the chosen badge, picking a new crest based on the Lerner one and, we can assume given the timeline, having a major say in the shift in strategy on Villa Park. Bo matter how good you are you can't just immediately step into 150 years of History and 'get it' in terms of the context of why the club was where it was and why it needed the changes we decided on. And yet he was making these decisions within weeks of his appointment- on the badge certainly. As a club and organisation everything always seems to hinge on one individual's preferences- Ellis, Lerner, Xia, Purslow, Heck. I know these are exec roles but we have so little continuity. We even sub consciously refer to the 'Lerner badge', 'Heck badge' etc! Edited March 1 by Captain_Townsend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterSw Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 Surprised there wasn't more talk about the development of the facilities inside Villa Park given the shear number of complaints about toilets, access to food/drink etc. It's all well and good looking at the hospitality section to increase the money but surely they can see that if the average punter can quickly buy a pie and a pint at half time then there is money to be made there.. and if they knew they didn't have to tip toe through a flooded toilet pre match, they might even go for a pie and a pint before the game! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 5 minutes ago, PeterSw said: Surprised there wasn't more talk about the development of the facilities inside Villa Park given the shear number of complaints about toilets, access to food/drink etc. It's all well and good looking at the hospitality section to increase the money but surely they can see that if the average punter can quickly buy a pie and a pint at half time then there is money to be made there.. and if they knew they didn't have to tip toe through a flooded toilet pre match, they might even go for a pie and a pint before the game! That's where an old stadium like this is never going to catch up to a modern one no matter how much they try to rebuild, revamp and spruce up the existing structure. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 14 minutes ago, PeterSw said: Surprised there wasn't more talk about the development of the facilities inside Villa Park given the shear number of complaints about toilets, access to food/drink etc. It's all well and good looking at the hospitality section to increase the money but surely they can see that if the average punter can quickly buy a pie and a pint at half time then there is money to be made there.. and if they knew they didn't have to tip toe through a flooded toilet pre match, they might even go for a pie and a pint before the game! I went to the new Riverside stand at Fulham when we played them and beer/food was available even an hour after the game. If Holte End bars were open after the game with some good TVs and other facilities I would happily spend an hour after the game and have and extra 2 or 3 drinks and maybe some food. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 1 Share Posted March 1 11 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I went to the new Riverside stand at Fulham when we played them and beer/food was available even an hour after the game. If Holte End bars were open after the game with some good TVs and other facilities I would happily spend an hour after the game and have and extra 2 or 3 drinks and maybe some food. I should add; they also have new restaurants being built there (we could easily do that outside Holte) and have a small pop up shop with merch. You take a kid to see Villa, they will likely want a hat/shirt/poster. We should have members of staff visiting various stadiums on weekly basis and taking ideas from others. Why can't we have a small stand with shirts inside the Holte End? Unless you get that in Terrace View? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts