New Stadium | 100k Stadium to be built - design visualisation released

Thoughts on the design?

  • Total voters
    1,174
  • Poll closed .
moodyred said:
If Ratcliff were to pump money into the stadium, he would probably want the rest of shareholders to do the same, else he would expect his shares to be increased. Why would he pump money in otherwise? Taking a loan would make more sense at this moment given that he doesn't own the entirety of United.
Click to expand...
Personally I think we'll pay for it in a combination of three ways.

Ratcliffe will put some of his own money in, with the club issuing more shares to him. Glazers obviously have to agree to this so it won't be a huge amount (relatively), but I would hope he'd be at least 35% ownership after it's all done.
Naming rights to the stadium being sold for the first 10 or so years.
The rest taken out in loans.
 
MadDogg said:
Personally I think we'll pay for it in a combination of three ways.

Ratcliffe will put some of his own money in, with the club issuing more shares to him. Glazers obviously have to agree to this so it won't be a huge amount (relatively), but I would hope he'd be at least 35% ownership after it's all done.
Naming rights to the stadium being sold for the first 10 or so years.
The rest taken out in loans.
Click to expand...

It’s worth remembering that we’d have to front the cost regardless of naming rights.

We might get £40m a year starting in 2031 or something but we aren’t getting anything until it’s built.

If we wanted to be controversial and particularly unsentimental I’d argue we should sell the naming rights to Old Trafford for the last 5-7 years. If it’s being knocked down anyway then why worry about it being called Snapdragon Old Trafford. That could bring in an extra chunk of change.
 
sparx99 said:
It’s worth remembering that we’d have to front the cost regardless of naming rights.

We might get £40m a year starting in 2031 or something but we aren’t getting anything until it’s built.

If we wanted to be controversial and particularly unsentimental I’d argue we should sell the naming rights to Old Trafford for the last 5-7 years. If it’s being knocked down anyway then why worry about it being called Snapdragon Old Trafford. That could bring in an extra chunk of change.
Click to expand...
Hmm, that is true.

Although it's such a noteworthy stadium that even while it's being built the company that gets naming rights may want it to already be acknowledged as that. For instance Emirates had already locked in the naming rights for Arsenal's new stadium while it was still being built. So it might be something like a small yearly payment while being built before then going to the full sponsorship amount once it's opened. Still not enough to make a significant difference so you're right in that, but I suppose every bit helps.

I guess that could also link with your idea of selling the naming rights for Old Trafford, either with the same company sponsoring both or different companies sponsoring each. So we continue playing in Snapdragon Old Trafford while Snapdragon Stadium is being built next door. Still wouldn't get as much as I expect we'd eventually get once the new stadium is fully built (everybody would just keep calling it Old Trafford), but it'd be a decent amount.

It's also worth noting that we won't be paying the entire stadium cost right at the start. It'll be done in stages, so although I presume we have to guarantee funding from the beginning we won't be paying off the entire loan (or it's interest) five plus years before we actually open the stadium.
 
MadDogg said:
Personally I think we'll pay for it in a combination of three ways.

Ratcliffe will put some of his own money in, with the club issuing more shares to him. Glazers obviously have to agree to this so it won't be a huge amount (relatively), but I would hope he'd be at least 35% ownership after it's all done.
Naming rights to the stadium being sold for the first 10 or so years.
The rest taken out in loans.
Click to expand...
This would probably be ideal business wise.
 
Prodigal7 said:
This not difficult at all to fund. It will be done through a secondary company owning the lease to the stadium on the condition that when we complete say 20-22 payments of just over 100m per year then the stadium will be transferred to the club.

You plebs can come back to this post and clap me when this happens :lol:
Click to expand...
Somebody has the article written by a journalist, I see!!
 
Prodigal7 said:
This not difficult at all to fund. It will be done through a secondary company owning the lease to the stadium on the condition that when we complete say 20-22 payments of just over 100m per year then the stadium will be transferred to the club.

You plebs can come back to this post and clap me when this happens :lol:
Click to expand...

We won't have to pay back anywhere near that amount because we won't have to borrow anything close to £2bn.

By the time we have sold naming rights, sold off existing land for commercial and residential use, had Ratcliffe and Ineos inject money towards it in exchange for a greater shareholding, offered advance sales of 10 year season tickets and corporate access and then sold off Old Trafford memorabilia such as turf and seats, I'd be surprised if the amount we were looking to borrow wasn't between half and three quarters of a billion pounds.
 
diarm said:
We won't have to pay back anywhere near that amount because we won't have to borrow anything close to £2bn.

By the time we have sold naming rights, sold off existing land for commercial and residential use, had Ratcliffe and Ineos inject money towards it in exchange for a greater shareholding, offered advance sales of 10 year season tickets and corporate access and then sold off Old Trafford memorabilia such as turf and seats, I'd be surprised if the amount we were looking to borrow wasn't between half and three quarters of a billion pounds.
Click to expand...
We likely won't be borrowing anything. It will just constitute a chunk of revenue each year. I agree stadium naming rights and so on could reduce the payments though.
 
Prodigal7 said:
We likely won't be borrowing anything. It will just constitute a chunk of revenue each year. I agree stadium naming rights and so on could reduce the payments though.
Click to expand...

Somebody else paying for the work to be done, followed by us giving them a chunk of revenue each year is absolutely borrowing. It won't be happening interest free.
 
diarm said:
We won't have to pay back anywhere near that amount because we won't have to borrow anything close to £2bn.

