Manchester United officials looking at plans to expand Old Trafford capacity to 88,000 | Scrapped?

What will happen first?

  • Total voters
    386
  • Poll closed .
Varun said:
Not sure if he's commented on where we'll be spending, could be. Agree with the point you're making about the announcement though but then I'm not convinced if its actually come from the club as a fact. Could just be a journo latching onto something he hears may be happening.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Mourinho said he's looking for two CMs and we have been linked with LBs and almost no RBs.And it seems like Mou trusts neither Young nor Shaw.So I guess we are going for LB.

Personally I hope the news is true and we go for a CB and a RW along with 2 CMs and LB, with Alderweireld and Dybala being the dream targets.I know it's this is not FM but i feel both of them are available and although costly would complete our team.

Although 5 first teamers may not happen, I don't see why not, provided we have the money.We have very little chemistry in the squad, our attacks are not fluid so we don't have to worry about the squad Harmony
.We should just do what City and now Barca are doing, be aggressive and make sure that the squad is capable of competing at the highest level.And not to mention if we do buy those five players, the oldest in the starting line up would be Valencia with all others below 30.That would give some stability to the squad and then in the next year we can think about the stadium
 
Sanche7 said:
I'm pretty sure Mourinho said he's looking for two CMs and we have been linked with LBs and almost no RBs.And it seems like Mou trusts neither Young nor Shaw.So I guess we are going for LB.

Personally I hope the news is true and we go for a CB and a RW along with 2 CMs and LB, with Alderweireld and Dybala being the dream targets.I know it's this is not FM but i feel both of them are available and although costly would complete our team.

Although 5 first teamers may not happen, I don't see why not, provided we have the money.We have very little chemistry in the squad, our attacks are not fluid so we don't have to worry about the squad Harmony
.We should just do what City and now Barca are doing, be aggressive and make sure that the squad is capable of competing at the highest level.And not to mention if we do buy those five players, the oldest in the starting line up would be Valencia with all others below 30.That would give some stability to the squad and then in the next year we can think about the stadium
Click to expand...

Yeah, he's mentioned 2 CMs couple of times. Don't think he's mentioned LBs though. As much as I want to see us sign one, I wouldnt be surprised at all if he goes into another season with Young and Shaw. Its RB where we definitely need a new guy because we have 0 cover there. I think we can do better than Tony V anyways but that's for another discussion.

I don't think we'll go for an attacker, we're loaded there and the harmony has to be worked upon in training, we can't just say we don't have it and never will. Dybala, like Greizmann doesn't really have a place here anymore given we signed Sanchez.

I do agree about Alderweireld. I don't think we're actively chasing a CB signing but if someone of his quality becomes available, we'll go for it.
 
Varun said:
Yeah, he's mentioned 2 CMs couple of times. Don't think he's mentioned LBs though. As much as I want to see us sign one, I wouldnt be surprised at all if he goes into another season with Young and Shaw. Its RB where we definitely need a new guy because we have 0 cover there. I think we can do better than Tony V anyways but that's for another discussion.

I don't think we'll go for an attacker, we're loaded there and the harmony has to be worked upon in training, we can't just say we don't have it and never will. Dybala, like Greizmann doesn't really have a place here anymore given we signed Sanchez.

I do agree about Alderweireld. I don't think we're actively chasing a CB signing but if someone of his quality becomes available, we'll go for it.
Click to expand...
Think Mou trusts Valencia and expects him to go on well into his mid 30s.And Young + TFM can cover for him next year.Dont think the same can be said about LB as Mou doesn't trust anyone there

On Sanchez, I don't think Mou sees him as a RW, I think Sanchez will mostly play as #10 or LW.Also I feel Dybala and Griezmann are different players, Griezmann is OK at RW but Dybala is very good as he drifts inside and shoots often from RW.

If you ask me an attacker is not an emergency but if players like Dybala become available, we should go all out for him.Just look at Barca, Real, Bayern or even City.They all have 4 world class or near world class players for 3 positions.City wanted to add Sanchez and later Mahrez to a squad which has Kun,Jesus, B Silva, Sterling, Sane.We have Lukaku, Martial, Sanchez, Mata, Rash and Lingard.I definitely see place for one top forward and for me Dybala has the potential to be one of the best in the world.
 
Sanche7 said:
Think Mou trusts Valencia and expects him to go on well into his mid 30s.And Young + TFM can cover for him next year.Dont think the same can be said about LB as Mou doesn't trust anyone there

On Sanchez, I don't think Mou sees him as a RW, I think Sanchez will mostly play as #10 or LW.Also I feel Dybala and Griezmann are different players, Griezmann is OK at RW but Dybala is very good as he drifts inside and shoots often from RW.

If you ask me an attacker is not an emergency but if players like Dybala become available, we should go all out for him.Just look at Barca, Real, Bayern or even City.They all have 4 world class or near world class players for 3 positions.City wanted to add Sanchez and later Mahrez to a squad which has Kun,Jesus, B Silva, Sterling, Sane.We have Lukaku, Martial, Sanchez, Mata, Rash and Lingard.I definitely see place for one top forward and for me Dybala has the potential to be one of the best in the world.
Click to expand...

They're different players but both are at their best centrally. Dybala is at his best behind the striker.
 
Time for the Glazers to sell some of their shares if they're incapable of investing into the club to improve the infrastructure.
 
Sanche7 said:
Didn't Mourinho say that he won't be making more than 2/3 signings with those 3 being most probably 2 CMs and a LB.
Even if those 3 are Jorginho, SMS and Alex Sandro, it would cost 40+80+60 million approximately without add ons.That means 180 mill.We may sell Blind, Damian for say 30 million.Which leaves us at 150 million - the normal yearly budget we have and about 500k per week reduction in wage bill .

In that case all this reasoning behind not improving the stadium sounds BS.
To quote @Infra-red Sounds like the sort of thing you might say to appease the fans when you decide that you don't actually fancy paying to improve the stadium after all...
Click to expand...

These no. make more sense to me and let's not argue on whether it should be LB or RB, just assume 2 MF and 1 RB. 150m Net would be the worst case scenario financially but obviously the weekly wage reduction may be down to 200K or 300K taken into account of contract renewal of some of the boys.

Again, net new debt to the club would be less than 300m but the new revenue from additional 8k seats would pay back handsomely. I suspect the Board may be worry about the validity of the reconstruction project itself
 
Giggs86 said:
I don't think that the atmosphere or singing can improve the performance on the pitch. Look at City, they have an atmosphere of an abandoned cemetery and it doesn't bother them to perform on the pitch. Having a good atmosphere is nice, but having good players is more important.
Click to expand...
If atmosphere mattered, Liverpool would have won feck lot. I agree
 
The answer is to either sell naming rights to OT or for the Glazer gimps to sell up.
 
I doubt the money being set aside for possible stadium expansion/upgrade would be the same money we were planning to use on player recruitment. And even if it was the same money and this is true it will probably only delay any work on the stadium by a few months to a year at most.

cyril C said:
25m for Blind and Darmian each not possible? This is not excessive and I doubt we will sell any of them for less than 20m.
Click to expand...

I think as things stand we will be lucky to get £5-10m for Darmian if we manage to get anything for him at all, i said the same last summer when people were throwing around crazy valuations like £25-35m. Even in an inflated market poor players are only going to for a few million.

With the right buyer we could get £10-15m for Blind as he's a decent player. My guess would be if we sell both we recoup £20m on them.
 
Club should look for the long term. Old Trafford explanation should be piroity.
 
stevoc said:
I doubt the money being set aside for possible stadium expansion/upgrade would be the same money we were planning to use on player recruitment. And even if it was the same money and this is true it will probably only delay any work on the stadium by a few months to a year at most.



I think as things stand we will be lucky to get £5-10m for Darmian if we manage to get anything for him at all, i said the same last summer when people were throwing around crazy valuations like £25-35m. Even in an inflated market poor players are only going to for a few million.

With the right buyer we could get £10-15m for Blind as he's a decent player. My guess would be if we sell both we recoup £20m on them.
Click to expand...

Both Blind and Darmian are season international players, at the right age group as well. We may not get 30+ for either, but 5-10m for Darmian? I recall we got more than this no. for JOS, and that was how many years ago?
 
The expansion and general renovations to OT could cost up to £200m if not more.
 
Why the uproar by some fans? upgrading an already great stadium won't breed success on the pitch.

Personally I don't care what the stadium looks like once there are tickets to be got and when I go I get to see the best players in the world lining out in front of me. Spend money on the squad I say. Or else we could be the next Arsenal.
 
Adisa said:
The expansion and general renovations to OT could cost up to £200m if not more.
Click to expand...

Would be better off doing a Spurs and building a new stadium on the same site just further away from the rail line. Makes sense as well given the Glazers have brought the land around OT
 
Trizy said:
Why the uproar by some fans? upgrading an already great stadium won't breed success on the pitch.

Personally I don't care what the stadium looks like once there are tickets to be got and when I go I get to see the best players in the world lining out in front of me. Spend money on the squad I say. Or else we could be the next Arsenal.
Click to expand...
have you been to OT recently? The stadium is in real need of an upgrade.
 
cyril C said:
Both Blind and Darmian are season international players, at the right age group as well. We may not get 30+ for either, but 5-10m for Darmian? I recall we got more than this no. for JOS, and that was how many years ago?
Click to expand...

Being a seasoned international doesn't add much to the value of a player when being transferred between two clubs. O'Shea and Brown went to Sunderland for i believe a combined £6m fee so £3m each or there about, O'Shea was 29-30 and a better player than Darmian who is 29 this year. So £5-10m for Darmian doesn't look so bad if you are comparing it to the O'Shea deal.

But anyway mate we're off topic, you think we can get a decent fee for Darmian i think we will do well to recoup anything. Let's see how it plays out in the summer when hopefully we finally flush him back to Italy.
 
This doesn't make any sense surely stadium improvements would be carried out through bank loans and player purchases would be done through the clubs cash reserves? 2 different money pots.
 
Massive Spanner said:
have you been to OT recently? The stadium is in real need of an upgrade.
Click to expand...

Not since last year (not from England). I'll be there against Sevilla in 2 weeks, I'll do a ''Room to improve'' rating on it for you then :drool:
 
stubie said:
Would be better off doing a Spurs and building a new stadium on the same site just further away from the rail line. Makes sense as well given the Glazers have brought the land around OT
Click to expand...
Can't think of any scenario where that makes sense to the Glazers.
New build of similar capacity would cost around 1bn, all included.
That's without the hassle of finding where you relocate 75,000.
The new stand can be done with capacity being reduced momentarily while the renovation is done in batches.
 
Adisa said:
Can't think of any scenario where that makes sense to the Glazers.
New build of similar capacity would cost around 1bn, all included.
That's without the hassle of finding where you relocate 75,000.
The new stand can be done with capacity being reduced momentarily while the renovation is done in batches.
Click to expand...

The cost of rebuilding the Sir Bobby Charlton stand would not be too far off 1bn, read somewhere that the club had been quoted something like £700m
 
stubie said:
The cost of rebuilding the Sir Bobby Charlton stand would not be too far off 1bn, read somewhere that the club had been quoted something like £700m
Click to expand...
Can't be.
Liverpool did theirs for £120m, all costs included.
 
stubie said:
Not the most reliable source but https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/5204153/manchester-united-old-trafford-capacity/

Don't forget the stand Liverpool rebuilt did not have a rail line or a row of occupied houses behind it
Click to expand...

That is it. 700m is a rip off but obviously contractor will tell you anything is possible. So obviously this project doesn't make commercial sense at all. May be just renovate the existing facility with much less disruption and less cost. No need to involve new players as excuse, only suckers will pay 700m for a few thousand extra seats.
 
If the reports are true and it has been cancelled for a "spending spree" for next summer then I am all for it. That is a much higher priority than the attempt to try and extend the stadium for the improved atmosphere which is not guaranteed anyway. We need to get back to winning the league and for the challenges to come.

This could, however, have been cancelled for other reasons and the papers are just trying to stoke up some gossip on transfers.
 
Damien said:
I doubt we'll be able to get 50M from selling Darmian and Blind (the other three would be either leaving on a free or retiring). Likewise I doubt we'll be able to bring in two midfielders and a right back for 120M combined with the way prices are going.
Click to expand...
I was just going to say the same. We need quality so 120 million wouldnt purchase 2 really good experienced midfielders, mid 20s who would step straight in, which is what we need. Its no use buying another 29/30 year old or buying potential.
 
Spoony said:
No chance. White Hart Lane is costing £800m, why on earth would the South Stand cost anywhere near that rail track or no rail track? United could build a state of the art 100k stadium adjacent to OT for a billion.
Click to expand...
That would be the most sensible thing to do. Build on the car park and keep OT open until its finished. The railway line is always going to be a problem.
 
stevoc said:
I doubt the money being set aside for possible stadium expansion/upgrade would be the same money we were planning to use on player recruitment. And even if it was the same money and this is true it will probably only delay any work on the stadium by a few months to a year at most.
Click to expand...

I doubt that as well. And we've got money for both, I'd imagine.
 
Axkiko said:
Club should look for the long term. Old Trafford explanation should be piroity.
Click to expand...
As said above, doubt the two projects are being funded from the same pot. But yeah, agree completely - stadium is the priority.
 
On a sidenote, if City are tenants, why were they allowed to change the stadium's name to Etihad/Emptihad? Don't tenants have to abide by certain rules like sub-letting, not running a brothel, and stuff like that?
 
If transfers and stadium development are from the same pot then the time will never be right to develop the stadium, and it will never happen.
 
I'd like to see the numbers but personally I can't imagine an expansion is ever going to be fiscally attractive.

Even if the capacity increased by 13,000 and this was skewed as much as possible towards the more lucrative corporate seating... I can't imagine the expected annual increase in sales would be more than around £15m. If the cost would be even a conservative £225m you'd be looking at a 15 year pay-back. That's before even considering the climate in 15 years time... Will the way people watch football change which might reduce the demand for tickets? Will the trend continue of the cost of tickets reducing (comparatively) as commercial/TV revenue increases?

Even Spurs stadium which they're in desperate need for is only particularly viable because of the commercial doors that they believe it will open to them. Increasing their annual match day revenue by £50m at a cost of £850m with a 17 year pay back isn't exactly good business. They believe however that the increase will have at least the same financial benefit again in terms of their commercial revenues.

United would have absolutely no commercial benefits to expanding the current stadium.
 
Handsome Devil said:
On a sidenote, if City are tenants, why were they allowed to change the stadium's name to Etihad/Emptihad? Don't tenants have to abide by certain rules like sub-letting, not running a brothel, and stuff like that?
Click to expand...
I think City bought it off the council?
 
It would only be worth adding another 13,000 more seats if those fans are going to actually support the team. Of course that also means the team is going to have improve its performances to get people off their seat, so I guess that goes hand in hand. Wouldn't they also have to move the railway line behind the south stand? Isn't that what's stopped that stand getting any development at all so far?
 
Handsome Devil said:
On a sidenote, if City are tenants, why were they allowed to change the stadium's name to Etihad/Emptihad? Don't tenants have to abide by certain rules like sub-letting, not running a brothel, and stuff like that?
Click to expand...


They leased it from the city council for a hundred years if I remember correctly. That is basically as good as owning it.
 
Surely we need a poll mods? Expand OT or muppet transfer spending spree?

We obviously can't afford both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.