UnitedSofa
You'll Never Walk Away
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2013
- Messages
- 7,339
Barcelona obtained a decent interest rate for the context at the time (5.5% on average).
The big news is that a Turkish company was aiming to enter the Latin American market, and that made their offer brutally good. It would be negligent for Barcelona not to accept it.
Maybe some company wants to make a big offer in order to have the cache of having done the remodeling of Old Trafford.
It didn’t feel soulless lifting the Champions League in 2008. I understand the attachment to the stadium, but ultimately if the club can get it right on the pitch and start winning in Europe and at home again, the stadium becomes less of an issue. I’m local to the stadium. Work literally nxt door to it and would have a preference for a new stadium.Surprised to see so many fans vote for a new stadium, maybe because of the continental fan base of the club less people have a connection with Old Trafford. I think we should be doing everything possible to stay at Old Trafford.
I would like to see a renovation of Old Trafford, in a similar vein to Anfield, the Nou Camp or the Bernabau. There is no need to knock it down. Renovate each stand, one at a time to avoid having to stage matches elsewhere. Build over the railway - even build a train station for the staidum.
This club has been slowly gutted by the Glazers over the last 15 years, with a little bit of its soul cut away every year. More and more it is becoming a soulless corporate franchise, which has hollowed out Matt Busby's club and is now masquerading around with its badge and its name churning a dividend and a ridiculous capital gain for its overlords whilst the football gets worse and the infrastructure is left to rot. When we start playing in the Manchester United-Ineos partnership community stadium sponsored by Huwawei, that process will be complete and we will rue the great thing we've lost.
I watched the Superbowl the other night, good game. It got me thinking of why the Glazers never at any stage bothered to get the Buccaneers to play tests at Old Trafford, that would have been a sure money spinner for them. Surely the NFL/Glazer link is something that Sir Jim needs to take advantage of in building new stadium. Levy got the NFL included at Spurs and surely the Glazers have much better connections with the NFL than Levy. One job Avram and Joel, you have one job !!
You were sayingKeegan knows shit .
He’s 71 I’d imagine he’s thinking he wants to actually see all the improvements.Crickey, he's not letting up.
I agree. If you're relying on a a building to provide the soul of a club on matchdays then you've got a huge problem. The fans are the soul of the club. They're the ones who will shape what the new stadium is over the years. And it's Manchester ffs, Northern soul still swaggers it's way through the turnstiles every week.It didn’t feel soulless lifting the Champions League in 2008. I understand the attachment to the stadium, but ultimately if the club can get it right on the pitch and start winning in Europe and at home again, the stadium becomes less of an issue. I’m local to the stadium. Work literally nxt door to it and would have a preference for a new stadium.
for me it’s all part of the package. Invite the nxt generational talent for a nosey around and if he sees elite training facilities and stadium it will have some impact on a decision.
The brick dugouts are not that iconic, they've only been around for what, 25-30 years or soHadn’t even thought of the dugouts and how iconic they are. They have to be replicated in any stadium new or refurb. And for me, the new stadium has to echo the old brick throughout.
I get the point you're making but it's not just a fan thing, especially these days. It needs to make financial sense to keep it up and running which I can only imagine has continued to creep up in costs quite drastically.Went to the ground for the first time in a few years recently. Really don't see what all this fuss is about. It's a bit industrial when compared to the shinyness and gloss of the new bowls, but what does that matter when you reach the pitch side itself. Sitting in the South stand facing the North it still looks pretty spectacular.
Also went to Wembley a year back. Nice place, lots of space, bars, etc, but not a patch on a proper football ground like OT.
Yes, you can't live in the past, but the spirit of the club is about its history. If we don't maintain that, we may as well change our strip to blue and call ourselves City.
Drawings are just drawings - there are multiple ways to increase capacity without increasing the overall footprint, a lot depends on the land suitability, water table depth, that will determine what can and can't be builtI still don't get it, all the drawings I see of a new stadium next to the old show them both to have the same size footprint. Surely the new should be much bigger, in which case it wouldn't fit in the plot?
I've tried to find how big the Spurs one is in terms of metres long and wide compared to Old Trafford but it's not an easy search, for me anyway. And then I would hope our new stadium would be considerably longer and wider than that, for a 90,000+ capacity, ideally bigger than Wembley, just because I want it to be.
One of our stands (Sir Bobby Charlton) can't be built up because of proximity to the rail track. Imagine building up that another tier or two.I still don't get it, all the drawings I see of a new stadium next to the old show them both to have the same size footprint. Surely the new should be much bigger, in which case it wouldn't fit in the plot?
I've tried to find how big the Spurs one is in terms of metres long and wide compared to Old Trafford but it's not an easy search, for me anyway. And then I would hope our new stadium would be considerably longer and wider than that, for a 90,000+ capacity, ideally bigger than Wembley, just because I want it to be.
That's why I would like to know the footprint size of other state-of-the-art stadiums compared to the our available space.Drawings are just drawings - there are multiple ways to increase capacity without increasing the overall footprint, a lot depends on the land suitability, water table depth, that will determine what can and can't be built
Indeed, but that would require a slightly larger footprint than shown, that's why they would need to build over the track in the first place. And then you would be left with the cramped lack of space beneath the stands that we currently have, for all the dining, meeting and drinking areas that a modern stadium should have.One of our stands (Sir Bobby Charlton) can't be built up because of proximity to the rail track. Imagine building up that another tier or two.
The links are to the satellite view in Google maps with the scale the same as far as I can tell, if this is accurtae then the current OT footprint is way smaller!That's why I would like to know the footprint size of other state-of-the-art stadiums compared to the our available space.
That's what is confusing me. I've never been to the new Spurs stadium but looking at the Wiki entry it is brilliant and what we should be aiming for as a minimum standard. Except it is only two thirds the capacity of what we want, so I would expect to need a lot more space.The links are to the satellite view in Google maps with the scale the same as far as I can tell, if this is accurtae then the current OT footprint is way smaller!
Old Trafford
Tottenham Stadium
You nailed it.Wanting to knock a stadium down because we've had a few bad defeats there is a madness.
Just redevelop what we have. New south stand, new roof, new facade, new seats, update the concourses with state of the art technology.
That way you can do it one stand at a time and reduce the impact. No way should the stadium be anywhere other than where it is now.
I'd only have a new stadium if it was a massive video orb like that one in Vegas.
I haven't either but I watched a Youtube video and it looks impressive, I used to live a few miles from there and it shows what can be done, video is a bit OTT in parts but worth watchingThat's what is confusing me. I've never been to the new Spurs stadium but looking at the Wiki entry it is brilliant and what we should be aiming for as a minimum standard. Except it is only two thirds the capacity of what we want, so I would expect to need a lot more space.
However clever the architects are. I wonder how big Everton's is, I guess they won't need anything like the corporate and entertaining stuff we do but it would be a guide.
Modern stadiums have steeper drops, it wouldn't necesarily require a bigger footprint to achieve 90k. I was more giving a general idea, it probably won't be the exact same size anyway and the important thing is we have plenty of room to build.Indeed, but that would require a slightly larger footprint than shown, that's why they would need to build over the track in the first place. And then you would be left with the cramped lack of space beneath the stands that we currently have, for all the dining, meeting and drinking areas that a modern stadium should have.
What does 'wouldn't necessarily' mean? I want an example of a modern state of the art stadium with a greater capacity than we have now that would fit.Modern stadiums have steeper drops, it wouldn't necesarily require a bigger footprint to achieve 90k. I was more giving a general idea, it probably won't be the exact same size anyway and the important thing is we have plenty of room to build.
Don't know If this is any help?What does 'wouldn't necessarily' mean? I want an example of a modern state of the art stadium with a greater capacity than we have now that would fit.
Ok I'm being totally lazy in not researching it properly myself but in my defence it's the caf that's made me this way. Pick any subject under the sun from medicine to artificial intelligence to archaeology and you can bet several people will come on that genuinely know their stuff and I read their opinions in awe. Football stadiums, not a chance, we seem to know feck-all about them.
Don't know If this is any help?
Chill out. We have ample room to build a stadium and it will be done. Not sure why you're getting so stressed about it.What does 'wouldn't necessarily' mean? I want an example of a modern state of the art stadium with a greater capacity than we have now that would fit.
Ok I'm being totally lazy in not researching it properly myself but in my defence it's the caf that's made me this way. Pick any subject under the sun from medicine to artificial intelligence to archaeology and you can bet several people will come on that genuinely know their stuff and I read their opinions in awe. Football stadiums, not a chance, we seem to know feck-all about them.
What am I missing ?You were saying
Indeed, but that would require a slightly larger footprint than shown, that's why they would need to build over the track in the first place. And then you would be left with the cramped lack of space beneath the stands that we currently have, for all the dining, meeting and drinking areas that a modern stadium should have.