There's a detailed write-up in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5665263/2024/07/29/manchester-united-new-stadium-old-trafford/
Suggests that new stadium is the preference, partly because it enables future-proofing by increasing the capacity, partly because it means you don't have reduced capacity for a few years while rebuilding stands one by one in the existing stadium.
I was encouraged by a mention that there's a preference for reflecting some of the heritage of the area and the original stadium (roof / brickwork) rather than going for a generic space-age design.
As long as they improve the eating and restaurant facilities ! thats the most important thing
comment by H von H. (U16981)
posted 1 minute ago
As long as they improve the eating and restaurant facilities ! thats the most important thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anything will be done without first consulting our Official Prawn Partner
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 16 minutes ago
Why 100,000-seater?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Real fan experiences stadium-capacity envy!
The article talks about future-proofing: you don't want to invest that much cash only to find you could have done with more space. Also, it would be cool to hit six figures.
New stadium is the obvious way forward
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 16 minutes ago
Why 100,000-seater?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
United need additional capacity otherwsie the whole thing becomes unaffordable
The difficulty United will probably find is that interest rates and build costs will make the whole thing massively expensive. If Spurs' cost £1bn (5 years ago), the Bernabeu revamp cost £1.5bn, Barca refurb costing £1.3bn, then for a new stadium of that size Utd could expect between £1.5 - £2bn.
Spurs' debt of about £850m is at an average of about 2.8% You could expect double that in the market now.
Unlucky for sir Jim that the £20bn hole on the public finances probably won't see his begging bowl filled by the Government any time soon.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 14 minutes ago
There's a detailed write-up in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5665263/2024/07/29/manchester-united-new-stadium-old-trafford/
Suggests that new stadium is the preference, partly because it enables future-proofing by increasing the capacity, partly because it means you don't have reduced capacity for a few years while rebuilding stands one by one in the existing stadium.
I was encouraged by a mention that there's a preference for reflecting some of the heritage of the area and the original stadium (roof / brickwork) rather than going for a generic space-age design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very sadly, retro-style stadia are bang out of fashion it would seem. There are a few being built in the US, particularly ‘soccer’ stadia, and being preserved/ updated nicely in the same country; but ultra-curvy, space-age design seems to be de rigueur.
Spurs’ stadium is an obvious example. All a matter of taste, of course, but it makes me want to vomit.
It’d be nice to see us do something different, along the lines of your suggestion.
New stadium for me. No point kicking the can down the road
No links in the OP but I think that this latest discussuion has been influenced since United played Arsenal in the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. This was a stadium and local regeneration project (initiated by Stan Kroenke) that United have followed closely which was built with private money offereing substantial tax breaks to the developers and is reportedly the most expensive stadium complex ever built. It was estimated to cost £2B but they reckon it cost nearer £4B in the end. It offers all the stuff that Ratcliffe bangs on about ie. continued match day experiences well beyond the actual football match or event.. It would take 6 years to build apparently.
Personally I think that Jim is looking to deep into this project. My preference for OT would be to (substantially) refurbish the existing stadium. My match day experienece tells me that United supporters just want to get in their seats 1 minute before kick-off and get away at the end of the game as soon as possible. I know I and many other United supporters arent that bothered that they could hang about after the game to eat hamburgers and play ten pin bowling and video games until 2 oclock in the morning. Especially after games that start at 7.45 pm on a school night and dont finish until 10pm on a wet cold Tuesday night in February. Improving local transport links and parking facilities around the ground and in Old Trafford/GorseHill/Stretford would greatly enhance the existing experience which would involve coopertaion and partnership with Trafford Council and GMC.
United need to put a few costed plans on the table first for various different kind of refurb or newbuild projects and then consult with local residents, business, councils, police developers and planners to start the debate for real asap.
comment by RB&W - He kicked lumps out of them (U21434)
posted 29 seconds ago
No links in the OP but I think that this latest discussuion has been influenced since United played Arsenal in the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. This was a stadium and local regeneration project (initiated by Stan Kroenke) that United have followed closely which was built with private money offereing substantial tax breaks to the developers and is reportedly the most expensive stadium complex ever built. It was estimated to cost £2B but they reckon it cost nearer £4B in the end. It offers all the stuff that Ratcliffe bangs on about ie. continued match day experiences well beyond the actual football match or event.. It would take 6 years to build apparently.
Personally I think that Jim is looking to deep into this project. My preference for OT would be to (substantially) refurbish the existing stadium. My match day experienece tells me that United supporters just want to get in their seats 1 minute before kick-off and get away at the end of the game as soon as possible. I know I and many other United supporters arent that bothered that they could hang about after the game to eat hamburgers and play ten pin bowling and video games until 2 oclock in the morning. Especially after games that start at 7.45 pm on a school night and dont finish until 10pm on a wet cold Tuesday night in February. Improving local transport links and parking facilities around the ground and in Old Trafford/GorseHill/Stretford would greatly enhance the existing experience which would involve coopertaion and partnership with Trafford Council and GMC.
United need to put a few costed plans on the table first for various different kind of refurb or newbuild projects and then consult with local residents, business, councils, police developers and planners to start the debate for real asap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relates to this article, link is also in RR's comment
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/1817832634401100074?t=DVO_jhUke25hRHrtFb-fhQ&s=19
RBW, your first paragraph is correct. The Athletic article states that the United entourage has been studying the financing and regeneration model around the SoFi Stadium. Apparently they've also visited Madrid to learn more about the Bernabeu project.
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - He kicked lumps out of them (U21434)
posted 29 seconds ago
No links in the OP but I think that this latest discussuion has been influenced since United played Arsenal in the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. This was a stadium and local regeneration project (initiated by Stan Kroenke) that United have followed closely which was built with private money offereing substantial tax breaks to the developers and is reportedly the most expensive stadium complex ever built. It was estimated to cost £2B but they reckon it cost nearer £4B in the end. It offers all the stuff that Ratcliffe bangs on about ie. continued match day experiences well beyond the actual football match or event.. It would take 6 years to build apparently.
Personally I think that Jim is looking to deep into this project. My preference for OT would be to (substantially) refurbish the existing stadium. My match day experienece tells me that United supporters just want to get in their seats 1 minute before kick-off and get away at the end of the game as soon as possible. I know I and many other United supporters arent that bothered that they could hang about after the game to eat hamburgers and play ten pin bowling and video games until 2 oclock in the morning. Especially after games that start at 7.45 pm on a school night and dont finish until 10pm on a wet cold Tuesday night in February. Improving local transport links and parking facilities around the ground and in Old Trafford/GorseHill/Stretford would greatly enhance the existing experience which would involve coopertaion and partnership with Trafford Council and GMC.
United need to put a few costed plans on the table first for various different kind of refurb or newbuild projects and then consult with local residents, business, councils, police developers and planners to start the debate for real asap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relates to this article, link is also in RR's comment
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/1817832634401100074?t=DVO_jhUke25hRHrtFb-fhQ&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I will read that article... but I was offering my own opinion.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
RBW, your first paragraph is correct. The Athletic article states that the United entourage has been studying the financing and regeneration model around the SoFi Stadium. Apparently they've also visited Madrid to learn more about the Bernabeu project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
New stadium for me. No point kicking the can down the road
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unl... (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 14 minutes ago
There's a detailed write-up in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5665263/2024/07/29/manchester-united-new-stadium-old-trafford/
Suggests that new stadium is the preference, partly because it enables future-proofing by increasing the capacity, partly because it means you don't have reduced capacity for a few years while rebuilding stands one by one in the existing stadium.
I was encouraged by a mention that there's a preference for reflecting some of the heritage of the area and the original stadium (roof / brickwork) rather than going for a generic space-age design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very sadly, retro-style stadia are bang out of fashion it would seem. There are a few being built in the US, particularly ‘soccer’ stadia, and being preserved/ updated nicely in the same country; but ultra-curvy, space-age design seems to be de rigueur.
Spurs’ stadium is an obvious example. All a matter of taste, of course, but it makes me want to vomit.
It’d be nice to see us do something different, along the lines of your suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aesthetics are a matter of taste but as a former Spurs ST holder who loved the old place, you will find very few who now bemoan the loss of WHL. It houses many wonderful memories for many people but you have to move on.
What Spurs did in terms of trying to preserve some feel of the old place, while increasing capacity 75%, was subtle but very effective. The stands remain very close to the pitch. It's not just a bowl, the stands are distinctive and we have, of course, comfortably the biggest kop in the land. There are many amazing touches and nods to WHL throughout with my fave being that the floors in the concourses are made of crushed concrete from the old stadium, all polished up.
The internal space is also hugely important. Spurs bars are packed 2 hours b4 kick off, atmosphere building, money being spent . There's tons of different food & drink options, its all reasonably priced. It has changed the atmosphere in the place and while the whole stadium has the high end polished finish of a modern shopping centre (or swanky hotel if you sit in the posh parts) , it doesn't feel like that when you are there.
I think United could so something similar. You have to embrace the modern but this is not at the total cost of some of the traditions and features of the old place.
Fact is...if you are moving then it aint the old place in any way whatsoever. There's not point creating a pastiche
No point in trying to polish a tuurd.
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 26 minutes ago
New stadium for me. No point kicking the can down the road
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be for Utd, not you elvis. That’s just very greedy.
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the... (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 26 minutes ago
New stadium for me. No point kicking the can down the road
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be for Utd, not you elvis. That’s just very greedy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to think outside the box.
A new stadium each for every fan.
Upgrading our existing stadium isn't as easy as Madrid and Barca had it. We have a trainline directly behind South stand.
A new stadium is the most sensible move. Think it will be incredible for us and I'm sure Old Trafford will still be the name or in the name at the very least.
I don't really want United to move from Old Trafford but, if that's the way things are going, then perhaps we do need to embrace it.
If there was a way to keep it though then I would. If we do need the all singing and all dancing bits perhaps we could have it by its side? I'm not an engineer or architect though so I will leave it to the experts!
I'd love it if the new stadium emulated Dortmund's Westfalenstadion in terms of how a large affordable standing section could impact the atmosphere.
The big plus factor of building next door is we get to carry on playing in a full capacity whilst it's being built.
A huge renovation project would seriously reduce our capacity and therefore income so there is that angle too.
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 seconds ago
The big plus factor of building next door is we get to carry on playing in a full capacity whilst it's being built.
A huge renovation project would seriously reduce our capacity and therefore income so there is that angle too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But a refurb would be a lot less expensive !
Sign in if you want to comment
100,000 seater Stadium decision
Page 1 of 5
posted on 29/7/24
Why 100,000-seater?
posted on 29/7/24
Feel bad for the M6
posted on 29/7/24
There's a detailed write-up in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5665263/2024/07/29/manchester-united-new-stadium-old-trafford/
Suggests that new stadium is the preference, partly because it enables future-proofing by increasing the capacity, partly because it means you don't have reduced capacity for a few years while rebuilding stands one by one in the existing stadium.
I was encouraged by a mention that there's a preference for reflecting some of the heritage of the area and the original stadium (roof / brickwork) rather than going for a generic space-age design.
posted on 29/7/24
As long as they improve the eating and restaurant facilities ! thats the most important thing
posted on 29/7/24
comment by H von H. (U16981)
posted 1 minute ago
As long as they improve the eating and restaurant facilities ! thats the most important thing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anything will be done without first consulting our Official Prawn Partner
posted on 29/7/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 16 minutes ago
Why 100,000-seater?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Real fan experiences stadium-capacity envy!
The article talks about future-proofing: you don't want to invest that much cash only to find you could have done with more space. Also, it would be cool to hit six figures.
posted on 29/7/24
New stadium is the obvious way forward
posted on 29/7/24
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 16 minutes ago
Why 100,000-seater?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
United need additional capacity otherwsie the whole thing becomes unaffordable
The difficulty United will probably find is that interest rates and build costs will make the whole thing massively expensive. If Spurs' cost £1bn (5 years ago), the Bernabeu revamp cost £1.5bn, Barca refurb costing £1.3bn, then for a new stadium of that size Utd could expect between £1.5 - £2bn.
Spurs' debt of about £850m is at an average of about 2.8% You could expect double that in the market now.
Unlucky for sir Jim that the £20bn hole on the public finances probably won't see his begging bowl filled by the Government any time soon.
posted on 29/7/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 14 minutes ago
There's a detailed write-up in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5665263/2024/07/29/manchester-united-new-stadium-old-trafford/
Suggests that new stadium is the preference, partly because it enables future-proofing by increasing the capacity, partly because it means you don't have reduced capacity for a few years while rebuilding stands one by one in the existing stadium.
I was encouraged by a mention that there's a preference for reflecting some of the heritage of the area and the original stadium (roof / brickwork) rather than going for a generic space-age design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very sadly, retro-style stadia are bang out of fashion it would seem. There are a few being built in the US, particularly ‘soccer’ stadia, and being preserved/ updated nicely in the same country; but ultra-curvy, space-age design seems to be de rigueur.
Spurs’ stadium is an obvious example. All a matter of taste, of course, but it makes me want to vomit.
