Apologies for those unfinished fragments at the end!
I dont think either will have an issue selling out to be honest russian.
However I think in terms of a one off event London would be easier, more train routes, even more accessible from main land europe with the tunnel/shuttle and more flights.
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
Tube, train, bus etc just more options.
For rough quantities:
North of England ~15 million
Midlands ~10 million
Wales ~3 million
East & South East of England (excluding London) ~15 million
Greater London ~9 million
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
Is the south west, midlands and east England easier to get to Manchester than London? Also it isn’t just people from England going to large international events/shows.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car, it is
comment by RB&W - One man down, One nil up (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car, it is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wembley is alright on the transport network. No reason why we can't use the stadiums up here more, teams in the south can travel up here for a change.
Spurs have a great stadium but the transport network around can't handle it, its a pain to get out of the area.
If the Qataris had bought the club a new stadium would have cost less than a billion pounds. All that exploited migrant labor workforce would have come in handy.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough! I jumped in late. My point is that the accessibility question is very dependent on the lens you attach to it: ease of access from within the urban area; ease of access from and size of the commutable area; which is more accessible for a large % of the country; accessibility to international visitors.
If it's a showcase event like a global music star, there's going to be no problem selling out the arena from the location population, so all of these considerations are minor in terms of stadium revenue. Competition for tickets may be more intense in the venue with accessibility to a larger audience, and I guess that could drive up ticket prices and therefore enable the venue to charge a premium. But that's only one variable, as discussed above.
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming from anywhere below Bristol London is far more accessible.
And its not just accessibility, millions visit London every year and people will build these events around visiting/general tourism - Stay a weekend, see Beyonce, go see the sights in London etc.
Its like giving people the choice of going to watch you fave band in Paris or Lyon.
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - One man down, One nil up (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car, it is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wembley is alright on the transport network. No reason why we can't use the stadiums up here more, teams in the south can travel up here for a change.
Spurs have a great stadium but the transport network around can't handle it, its a pain to get out of the area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
anywhere moving 60k people at the same time is a pain to get in and out of.
I'm sure I read the reason why Everton are in the crap is due to their stadium costing £750m.
Town is becoming like London now anyway. Price of a pint, rent...the lot.
Loads of southerners now working and living up here now given it's the next biggest business hub in the UK.
Wish they'd all go home personally. Before they arrived we weren't paying £6 a pint. 😂
Coming from anywhere below Bristol London is far more accessible.
And its not just accessibility, millions visit London every year and people will build these events around visiting/general tourism - Stay a weekend, see Beyonce, go see the sights in London etc.
Its like giving people the choice of going to watch you fave band in Paris or Lyon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
None of which is new to the conversation, nor relevant to the topic of financial viability / relative profitability.
Revenue potential depends on number of events x tickets per event x cost of tickets.
The Tottenham stadium can host 16 events per year outside of football. Let's say the new United stadium is the same. So total number of events is approximately equal. Tickets per event: likely that the United stadium has larger capacity, as long as it invests to cater to all kinds of events. So immediately we have a hard limit on the ability of the business to scale up. The only question when it comes to footfall is whether there's enough demand in the market it serves relative to that hard limit of 16 events x arena capacity. Crudely speaking, if the north-west / west midlands / Sheffield / Leeds catchment area is plenty to sell out big events, then it's not that relevant whether London is easier / harder to get to from slightly more or slightly fewer people domestically, nor the fact that it's more accessible and more attractive to 8 billion foreigners. There's a capacity cap.
I think a more significant issue in the favour of London arena economics is spending power. Density of *wealthy* people close to the capital (and to a lesser extent accessibility to tourists with the means/motivation to pay more for a special event) probably mean you can hike up ticket prices higher before you start to curb demand. I remember when Arsenal moved to the Emirates, being surprised to discover their gate receipts were higher than United's, despite being a significantly smaller stadium.
We are the biggest club in the world, a global club. When it comes to stadium location we need to be thinking more strategically. We need to continue to grow and be the most commercially successful club in the world. I can tell you now if we undertook a business case and options appraisal study, Manchester would not come out a the preferred location option. My preferred option would be either London so we can compete with the rise of those clubs and make it more accessible for more of our fans, or the middle or far East where we have a huge fanbase and can grow the business even more.
As a non-match going fan like the vast majority of our fans are, I should have a bigger say than the tiny minority that go to matches. In order for the club to grow, we must leave Manchester and it will not negatively affect the vast majority of our fans.
Instead of spending £2bn on a stadium, get an investor in China to build the stadium for us there. Then use the £2bn to give free sky sports/BT prescriptions to all of our fans so we can ALL watch, not just some snobby folk who go to the stadium.
£6 for a pint is a bargain these days. Se85, would you prefer more Londoners or South Americans in Manchester?
New Everton cost was initially meant to be £500m but it has risen to £760m.
Yours will probably be part funded by the government as part of the levelling up scheme whilst we’re fined 10 points twice a season for the next few years..
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 3 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - One man down, One nil up (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car, it is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wembley is alright on the transport network. No reason why we can't use the stadiums up here more, teams in the south can travel up here for a change.
Spurs have a great stadium but the transport network around can't handle it, its a pain to get out of the area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
from Croydon to Barnet you cant park on the street in Greater London without a Residents Permit. That makes London a non-starter for a car user making a day visit. You would have to park in the outer Home County regions such as Hertfordshire and then get a train into Wembley or even further central. Its a complete pain in the ass.
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 10 hours, 47 minutes ago
Trophy rooms are expensive, there would have been a substantial saving there for Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you went to the trophy room at spurs stadium you’d see the first ever FA Cup won by a non league team (plus six more), trophies from the first ever league & cup double and the first ever European trophy won by an English club. If you start a Go Fund Me for your train fare from Wolverhampton we’ll all chip in son. Or you could stowaway on one of the lorries you load on the graveyard shift
London and Manchester are both easily accessible, access is not a problem for anyone wanting to get to either destination IMO.
Spurs stadium cost £1bn including the hotel behind it. There were demolition costs involved as it was built on the site of the old WHL. We arranged the finance on it during the mid 2010’s and have a series of very low interest, staggered maturity bonds funding it; since we built ours both interest rates and building costs have skyrocketed. Although it felt ostentatious at the time, it feels less so now in the post pandemic economy, plus the ends seem to be justifying the means in terms of our revenue streams and wealth growth.
One thing they did brilliantly was integrate the heritage of the old stadium into the new one - artifacts, design features, old bricks, colour schemes, the centre spot - even the old Supporters Club which is a listed building is integrated into the new club shop. It has retained some of the charm of the old place mostly thanks to Daniel Levy, a lifelong Spurs fan and ST holder, being heavily involved in the redesign, whilst being ultra modern in every way.
The stadium itself has a plethora of restaurants, street food and market place eateries, bars etc to give people a full day experience, the club shop is the biggest in the world, I read somewhere they sell an average of 700 Son home shirts alone on matchdays. Matchday revenue went from £45m to £105m after we built the new ground. And that’s not including side hustle revenue like NFL, concerts and the boxing. This month the F1 stuff starts as well. It’s a phenomenal cash cow for the club, as well as a status symbol in the modern game.
Man U definitely need to catch up in this regard, OT seemed amazing in the 90’s, now it feels like the embodiment of the clubs decay and regression over the last decade. Will be interesting to see what Sir Jim can do with it.
Man U definitely need to catch up in this regard, OT seemed amazing in the 90’s, now it feels like the embodiment of the clubs decay and regression over the last decade. Will be interesting to see what Sir Jim can do with it.
+++
OT was amazing compared to thebest of the rest every decade Ive been attending games, not just the 90s. But its self-inflicted decline is one of the main reasons and evidence why we want the Glazers gone above everthing else. Yes OT is still a massive stadium, but even Anfield has become better than Old Trafford recently with the investment that they have made.
Things have been going downnill off the pitch at Old Trafford for a few decades. Due to the steep slopes leading from the pitch to the stands
https://youtu.be/wbFugC04LJM?si=o-JI-6cPLdlm1-du
Quick 6 minute summary of the Spurs stadium project and some of the costs involved, the way it was financed and the long term benefits of having such a facility (within a few years of it opening we have become London’s wealthiest club in terms of revenue).
The build for Bramley-Moore Dock was unique, it required an existing dock to be filled. This was something not done before.
Untied own a lot of land around the current ground so would not need such drastic measures, the station access could be improved once the original OT site is knocked down.
But the new guy is hinting at Gov money as it would be a national stadium of the north??
Sign in if you want to comment
New stadium
Page 3 of 4
posted on 9/2/24
Apologies for those unfinished fragments at the end!
posted on 9/2/24
I dont think either will have an issue selling out to be honest russian.
However I think in terms of a one off event London would be easier, more train routes, even more accessible from main land europe with the tunnel/shuttle and more flights.
