Villa Park redevelopment

[mrchnry]

13 minutes ago, Mazrim said:

You realise it was a joke, right?

There are no comedic devices used in the above comment. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

Out of interest, where do you draw the line?

Should the club shop be open on non-match days? Should we allow tours which aren't part of the match going experience? Is a museum okay? Restaurants which are open on non-match days? 

Nothing will happen with this, but if NSWE wanted to buy a heritage site and maintain it, why shouldn't they? The football club doesn't need to own or manage it, although the club might be the main user of any services.

Those things are mostly fine, but I probably wouldn't be okay with just owning random restaurants; on the other hand if they were part of the stadium complex like Villa Live was originally planned then it would be not just okay, but excellent. The basic premise here is that the further you get away from the core business of 'being a football club' then the more you encounter different types of business challenge that we may not be equipped to resolve, that may be cyclical in other ways or subject to regulation, that ends up dragging down the football business. 

I mean, you can take the absurdities in other directions as well. Why not build an Aston Villa supermarket to compete with Tesco? Why not set up Aston Villa Rented Properties Ltd and try to become the biggest landlord in the local area? 

Re Aston Hall, if the club had a particularly excellent idea to use it for hospitality (I doubt they will, because it's several hundred metres from the stadium and what is it really going to offer people seeking hospitality at a football club that can't be provided better and more cost-effectively in the hospitality areas of the stadium?) then I have no issue with the club approaching the council to do some sort of deal to use the space occasionally, for a fee, but I'm opposed to any situation where the maintenance and upkeep of this old building ends up on the balance sheet of Aston Villa Football Club. 

In the end, we've appointed people to executive roles because we think they'd be good at running a football club, and that's what we should allow them to do. 

[thabucks]

As moving is a non starter, I’ve been looking at ways they may look to add capacity. By looking at the Holte you can add rows to the front and rear of the upper tier without major reconstruction works by extending them forwards and backwards. 

 

Edited March 29 by thabucks

[limpid]

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

In the end, we've appointed people to executive roles because we think they'd be good at running a football club, and that's what we should allow them to do. 

I think I've spotted where we are at odds. What do you mean by "club"?

I see no reason NSWE couldn't set up a new vehicle to buy and operate Aston Hall and appoint appropriate people to perform that role. Aston Villa Football Club would simply be a customer of the hypothetical entity. This is the model we already have, the club do not own the stadium, we are tenants.

[limpid]

3 minutes ago, thabucks said:

As moving is a non starter, I’ve been looking at ways they may look to add capacity. By looking at the Holte you can add rows to the front and rear of the upper tier without major reconstruction works by extending them forwards and backwards. 

Those extra light panels on the left were to allow additional light to pass through for the residents who were put in shadow. It'll be exceptionally difficult to obtain consent to extend backwards for the same reasons. And that would just be granting that the structure could take the additional load.

Judging by how much my seat bounces at the front of the upper Holte when the crowd gets rocking, I don't believe they could add additional seats there either  There isn't a lot of room if you need to maintain the views from Terrace View and disabled seats.

I suspect any "extra" seats will be converting more GA seats to GA+.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, limpid said:

I think I've spotted where we are at odds. What do you mean by "club"?

I see no reason NSWE couldn't set up a new vehicle to buy and operate Aston Hall and appoint appropriate people to perform that role. Aston Villa Football Club would simply be a customer of the hypothetical entity. This is the model we already have, the club do not own the stadium, we are tenants.

In that case, it would depend who was running Aston Hall Ltd; if it's different people entirely that's basically okay (though it's worth noting if Aston Hall Ltd ends up a massive money sink then you could still end up with bad situations like the club overpaying for its use), but if it's Chris Heck or whatever then no, his focus should be on the football business. 

[thabucks]

As much fantasy as a new stadium else where here’s a rudimentary idea of what VP with the trinity & Holte squared off would look like - again right to light would make it impossible but I’m bored today when I should be working

[Captain_Townsend]

5 minutes ago, thabucks said:

As much fantasy as a new stadium else where here’s a rudimentary idea of what VP with the trinity & Holte squared off would look like - again right to light would make it impossible but I’m bored today when I should be working

All that space, we own, behind the current North stand just crying out for development.

[OutByEaster?]

34 minutes ago, thabucks said:

As much fantasy as a new stadium else where here’s a rudimentary idea of what VP with the trinity & Holte squared off would look like - again right to light would make it impossible but I’m bored today when I should be working

I don't think there are any right to light issues on that side of the ground.

The Holte End is interesting - I wonder whether we'd be able to build out so the Upper tier overhangs the road? 

Extending the Lower Holte there would be out of the question as the park (and therefore the road) is a hard boundary and we'd have no chance of planning permission. 

I'm not sure how big the gains would be as the pillar that holds the Holte roof up would mean that you couldn't really go beyond square with the lower - it might be an awful lot of expense and difficulty for a couple of hundred cheap (-ish) seats.

[thabucks]

Any seat gains would be the least desirable but would offset areas converted to GA+ so the maintain capacity of normal seats whilst adding to overall capacity. Cost to benefit ratio just wouldn’t be there so as I said a fantasy proposal. 

Edited March 29 by thabucks

[AvonVillain]

50 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said:

All that space, we own, behind the current North stand just crying out for development.

That's what I thought! Can't we just make the pitch much, much longer, and extend the Witton and Trinity accordingly!? That would bump up capacity!!!

(NB. above contains comedic devices)

[DakotaVilla]

2 hours ago, mrchnry said:

This thread has lost the plot now. Talking about flattening a 400 year old building to extend our out of date stadium. 

When was the last time you went inside said building?

[DakotaVilla]

2 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Can't believe people are advocating knocking down Aston Hall for a football stadium. It's an amazing building, grade 1 listed, full of history. Have we not learnt enough yet in Birmingham about destroying its heritage and culture for a quick profit?

As a Villa fan I'd flat out refuse ever to set foot in a new stadium if they engaged in a piece of vandalism like that.

And when did you last go inside Aston hall? 

[Villa_Vids]

What is stopping us building below, lowering the pitch and adding more seats?

[Lichfield Dean]

7 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

And when did you last go inside Aston hall? 

Year before last, and we were going to go last year but couldn't make it at the last minute.

[brommy]

9 minutes ago, Villa_Vids said:

What is stopping us building below, lowering the pitch and adding more seats?

There's not that much room around the pitch - currently an ideal distance in my opinion, unless you advocating a smaller pitch or throw-ins taken from the third row.

[DakotaVilla]

As I said in a perfect world we’d keep it if it didn’t get in the way of everything else but if the last time you visited it was 2 years ago it would hardly be missed. It’s not as if the Magna Carta was signed there. 

Anyhows this is all pure conjecture so no need to dig into this further. 

[thabucks]

When they re-profiled the lower Witton tier due to asbestos it lost 6 rows of seats and blocked the view of circa 150 seats on the corner of the Holte … The old tier was closer to the pitch and was by the looks of it the same rake and the Holte. 

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, thabucks said:

When they re-profiled the lower Witton tier due to asbestos it lost 6 rows of seats and blocked the view of circa 150 seats on the corner of the Holte

I recall the re profiling was done because there were so many complaints about lack of legroom after the Witton lane was turned into a 2 tier stand. The asbestos was found on the first rebuild, wasn't it? oh, and your maths stinks . But you're right about blocking the view from the corner of the Holte!

[limpid]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I don't think there are any right to light issues on that side of the ground.

The Holte End is interesting - I wonder whether we'd be able to build out so the Upper tier overhangs the road? 

Extending the Lower Holte there would be out of the question as the park (and therefore the road) is a hard boundary and we'd have no chance of planning permission. 

I'm not sure how big the gains would be as the pillar that holds the Holte roof up would mean that you couldn't really go beyond square with the lower - it might be an awful lot of expense and difficulty for a couple of hundred cheap (-ish) seats.

I don't believe we could build over that road without rebuilding the whole Holte. The engineering to cantilever the weight of a roof over a structural seat deck would be significant and the stand is already at the property line. Depending on how much of an extension, you'd also have to move the sky boxes.

We're unlikely to get consent for anything encroaching on the Hall's grounds. It might be looked at more favourably if the application came backed by new owners of the hall though.