It’d be nice to see us do something different, along the lines of your suggestion.
posted on 29/7/24
New stadium for me. No point kicking the can down the road
posted on 29/7/24
No links in the OP but I think that this latest discussuion has been influenced since United played Arsenal in the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. This was a stadium and local regeneration project (initiated by Stan Kroenke) that United have followed closely which was built with private money offereing substantial tax breaks to the developers and is reportedly the most expensive stadium complex ever built. It was estimated to cost £2B but they reckon it cost nearer £4B in the end. It offers all the stuff that Ratcliffe bangs on about ie. continued match day experiences well beyond the actual football match or event.. It would take 6 years to build apparently.
Personally I think that Jim is looking to deep into this project. My preference for OT would be to (substantially) refurbish the existing stadium. My match day experienece tells me that United supporters just want to get in their seats 1 minute before kick-off and get away at the end of the game as soon as possible. I know I and many other United supporters arent that bothered that they could hang about after the game to eat hamburgers and play ten pin bowling and video games until 2 oclock in the morning. Especially after games that start at 7.45 pm on a school night and dont finish until 10pm on a wet cold Tuesday night in February. Improving local transport links and parking facilities around the ground and in Old Trafford/GorseHill/Stretford would greatly enhance the existing experience which would involve coopertaion and partnership with Trafford Council and GMC.
United need to put a few costed plans on the table first for various different kind of refurb or newbuild projects and then consult with local residents, business, councils, police developers and planners to start the debate for real asap.
posted on 29/7/24
comment by RB&W - He kicked lumps out of them (U21434)
posted 29 seconds ago
No links in the OP but I think that this latest discussuion has been influenced since United played Arsenal in the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. This was a stadium and local regeneration project (initiated by Stan Kroenke) that United have followed closely which was built with private money offereing substantial tax breaks to the developers and is reportedly the most expensive stadium complex ever built. It was estimated to cost £2B but they reckon it cost nearer £4B in the end. It offers all the stuff that Ratcliffe bangs on about ie. continued match day experiences well beyond the actual football match or event.. It would take 6 years to build apparently.
Personally I think that Jim is looking to deep into this project. My preference for OT would be to (substantially) refurbish the existing stadium. My match day experienece tells me that United supporters just want to get in their seats 1 minute before kick-off and get away at the end of the game as soon as possible. I know I and many other United supporters arent that bothered that they could hang about after the game to eat hamburgers and play ten pin bowling and video games until 2 oclock in the morning. Especially after games that start at 7.45 pm on a school night and dont finish until 10pm on a wet cold Tuesday night in February. Improving local transport links and parking facilities around the ground and in Old Trafford/GorseHill/Stretford would greatly enhance the existing experience which would involve coopertaion and partnership with Trafford Council and GMC.
United need to put a few costed plans on the table first for various different kind of refurb or newbuild projects and then consult with local residents, business, councils, police developers and planners to start the debate for real asap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relates to this article, link is also in RR's comment
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/1817832634401100074?t=DVO_jhUke25hRHrtFb-fhQ&s=19
posted on 29/7/24
RBW, your first paragraph is correct. The Athletic article states that the United entourage has been studying the financing and regeneration model around the SoFi Stadium. Apparently they've also visited Madrid to learn more about the Bernabeu project.
posted on 29/7/24
comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - He kicked lumps out of them (U21434)
posted 29 seconds ago
No links in the OP but I think that this latest discussuion has been influenced since United played Arsenal in the SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. This was a stadium and local regeneration project (initiated by Stan Kroenke) that United have followed closely which was built with private money offereing substantial tax breaks to the developers and is reportedly the most expensive stadium complex ever built. It was estimated to cost £2B but they reckon it cost nearer £4B in the end. It offers all the stuff that Ratcliffe bangs on about ie. continued match day experiences well beyond the actual football match or event.. It would take 6 years to build apparently.
Personally I think that Jim is looking to deep into this project. My preference for OT would be to (substantially) refurbish the existing stadium. My match day experienece tells me that United supporters just want to get in their seats 1 minute before kick-off and get away at the end of the game as soon as possible. I know I and many other United supporters arent that bothered that they could hang about after the game to eat hamburgers and play ten pin bowling and video games until 2 oclock in the morning. Especially after games that start at 7.45 pm on a school night and dont finish until 10pm on a wet cold Tuesday night in February. Improving local transport links and parking facilities around the ground and in Old Trafford/GorseHill/Stretford would greatly enhance the existing experience which would involve coopertaion and partnership with Trafford Council and GMC.
United need to put a few costed plans on the table first for various different kind of refurb or newbuild projects and then consult with local residents, business, councils, police developers and planners to start the debate for real asap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Relates to this article, link is also in RR's comment
https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/1817832634401100074?t=DVO_jhUke25hRHrtFb-fhQ&s=19
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK I will read that article... but I was offering my own opinion.
posted on 29/7/24
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
RBW, your first paragraph is correct. The Athletic article states that the United entourage has been studying the financing and regeneration model around the SoFi Stadium. Apparently they've also visited Madrid to learn more about the Bernabeu project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 29/7/24
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
New stadium for me. No point kicking the can down the road
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly
posted on 29/7/24
comment by rosso says the time has come to unlock the unl... (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 14 minutes ago
There's a detailed write-up in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5665263/2024/07/29/manchester-united-new-stadium-old-trafford/
Suggests that new stadium is the preference, partly because it enables future-proofing by increasing the capacity, partly because it means you don't have reduced capacity for a few years while rebuilding stands one by one in the existing stadium.
I was encouraged by a mention that there's a preference for reflecting some of the heritage of the area and the original stadium (roof / brickwork) rather than going for a generic space-age design.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very sadly, retro-style stadia are bang out of fashion it would seem. There are a few being built in the US, particularly ‘soccer’ stadia, and being preserved/ updated nicely in the same country; but ultra-curvy, space-age design seems to be de rigueur.
Spurs’ stadium is an obvious example. All a matter of taste, of course, but it makes me want to vomit.
It’d be nice to see us do something different, along the lines of your suggestion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aesthetics are a matter of taste but as a former Spurs ST holder who loved the old place, you will find very few who now bemoan the loss of WHL. It houses many wonderful memories for many people but you have to move on.
What Spurs did in terms of trying to preserve some feel of the old place, while increasing capacity 75%, was subtle but very effective. The stands remain very close to the pitch. It's not just a bowl, the stands are distinctive and we have, of course, comfortably the biggest kop in the land. There are many amazing touches and nods to WHL throughout with my fave being that the floors in the concourses are made of crushed concrete from the old stadium, all polished up.
The internal space is also hugely important. Spurs bars are packed 2 hours b4 kick off, atmosphere building, money being spent . There's tons of different food & drink options, its all reasonably priced. It has changed the atmosphere in the place and while the whole stadium has the high end polished finish of a modern shopping centre (or swanky hotel if you sit in the posh parts) , it doesn't feel like that when you are there.
I think United could so something similar. You have to embrace the modern but this is not at the total cost of some of the traditions and features of the old place.
Fact is...if you are moving then it aint the old place in any way whatsoever. There's not point creating a pastiche
posted on 29/7/24
No point in trying to polish a tuurd.
posted on 29/7/24
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 26 minutes ago
New stadium for me. No point kicking the can down the road
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be for Utd, not you elvis. That’s just very greedy.
posted on 29/7/24
comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face, proud owner of the... (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 26 minutes ago
New stadium for me. No point kicking the can down the road
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be for Utd, not you elvis. That’s just very greedy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Time to think outside the box.
A new stadium each for every fan.
posted on 29/7/24
Upgrading our existing stadium isn't as easy as Madrid and Barca had it. We have a trainline directly behind South stand.
A new stadium is the most sensible move. Think it will be incredible for us and I'm sure Old Trafford will still be the name or in the name at the very least.
posted on 29/7/24
I don't really want United to move from Old Trafford but, if that's the way things are going, then perhaps we do need to embrace it.
If there was a way to keep it though then I would. If we do need the all singing and all dancing bits perhaps we could have it by its side? I'm not an engineer or architect though so I will leave it to the experts!
posted on 29/7/24
I'd love it if the new stadium emulated Dortmund's Westfalenstadion in terms of how a large affordable standing section could impact the atmosphere.
posted on 29/7/24
The big plus factor of building next door is we get to carry on playing in a full capacity whilst it's being built.
A huge renovation project would seriously reduce our capacity and therefore income so there is that angle too.
posted on 29/7/24
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 20 seconds ago
The big plus factor of building next door is we get to carry on playing in a full capacity whilst it's being built.
A huge renovation project would seriously reduce our capacity and therefore income so there is that angle too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But a refurb would be a lot less expensive !
Page 1 of 5