thabucks Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 51 minutes ago, sidcow said: Why is Heck talking openly about increasing the size of Villa Park to 50,000? Because that’s the clubs long term plan still but people cannot grasp it may have just been put on hold not completely cancelled … 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) 49 minutes ago, thabucks said: Because that’s the clubs long term plan still but people cannot grasp it may have just been put on hold not completely cancelled … 'Heck views the redevelopment plan of rebuilding the North Stand as a "bad idea" considering it would mean the stadium's capacity would drop to 36,000 from the start of next season and until 2025/26. "Over the summer months I became more concerned we were adding too many seats too fast," he explained' 'Number one, we talk about Villa Park being a fortress. It is true. There is no better home advantage than at Villa Park and I think it would be a bad idea to tear down one of the stands for a two year period while we are playing like we are. I think that going forward, everything should be about all fans and not just one particular stand.' There would have been better ways to signal that the club still had ambitions of a 50k Villa Park! It was such a pile of waffle. I mean the logic of his position is that clubs should redevelop when they are unsuccessful, which does not happen. Edited May 8 by Captain_Townsend 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 39 minutes ago, thabucks said: Because that’s the clubs long term plan still but people cannot grasp it may have just been put on hold not completely cancelled … I seriously wish Heck hadn't done that club statement/interview in December. New badge revealed in a few weeks - nope! Cancelling the planning approved expansion whilst stating that adding seats too quickly is a mistake - really? If Heck had just said the club is still considering it's options on the badge and stadium capacity, he'd have looked less incompetent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 Just now, Captain_Townsend said: 'Heck views the redevelopment plan of rebuilding the North Stand as a "bad idea" considering it would mean the stadium's capacity would drop to 36,000 from the start of next season and until 2025/26. "Over the summer months I became more concerned we were adding too many seats too fast," he explained' There woild have been better ways to signal that the club still had ambitions of a 50k Villa Park! At that time he and the club thought it would be best to wait … not sure why that concept is so hard for some to grasp ? Also the article doesn’t give a timeline which I know will be to your annoyance but, the club are working on incremental improvements to the Holte & Trinity, improving transportation links, starting work this summer on The Warehouse… We now have the expertise at board level to advise and run major redevelopment, the Edens article stating there’s a wider project in the works, we also have another financial partner in Altarios. Maybe just maybe a bit of patience is required and also faith. The club have earned that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) 3 minutes ago, thabucks said: At that time he and the club thought it would be best to wait … not sure why that concept is so hard for some to grasp ? Also the article doesn’t give a timeline which I know will be to your annoyance but, the club are working on incremental improvements to the Holte & Trinity, improving transportation links, starting work this summer on The Warehouse… We now have the expertise at board level to advise and run major redevelopment, the Edens article stating there’s a wider project in the works, we also have another financial partner in Altarios. Maybe just maybe a bit of patience is required and also faith. The club have earned that. That may be the case but It doesn't excuse the amateur way we were communicated to in December about why it was on hold or where the new new badge went. Why not say the medium term plan is to get VP to 50k. We would have avoided debates about a new stadium, price hikes on a 42k being the strategy etc etc. Edited May 8 by Captain_Townsend 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 8 Moderator Share Posted May 8 4 hours ago, Villa_Vids said: The club comissioned a stadium bowl feasability study. The small increase (2-3k) was always going to happen after the NS. This study may have included the next phase of re-development after the north stand or re-building DE stand first The study wasn't carried out until after the North Stand was cancelled - in fact, the study was carried out after the 2-3k small increase was mentioned - I think we'll see the results of that study in the hospitality developments this summer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: The study wasn't carried out until after the North Stand was cancelled - in fact, the study was carried out after the 2-3k small increase was mentioned - I think we'll see the results of that study in the hospitality developments this summer. Thanks mate. Gosh, so not quite as meticulously thought through and planned as one might think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted May 8 VT Supporter Share Posted May 8 (edited) Doesn't want the capacity reduced while we are playing at a high level. Reading between the lines it points to a new development that will not affect our attendances. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Edited May 8 by tinker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 minute ago, tinker said: Doesn't want the capacity reduced while we are playing at a high level. Reading between the lines it points to a new development that will not affect our attendances. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. At the very least it is a communication that is ambiguous/ open to interpretation. Hence we have 1. Some convinced a new stadium is being planned 2. Others convinced we will copy Chelsea by sticking with the same size ground but increasing the % of premium, squeezing until the pips squeek! 3. Others convinced the plan hasn't changed and we are just delaying because it will cripple us on FFP/PSR if we go ahead right now 4. Others who think we will do the Witron rather than the NS. I am just sticking to my position that the comms is amateurish, the plan could literally be any of the above and to borrow Heck's own words it was a "bad idea" to deviate from what we had planned because I am sure costs will only go up not down from what they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 8 Moderator Share Posted May 8 11 minutes ago, tinker said: Doesn't want the capacity reduced while we are playing at a high level. Reading between the lines it points to a new development that will not affect our attendances. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. I would think if we're looking at ducks, there are two. A new stadium built on land adjacent to Villa Park with us continuing to play at Villa Park alongside it while it's built. The big duck shaped duck that people don't like looking at - that Chris Heck doesn't want to raise the capacity and that he'd prefer to spend a couple of million to get a thousand more £400 a game supporters than £100m building 10,000 more seats at £40 a time. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: That may be the case but It doesn't excuse the amateur way we were communicated to in December about why it was on hold or where the new new badge went. Why not say the medium term plan is to get VP to 50k. We would have avoided debates about a new stadium, price hikes on a 42k being the strategy etc etc. But again what’s wrong with debate and speculation on a bloody forum … Why should they spoon food every single drop of info to appease some ? Why can’t plans change and have to be definitive ? Why can’t the new appointments and investment alter matters medium term ? What Heck said was correct at the time for the club or he wouldn’t have done it, but things change quickly. Why was it amateur ? Why is waiting for an end of season reveal of the new badge such a bad thing - maybe the inept FA are the reason it was delayed. Maybe commercially it’s better for the new badge and kit manufacturer and sponsor be launched to coincide with our 150th year. The new north stand will happen there is no doubt about that whatsoever - just not at some fans preferred timescale. Trust the process they’ve earned that. Edited May 8 by thabucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) 25 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: The study wasn't carried out until after the North Stand was cancelled - in fact, the study was carried out after the 2-3k small increase was mentioned - I think we'll see the results of that study in the hospitality developments this summer. The initial plans stated an increase of 2-3 seats to take us to 53’000 so was always on the agenda as part of phase 3. This is set out in the readily available Design & Access Part 1 statement released in 2022… http://eplanning.idox.birmingham.gov.uk/publisher/docs/5D5BFCFF32C0E74A6B9A6B10CE6A5BA1/Document-5D5BFCFF32C0E74A6B9A6B10CE6A5BA1.pdf Edited May 8 by thabucks 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teale's 'tache Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 4 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: At the very least it is a communication that is ambiguous/ open to interpretation. Hence we have 1. Some convinced a new stadium is being planned 2. Others convinced we will copy Chelsea by sticking with the same size ground but increasing the % of premium, squeezing until the pips squeek! 3. Others convinced the plan hasn't changed and we are just delaying because it will cripple us on FFP/PSR if we go ahead right now 4. Others who think we will do the Witron rather than the NS. I am just sticking to my position that the comms is amateurish, the plan could literally be any of the above and to borrow Heck's own words it was a "bad idea" to deviate from what we had planned because I am sure costs will only go up not down from what they were. I mean, I think that depends on your expectation. As a fellow fan I don't expect to be immediately updated on everything the club is doing, indeed in some areas, it is probably for the best that we aren't told everything until things have been fully ratified etc. because seemingly we can have a meltdown over pretty much anything you can think of, including a crest that hasn't even been officially released yet. I'm pretty sure Heck didn't make the decision to 'pause' the North Stand development on his own, especially when you consider the investment and people brought on to the board have links with Edens, Heck is just the public face of the final decision. The fact of the matter is we don't really know what they are planning, and they aren't going to tell us until they are good and ready, and confident that whatever those plans may be are 100% viable. People will always speculate, it's human nature, if that speculation gets out of hand then the club would probably make a statement of some kind, but a few guys raging on a forum and Twitter isn't enough to warrant any reaction, and nor should it be. Personally, I'll just wait until the club lets us know what the new mid to long-term plan is with the stadium when they are ready, rather than spamming this thread over and over complaining that we didn't get a nice shiny new stand I wanted. We might get something even better, who knows? The owners are absolutely part of whatever is going to happen to our stadium, even if you don't trust Heck, you should trust those guys to get it right, they certainly should have earned everyone's trust by now. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 Here’s the link to access the full documents list… http://eplanning.idox.birmingham.gov.uk/publisher/mvc/listDocuments?identifier=Planning&reference=2022/06776/PA If you view the drawings for the corner of the trinity and new north stand you’ll see that by removing the current super riser of the trinity and tweaking the rake of the stand that would add another 6 rows and bring the seating closer to the pitch. Do that the whole length of the trinity, whilst keeping in place areas for disabled fans still you’ve increased capacity rather easily which I’m sure a firm as reputable of Grimshaw would’ve explored and advised the club about. We do not know if it was them that were Instructed to look at the whole seating bowl and draw up plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted May 8 VT Supporter Share Posted May 8 Things changed with purslow going and our unexpected upturn in form. Add to that the extra investment and expertise coming in and there was obviously going to be some areas where the current management didn't agree with the path taken by the old. Heck needed away to explain us not developing the north stand in the summer. as previously planned and he used one of the reasons above that wouldn't throw our previous plans under the bus making us look like 'amateurs' (even though the plans would never have dragged us into modern stadium stands). You don't bring on board people like we have to extend a burger bar area and stick 3000 more seats in and a bigger corporate area. Their wages alone would take years to pay back selling burgers to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 Maybe NSWE saw what Liverpool were building in terms of their new Anfield Road End and decided for over a £100million they’d rather not spend that on a stand with a similar exterior and demanded a rethink ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teale's 'tache Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 30 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I would think if we're looking at ducks, there are two. A new stadium built on land adjacent to Villa Park with us continuing to play at Villa Park alongside it while it's built. The big duck shaped duck that people don't like looking at - that Chris Heck doesn't want to raise the capacity and that he'd prefer to spend a couple of million to get a thousand more £400 a game supporters than £100m building 10,000 more seats at £40 a time. I don't know if you've seen the Financial Times article (I don't know the link as I didn't pay for it, it may be in the Heck thread), but I believe in that Heck has mentioned increasing the capacity to 50k. I don't disagree with your sentiment though, that is what he wants, maybe if we can increase the capacity to include all the corporate packages he wants, as well as being able to meet the demand of us 'legacy' fans, then we might be able to find a good balance. Here's hoping. The Lower Grounds seems to be increasing in popularity now it is settling in, and it shows there is a market of supporters we've not been targeting previously, finding untapped revenue like that is something I'm sure we are looking at doing more of. Demand drives it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 50 minutes ago, Captain_Townsend said: At the very least it is a communication that is ambiguous/ open to interpretation. Hence we have 1. Some convinced a new stadium is being planned 2. Others convinced we will copy Chelsea by sticking with the same size ground but increasing the % of premium, squeezing until the pips squeek! 3. Others convinced the plan hasn't changed and we are just delaying because it will cripple us on FFP/PSR if we go ahead right now 4. Others who think we will do the Witron rather than the NS. I am just sticking to my position that the comms is amateurish, the plan could literally be any of the above and to borrow Heck's own words it was a "bad idea" to deviate from what we had planned because I am sure costs will only go up not down from what they were. Who cares what fans speculate about. The club are planning the improvements and will announce them when it's right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 51 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: I would think if we're looking at ducks, there are two. A new stadium built on land adjacent to Villa Park with us continuing to play at Villa Park alongside it while it's built. The big duck shaped duck that people don't like looking at - that Chris Heck doesn't want to raise the capacity and that he'd prefer to spend a couple of million to get a thousand more £400 a game supporters than £100m building 10,000 more seats at £40 a time. Despite the fact he's said we are raising the capacity by around 2,000 seats and then again in this interview for ft said to get capacity to 50,000. So aside from explicitly saying we are raising capacity, twice then yes you're right Heck doesn't want to raise the capacity of VP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Scorpio Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 8 hours ago, sidcow said: This is literally the next station along the line at perry Barr And is completely empty after 2 years without a buyer. It was never going to be the athletes village for the commonwealth games either, despite what was said publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts