JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 10 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said: I’d have agreed that the club weren’t looking to move but the big elephant in the room is Altairos. We wouldn’t need to have them onboard unless there were some very large capital infrastructure projects being discussed. In fairness, someone posted the other day, a link to Zed FC things, it appears they have ALOT of significant developments taking place, so Aitoros could be more focused on that? Who knows, as it's actually V Sports they've joined and not just Aston Villa. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) 1 minute ago, HKP90 said: History doesn't work like that. You don't erase it. We've won 7 FA cups, the league and the top level of european competition while playing games at Villa Park. Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Blackburn Rovers etc have " great history " too? How much is it currently benefiting them? Edited March 25 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QldVilla Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 5 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said: We won’t have a history worthy of discussion in 20 years if we don’t take the very difficult decision to put the clubs future growth potential first. Agree. Only the owners know what plans they have for the club, there is an opportunity to dominate the midlands for the next 10,20,30 years where every young footballer in the region wants to play for Villa, the club has to be bigger than its past, while still acknowledging it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaVilla Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: You should let the club know then, because we won't be building a new stadium They categorically have to or find a way of rebuilding villa park very quickly. After retaining Emery it is probably the second single biggest issue that will prevent the owners scaling their investment. Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Newcastle, West Ham, Chelsea and Everton (new stadium) are already out of sight regarding the commercial income that their stadiums generate. That’s half the league. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 1 minute ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said: Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Blackburn Rovers etc have " great history " too? How much is it currently benefiting them? Why does it have to be measured in terms of financial benefit? Sheffield Wednesday are one of the oldest clubs in the world. They will always have that, and it will always be a draw. I have a proposition that makes tangible financial sense. We buy Birmingham City, consolidate into a single entity called Birmingham FC. Knock down Villa Park and St. Andrews, and build a stadium next to Birmingham International. That would take in a catchment of over 1 million people. Any takers? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 I would never support moving for the sake of it to an out of town soulless development and generic bowl. Any potential move would need to be the right location and importantly design. The efficiencies of a modern bowl stadia with spacious interconnected concourses, centralised plant & BOH would be a huge benefit but not worth sacrificing VP for if we were to end up with an enlarged king power stadium. Manica, Herzog & DeMeuron, B.I.G etc are designing some beautiful stadiums right now and I’d expect us to honour our history with any proposal which is just wishful conjecture at this point in time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 (edited) 23 minutes ago, HKP90 said: Why does it have to be measured in terms of financial benefit? Sheffield Wednesday are one of the oldest clubs in the world. They will always have that, and it will always be a draw. I have a proposition that makes tangible financial sense. We buy Birmingham City, consolidate into a single entity called Birmingham FC. Knock down Villa Park and St. Andrews, and build a stadium next to Birmingham International. That would take in a catchment of over 1 million people. Any takers? While you see the history of our great club you're not looking at the future that builds history for tomorrow fans to jump on board. If we are not successful financially then we won't have the money to compete and the fans won't come and the decline has set in. The next 5 years set the tone for the next 40. We won't rebuild villa Park, it will stop our current progress on the pitch, that's obviously the most pressing concern, and it won't reap many rewards from a commercial point of view. Its in a run down area that has no chance of regeneration and is constrained geographically. Who would want to spend a night in Witton or an afternoon before the match? Edited March 25 by tinker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okonokos Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mic09 said: It's not even comparable to Wimbledon moving to MK. NEC is in the same city - it's 15 mins down the M6. I am not advocating for it. but considering the NEC infrastructure already in place, it is a feasible option. Especially if resorts world arena is taken over by the exhibition space, and we strike a deal with them to build a venue that is capable of hosting 20k attendance concerts on weekly basis AND 60k football matches. Now THAT would be a cash cow that would challenge or overtake the spurs stadium. I said it's not much better than Wimbledon. Obviously that was worse, but this would be a joke too. The NEC is in Marston Green, which comes under Solihull rather than Birmingham so we would be moving our club out of its city. It's nonsensical to even suggest it, in my opinion. The space might be viable at the NEC but getting there is not easy at all. I can just imagine how bad the roads would be on match days. No thanks. Edited March 25 by Okonokos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 9 minutes ago, tinker said: While you see the history of our great club you're not looking at the future that builds history for tomorrow fans to jump on board. If we are not successful financially then we won't have the money to compete and the fans won't come and the decline has set in. The next 5 years set the tone for the next 40. We won't rebuild villa Park, it will stop our current progress on the pitch, that's obviously the most pressing concern, and it won't reap many rewards from a commercial point of view. Its in a run down area that has no chance of regeneration and is constrained geographically. Who would want to spend a night in Witton or an afternoon before the match? Sheffield Wednesday have been out of the top flight since 2000, they still get an average of 30,000 fans every home game. Leeds in the championship get 35,000. These are good old clubs with historic stadia. As I've alluded to before on here, matchday revenue makes up an average of 13% of club revenue in the PL. If you think that a new 70,000 seat stadium will ramp up revenues, and take us into the stratosphere, you are wrong. Improved media revenue would dwarf any such gains. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 12 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said: Tinker is talking about the NEC. It's totally the wrong side of Birmingham for me to be acceptable, despite some of the obvious listed advantages. Edit: also, anyone who's been stuck in the NEC car park after a concert will probably get the shivers at the thought of 50,000+ people trying to leave that area, despite what on the face of it appear to be excellent travel connections. With the amount of trains going in that direction you'd surely expect majority of fans coming in by train as happens with London teams? West Ham didn't move to where they did to have 50k of them needing parking spots. We're not moving anytime soon but to me the NEC remains the most viable spot with the existing transport links and what's to come with HS2 and Birmingham Interchange station. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thabucks Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 8 minutes ago, HKP90 said: As I've alluded to before on here, matchday revenue makes up an average of 13% of club revenue in the PL. If you think that a new 70,000 seat stadium will ramp up revenues, and take us into the stratosphere, you are wrong. Improved media revenue would dwarf any such gains. Spurs went from just under £1mill per game to £4.8mill per game when they moved … we wouldn’t get the same bump due to geographical location but you’d expect to triple matchday revenues which isn’t that insignificant. It all adds up 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 8 minutes ago, HKP90 said: Sheffield Wednesday have been out of the top flight since 2000, they still get an average of 30,000 fans every home game. Leeds in the championship get 35,000. These are good old clubs with historic stadia. As I've alluded to before on here, matchday revenue makes up an average of 13% of club revenue in the PL. If you think that a new 70,000 seat stadium will ramp up revenues, and take us into the stratosphere, you are wrong. Improved media revenue would dwarf any such gains. They are both perfect examples of why we have to push on. As for match day revenue, Spurs made £107m last year alone. 13% includes clubs like us who are pulling the figures down. If you really believe that the likes of Spurs , Arsenal have built grounds for the sake of it then I'm afraid I won't be able to convince you of the need for the club to move on, I just hope our owners are in it for our long term future and not just chapters in a history book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 (edited) 19 minutes ago, thabucks said: Spurs went from just under £1mill per game to £4.8mill per game when they moved … we wouldn’t get the same bump due to geographical location but you’d expect to triple matchday revenues which isn’t that insignificant. It all adds up Their revenue is £540M per year. Deloitte actually has their matchday revenue at £135M, up from £92.5M during the last year at white hart lane. That's a gain of £42M/year, or an increase of 7%. Their stadium cost £1B to build. With the increased revenue it will have paid for itself by 2048. Then they can start raking in the big bucks. It's worth pointing out that they made £100M from broadcast rights this year, and £276M during their last season at WHL. Edited March 25 by HKP90 per game/per year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, DakotaVilla said: They categorically have to or find a way of rebuilding villa park very quickly. After retaining Emery it is probably the second single biggest issue that will prevent the owners scaling their investment. Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Newcastle, West Ham, Chelsea and Everton (new stadium) are already out of sight regarding the commercial income that their stadiums generate. That’s half the league. I find it so hard to care about this. I understand that our owners are investors and will be wanting to see a big return on the vast amount of money they are putting in - and stadium revenue is a big factor. But. honestly, I just can't get behind all the discussion around MAKING MORE MONEY when in a league which is already obscenely wealthy and has seen even the lowly Aston Villa spend something like £400m on players over the last 4 years. We're hardly being held back; we're above most of the sides you've listed in the table despite being so far behind them commercially (who gives a shit). I don't get the drive for finishing top 4 as a be all and end all for us this season; we should be putting all our eggs into winning a **** trophy because football should be about winning and competing rather than who has the best **** balance sheet. And, most importantly, we should keep our historical, beautiful Villa Park and not just be like <any other club> in a soulless, shit stadium on the edge of a city. Edited March 25 by bobzy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, bobzy said: I find it so hard to care about this. I understand that our owners are investors and will be wanting to see a big return on the vast amount of money they are putting in - and stadium revenue is a big factor. But. honestly, I just can't get behind all the discussion around MAKING MORE MONEY when in a league which is already obscenely wealthy and has seen even the lowly Aston Villa spend something like £400m on players over the last 4 years. We're hardly being held back; we're above most of the sides you've listed in the table despite being so far behind them commercially (who gives a shit). I don't get the drive for finishing top 4 as a be all and end all for us this season; we should be putting all our eggs into winning a **** trophy because football should be about winning and competing rather than who has the best **** balance sheet. And, most importantly, we should keep our historical, beautiful Villa Park and not just be like <any other club> in a soulless, shit stadium on the edge of a city. It's really not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 6 minutes ago, HKP90 said: It's really not. It is, though. It won't be a large portion of overall income, but it could easily be the difference of, say, £50m. And that's a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, HKP90 said: Why does it have to be measured in terms of financial benefit? Sheffield Wednesday are one of the oldest clubs in the world. They will always have that, and it will always be a draw. I have a proposition that makes tangible financial sense. We buy Birmingham City, consolidate into a single entity called Birmingham FC. Knock down Villa Park and St. Andrews, and build a stadium next to Birmingham International. That would take in a catchment of over 1 million people. Any takers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, DakotaVilla said: They categorically have to or find a way of rebuilding villa park very quickly. After retaining Emery it is probably the second single biggest issue that will prevent the owners scaling their investment. Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, Man Utd, Man City, Newcastle, West Ham, Chelsea and Everton (new stadium) are already out of sight regarding the commercial income that their stadiums generate. That’s half the league. Building a new stadium isn't the only way to increase commercial income. And incurring a billion quid's worth of cost due to the building of said stadium would mean you'd see no benefit to that increase in revenue for a long time. I don't really know why I'm answering. It's not me you need to convince, it's the club. And they obviously feel we don't need a new stadium to meet our financial needs. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 55 minutes ago, Okonokos said: The space might be viable at the NEC but getting there is not easy at all. I can just imagine how bad the roads would be on match days. No thanks. NEC is next to the airport, multi-platform train station, motorways. They have massive parking spaces and it's possible to expand those, including exits. It is probably the easiest venue to get to in Birmingham, certainly easier than Aston. It makes perfect logistical sense. But I appreciate it might not be the best location considering it's a bit far from Aston/Witton. But then again, Aston is not exactly a football mecca. I would wager it would be much easier for most fans to get to NEC than Aston. So we'd have to address a question of whether Aston is our home, or are we going to be a global club that will be able to attract fans from London that can get to NEC in just over an hour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) " Aston Villa are open to creating a 92,000 seater soulless bowl outside of Aston... Despite NSWE expressing no desire for such a move just last year " - John Townley Edited March 25 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts