tinker Posted April 20 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20 Paul off Facebook has a mate who runs the dog and doublet and he reckons Mary's (the barmaid) boyfriend, the bricklayer, has seen plans for a new stadium at the side of BMH. With transport links into Kingsbury and Coleshill! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvonVillain Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 32 minutes ago, tinker said: Paul off Facebook has a mate who runs the dog and doublet and he reckons Mary's (the barmaid) boyfriend, the bricklayer, has seen plans for a new stadium at the side of BMH. With transport links into Kingsbury and Coleshill! "....stop me if you've heard this one before." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferguson1 Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 Probably a no go but couldn’t we join up the bottom tier to the middle tier by filling in the walkway and adding additional rows/seats? Basically making one large lower tier. Does the walkway have to remain for health and safety reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStagMan Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 12 hours ago, Pongo Waring said: A very close friend of mine who eat at the same restaurant as the senior figures at the club in Lille, heard whispers from across the table that they're looking for sites to build the new stadium. Why would we care if Lille are looking for a new stadium location? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted April 20 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20 43 minutes ago, ferguson1 said: Probably a no go but couldn’t we join up the bottom tier to the middle tier by filling in the walkway and adding additional rows/seats? Basically making one large lower tier. Does the walkway have to remain for health and safety reasons? Isn't that basically what they're doing as part of this 3,000 extra seats plan? Sure I read that somewhere. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 One thing's clear. We have seriously ambitious people in charge. I honestly think all bets are off in terms of the expertise we have that's why I am talking in terms of redeveloping Witton Lane or doing some sort of deal on property land. This isn't Doug Ellis, this is something of an entirely different level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferguson1 Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 28 minutes ago, sidcow said: Isn't that basically what they're doing as part of this 3,000 extra seats plan? Sure I read that somewhere. No idea and hadn’t seen anything official re that area. Many thanks for confirming though if that’s the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 1 hour ago, ferguson1 said: Probably a no go but couldn’t we join up the bottom tier to the middle tier by filling in the walkway and adding additional rows/seats? Basically making one large lower tier. Does the walkway have to remain for health and safety reasons? Rangers are implementing something similar at Ibrox. I am guessing this seating bowl plan at VP - could mean lower tiers having more accessibility areas and the upper tier will expand to replace lost seating. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 2 hours ago, limpid said: It was built by a cheap arse. It won't have capacity to add more weight. It would’nt need to carry any more weight as with the new main stand at Anfield the additional tier and new roof would be constructed behind then joined to the stand once the old roof was removed. No need to reduce capacity whilst the work was going on. I think it’s a more realistic solution long term than moving grounds to get Villa park to over 60k 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 1 hour ago, ferguson1 said: Probably a no go but couldn’t we join up the bottom tier to the middle tier by filling in the walkway and adding additional rows/seats? Basically making one large lower tier. Does the walkway have to remain for health and safety reasons? If you look at the plans for redevelopment of the north stand, the corner which was adjoin it didn’t have the walkway and had an additional 6 rows of seats in comparison to the rest of the lower tier. Certain sections would need to be retained for disabled fans but not the whole length. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 2 hours ago, VillaJ100 said: It's remote you'd get any portion of the historic park delisted also You wouldn’t be encroaching into the park by more than 20sq metres … Relocate any trees which would be in the way, contribute to improvements to the park and I’m sure the council would oblige. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted April 20 Administrator Share Posted April 20 10 minutes ago, thabucks said: It would’nt need to carry any more weight as with the new main stand at Anfield the additional tier and new roof would be constructed behind then joined to the stand once the old roof was removed. No need to reduce capacity whilst the work was going on. I think it’s a more realistic solution long term than moving grounds to get Villa park to over 60k How could you build behind the Trinity? Probably easier to get a CPO on the Witton Lane side than consent to build in the park. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted April 20 VT Supporter Share Posted April 20 1 hour ago, Captain_Townsend said: One thing's clear. We have seriously ambitious people in charge. I honestly think all bets are off in terms of the expertise we have that's why I am talking in terms of redeveloping Witton Lane or doing some sort of deal on property land. This isn't Doug Ellis, this is something of an entirely different level. Its a new ground, question is where and how, could be Aston, Marston Green or Castle Vale, Minworth , BMH . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 52 minutes ago, thabucks said: You wouldn’t be encroaching into the park by more than 20sq metres … Relocate any trees which would be in the way, contribute to improvements to the park and I’m sure the council would oblige. Wouldn't just be the council you have to convince it would be Historic England Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotoMkali Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 20 hours ago, Jareth said: If I lived that close to VP and knew what the plans were, I would wait for the neighbours to sell and hold out to the last to extract maximum money. I can't see it happening for that reason. It's so unpredictable and could take decades. Which is the point of a CPO. To prevent essentially black mail like this. Personally I have no issues with a CPO as long as everyone is getting fair value. Have an independent appraiser come in and evaluate each house, then give 10% extra for the hassle. Ultimately a Villa redevelopment would be what is best for the area if it included a series of nice apartments, a shopping district, bars/restaurants/hotels and revamped public transport links. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, limpid said: How could you build behind the Trinity? Probably easier to get a CPO on the Witton Lane side than consent to build in the park. Rudimentary sketch of the amount of parkland required … you’d need to cpo a bunch of houses to negate right to light issues also. Edited April 20 by thabucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 7 minutes ago, thabucks said: Rudimentary sketch of the amount of parkland required … you’d need to cpo a bunch of houses to negate right to light issues also. Dont we need to get rid of the Trinity Road as well? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted April 20 Administrator Share Posted April 20 48 minutes ago, thabucks said: Rudimentary sketch of the amount of parkland required … you’d need to cpo a bunch of houses to negate right to light issues also. The three (ish) pillars placed on the park side of the road cost us the all weather area in the bottom left as well as the building and play areas you now whnt to knock down. We'd also need to CPO at least 12 properties in Nelson Road to maintain access around the ground (probably more). We would need to reroute the Trinity Road and possibly close one end of Nelson Road.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pongo's Socks Posted April 20 Share Posted April 20 7 hours ago, ferguson1 said: Probably a no go but couldn’t we join up the bottom tier to the middle tier by filling in the walkway and adding additional rows/seats? Basically making one large lower tier. Does the walkway have to remain for health and safety reasons? That walkway is the only route to get to the lower tier seats though isn't it? We sit front row B7 for most games, that's the disabled section right in front of us and the only route to the vomitory from the front 12 ish rows I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted April 21 Share Posted April 21 21 hours ago, MotoMkali said: Which is the point of a CPO. To prevent essentially black mail like this. Personally I have no issues with a CPO as long as everyone is getting fair value. Have an independent appraiser come in and evaluate each house, then give 10% extra for the hassle. Ultimately a Villa redevelopment would be what is best for the area if it included a series of nice apartments, a shopping district, bars/restaurants/hotels and revamped public transport links. So someone says to you, you have to sell your house, which you might be quite happy in, and that's ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts