New Aston Villa Stadium Chat

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, Frodo said:

So the options are new stadium (nothing coming from the club regards this) redevelopment of North Stand but that's been cancelled (or paused) last option titivate North stand by filling in corners & adding seats ? 

Just on these options:

1. There has been something from the club regarding this - they've said we're not moving, and they've no intention of moving to a new stadium elsewhere. Now that doesn't mean they wouldn't consider building a new stadium on the current site, but it does gives us an indication that even if that were the case, we'd be looking at a long time before any work would start. The purchase of land, the planning, the Euros etc would most likely give us a start date in the 2030's and a stadium in the mid 2030's at best. However, given the existing work that's being undertaken, I think it's unlikely we'll see any movement in that direction any time soon.

2. It's a shame that the North Stand has been cancelled (or paused). I guess we might look at it again after the Euros, but I think Heck's focus is on yield, on 'sweating the asset' and getting more from the stadium he has, with a few adjustments. I doubt we'll ever know the real reasons for the late stop on it, but I'm sure they make sense - it won't have been done on a whim, the club have spent a lot of money getting it to the start line and something will need to have changed to persuade them to stop.

3. The last option isn't necessarily to titivate the North Stand and fill in the corners - I think we'll see a lot of work on the Hospitality areas first that will increase our hospitality offering substantially, there's then the requirement to increase our disability places which I know the club are keen to do - but I think the increases in attendance will largely fit around those things, not the addition of big chunks of new seating in the bowl. We'll see I guess. Filling in the corners isn't going to be a great option, we really only have two corners and both of those are restricted in terms of viewing by the supports for the existing structures.

[blandy]

Please stay on topic. There are other threads for the North Stand and VP redevelopment, for other clubs and their stadia and for Small Heath Alliance (whatever one of those is).

[Hughes]

Moved from apparently wrong forum: 

surely, respective owners cannot be discussing a ground share arrangement? Plans to redevelop North Stand cancelled/suspended and Blues in the same time period getting new ownership who secures a large land plot rather central in Brum - we all agree that a new super-stadium quite simply does not make any sense for Blues alone. Not saying this will happen at all, and most likely I am just paranoid, but strange and not really explained decision on North Stand coupled with unrealistic new stadium for Blues.... Foreign owners involving US fund structures could be the ones to do such a crazy thing. So, in order to stay within topic: Could that be a new Villa stadium? 

[Follyfoot]

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

Please stay on topic. There are other threads for the North Stand and VP redevelopment, for other clubs and their stadia and for Small Heath Alliance (whatever one of those is).

Vile mod rattled on Vile thread re the mighty SHA super stadium expansion

mate

Edited April 11 by Follyfoot

[sidcow]

7 minutes ago, Hughes said:

Moved from apparently wrong forum: 

surely, respective owners cannot be discussing a ground share arrangement? Plans to redevelop North Stand cancelled/suspended and Blues in the same time period getting new ownership who secures a large land plot rather central in Brum - we all agree that a new super-stadium quite simply does not make any sense for Blues alone. Not saying this will happen at all, and most likely I am just paranoid, but strange and not really explained decision on North Stand coupled with unrealistic new stadium for Blues.... Foreign owners involving US fund structures could be the ones to do such a crazy thing. So, in order to stay within topic: Could that be a new Villa stadium? 

Whoa. 

According to Google Maps Birmingham Wheels is 1.9 miles / 44 minute walk from  from Birmingham New Street.   Villa Park is 2.6 miles / 59 minute walk.

It's hardly central Brum and barely enough difference from Villa Park distance to make any material changes to a journey.

Anyway, zero chance we groundshare with those nobs.

[limpid]

2 hours ago, nick76 said:

I honestly don’t want our club to go into that much debt at the moment.  

We don't own Villa Park. Why would we own a new stadium?

[MarkLillis]

18 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

If we won't pay to build a single stand, why do people think we will build a whole new stadium and associated costs of land prep?

Villa have one plan. Wring every penny than can out of the existing 42k or so fan base, and shoehorn as much corporate into the space as they can at the detriment to the lower value paying fans.

 

I wish this didn’t seem so realistic

[CVByrne]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Just on these options:

1. There has been something from the club regarding this - they've said we're not moving, and they've no intention of moving to a new stadium elsewhere. Now that doesn't mean they wouldn't consider building a new stadium on the current site, but it does gives us an indication that even if that were the case, we'd be looking at a long time before any work would start. The purchase of land, the planning, the Euros etc would most likely give us a start date in the 2030's and a stadium in the mid 2030's at best. However, given the existing work that's being undertaken, I think it's unlikely we'll see any movement in that direction any time soon.

2. It's a shame that the North Stand has been cancelled (or paused). I guess we might look at it again after the Euros, but I think Heck's focus is on yield, on 'sweating the asset' and getting more from the stadium he has, with a few adjustments. I doubt we'll ever know the real reasons for the late stop on it, but I'm sure they make sense - it won't have been done on a whim, the club have spent a lot of money getting it to the start line and something will need to have changed to persuade them to stop.

