Popular Post rodders0223 Posted January 4 Popular Post Share Posted January 4 Emery is keeping the heat off this guy big time. The second we show signs of malaise he's going to absolutely get it. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 8 minutes ago, rodders0223 said: Emery is keeping the heat off this guy big time. The second we show signs of malaise he's going to absolutely get it. I find this a ridiculous stance. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 (edited) 48 minutes ago, blandy said: The problem, from his perspective with that, is that it decreases revenue while you're taking 2 years doing it. And at precisely the time we're hoping to be competing in Yurp and trying to attract better, higher paid players to make that competing in Yurp successful, which means FFP gets in the way - you can't offer better wages on lower revenues in the short term. Get established in Yurp and increase Euro TV income etc. and perhaps also increased existing stand capacity, and then do it. The transition in Europe FFP rules from 90 - 80 - 70% of income, over the next 3 years, on player expenditure combined with being "new" as a club to modern European competition means delaying the North Stand rebuild probably makes sense from Heck and the owner's perspective. Yes, his communication and apparent people skills are somewhat lacking, looking from the outside, anyway, but there is a logic if you look at it dispassionately (which is his job). He can't have it both ways. Either the new stand (as we were promised) revolutionises our income earning potential, generates massively increased matchday AND NON MATCHDAY income to help us compete. Or matchday income is irrelevant as it's all about how much we earn from being in Europe, TV money etc. It seems to be proposed that it's either one or the other as reasons to do , or not to do the stand. The truth is you need to drive revenue on ALL fronts. Matchday, bums on seats, corporate areas, food and drink sales, TV money, Europe money, non matchday commercial income. You need to drive ALL of these areas, not one at the expense of the other. They've spent 18 months saying how the new stand will revolutionise money making opportunities. I fail to see how being in or not in The Champions League changes that revolution. Regardless of how he fills the stand on matchday they will still generate far more food and drink sales than currently in that awful concourse, and attract business meetings and exhibitions and conferences to those large spaces it contains. There is still a very good chance we don't get CL anyway so it seems the stupidest of gambles to take. He's just not been honest with us about why he's taken this decision. Edited January 4 by sidcow 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, sidcow said: He can't have it both ways. Either the new stand (as we were promised) revolutionises our income earning potential, generates massively increased matchday AND NON MATCHDAY income to help us compete. Or matchday income is irrelevant as it's all about how much we earn from being in Europe, TV money etc. It seems to be proposed that it's either one or the other as reasons to do , or not to do the stand. The truth is you need to drive revenue on ALL fronts. Matchday, bums on seats, corporate areas, food and drink sales, TV money, Europe money, non matchday commercial income. You need to drive ALL of these areas, not one at the expense of the other. They've spent 18 months saying how the new stand will revolutionise money making opportunities. I fail to see how being in or not in The Champions League changes that revolution. Regardless of how he fills the stand on matchday they will still generate far more food and drink sales and attract business meetings and exhibitions and conferences to those large spaces it contains. There is still a very good chance we don't get CL anyway so it seems the stupidest of gambles to take. He's just not been honest with us about why he's taken this decision. Do you think it's soley his decision? I can't see anyway that a decision about something as big as this doesn't have the owners involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 2 minutes ago, DCJonah said: Do you think it's soley his decision? I can't see anyway that a decision about something as big as this doesn't have the owners involvement. It probably involved 6 months of Heck power point presentations urging them to cancel for them to do it. All indications were we were all set to go before Heck came in. They released flythriugh video of the new stand in December 2022 FFS. Edited January 4 by Captain_Townsend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 Just now, DCJonah said: Do you think it's soley his decision? I can't see anyway that a decision about something as big as this doesn't have the owners involvement. Oh, we're back to this again. Remember the "Puslow is solely responsible for Gerrard debate"? Absolutely no, it will be a board decision including Nass and Wes. However they were fully on board with this stand till Heck arrived so logic states he's the one making the recommendation to bin the stand and they're going with their mans recommendation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, sidcow said: Oh, we're back to this again. Remember the "Puslow is solely responsible for Gerrard debate"? Absolutely no, it will be a board decision including Nass and Wes. However they were fully on board with this stand till Heck arrived so logic states he's the one making the recommendation to bin the stand and they're going with their mans recommendation. And like the Gerrard appointment, if it goes tits up then I'd imagine Heck will find himself leaving the way Purslow did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 Neither Heck nor the owners are here for the long long term. Heck is here to pad his CV, the owners will eventually sell up. Heck has a max 5 year lifespan here, and realistically more like 3 or less, and his job will fundamentally be to pump revenue. He wants to be able to boast about how well he's done that job when he leaves. A long term construction job with a big price tag and which also short term reduces a revenue stream, is not going to help Heck achieve his aims. The owners are interested in making Villa as attractive a purchase with the biggest return possible, and that might have included making the stadium a better asset, but that might also not be the best return on their investment in their view. Together with Heck they've decided the best return is bin off the stadium and pump revenue off increased ticket prices, increased 'premium' options and comparatively cheap stadium experience investments (the Warehouse is, for example, potentially pretty cheap to do and will theoretically quickly pump revenue). For someone with longer term ambitions, the stadium is absolutely the choice you make. It has big upfront costs and will take longer to return on that cost, but sets your foundations higher for decades to come. Nobody at the club is planning to be here for that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Scorpio Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 28 minutes ago, Chindie said: Neither Heck nor the owners are here for the long long term. Heck is here to pad his CV, the owners will eventually sell up. Heck has a max 5 year lifespan here, and realistically more like 3 or less, and his job will fundamentally be to pump revenue. He wants to be able to boast about how well he's done that job when he leaves. A long term construction job with a big price tag and which also short term reduces a revenue stream, is not going to help Heck achieve his aims. The owners are interested in making Villa as attractive a purchase with the biggest return possible, and that might have included making the stadium a better asset, but that might also not be the best return on their investment in their view. Together with Heck they've decided the best return is bin off the stadium and pump revenue off increased ticket prices, increased 'premium' options and comparatively cheap stadium experience investments (the Warehouse is, for example, potentially pretty cheap to do and will theoretically quickly pump revenue). For someone with longer term ambitions, the stadium is absolutely the choice you make. It has big upfront costs and will take longer to return on that cost, but sets your foundations higher for decades to come. Nobody at the club is planning to be here for that long. The problem with that is, you could say the same of say Liverpool and FSG. Yet they are making the ground bigger to further increase revenue over the long-term, even if they may not be long term custodians too. If Unai leaves or performances drop good luck to Heck selling these premium experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 14 hours ago, Kiwivillan said: It's been postponed on the chance of CL next season and the lost revenue of reduced seating as I understood. we need to stop letting our hearts rule our head here. Get established in top 6/4, for a couple of years then visit the building of the new stand. To become established we need revenue and atmosphere. Something that would be totally hampered if we start replacing now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post est1874 Posted January 4 Popular Post Share Posted January 4 I said I'd sit with the badge a while before offering a view, and I've done that now. To be frank, I've now seen it more times than I'd care to. I defended Heck from the snapping jaws on here in the aftermath of the marque debacle as it wasn't that important. I was more concerned by noises around the North Stand but was willing to withhold judgement until I saw this badge that would/should be the centrepiece of any branding initiative at the club. My god, it's bad; it gets worse with every viewing, which is saying something. I was not overly fond of the roundel but it's light years ahead of this 'effort'. The best that can be said of it is that it won't cause waves amongst neutrals or other fanbases, but that is a terrible indictment of something that Heck himself admitted was "for the fans", i.e. us Villa fans. He's made a terrible mistake here and will regret it if he goes ahead with it as expected — this and the North Stand decision are what he'll be judged on henceforth. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyAnty Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 hours ago, kurtsimonw said: It was just taken from here which is about the most recent I could find. I'm sure relegation has likely affected Leeds/Leicester, but I suppose my point is we shouldn't be remotely close to these. Everton is even worse given their struggled and being the defacto number 2 club in their smaller city. As to your wider point, I agree that it feels a bit too soon to judge. I guess we'll see when the 23/24 accounts are out and see how they compare to 22/23. Given our current campaign and were we are in the table, there wont be any of those close to us regarding revenue. Also I would take everton figs with pinch of salt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DakotaVilla Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 I’m fine with the decision re North Stand. Something else is definitely cooking in the background I suspect as the timing of the new minority investment, no prior discussion with the mayor etc all, Heck being very shady in his interview all suggest something else is going on. Also it might just be a straight up roll of the dice that one year in the champions league - if we qualify - with a full stadium could see us go far in the competition and establish us in the league and the champions league for a few years to come. I can see there being reasons to delay it for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, DCJonah said: And like the Gerrard appointment, if it goes tits up then I'd imagine Heck will find himself leaving the way Purslow did. Kind of hard to prove one way or another if panning the stand is a good or bad move though. If it's not built you've got no parallel universe to show what might have been. Easy to bullshit your way around with what you did get. Wrong manager is apparent from the results on the pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, Chindie said: Neither Heck nor the owners are here for the long long term. Heck is here to pad his CV, the owners will eventually sell up. Heck has a max 5 year lifespan here, and realistically more like 3 or less, and his job will fundamentally be to pump revenue. He wants to be able to boast about how well he's done that job when he leaves. A long term construction job with a big price tag and which also short term reduces a revenue stream, is not going to help Heck achieve his aims. The owners are interested in making Villa as attractive a purchase with the biggest return possible, and that might have included making the stadium a better asset, but that might also not be the best return on their investment in their view. Together with Heck they've decided the best return is bin off the stadium and pump revenue off increased ticket prices, increased 'premium' options and comparatively cheap stadium experience investments (the Warehouse is, for example, potentially pretty cheap to do and will theoretically quickly pump revenue). For someone with longer term ambitions, the stadium is absolutely the choice you make. It has big upfront costs and will take longer to return on that cost, but sets your foundations higher for decades to come. Nobody at the club is planning to be here for that long. How do you know all this? Exactly the same could be said of all the other multiple club owners and CEO's who have been building stadiums and stands. With massive investments in youth, academy and training facilities our owners have demonstrated they very much think long term. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Also, his communication on all these things has been terrible. We were all set for a big launch on the new crest with a video already filmed, which he stopped because he didn't like it. The total porky pies on the justification of the North stand cancellation. And now the new crest in which has been found by fans doing an internet search. Utterly dreadful. Premier league football may be worth billions but at Villa it still seems like a mickey mouse operation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 The Heck situation is just so utterly deflating. He really couldn't have showed up at a worse time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvilla28 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Handling of this has been Mickey Mouse stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 50 minutes ago, sidcow said: How do you know all this? Exactly the same could be said of all the other multiple club owners and CEO's who have been building stadiums and stands. With massive investments in youth, academy and training facilities our owners have demonstrated they very much think long term. I obviously don't know but you can deduce the thinking. The investments that have been made don't have revenue impacts. We aren't losing money if we make Bodymoor even more flash and even more enticing, and it has a smaller overall cost and probably faster (though less instantly tangible) returns. And the youth pipeline is obviously a strategy to invest in - we churn lots of small returns on decent players and every now and then we get a diamond, that's not really a long term thing it's just a strategy, we're becoming more ruthless about using the academy to generate money. By saying the owners aren't going to be here long term I'm not really criticising them - I think their decisions generally have been on the money and they've spent money very wisely, which in turn has seen the club begin to prosper and means we see more success and they've got an appreciating asset - it's fair to say they would get a very decent return on their investment if they sold the club tomorrow for example, and that only looks to be getting better on current trajectories. I just think the North Stand is a case were they've clearly decided the benefits are too long term and the costs are too big too immediately, so they've made a decision that isn't good for the club in the longer term. It's clear that, in 15 years time, for example, we'd be better off with a bigger max attendance and much better facilities in a new North Stand, than we would be with the current one with some new paint. They've clearly decided that's a problem for the future to deal with. It's made worse because they haven't been clear about the decision, and everything that came out Heck's mouth regarding the decision doesn't stand scrutiny, which makes you suspicious of what else is going on. They'd have been better off being straight about it - the upfront cost is too much for too long a tail return so it's shelved. They'd have gotten bad responses to it because it's bad news, but it ends the debate. Instead we got Heck bullshitting the fans with nonsense in an attempt to deflect the criticism and that in turn makes everyone go 'what else is being lied about here?'. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobsons Choice Posted January 4 VT Supporter Share Posted January 4 From Heck's perspective, if he's being judged on overall Club Value, then the stand redevelopment adds relatively little when compared with value added due to our standing in the game results wise. If he's being judged on commercial turnover, again, looking at sponsorship deals etc will likely increase revenue more that increased attendance. According to Forbes, Matchday revenue makes up around 8.1% of our turnover (£61M) inclusive of stadium debt, compared with broadcasting revenue which makes up 61.9% (£468M), and sponsorships/brand which make up 13.4% (£101M). It's likely that he just doesn't care about the attendance increase. Compare our breakdown with that of, say, Man United, where brand makes up 16.7% (£1,003M), and broadcasting 33.2% (£1,991M). You can't really compare matchday revenues as it is reported with stadium debt, and the club owns their own stadium. The biggest disparity I can see is with the sponsorship/brand, which is 10 times our income, and broadcasting income, which is around 3.5 times ours. I can see why Heck is prioritising these elements from a commercial perspective, although I would point out that fan involvement is intrinsically linked to all of it (call it popularity). Also, I don't see how what he is doing (or not doing) so far will have a significant positive impact on brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts