nick76 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, fightoffyour said: Aston Villa FC doesn't own Villa Park, and it wouldn't be paying any of the costs - materials, labour, interest, or otherwise - to build a hypothetical new stadium in the current ownership model. FFP, if we are comparing to Everton's situation, is irrelevant to this discussion for us. I bet it does, otherwise teams like Newcastle would just set up a separate company and buy the best players and then lease them to Newcastle to get around PSR. I haven’t read the PSR rules but I bet there are related party rules otherwise PSR has no power, all the expensive costs they’d source to another company. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, Stevo985 said: Then why aren't they building a new stadium? Because it costs 750mil-1bn to build. It is the only reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, TreeVillan said: 20 years is nothing. If we're only looking at the short term like yourself then I don't have much hope for us anyway. 127 years at Villa Park and I'm looking at the short term. Look, my argument is that financially it will make limited difference, and for that we're giving up 127 years of history. I've provided justification for that. You don't agree, fine. Make your case and provide justification that we're going to be financially much better off and I'll listen. Or even take my argument apart. That's fine. But don't come disparaging me as a short termer and waltz off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 13 minutes ago, HKP90 said: 127 years at Villa Park and I'm looking at the short term. Look, my argument is that financially it will make limited difference, and for that we're giving up 127 years of history. I've provided justification for that. You don't agree, fine. Make your case and provide justification that we're going to be financially much better off and I'll listen. We are not giving up history by moving stadiums. We are making new history. The history will stay the same - it's about an ambitious and bright future, regardless of if it's at VP or somewhere else. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 29 minutes ago, nick76 said: I bet it does, otherwise teams like Newcastle would just set up a separate company and buy the best players and then lease them to Newcastle to get around PSR. I haven’t read the PSR rules but I bet there are related party rules otherwise PSR has no power, all the expensive costs they’d source to another company. West Ham had someone else build the stadium and lease it for free basically. Third-party ownership of players has been prohibited since Tevez and Mascerano (oh look, it's West Ham again) hasn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlobalVillan Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 16 minutes ago, TheAuthority said: SHA fans have been going on about them moving to that site for ages. Apparently its been bought and therefore isn't an option. Anyway, we aren’t moving. At least, not under the current ownership and probably never, for a multitude of (good) reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 9 minutes ago, Mic09 said: We are not giving up history by moving stadiums. We are making new history. The history will stay the same - it's about an ambitious and bright future, regardless of if it's at VP or somewhere else. I keep seeing these terms, bright future, ambition. It would not make us very much money, and the atmosphere would be worse, as discussed in previous posts. What, then, would we actually be doing it for? Specifically. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, HKP90 said: I keep seeing these terms, bright future, ambition. It would not make us very much money, and the atmosphere would be worse, as discussed in previous posts. What, then, would we actually be doing it for? Specifically. Spurs made between £95m and £130m last season from match day revenue, you have away and home fans, the games changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post VILLAMARV Posted March 25 Popular Post Share Posted March 25 I think we could really think outside the box and set a new trend in having 2 stadiums. If it's good enough for badges.... 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 2 minutes ago, tinker said: Spurs made between £95m and £130m last season from match day revenue, you have away and home fans, the games changing. Spurs increased revenue by moving by 7%, and it cost them a billion pounds to do it. Another example- West Ham. West Ham made £26M from matchday during the last year at the boleyn. Three years afterward they made the same at London Stadium, plus or minus. This last year (because of European competition) they made £47M. They have increased overall revenue by moving, again, by around 7% per year. In their case I guess it makes sense because they didn't burden themselves with a billion squids of debt as it was already built. But still, just 7%. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 1 hour ago, GlobalVillan said: Oh really? How ironic that you should say that. I completely agree with you of course, its just that last week... oh never mind. Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Spurs will get a boat load of money for the naming rights to the stadium. Barca got $310m from Spotify. Spurs might not get as much but who knows what Google, Oracle or similar will pony up. A new Villa Park would obviously not net those figures. But still. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 19 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said: I think we could really think outside the box and set a new trend in having 2 stadiums. If it's good enough for badges.... This is actually a great idea - all the benefits on a modern new stadium, yet we stay in our historical home of Villa Park where we don't actually play anymore. You can do a tour though, including a new "half time pie" experience were you queue for ages, get nothing, and miss the rest of the tour. 1 1 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: Where did the club categorical rule that out? From the Fans Advisory Board on 20th December 2023 Quote For clarity, rumours on social media suggesting that this decision will result in a new stadium elsewhere are entirely false. Moving away from Villa Park is not part of any plans 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Club also said we were getting a new North Stand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 3 minutes ago, sne said: Spurs will get a boat load of money for the naming rights to the stadium. Barca got $310m from Spotify. Spurs might not get as much but who knows what Google, Oracle or similar will pony up. A new Villa Park would obviously not net those figures. But still. Could we not do that with VP now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 (edited) 1 minute ago, sne said: Club also said we were getting a new North Stand. They haven't said we AREN'T getting one either though... FFS Edited March 25 by JAMAICAN-VILLAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulberto21 Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 31 minutes ago, GlobalVillan said: SHA fans have been going on about them moving to that site for ages. Apparently its been bought and therefore isn't an option. Anyway, we aren’t moving. At least, not under the current ownership and probably never, for a multitude of (good) reasons. And the obvious reason being Vilers are not allowed in town …… mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 25 VT Supporter Share Posted March 25 Just now, sne said: Club also said we were getting a new North Stand. Yep, and there's absolutely nothing stopping them doing a complete u-turn and building a new stadium. But like I said before, a categorical ruling out of a new stadium is far more evidence for us not building a new stadium than any evidence for the contrary 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts