SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
well, it is now clear that the City of Birmingham stadium is not going to be happening as planned. We have missed the boat yet again

However, is it all dead and buried or will we get the new stadium we have always wanted and imo needed???

City of Birmingham Stadium
CANCELLED = Casino deal required for funding not approved



National Stadium (Birmingham)
CANCELLED = Government decided to abck Wembley instead



....are they all dead or will we get our new stadium????
 
G

·
Yeh, we'll get a new stadium. Just when and where nobody knows. The plans at Saltley were top draw and even without the backing from a major casino a stadium is still a must for Birmingham to gain the 2022 Commonwealth games. Its just up to the council now to set up its vision and show the city what it wants and when it wants it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
I think the only way we'll get a new stadium is if either 1. We get the commonwealth games at some point, thus creating the need for one, 2. it is part of an England hosted World Cup, or 3. Villa and Blues plus the council come to an arrangement on joint ownership of a new stadium which the clubs will share.

This is the arrangement that Inter and AC Milan have - although I believe that in their case, the clubs have no stake in the stadium, the council owns it outright.

On this point, personally, if the option was to share something bland, anonymous and medium sized like the City of Manchester stadium, then I'd ratther stay at Villa Park - one of the few remaining venues with links to the traditional grand, old English ground (despite what they did to Leach's Trinity Road stand, for which they should be shot)

The problem is, it is hard to make an economic case for either Villa or Blues to build a new stadium right now. Villa can't even afford to sack our useless manager at the moment, and Blues are in the Championship, so I suspect until they come back to the Premiership, any such plans for them will be on hold.

Maybe if the Saltley plan had been better thought out, if their partner hadn't been as shady as Las Vegas Sands, then their casino bid would have been shortlisted (though, to be honest, I doubt it would have got the final decision)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
So much was achieved 30 years ago with the dawning of the NEC, so too 20 years ago when plans were drawn up for the ICC, NIA & Symphony Hall. Those were exciting times for the city. Yes, we've had Brindleyplace & the Bullring redeveloped since then, but what has happened to the 'go-getters' in Birmingham?! I feel there isn't the will in the city anymore to get behind a large project such as a new stadium.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
wel how do we get it back????

from what i understood, the only problem people found the with construction of the new stadium was that is was along with the construction of a huge casino.....i cant help but feel that if you remove the casino aspect, people will be one hell of a lot more accepting of a new stadium...esp as soon as you start quoting comonwealth games and what have you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
Yes, but without absurdly wealthy organisations like MGM or Las Vegas Sands, who's got the money in the city to spend £300 million on a stadium?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
u say that, but the ICC and NIA along with the NEC earlier......they were ALL funded by local property led initiatives......with no government help!


surely times havent changed so much that this is still not possible....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
woodhousen said:
u say that, but the ICC and NIA along with the NEC earlier......they were ALL funded by local property led initiatives......with no government help!


surely times havent changed so much that this is still not possible....
They are all STILL being paid for by the then Birmingham Rate payers, and now Council Tax payers ........ I don't think the citizens of Birmingham will fall for that again, not until the outstanding debt is paid off which will take another 20 years.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
15,712 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
but 9n that respect birmingham tax payer may well not like the idea of paying for them....but the 20,000 odd residents that are employed directly as a result of those 3 evelopments may have something to say about that!

another idea i to develop a mix-up development

high places states that the use of skyscrapers for new or existing cultural facilites are welcome......

so if the blues were to develop a new stadium.....the sale of the current stadium, aong with a jixed use office scheme would surely meet a large proportion of finiance required....that along with an area such as saltly would be eligable for governemnt funding.......

it isnt boyonfd the realms of probability...... if manchester can do it, why cant we?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
I don't mind paying a little more in my council tax if it meant Brum could have a purpose built multi-utility stadium and sell off Villa Park and/or St Andrews. We need a major landmark stadium otherwise we're going to find ourselves even more behind other cities and their respective developments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Sonny97 said:
I don't mind paying a little more in my council tax if it meant Brum could have a purpose built multi-utility stadium and sell off Villa Park and/or St Andrews. We need a major landmark stadium otherwise we're going to find ourselves even more behind other cities and their respective developments.
No we don't, not really. Liverpool doesn't have one, Newcastle doesn't have one.

I'd like to see such a stadium in Brum, but I can think of lots of other things we need first, to be honest. I also suspect that if Villa and Blues (i'm assuming Blose own the land St Andrews is built on) sold off their grounds, to pay towards a joint stadium, there'd be an immense amount of bickering as to who paid what.

And the fans would probably never accept it, either. Not even considering the fact that the two stadia are actually perfectly big enough for the clubs' needs. Villa Park is hardly crumbling, and St Andrews is still pretty recently renovated in any case.

Oh, and football pitches with running tracks around = wrong, wrong, wrong. Just ask Juventus or Lazio / Roma about that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,688 Posts
Firstly £300 million is an obscene amont for a stadium.
St. Andrews as it stands cost only £20M!
Blues just need to pull there fingure out. Buy a piece of derelict land, find a sponser and build a new ground, following Boltons example.

Also Villa Park is ample for the clubs needs. So no replacement or even expansion is needed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
ROYAL BLUE said:
Firstly £300 million is an obscene amont for a stadium.
St. Andrews as it stands cost only £20M!
Blues just need to pull there fingure out. Buy a piece of derelict land, find a sponser and build a new ground, following Boltons example.

Also Villa Park is ample for the clubs needs. So no replacement or even expansion is needed!
St Andrews is fine for Blues as well.

Why would you want a stadium like the Reebok? They're all bland, identikit flatpack dull-o-domes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Although Villa have been planning for a while to fill in some of the empty corners at Villa Park and increase the capacity to around 51,000, and since Villa Park is frequently used for semi-finals and internationals and has staged the final of the European Cup Winners Cup, there really is little need at present for a new stadium of similar size.

(Then again I can't see Doug Ellis wanting to finance the expansion for the time being since attendances are dropping away, grumble grumble)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
Spatula said:
Although Villa have been planning for a while to fill in some of the empty corners at Villa Park and increase the capacity to around 51,000, and since Villa Park is frequently used for semi-finals and internationals and has staged the final of the European Cup Winners Cup, there really is little need at present for a new stadium of similar size.

(Then again I can't see Doug Ellis wanting to finance the expansion for the time being since attendances are dropping away, grumble grumble)
Tell me about it! We can't even afford to sack the worst manager in the club's history at the moment, so there's not much chance of the stadium being updated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,688 Posts
You cant fill Villa Park, not even for the Albion game! so expansion is a waste of time.

St.andrews how ever is too small. In the prem we used to hit capacity on a regular basis - even at £40 a ticket. So we need a new ground at some time in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
I still beleive we need a new stadium whether Blues/Villa's grounds remain. Dump the Alex Stadium, get a purpose built one in place so at least we can bid for any future world atheletics or Commonwealth games
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
ROYAL BLUE said:
You cant fill Villa Park, not even for the Albion game! so expansion is a waste of time.

St.andrews how ever is too small. In the prem we used to hit capacity on a regular basis - even at £40 a ticket. So we need a new ground at some time in the future.
Well, let's see what sort of crowds you get in the championship next season.

FWIW your average attendance was 27,000, your capacity is 30,000. Ours was average 34,000 on capacity of 42,000. Also, take into account, your short stay in the top flight was a big deal for your fans, whereas we had an absolutely dreadful season.

Oh, and our ground hosts semi finals / european finals as well, which yours never will
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top