In the images and video released, the "new" stadium is in the same position as the current one. Should we read anything in to that?

----‐-------------------------

No

Id be so angry if the "new" stadium didn't move locations. How dare they. What about the fans?
The stadium should be moved to Surrey, as that's where all the United fans are.

I thought it was supposed to be somewhere in Trafford Park. Isn’t the current location screwed cause of the railway line?

Definitely not. They're not going to put it in a position where planning position hasn't been granted to build a stadium

You should do what Spurs did when they built their new stadium. You could even play at Wembley to save fans travel costs.

Any link to these pictures?

comment by The God Fowler (U2538)
posted 17 minutes ago
You should do what Spurs did when they built their new stadium. You could even play at Wembley to save fans travel costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol hilarious. No tourists at Anfield. Not welcome presumably

Melbourne, do you mean this location? It's just illustrative, nothing more, nothing less.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/24/football-daily-manchester-united-new-stadium

comment by Vengeance (U23079)
posted 0 seconds ago
Melbourne, do you mean this location? It's just illustrative, nothing more, nothing less.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/24/football-daily-manchester-united-new-stadium
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The "lacking of finer details" is a big clue!

I get the feeling that you will end up with a refurbishment.

I obviously do not know Sir Jim or the Glazers, but the likes of Sir Jim, self-made billionaire sorts, are typically not the sort to waste money. Now i am not saying that a new stadium would be wasting money but it would be an investment hugely over and above the the cost of a refurb.

They will be looking at the financial outcomes of each option. A refurb could increase capacity but may be not to 100k. It would limit alternative uses and would not likely get the optimal layout and things like corporate provision, so revenues would be great but probably not as good as a rebuild.

A rebuild overcomes all those issues but comes at 2 or 3 times the price. Will the additional revenues be so good as to off-set the additional cost within a reasonable timeframe?

That's where I see their big decision making coming from. Also its a question of status. Do the decision makers value the global image of United, are they willing to pay for it. The Glazers were not, happy to run the place down. Does Sir Jim have that sort of egotistical side which says, this is my club I want it to reflect on me as positively as possible so I want THE best stadium. Or is it purely a financial decision for him.

Levy was the same. We looked at moving to East London to take the Olympic stadium as a legit option because it would have been at a fraction of new WHL even though in a different part of London. That is how many businessmen like this think in my opinion. Bottom line first.

Spurs were forced to rebuild as adding another 30k seats was not doable on the existing infrastructure.

So once that decision was made, Levy took a very corporate approach to it. A lot of money spent, a really state of the art stadium when we could have easily done a more off the peg design at much less cost. This reflects the corporate businessman approach, but also the egos of people like this - if we are having to new build then i want something I can show off about.

So i reckon Sir Jim will probably be edging towards the rebuild because his first instinct is always going to be financial but if the decision is made to new build, expect him to want to stroke his ego with a truly stunning and fecking expensive new place.

Not sure how the Glazers fit in to all this.

comment by The God Fowler (U2538)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
You should do what Spurs did when they built their new stadium. You could even play at Wembley to save fans travel costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious!

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
I get the feeling that you will end up with a refurbishment.

I obviously do not know Sir Jim or the Glazers, but the likes of Sir Jim, self-made billionaire sorts, are typically not the sort to waste money. Now i am not saying that a new stadium would be wasting money but it would be an investment hugely over and above the the cost of a refurb.

They will be looking at the financial outcomes of each option. A refurb could increase capacity but may be not to 100k. It would limit alternative uses and would not likely get the optimal layout and things like corporate provision, so revenues would be great but probably not as good as a rebuild.

A rebuild overcomes all those issues but comes at 2 or 3 times the price. Will the additional revenues be so good as to off-set the additional cost within a reasonable timeframe?

That's where I see their big decision making coming from. Also its a question of status. Do the decision makers value the global image of United, are they willing to pay for it. The Glazers were not, happy to run the place down. Does Sir Jim have that sort of egotistical side which says, this is my club I want it to reflect on me as positively as possible so I want THE best stadium. Or is it purely a financial decision for him.

Levy was the same. We looked at moving to East London to take the Olympic stadium as a legit option because it would have been at a fraction of new WHL even though in a different part of London. That is how many businessmen like this think in my opinion. Bottom line first.

Spurs were forced to rebuild as adding another 30k seats was not doable on the existing infrastructure.

So once that decision was made, Levy took a very corporate approach to it. A lot of money spent, a really state of the art stadium when we could have easily done a more off the peg design at much less cost. This reflects the corporate businessman approach, but also the egos of people like this - if we are having to new build then i want something I can show off about.

So i reckon Sir Jim will probably be edging towards the rebuild because his first instinct is always going to be financial but if the decision is made to new build, expect him to want to stroke his ego with a truly stunning and fecking expensive new place.

Not sure how the Glazers fit in to all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the Glazer family are the current owners and majority shareholders. So basically it's their decision to make atm. Unless of course they agree to sell out to Jim Ratcliffe and make him the owner and majority shareholder.

comment by RB&W - He kicked lumps out of them (U21434)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 2 hours, 23 minutes ago
I get the feeling that you will end up with a refurbishment.

I obviously do not know Sir Jim or the Glazers, but the likes of Sir Jim, self-made billionaire sorts, are typically not the sort to waste money. Now i am not saying that a new stadium would be wasting money but it would be an investment hugely over and above the the cost of a refurb.

They will be looking at the financial outcomes of each option. A refurb could increase capacity but may be not to 100k. It would limit alternative uses and would not likely get the optimal layout and things like corporate provision, so revenues would be great but probably not as good as a rebuild.

A rebuild overcomes all those issues but comes at 2 or 3 times the price. Will the additional revenues be so good as to off-set the additional cost within a reasonable timeframe?

That's where I see their big decision making coming from. Also its a question of status. Do the decision makers value the global image of United, are they willing to pay for it. The Glazers were not, happy to run the place down. Does Sir Jim have that sort of egotistical side which says, this is my club I want it to reflect on me as positively as possible so I want THE best stadium. Or is it purely a financial decision for him.

Levy was the same. We looked at moving to East London to take the Olympic stadium as a legit option because it would have been at a fraction of new WHL even though in a different part of London. That is how many businessmen like this think in my opinion. Bottom line first.

Spurs were forced to rebuild as adding another 30k seats was not doable on the existing infrastructure.

So once that decision was made, Levy took a very corporate approach to it. A lot of money spent, a really state of the art stadium when we could have easily done a more off the peg design at much less cost. This reflects the corporate businessman approach, but also the egos of people like this - if we are having to new build then i want something I can show off about.

So i reckon Sir Jim will probably be edging towards the rebuild because his first instinct is always going to be financial but if the decision is made to new build, expect him to want to stroke his ego with a truly stunning and fecking expensive new place.

Not sure how the Glazers fit in to all this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the Glazer family are the current owners and majority shareholders. So basically it's their decision to make atm. Unless of course they agree to sell out to Jim Ratcliffe and make him the owner and majority shareholder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose Jim will have to present his business plan to them like some sort of Dragons Den episode, they'll drill down on the figures and make a decision based on the level and pace of return and, of course, whether its gonna costs them anything or have any impact on teh value of their asset.

But id imagine a buyout is probably gonna happen first because Utd already have huge debts costing them 10s of millions in interest and capital repayments each year.

Jim is obliged to buy all the rest of the shares, part of the deal. I don't know the date though.

Impossible to say either way at this stage, OP.

Makes it more likely that we’ll spend some time away from the ground though, I’d say.

From whatI understand... 4 of the Glazer siblings are keen to sell their Class B shares. But Avram and Joel want to hang on to theirs. The problem for Jim is that IF he bought the 4 siblings shares, his problem is that they would automatically convert to Class A shares, which dont have the same clout as Class B shares. Therefore unless Avram and Joel sell theirs to Jim too, Jim will never be the major shareholder of Man United, even with his 27% that he owns already combined with all the 4 siblings converted shares.

So Jim still has to renegoatiate with Avram and Joel the terms of the share structure and how Class B shares convert to A ....if he wants to own United. And he's on a time scale to do this. Otherwise if he is timed out, Glazers can court a third party regarding an alternative buy out. Which could force Jim to hand back his 27% if necessary.

Jims still got a way to go yet if he wans to own United LS&B. Which is why building a new stadium is a bit premature at the moment.

If you know better than this then Id be interested to know.

comment by RB&W - He kicked lumps out of them (U21434)
posted 28 minutes ago
From whatI understand... 4 of the Glazer siblings are keen to sell their Class B shares. But Avram and Joel want to hang on to theirs. The problem for Jim is that IF he bought the 4 siblings shares, his problem is that they would automatically convert to Class A shares, which dont have the same clout as Class B shares. Therefore unless Avram and Joel sell theirs to Jim too, Jim will never be the major shareholder of Man United, even with his 27% that he owns already combined with all the 4 siblings converted shares.

So Jim still has to renegoatiate with Avram and Joel the terms of the share structure and how Class B shares convert to A ....if he wants to own United. And he's on a time scale to do this. Otherwise if he is timed out, Glazers can court a third party regarding an alternative buy out. Which could force Jim to hand back his 27% if necessary.

Jims still got a way to go yet if he wans to own United LS&B. Which is why building a new stadium is a bit premature at the moment.

If you know better than this then Id be interested to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

My understanding, and I could be completely wrong, is that from what I've read on the Athletic, is Jim wants to buy United in full, he's got the full possibility of doing so without really being blocked by the glazers.

The result will be buying the club at a price which is very favourable to the glazers, and I read somewhere that he has to wait like 2 years or something from the purchase of his initial share, but after that, there's a time frame where at X price, he can take complete control.

He wouldn't be putting all this money in, looking at a stadium that will by all reports take 7-10 years to build if he's not in it for the long term, and planning on taking complete control

Yes. Basically, Jim has to make an offer that Joel and Avram would get out of bed for. Their siblings would have probably settled for Jim's initial offer, which would have yielded c. £1B each. But Joel and Avram wont play ball unless its a lot more than that for them.

Devonshire, it's not as simple as 'what's the better financial outcome?' but rather one of how short/long-term lens through which they assess the financial implications. Shorter term, renovation is cheaper, but that has the longer term downside of lower stadium revenues for decades, while it may also require additional expansion or renovation investment in the medium term. Longer-term, the larger, newer stadium probably delivers the bigger ROI. (Also doesn't involve the short-term hit of reduced revenue while building takes places, which slightly tempers the cost advantages of the renovation option.)

My guess is that Ratcliffe sees the value of United in the long-term brand value rather than short-term profits, whereas the Glazers love them some dividends, and have shown no appetite for strategic investment.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 hour, 55 minutes ago
Devonshire, it's not as simple as 'what's the better financial outcome?' but rather one of how short/long-term lens through which they assess the financial implications. Shorter term, renovation is cheaper, but that has the longer term downside of lower stadium revenues for decades, while it may also require additional expansion or renovation investment in the medium term. Longer-term, the larger, newer stadium probably delivers the bigger ROI. (Also doesn't involve the short-term hit of reduced revenue while building takes places, which slightly tempers the cost advantages of the renovation option.)

My guess is that Ratcliffe sees the value of United in the long-term brand value rather than short-term profits, whereas the Glazers love them some dividends, and have shown no appetite for strategic investment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

yes indeed. I assumed, but wasnt explicit, that Jim would be looking in the medium term at least because he's not there to make a quick buck.

I always wonder what these successful peoples intentions and motivations are. Jims not a young man, 71. Levys got 10 years on him. This project is probably 6-10 years for a new build. Spurs took 5 years from application in, to bums on seats. EFC the same. You're probably at least 2 years off an application going in, with a fair wind.

I wonder how much revenues in 20 - 30 years really factor in his mind when he's likely to have shuffled off by then. Whether he's interested in leaving an amazing long term legacy or may be one that is pretty damn good in the medium term.

Its not as if Real & Barca are delivering 2nd grade stadiums through refurb. Its very doable to a very high standard and staying at the home of United is easily sold to the fans.

My hunch is refurb.

Will it be called New Trafford?

comment by Bats Uncensored (U18355)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
Will it be called New Trafford?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Trafford is a suburb of Manchester. It will always be called Old Trafford.