3. The last option isn't necessarily to titivate the North Stand and fill in the corners - I think we'll see a lot of work on the Hospitality areas first that will increase our hospitality offering substantially, there's then the requirement to increase our disability places which I know the club are keen to do - but I think the increases in attendance will largely fit around those things, not the addition of big chunks of new seating in the bowl. We'll see I guess. Filling in the corners isn't going to be a great option, we really only have two corners and both of those are restricted in terms of viewing by the supports for the existing structures.

I think the biggest unknown in relation to a new stadium on the site of Villa Park is where would we play football for the seasons while it's under construction. Tottenham had the advantage Wembley being there. I don't see any options in Birmingham that would be Premier League standard and have enough capacity to mitigate the revenue drop in a constrained PSR environment. 

In relation to the North Stand we can all agree it's dead for work in relation to this decade. The other work that will take place is to increase capacity and increase the revenue on match day. I think improving the transport to Villa Park is also key for the club to push and a prerequ for any plans in relation to bigger upgrades to a new stadium on the site in the 2030s

 

[ender4]

My gut instinct is still saying that the only thing that makes sense is that Heck/Villa are looking at options for a new stadium. Why do i think that?

1) The strange strange announcement that Heck made around the North stand cancellation (pause). His words just didn't make any sense and Heck surely knows it didn't make sense.

2) Atairos taking a 20% stake in Villa's parent company at the same time that Heck announced the cancellation. Atairos seem to get involved in infrastructure projects. 

3) NSWE have seemed to want to grow the value of Villa over the short, medium and long-term. In the long-term, a new stadium is the only option that makes sense. A new North stand works for the medium term but doesn't add that much value in the long-term.

 

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, Hughes said:

Moved from apparently wrong forum: 

surely, respective owners cannot be discussing a ground share arrangement? Plans to redevelop North Stand cancelled/suspended and Blues in the same time period getting new ownership who secures a large land plot rather central in Brum - we all agree that a new super-stadium quite simply does not make any sense for Blues alone. Not saying this will happen at all, and most likely I am just paranoid, but strange and not really explained decision on North Stand coupled with unrealistic new stadium for Blues.... Foreign owners involving US fund structures could be the ones to do such a crazy thing. So, in order to stay within topic: Could that be a new Villa stadium? 

You are paranoid. It absolutely will not happen

[nick76]

47 minutes ago, limpid said:

We don't own Villa Park. Why would we own a new stadium?

Yeah but it’s within the Villa related companies. If NSWE ever sold Villa in the future that would include Villa Park or the new stadium and related debts.  The transaction for Villa Park was to use a company loophole to get us compliant.

[limpid]

8 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Yeah but it’s within the Villa related companies. If NSWE ever sold Villa in the future that would include Villa Park or the new stadium and related debts.  The transaction for Villa Park was to use a company loophole to get us compliant.

Veering into "finances" territory, but so what? You said you didn't want us going into debt "at the moment". How does someone else owing money for a stadium impact us "at the moment"?

[Jareth]

Seems quite obvious to me. If the current ground is not being redeveloped in a substantial way then the vision currently held by those that decide, must be to build new elsewhere. Birmingham was once touted as the home of the new national stadium, Villa go and build exactly that then they get all the tour bookings and non-football business you could want with folks travelling from north south east and west into the heart of England. I think they are going to go huge on this.

But obvs not as huge as blues new stadium course.

[DakotaVilla]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Seems quite obvious to me. If the current ground is not being redeveloped in a substantial way then the vision currently held by those that decide, must be to build new elsewhere. Birmingham was once touted as the home of the new national stadium, Villa go and build exactly that then they get all the tour bookings and non-football business you could want with folks travelling from north south east and west into the heart of England. I think they are going to go huge on this.

But obvs not as huge as blues new stadium course.

Realistically, the only decision to be made is how quickly can we build a new stadium and where can it be built. This is how our competitors stack up:

1. Man Utd - 74,031 - talking about a complete rebuild as that’s not good enough.
2.  Spurs - 62,850 - Probably the best stadium in the world clearing nearly 5m per game. 
3. west ham- 62,500. Yes crap for atmosphere but it’s huge.

4. Liverpool - 61,176. Just rebuilt.

5. Arsenal - 60,704. Purpose built and in London. no doubt clearing 5m+ a game. 
6. Man city - 53,400. Doesn’t matter as owned by a nation state.

7. Everton - new stadium will be 52,888 and purpose built. 

8. Newcastle 52,257. Talk of a rebuild. 

9. Villa park. 42,530. Can’t even buy a beer or a burger at half time even if you offered your first born as payment. 

We will be categorically left behind if we do not leave Villa park asap or unless the council slaps a CPO on the housing behind the Doug Ellis and the north stand is rebuilt. “Sweating the asset” ala Chelsea just won’t work when the club is based in Aston (not west London) and when for a large percentage of your fans just being able to afford a regular ticket is a luxury.

The only thing making us even remotely competitive right now is Emery’s genius but you can’t bet the future of the club on that and if you’re the owners you certainly couldn’t bet a multi billion dollar asset valuation on that either. 

 

 

[nick76]

47 minutes ago, limpid said:

Veering into "finances" territory, but so what? You said you didn't want us going into debt "at the moment". How does someone else owing money for a stadium impact us "at the moment"?

Because the debt and fees will in the short term be charged to us indirectly through higher monthly fees or some other financial instrument.  

There are only two groups that will be paying for a new stadium, either NSWE paying for it themselves personally or for part of it, or through Villa finances in some form.  

The owners are brilliant but realistically while they may invest some of their own funds into building a new stadium, you would assume the vast majority of the cost will paid for by Villa.  

Using various financial and legal vehicles to set up the Villa is to best utilise our finances, comply with any rules and to satisfy accounting treatment.  Again though to a layman, a new stadium will need to be paid for and the only two parties that will be paying for it are our two owners personally or Villa.  The accounting treatment is just what us finance dudes do.

[sharkyvilla]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

I think the biggest unknown in relation to a new stadium on the site of Villa Park is where would we play football for the seasons while it's under construction. Tottenham had the advantage Wembley being there. I don't see any options in Birmingham that would be Premier League standard and have enough capacity to mitigate the revenue drop in a constrained PSR environment. 

In relation to the North Stand we can all agree it's dead for work in relation to this decade. The other work that will take place is to increase capacity and increase the revenue on match day. I think improving the transport to Villa Park is also key for the club to push and a prerequ for any plans in relation to bigger upgrades to a new stadium on the site in the 2030s

 

I believe the Alexander Stadium has the ability to go back up to 40k again with the temporary stands put back in.  Obviously it would be shit with the running track and for the Commonwealth Games the temporary stands had no roof but it could hold all the season ticket holders.  Otherwise we might have to play in Leicester or something.  

[tinker]

10 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Because the debt and fees will in the short term be charged to us indirectly through higher monthly fees or some other financial instrument.  

There are only two groups that will be paying for a new stadium, either NSWE paying for it themselves personally or for part of it, or through Villa finances in some form.  

The owners are brilliant but realistically while they may invest some of their own funds into building a new stadium, you would assume the vast majority of the cost will paid for by Villa.  

Using various financial and legal vehicles to set up the Villa is to best utilise our finances, comply with any rules and to satisfy accounting treatment.  Again though to a layman, a new stadium will need to be paid for and the only two parties that will be paying for it are our two owners personally or Villa.  The accounting treatment is just what us finance dudes do.

Standing still has worked for which club? 

[nick76]

16 minutes ago, tinker said:

Standing still has worked for which club? 

Who’s standing still? just because we aren’t building a shiny new stadium doesn’t mean we are standing still as a club.

[DakotaVilla]

25 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Because the debt and fees will in the short term be charged to us indirectly through higher monthly fees or some other financial instrument.  

There are only two groups that will be paying for a new stadium, either NSWE paying for it themselves personally or for part of it, or through Villa finances in some form.  

The owners are brilliant but realistically while they may invest some of their own funds into building a new stadium, you would assume the vast majority of the cost will paid for by Villa.  

Using various financial and legal vehicles to set up the Villa is to best utilise our finances, comply with any rules and to satisfy accounting treatment.  Again though to a layman, a new stadium will need to be paid for and the only two parties that will be paying for it are our two owners personally or Villa.  The accounting treatment is just what us finance dudes do.

From the owners perspective, they won’t necessarily be worried about the debt involved in building a new stadium or even the debt that would be required to rebuild Villa Park to an acceptable level. The only questions they will have about the debt is:

- What rate can they get on the debt and can the debt be serviced through increased revenue that the new stadium and will it provide positive cash flow? (Look at spurs. They have huge debt of nearly 700m but their positive cash flow is now insane and their annual interest charge is circa only 20m)

- How much will the stadium cost and will it increase the overall value of their asset and in that context is it worth it? (Again, look at spurs and how much the new stadium would have increased the clubs valuation. Absolutely more than was spent on the stadium because of the insane cash flow generated). 

The fundamentals for Villa v spurs are slightly different due to Birmingham v London, higher interest rates and higher build costs but for me there’s no way in the world the owners wouldn’t make an absolute shit load of money if they built a new stadium. 

 

[thabucks]

5 minutes ago, DakotaVilla said:

The fundamentals for Villa v spurs are slightly different due to Birmingham v London, higher interest rates and higher build costs but for me there’s no way in the world the owners wouldn’t make an absolute shit load of money if they built a new stadium. 

 

Precisely, they would earn a shit load more when they come to sell v.sports and not be on the hook for any incurred debt for building a new stadium.

Forbes have us down as worth around £600million excluding v.sports other interests and that’s based on last season. I’d say double that with a brand spanking new stadium without putting any money towards it. It really is a no brainer when we are on a firmer self supporting level. Thats the key for me why it won’t happen anytime soon. They’ll want us to be profitable and build from there IMO so we can afford the debt repayment