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
Tube, train, bus etc just more options.
posted on 9/2/24
For rough quantities:
North of England ~15 million
Midlands ~10 million
Wales ~3 million
East & South East of England (excluding London) ~15 million
Greater London ~9 million
posted on 9/2/24
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
posted on 9/2/24
Is the south west, midlands and east England easier to get to Manchester than London? Also it isn’t just people from England going to large international events/shows.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car, it is
posted on 9/2/24
comment by RB&W - One man down, One nil up (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car, it is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wembley is alright on the transport network. No reason why we can't use the stadiums up here more, teams in the south can travel up here for a change.
Spurs have a great stadium but the transport network around can't handle it, its a pain to get out of the area.
posted on 9/2/24
If the Qataris had bought the club a new stadium would have cost less than a billion pounds. All that exploited migrant labor workforce would have come in handy.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough! I jumped in late. My point is that the accessibility question is very dependent on the lens you attach to it: ease of access from within the urban area; ease of access from and size of the commutable area; which is more accessible for a large % of the country; accessibility to international visitors.
If it's a showcase event like a global music star, there's going to be no problem selling out the arena from the location population, so all of these considerations are minor in terms of stadium revenue. Competition for tickets may be more intense in the venue with accessibility to a larger audience, and I guess that could drive up ticket prices and therefore enable the venue to charge a premium. But that's only one variable, as discussed above.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming from anywhere below Bristol London is far more accessible.
And its not just accessibility, millions visit London every year and people will build these events around visiting/general tourism - Stay a weekend, see Beyonce, go see the sights in London etc.
Its like giving people the choice of going to watch you fave band in Paris or Lyon.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - One man down, One nil up (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car, it is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wembley is alright on the transport network. No reason why we can't use the stadiums up here more, teams in the south can travel up here for a change.
Spurs have a great stadium but the transport network around can't handle it, its a pain to get out of the area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
anywhere moving 60k people at the same time is a pain to get in and out of.
posted on 9/2/24
I'm sure I read the reason why Everton are in the crap is due to their stadium costing £750m.
posted on 9/2/24
Town is becoming like London now anyway. Price of a pint, rent...the lot.
Loads of southerners now working and living up here now given it's the next biggest business hub in the UK.
Wish they'd all go home personally. Before they arrived we weren't paying £6 a pint. 😂
posted on 9/2/24
Coming from anywhere below Bristol London is far more accessible.
And its not just accessibility, millions visit London every year and people will build these events around visiting/general tourism - Stay a weekend, see Beyonce, go see the sights in London etc.
Its like giving people the choice of going to watch you fave band in Paris or Lyon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
None of which is new to the conversation, nor relevant to the topic of financial viability / relative profitability.
Revenue potential depends on number of events x tickets per event x cost of tickets.
The Tottenham stadium can host 16 events per year outside of football. Let's say the new United stadium is the same. So total number of events is approximately equal. Tickets per event: likely that the United stadium has larger capacity, as long as it invests to cater to all kinds of events. So immediately we have a hard limit on the ability of the business to scale up. The only question when it comes to footfall is whether there's enough demand in the market it serves relative to that hard limit of 16 events x arena capacity. Crudely speaking, if the north-west / west midlands / Sheffield / Leeds catchment area is plenty to sell out big events, then it's not that relevant whether London is easier / harder to get to from slightly more or slightly fewer people domestically, nor the fact that it's more accessible and more attractive to 8 billion foreigners. There's a capacity cap.
I think a more significant issue in the favour of London arena economics is spending power. Density of *wealthy* people close to the capital (and to a lesser extent accessibility to tourists with the means/motivation to pay more for a special event) probably mean you can hike up ticket prices higher before you start to curb demand. I remember when Arsenal moved to the Emirates, being surprised to discover their gate receipts were higher than United's, despite being a significantly smaller stadium.
posted on 9/2/24
We are the biggest club in the world, a global club. When it comes to stadium location we need to be thinking more strategically. We need to continue to grow and be the most commercially successful club in the world. I can tell you now if we undertook a business case and options appraisal study, Manchester would not come out a the preferred location option. My preferred option would be either London so we can compete with the rise of those clubs and make it more accessible for more of our fans, or the middle or far East where we have a huge fanbase and can grow the business even more.
As a non-match going fan like the vast majority of our fans are, I should have a bigger say than the tiny minority that go to matches. In order for the club to grow, we must leave Manchester and it will not negatively affect the vast majority of our fans.
Instead of spending £2bn on a stadium, get an investor in China to build the stadium for us there. Then use the £2bn to give free sky sports/BT prescriptions to all of our fans so we can ALL watch, not just some snobby folk who go to the stadium.
posted on 9/2/24
£6 for a pint is a bargain these days. Se85, would you prefer more Londoners or South Americans in Manchester?
posted on 9/2/24
New Everton cost was initially meant to be £500m but it has risen to £760m.
Yours will probably be part funded by the government as part of the levelling up scheme whilst we’re fined 10 points twice a season for the next few years..
posted on 9/2/24
comment by Carter (U18826)
posted 3 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - One man down, One nil up (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Nickasaurus (U9257)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 10 minutes ago
London and the home counties alone are about 20million people. That alone is 40% of the country.
-------------------------------------------------
And the majority of the other 60% finds Manchester easier to reach! There's certainly more population density around London venues, that's for sure. But I don't think one can say 'London is more accessible for most of the country' without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody did. Someone said Manchester is more accessible for most the country without qualification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car, it is
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wembley is alright on the transport network. No reason why we can't use the stadiums up here more, teams in the south can travel up here for a change.
Spurs have a great stadium but the transport network around can't handle it, its a pain to get out of the area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
from Croydon to Barnet you cant park on the street in Greater London without a Residents Permit. That makes London a non-starter for a car user making a day visit. You would have to park in the outer Home County regions such as Hertfordshire and then get a train into Wembley or even further central. Its a complete pain in the ass.
posted on 9/2/24
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 10 hours, 47 minutes ago
Trophy rooms are expensive, there would have been a substantial saving there for Spurs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you went to the trophy room at spurs stadium you’d see the first ever FA Cup won by a non league team (plus six more), trophies from the first ever league & cup double and the first ever European trophy won by an English club. If you start a Go Fund Me for your train fare from Wolverhampton we’ll all chip in son. Or you could stowaway on one of the lorries you load on the graveyard shift
posted on 9/2/24
London and Manchester are both easily accessible, access is not a problem for anyone wanting to get to either destination IMO.
Spurs stadium cost £1bn including the hotel behind it. There were demolition costs involved as it was built on the site of the old WHL. We arranged the finance on it during the mid 2010’s and have a series of very low interest, staggered maturity bonds funding it; since we built ours both interest rates and building costs have skyrocketed. Although it felt ostentatious at the time, it feels less so now in the post pandemic economy, plus the ends seem to be justifying the means in terms of our revenue streams and wealth growth.
One thing they did brilliantly was integrate the heritage of the old stadium into the new one - artifacts, design features, old bricks, colour schemes, the centre spot - even the old Supporters Club which is a listed building is integrated into the new club shop. It has retained some of the charm of the old place mostly thanks to Daniel Levy, a lifelong Spurs fan and ST holder, being heavily involved in the redesign, whilst being ultra modern in every way.
The stadium itself has a plethora of restaurants, street food and market place eateries, bars etc to give people a full day experience, the club shop is the biggest in the world, I read somewhere they sell an average of 700 Son home shirts alone on matchdays. Matchday revenue went from £45m to £105m after we built the new ground. And that’s not including side hustle revenue like NFL, concerts and the boxing. This month the F1 stuff starts as well. It’s a phenomenal cash cow for the club, as well as a status symbol in the modern game.
Man U definitely need to catch up in this regard, OT seemed amazing in the 90’s, now it feels like the embodiment of the clubs decay and regression over the last decade. Will be interesting to see what Sir Jim can do with it.
posted on 9/2/24
Man U definitely need to catch up in this regard, OT seemed amazing in the 90’s, now it feels like the embodiment of the clubs decay and regression over the last decade. Will be interesting to see what Sir Jim can do with it.
+++
OT was amazing compared to thebest of the rest every decade Ive been attending games, not just the 90s. But its self-inflicted decline is one of the main reasons and evidence why we want the Glazers gone above everthing else. Yes OT is still a massive stadium, but even Anfield has become better than Old Trafford recently with the investment that they have made.
posted on 9/2/24
Things have been going downnill off the pitch at Old Trafford for a few decades. Due to the steep slopes leading from the pitch to the stands
posted on 10/2/24
https://youtu.be/wbFugC04LJM?si=o-JI-6cPLdlm1-du
Quick 6 minute summary of the Spurs stadium project and some of the costs involved, the way it was financed and the long term benefits of having such a facility (within a few years of it opening we have become London’s wealthiest club in terms of revenue).
posted on 22/2/24
The build for Bramley-Moore Dock was unique, it required an existing dock to be filled. This was something not done before.
Untied own a lot of land around the current ground so would not need such drastic measures, the station access could be improved once the original OT site is knocked down.
But the new guy is hinting at Gov money as it would be a national stadium of the north??
Page 3 of 4