By the time we have sold naming rights, sold off existing land for commercial and residential use, had Ratcliffe and Ineos inject money towards it in exchange for a greater shareholding, offered advance sales of 10 year season tickets and corporate access and then sold off Old Trafford memorabilia such as turf and seats, I'd be surprised if the amount we were looking to borrow wasn't between half and three quarters of a billion pounds.
Click to expand...

I thought about how cool it would be to one such a piece a few weeks back - I wonder what they might go for?
 
SirAF said:
I thought about how cool it would be to one such a piece a few weeks back - I wonder what they might go for?
Click to expand...

I know Arsenal sold 5000 squares of turf at £25 a pop when they left Highbury. You'd probably fetch double that for a square of OT turf today.

I could see people paying £100 for an authentic OT seat.
 
diarm said:
I know Arsenal sold 5000 squares of turf at £25 a pop when they left Highbury. You'd probably fetch double that for a square of OT turf today.

I could see people paying £100 for an authentic OT seat.
Click to expand...

OAPs only getting a 50% reduction and not 75%
 
diarm said:
I know Arsenal sold 5000 squares of turf at £25 a pop when they left Highbury. You'd probably fetch double that for a square of OT turf today.

I could see people paying £100 for an authentic OT seat.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's not bad at all!
 
The stadium is haunted to feck, where will the ghosts go when they knock it down? whatever they build on that land will be like Poltergeist.
 
SirAF said:
Who died there? Arsenal's title ambitions in 2008?
Click to expand...
I wasn't looking at it from that angle but now you mention it many a soul has been destroyed within Old Trafford, trying to word this without ending up in the posts that sound sexual thread.
 
sparx99 said:
I keep seeing discussions about the Munich tunnel being moved and rebuilt. I wonder if it makes more sense for a new club museum to be built around it, with it forming a key part of that. Given that its also the oldest part of the stadium it keeps part of Old Trafford forever.
Click to expand...
Love that idea.
 
neon_badger said:
The stadium is haunted to feck, where will the ghosts go when they knock it down? whatever they build on that land will be like Poltergeist.
Click to expand...
Just think of how many people's ashes have been spread over OT. Once we move to the new stadium, we'll need to get Sam and Dean Winchester in to deal with all the vengeful spirits.
 
Sunny Jim said:
I dont believe this gets build, not to mention 5 year deadline
Click to expand...
Are you a construction expert? They've admitted 5 years is super optimistic, but it won't go beyond 6 years from when they break ground.

Modular builds are known to improve speed of builds by 55/60%.
 
I'm inclined to think the timing of this announcement was to distract people from Uniteds difficult state.

The Stadium won't be built in this guise without substantial government support. Why on Earth should the tax payer make Uniteds owners richer?

Ratcliffe comes across as another billionaire used car salesman to me.
 
Terrific Tangerine said:
I'm inclined to think the timing of this announcement was to distract people from Uniteds difficult state.

The Stadium won't be built in this guise without substantial government support. Why on Earth should the tax payer make Uniteds owners richer?

Ratcliffe comes across as another billionaire used car salesman to me.
Click to expand...

The government don't need to provide much really.
Just rezoning the land and moving the freight yard and terminal.

All the housing can be built by private developers.

It's not a huge investment considering for such a large area. 17,000 houses with good public transport infrastructure etc...
 
https:// x.com/NFLSTROUD/status/1907155519837524251
For anybody that thinks the Glazers will fund the new stadium...
 
idek2346 said:
https:// x.com/NFLSTROUD/status/1907155519837524251
For anybody that thinks the Glazers will fund the new stadium...
Click to expand...

I doubt there was a United fan on the planet who thought the Glazers were even going to pay £1 towards the new stadium.
 
It could well be that the moving of the freight yard and terminal will be a considerable logistical problem. Questions : Is the land available and owed by rail track, if not can it be purchased and planning approved. There would appear too many assumptions being made, one the government will back and guarantee financial payments, two that land is freely available i.e., for the new freight yard and terminal, 3 Under the financial climate and restraints will developers come forward for the housing development.
It would appear that Ratcliffe's plans will come to nothing if the freight yard problem cannot be resolved, I see one of the problems who pays for the the transfer of the freight yard, railtrack, the government, Greater Manchester Council or Ratcliffe.
The final question is given the recent news regarding of his company Ineos and its financial connections to his share holding in Utd., can he now bear the financial cost of a new stadium in the finacial climate.
All of the above or part of may delay the development of this project.
 
dave1956 said:
It could well be that the moving of the freight yard and terminal will be a considerable logistical problem. Questions : Is the land available and owed by rail track, if not can it be purchased and planning approved. There would appear too many assumptions being made, one the government will back and guarantee financial payments, two that land is freely available i.e., for the new freight yard and terminal, 3 Under the financial climate and restraints will developers come forward for the housing development.
It would appear that Ratcliffe's plans will come to nothing if the freight yard problem cannot be resolved, I see one of the problems who pays for the the transfer of the freight yard, railtrack, the government, Greater Manchester Council or Ratcliffe.
The final question is given the recent news regarding of his company Ineos and its financial connections to his share holding in Utd., can he now bear the financial cost of a new stadium in the finacial climate.
All of the above or part of may delay the development of this project.
Click to expand...
United have a long lease on the land (not sure who actually owns it) where the freight terminal is, the Government will bear the cost of moving it as part of the regeneration, freight trains cause a big bottleneck because of the current location that prevents improvments for passenger services that are badly needed, the new location will be served by a different line that reduces the bottleneck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.