thabucks Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 (edited) we can name the urinals after gobby in a new north stand Edited May 1 by thabucks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StewieGriffin Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 15 minutes ago, thabucks said: we can name the urinals after gabby in a new north stand Be a nice change for him to be given the piss rather than him taking it... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villa_Vids Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 New north stand named after Gabby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulberto21 Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 I think 52k is the perfect sweet spot for us. If we keep filling it up for 6/7 seasons then Doug’s stand should finally be let go and expanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted April 30 Share Posted April 30 1 hour ago, Sulberto21 said: I think 52k is the perfect sweet spot for us. If we keep filling it up for 6/7 seasons then Doug’s stand should finally be let go and expanded. 50k to 52k seems to be the obvious answer to most. Heck pulled the plug whilst stating we don't want to expand too soon, also mentioning there were a couple of hundred seats unsold for some less glamorous games (although not clarifying whether they were unsold hospitality, restricted view, simply down to the poor method of reselling seats that ST holders couldn't attend or just that a figure of less than 0.5% is a typical loss for large attendance events). Now it appears a plan is being put together for Villa's stadium (are we assuming that stadium will be Villa Park??). Once again it's as clear as mud. I look forward to when that changes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen_Evans Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 Maybe it really was a “pause” and not a cancellation. Allowing for potential incompetence, it has always struck me as strange that the North Stand plans have remained on the website. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 9 minutes ago, Stephen_Evans said: Maybe it really was a “pause” and not a cancellation. Allowing for potential incompetence, it has always struck me as strange that the North Stand plans have remained on the website. The pause was the most sensible and obvious thing imaginable and the fact so many people fail to grasp the legitimate reasons despite all the PSR and FFP discussions that have swirled all season. It's boggles the mind tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 We understand perfectly well that standing still isn't an option if we ever want to compete with the income generating capacity of peer clubs and found it alarming that the pause, coupled with Euro 28, potentially kicked the can 5 years down the road whereas not pausing would have seen us capable of bridging the gap by 2026. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHW Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, CVByrne said: The pause was the most sensible and obvious thing imaginable and the fact so many people fail to grasp the legitimate reasons despite all the PSR and FFP discussions that have swirled all season. It's boggles the mind tbh We have a generational manager for a finite period of time. Delaying our ability to back him better financially by 2-3 years is hardly the most sensible and obvious thing imaginable. There are allowances for closing a stand for redev in FFP rules, so losing the North Stand income in the interim build period would not have been a major issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 1 Moderator Share Posted May 1 In terms of being without it, quite frankly, the North Stand doesn't actually make a lot of money - it's less than £4m a year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frodo Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, CVByrne said: The pause was the most sensible and obvious thing imaginable and the fact so many people fail to grasp the legitimate reasons despite all the PSR and FFP discussions that have swirled all season. It's boggles the mind tbh Said it a while back, the clue is in the word pause made perfect sense at the time, everything Heck said was very true, but people went on to think he'd cancelled it, then that snowballed into new stadium rumours when all along the club have said there is nothing in it & openly admitting they did look at the idea earlier when they first arrived but ended on the plans for the new North Stand. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 The reasons why there are rumours he has cancelled it as that there has been nothing concrete since the announcement in the winter and at several supporters meetings he has made it clear that it isn't a priority for Villa at the moment. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHW Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 It didn't make perfect sense though. And further delaying the timescale for when we can start bridging the income gap by another couple of years seems absolutely daft. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 4 minutes into the below...he doesn't say pause. He then implies that what they will do going forwards will be for all fans and not just one stand. https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2023/december/19/chris-heck-interview/ His point about the fortress and not tearing a stand down when we are playing the way we are... when is the right time? When we're mid table? Has he said anything since this? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) 37 minutes ago, CHW said: It didn't make perfect sense though. And further delaying the timescale for when we can start bridging the income gap by another couple of years seems absolutely daft. That doesn't fit the narrative that we are just too thick to understand the genius at work. "We aren't doing that now", we risk 'adding too many seats too fast". He was not clear, not by any stretch despite the revisionism. Edited May 1 by Captain_Townsend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubby Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 51 minutes ago, MrBlack said: 4 minutes into the below...he doesn't say pause. He then implies that what they will do going forwards will be for all fans and not just one stand. https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2023/december/19/chris-heck-interview/ His point about the fortress and not tearing a stand down when we are playing the way we are... when is the right time? When we're mid table? Has he said anything since this? What he also says is that the infrastructure can't support an increased number of fans, which in itself is detrimental to the fan experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 1 minute ago, Tubby said: What he also says is that the infrastructure can't support an increased number of fans, which in itself is detrimental to the fan experience. But it can, as proven by the planning permission that was granted. And with the Whitton station redevelopment going ahead, it will be able to even further by the time the stand is done. Not to mention the warehouse development that's taking place at the same time that will reduce immediate post game transport demand. Maybe it was a bluff call because the Whitton station thing only got confirmed after he said this. I guess if that is seen as a driver for the "pause" despite all the factors I mentioned, then we're going to get left behind waiting for the infrastructure to catch up. And a pause for that reason isn't ever going to release itself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubby Posted May 1 Share Posted May 1 (edited) 39 minutes ago, MrBlack said: But it can, as proven by the planning permission that was granted. And with the Whitton station redevelopment going ahead, it will be able to even further by the time the stand is done. Not to mention the warehouse development that's taking place at the same time that will reduce immediate post game transport demand. Maybe it was a bluff call because the Whitton station thing only got confirmed after he said this. I guess if that is seen as a driver for the "pause" despite all the factors I mentioned, then we're going to get left behind waiting for the infrastructure to catch up. And a pause for that reason isn't ever going to release itself. I wasn't defending the action btw, just adding points to the debate. We all want an increased VP, or a new-fangled state-of-the-art version. How the club get there won't be straightforward and requires alignment of a number of different factors. No fan would want to miss out on a seat for next season though, that's for sure. Edited May 1 by Tubby 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted May 1 VT Supporter Share Posted May 1 Yeah, planning permission proves the infrastructure argument is nonsense. They won't have just put a finger in the air and decided it was OK. They would have had town planners and transport experts looking at the plans, traffic flows, local roads etc and reached an informed decision based on the evidence provided by experts. Interestingly I saw some people actually directing to direct traffic around Church Rd / Sycamore Rd junction which is a massive problem area. This is a new thing. Only issue was the people directing traffic didn't seem to have a clue what they were doing so traffic remained chaos. I've said it before but this needs to be one way, you enter the area via Grosvenor Road (next to the station) and you exit via Church Road and Park Road North. This would improve matters 100% round that area. It's so simple and so obvious. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post CVByrne Posted May 1 Popular Post Share Posted May 1 1 hour ago, CHW said: We have a generational manager for a finite period of time. Delaying our ability to back him better financially by 2-3 years is hardly the most sensible and obvious thing imaginable. There are allowances for closing a stand for redev in FFP rules, so losing the North Stand income in the interim build period would not have been a major issue. It's nothing to do with delaying to back him. It's about decreasing revenue just as the club get additional guaranteed 5 extra big home games where we will sell out. All when we are really at edge if FFP, the tightening rules with squad cost.and Jack 100m income rolling off our 3 year accounts. The plans to knock down the North Stand this summer for 2 years. Like there is no worse date to do this. The club is increasing revenue per fan by making it easier and better for fans to come early and stay around the stadium. So with the increased number of games with Europe and increased income per fan. We're looking at £6m+ in 24/25 target income revenue. The exact season where in 2025 the squad cost calculations move to 70% and critically Jacks 100m income rolls off the calculation. This is on top of the impact having a demolished stand has on the image and atmosphere of the club and the big brand launch for AV150 and slew of new sponsors. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts