Villa_Vids Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: And yet, there are no existing plans to move, nor is there any hint from the club that our owners are thinking about it, in fact, they've publicly stated that they're not on a number of occasions. We're currently undergoing a process, with architects, to improve what we have and we're very unlikely to be considering anything else over the next few years. The down scale of the redevelopment is a bit embarrassing to be honest. I suppose the board are favouring the sporting progression/achievement of the club atm, which is fair enough. I hope we don't regret this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 12 hours ago, Villa_Vids said: The down scale of the redevelopment is a bit embarrassing to be honest. I suppose the board are favouring the sporting progression/achievement of the club atm, which is fair enough. I hope we don't regret this. I don't get why you think it is embarassing. Maybe poorly communicated - but again I think it's hard for the club to be completely honest about all the reasons as I suspect their are a few commercial, contractual and political (not club politics by the way) factors that either impacted the decision or might be impacted by it. I don't see how redeveloping a stand which will mean reducing our capacity significantly for two seasons (at a time when the FFP rules are tightening significantly) is feasible UNLESS we get explicit permission from UEFA and the PL for missing our financial targets. If we can't do that then effectively we're going to struggle to fund the loss in revenue during the redevelopment phase - and if we are not going to struggle I am slightly confused how adding more seats is suddenly going to mean we have a massive boost in revenue - without impacting on the current squad - i.e. having to sell players to cover the cost of the redevelopment (in terms of the revenue lost over those 2 seasons not the construction costs). I am hopeful that we'll significantly increase other revenue streams in the next few months (sponsorships / partnerships / etc) and maybe that will give us a bit more headroom so that the redevelopment can be reconsidered. But like I say it is difficult to see how we can redevelop VP to the extent that I think most of us would like without taking a revenue hit over an extended period UNLESS we can move to a temporary home (but there aren't exactly a wealth of large stadiums in the area who would be willing / able to host a PL team) and that's assuming that we could get a 55,000+ stadium onto the existing site with all the required infrastructure upgrades to the surrounding area that would be required. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaJ100 Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 I think if they try and do us for stadium costs for FFP we'd have a great case against west ham and city etc who got a free one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 39 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said: I think if they try and do us for stadium costs for FFP we'd have a great case against west ham and city etc who got a free one The direct cost of redeveloping / building a new stadium should be excluded from FFP (allowed exemption). However, the indirect "costs" for things like reduced capacity during any transition period won't be. I don't think we've got a problem with the £100m redevelopment costs - but it's the cost of reducing our capacity / match day income by 20% for 2 seasons that could impact on the FFP numbers (I think the actual cost of this is harder to calculate because of the way it seems like different income streams on match day feeds into the accounts). I suspect that there might also be a view that we could absorb that loss but let's say we also had a poor season then could we absorb two hits at the same time without unhinging the plan/strategy or being at risk of having to sell players at well below their market value and not being able to reinvest that money in replacing them. Hopefully if we can get a few good deals in place to follow on from Adidas then it gives us a bit more leeway to either invest in the squad or review the stadium plans. Ultimately, we will struggle to match the revenues of the "Big 6", Newcastle, West Ham and potentially Everton if we're getting considerably fewer bums on seats per match (unless of course we are playing more matches due to European / domestic cup runs). But at the same time we need to make sure that we don't end up with a half-full stadium that has significantly higher overheads that then become a millstone around our necks. I would be surprised if the latter happens given the population of Birmingham and the neighbouring areas where there isn't an "obvious", successful, local, alternative team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 The North stand is our smallest stand. The offerings in it are very poor. I don't see how it isn't obvious it needs to go, even if we have a short term tiny hit on revenue we are going to benefit in the long term from what the new stand cam bring in. Also, smaller capacity for a short period will only drive up demand for when it is finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) 15 hours ago, OutByEaster? said: And yet, there are no existing plans to move, nor is there any hint from the club that our owners are thinking about it, in fact, they've publicly stated that they're not on a number of occasions. We're currently undergoing a process, with architects, to improve what we have and we're very unlikely to be considering anything else over the next few years. Just repeating what I have and many others have said, this is such a disappointing move. I shouldn't have been surprised, Villa Park development has always been piecemeal and on the hoof ever since Rinder's first masterplan was never fully fulfilled. You would have thought that the architects we hired about two years ago would have told the club the best and most effective development was a new north stand. Which is what Purslow purposed before he left. We have 3 stands with constraints and one dated stand with loads of space to rebuild. And for some reason we aren't doing the obvious option. I can't see anything other than cosmetic changes and more GA+ bits squeezed into the existing structure. Such as missed opportunity. Since NWSE have taken over this is at least the third position on development- at first not interested, then to demolish villa village, then a new north stand with villa live, then a new north stand and now nothing. Edited March 9 by The Fun Factory 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) Indeed. It is the first short sighted move since NSWE came in and I think the fact we are having an amazing season the pitch is part of the reason so many just accepting the decision. If you stand back it is actually bonkers. Edited March 9 by Captain_Townsend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 30 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: The North stand is our smallest stand. The offerings in it are very poor. I don't see how it isn't obvious it needs to go, even if we have a short term tiny hit on revenue we are going to benefit in the long term from what the new stand cam bring in. Also, smaller capacity for a short period will only drive up demand for when it is finished. If it is a tiny hit in the short term to close the stand whilst it is being redeveloped why do you think it will be a game changer when it opens? The additional capacity is not double or treble what we'll miss in the next two seasons. I don't disagree with you that it needs doing - the question is whether we can afford to take the hit in the short term in the two exact years when FFP compliance is projected to be hardest to achieve (for all clubs). Mid to long term it makes sense absolutely (unless there are other thoughts). But that's not the issue. The issue is whether now is the right time when every £ matters over the next 2 years. After that we should be over the FFP hump caused by the news rules and be in a better position to consider options (even if they have a short-term hit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 4 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: Indeed. It is the first short sighted move since NSWE came in and I think the fact we are having an amazing season the pitch is part of the reason so many just accepting the decision. If you stand back it is actually bonkers. FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) 8 minutes ago, allani said: FFP. Well long term we need redevelopment for FFP purposes otherwise we fall behind what other clubs rake in through their stadia. My fear us delaying makes it even more expensive and what happens if the rules change by then? Edited March 9 by Captain_Townsend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) 9 minutes ago, allani said: If it is a tiny hit in the short term to close the stand whilst it is being redeveloped why do you think it will be a game changer when it opens? The additional capacity is not double or treble what we'll miss in the next two seasons. I don't disagree with you that it needs doing - the question is whether we can afford to take the hit in the short term in the two exact years when FFP compliance is projected to be hardest to achieve (for all clubs). Mid to long term it makes sense absolutely (unless there are other thoughts). But that's not the issue. The issue is whether now is the right time when every £ matters over the next 2 years. After that we should be over the FFP hump caused by the news rules and be in a better position to consider options (even if they have a short-term hit). The new stand would have had the capacity for premium offerings the present stand doesn't. Our premium offerings in the Trinity are reputed to be incredible and the new stand would have been even better. We also had things like that bar over the new player tunnel planned, food outlets etc. The present stand is really very poor. It is almost 50 years old. I have sat in it and been amazes it has survived as long as it has. I guess the broader point is this was a big statement of ambition. It was very public. It was something to look forward to. It was keeping up with peer clubs and then it was just cancelled with a whimper. Edited March 9 by Captain_Townsend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 Just now, Captain_Townsend said: Well long term we need redevelopment for FFP purposes otherwise we fall behind what other clubs rake in through their stadia. Agreed. But that isn't the point. The question is whether we can afford to reduce any revenue in the 2 years that EVERYONE is saying will be the two hardest seasons for clubs to hit their numbers because of the way that the rules are changing. Mid-long term it makes sense but we can't be throwing away 10 points for non-compliance or having to sell better players to balance the books. That would be an even worse decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 3 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: The new stand would have had the capacity for premium offerings the present stand doesn't. Our premium offerings in the Trinity are reputed to be incredible and the new stand would have been even better. We also had things like that bar over the new player tunnel planned, food outlets etc. The present stand is really very poor. It is almost 50 years old. I have sat in it and been amazes it has survived as long as it has. I guess the broader point is this was a big statement of ambition. It was very public. It was something to look forward to. It was keeping up with peer clubs and then it was just cancelled with a whimper. OK - this is a pointless conversation as you are completely ignoring the point that I keep making. Conversation requires listening as well as talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) 9 minutes ago, allani said: OK - this is a pointless conversation as you are completely ignoring the point that I keep making. Conversation requires listening as well as talking. I just can't get my head around the fact that, despite people's personal feelings, they can't accept that the highly paid experts in the field, paid to do this stuff, most likely know more than them about this sort of thing and the inner workings of the club. It's not as if they are just thick and trying to spite fans, OR doing things to intentionally ruin their own reputations and fortunes of the club FFS. Edited March 9 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 I am not, apologies if that was the impression. I was taking your points on board actually mate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 2 minutes ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: I just can't get my head around the fact that, despite people's personal feelings, they can't accept that the highly paid experts in the field, paid to do this stuff, most likely know more than them about this sort of thing and the inner workings of the club. It's not as if they are just thick and trying to spite fans, OR doing things to intentionally ruin their own reputations and fortunes of the club FFS. Parking the condescending tone from you, for three years our very public strategy conceived by our experts were that we had to grow the stadium to grow as a club and the Ln one day in December that changed. But thanks anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaVilla Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 The FFP implications of not having a stand for a season are significant especially as we appear to be on the limit and the lack of a stand would likely impact our home record as well. Add to that the council’s situation and inability to even put a pound towards sorting out the transport requirements and it becomes very clear why the club really had no option but to shelve the development. Personally, I am increasingly coming to the view that the only way we can make this work is by building a new 60/70k stadium on a new site closer to the city. That’s the only way we genuinely safeguard our future in an era where your competitiveness as a football club is dictated by your income. We can’t rely on Emery or the next manager to always deliver miracles season in/season out. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: Parking the condescending tone from you, for three years our very public strategy conceived by our experts were that we had to grow the stadium to grow as a club and the Ln one day in December that changed. But thanks anyway. How am I being condescending by pointing out the obvious? Not liking it doesn't make it condescending. Not every post I make in the redevelopment thread is aimed at anyone in particular, or you. It's essentially like how is as armchair fans often think we know what the Manager should do. Just because " it's obvious what needs to be done " to certain fans... Doesn't mean it's what actually needs to be done for the best results. It's like you've taken sole responsibility/burden of the redevelopment thread and take everything in it personally Also, things can change in three years Edited March 9 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 It seems a little unfair that the FA wanted us to host Euro 28 matches with the capacity up above 50k but at the same time we will be a bit buggered by the rules if we go ahead with the North Stand. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. You'd think we could make a case on that basis to be exempt from part of the FFP rules or at least be allowed to take the loss of income from having one stand less for two years into account. Maybe the FA can lobby on our behalf to the Premier League? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allani Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 2 hours ago, sharkyvilla said: It seems a little unfair that the FA wanted us to host Euro 28 matches with the capacity up above 50k but at the same time we will be a bit buggered by the rules if we go ahead with the North Stand. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. You'd think we could make a case on that basis to be exempt from part of the FFP rules or at least be allowed to take the loss of income from having one stand less for two years into account. Maybe the FA can lobby on our behalf to the Premier League? Agreed. Especially as the rules are there to improve sustainability (allegedly!) and yet here they are indirectly (or not) impacting decisions that would make it easier to do exactly that. Obviously the direct costs are exempt from the considerations but you'd think that it would be possible to fairly accurately calculate the indirect costs and make an allowance for those (after all most teams will have a decent record of historic attendances and average spend per fan). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts