New Stadium or Revamp Old Trafford | Aim is to build 100k seater stadium

Would you rather a new stadium or rebuild Old Trafford?

  • New stadium

    Votes: 1,039 57.2%

  • Rebuild Old Trafford

    Votes: 776 42.8%
  • Total voters
    1,815
Red Star One said:
Agreed and I’m pretty sure that if we finish 5-6 next year there will be at least some talk of improvement, ETH not being properly supported, back luck and so. If this season was considered successful enough due to the domestic cup to grant ETH a new contract despite finishing 8th in the league and crashing out of CL group stage (not to mention unwatchable football), I’m certain something like a 5th place only 5 points off the fourth, Europa League quarter and Carabao semi will be considered a success, too.
Click to expand...
UnofficialDevil said:
Bank of America Stadium? feck off, I'd rather have leaking roofs.
Click to expand...

Bank of America is likely for the loan, not for sponsorship.

RedRocket9908 said:
The club shouldnt even be looking at spending a huge amount on a new stadium until the existing massive debt is dealt with.

If you are correct that it would cost £1-2bn then that would put us £2-3Bn in debt which simply isnt sustainable.
Click to expand...

The debt we have is not going to be gone until the Glazers leave, it is here by design. We're not getting a new stadium without a loan, the notion of anything else can be thrown out, other teams have paid of their stadiums without much fuss and with our power in advertising I think we can pay it off even faster.
 
People need to release that is not the same stadium built in 1910, it’s not the stadium I first visited in 1992. It has constantly been renovated and done up etc but what has always stayed the same is where it is.

going to the theatre is not just about the stadium its walking down busby way or seeing it across the canal, moving the stadium even if its side by side will take a lot of the essence away. It is very very possible to turn our current ground into the biggest and best ground in the country again without moving it.

Stand by stand it can be done up and I’m sure season tickets wouldn’t mind temporarily being moved for the greater good.

ps if old Trafford was to get knocked down for a new stadium or a new stadium built beside it for safety we would need a temporary ground. We aren’t like spurs in London we can’t use Wembley. We would have to share city’s ground which is unthinkable.
 
berbasloth4 said:
People need to release that is not the same stadium built in 1910, it’s not the stadium I first visited in 1992. It has constantly been renovated and done up etc but what has always stayed the same is where it is.

going to the theatre is not just about the stadium its walking down busby way or seeing it across the canal, moving the stadium even if its side by side will take a lot of the essence away. It is very very possible to turn our current ground into the biggest and best ground in the country again without moving it.

Stand by stand it can be done up and I’m sure season tickets wouldn’t mind temporarily being moved for the greater good.

ps if old Trafford was to get knocked down for a new stadium or a new stadium built beside it for safety we would need a temporary ground. We aren’t like spurs in London we can’t use Wembley. We would have to share city’s ground which is unthinkable.
Click to expand...

The stadium at the least needs to be moved to accommodate a bigger south stand. And if they did build adjacent or back to back then the environment and walk down Busby way etc would remain.
 
berbasloth4 said:
ps if old Trafford was to get knocked down for a new stadium or a new stadium built beside it for safety we would need a temporary ground. We aren’t like spurs in London we can’t use Wembley. We would have to share city’s ground which is unthinkable.
Click to expand...

Have you seen how Spurs built their ground though? Same for Bilbao, Benfica, etc.

Keep as much of the current ground as possible until you need to knock that part down to finish the new ground - transition at 2/3rds or 3/4 done and go from there. Pay people back for their season tickets if they can't get a seat in the reduced capacity.

Spurs moved to Wembley to maximise revenue but they didn't have to move.

If we built next to OT as it is currently, we wouldn't have to move.

We also would never share with City, it's not big enough for one.
 
matherto said:
Have you seen how Spurs built their ground though? Same for Bilbao, Benfica, etc.

Keep as much of the current ground as possible until you need to knock that part down to finish the new ground - transition at 2/3rds or 3/4 done and go from there. Pay people back for their season tickets if they can't get a seat in the reduced capacity.

Spurs moved to Wembley to maximise revenue but they didn't have to move.

If we built next to OT as it is currently, we wouldn't have to move.

We also would never share with City, it's not big enough for one.
Click to expand...

This is easier said than done. The logistics are never the same and it’s not guaranteed to save us time or money. In fact I can almost guarantee timeline would be longer.
 
I wonder if they've thought about pulling a city and just selling the naming rights for an inflated fee to INEOS or some affiliated company.

It would be the smart thing to do. Every other team is looking for loopholes and work arounds. Why shouldn't we do the same?
 
Building a new stadium, taking on the naming rights issue. He really is doing all the dirty work for the mutants
 
Five years from now we'll still me hearing all this talks of whether to knock it down or Renovate it.
 
RedRocket9908 said:
The club shouldnt even be looking at spending a huge amount on a new stadium until the existing massive debt is dealt with.

If you are correct that it would cost £1-2bn then that would put us £2-3Bn in debt which simply isnt sustainable.
Click to expand...

Well I'd agree with you there but Ratcliffe seems to be ploughing ahead with stadiums plans yet I don't see him or Ineos sorting the existing debt problem while they are just part owners.
 
DevilRed said:
I wonder if they've thought about pulling a city and just selling the naming rights for an inflated fee to INEOS or some affiliated company.

It would be the smart thing to do. Every other team is looking for loopholes and work arounds. Why shouldn't we do the same?
Click to expand...

You mean cheat?

Setting aside the cheating part why would Ratcliffe or Ineos want to do that?

They are a business not a middle eastern gulf state looking to financially dope a sportswashing project. That doesn't make business sense.
 
izak said:
Five years from now we'll still me hearing all this talks of whether to knock it down or Renovate it.
Click to expand...

Either way the stadium will take years, it's not something that can be or should be rushed. It's been in it's current state since 2005 without major redevelopments so another few years won't hurt to get a proper plan and funding together.
 
Does building a stadium also come under INEOS' domain? I thought their stake only made them in charge of the football operations. Here they are renovating/building the training ground and talking about building a stadium. Are the Glazers pure investors now while INEOS take care of everything else?
 
Steve Bruce said:
I was under the impression the whole point in get seb coe etc involved was to get Manchester council to pay for the majority of it.

I was also under the impression that any new debt would be on INEOS books not Uniteds.

Maybe right now it's about getting the plans in place then hopefully a full takeover happens and then INEOS pushes the button on getting it done.

I'm certainly not saying this is what the plan is, there was a lot of story's floating around during the takeover and I'm not sure what was fact or fiction.
Click to expand...
Why would Manchester council pay for a project outside their borders?

And how many councils in the country have £2bn funding available for a project that largely benefits a private company?
 
decorativeed said:
Why would Manchester council pay for a project outside their borders?

And how many councils in the country have £2bn funding available for a project that largely benefits a private company?
Click to expand...
Thought the council were getting involved with regards to developing the area around OT, in the leveling up scheme the current government set up, that is likely why he has involved Keir Starmer as well. They might not have fancied doing it unless there is an upgraded, new OT as a centrepiece.
 
decorativeed said:
Why would Manchester council pay for a project outside their borders?

And how many councils in the country have £2bn funding available for a project that largely benefits a private company?
Click to expand...
Your right, it wasn't the council, it was the major of Manchester saying that public money was needed.
 
decorativeed said:
Why would Manchester council pay for a project outside their borders?

And how many councils in the country have £2bn funding available for a project that largely benefits a private company?
Click to expand...

Who said its the council funding £2bn? If you listen to what Ratcliffe said, he said they will need the council's help for regeneration. He compared it to Wembley, where the stadium is built by the FA and the surrounding areas have been renovated.

He did mention it will be private funding along with public money as it will benefit the Manchester area.
 
Judas said:
Don't really get this one, would you rather they did....nothing?
Click to expand...
It is that people are sure we are asking the council to actually build the stadium, I am sure we aren't. Why would you build or renovate a stadium if the surrounding area is not upgraded as well, or why would you upgrade and develop an area if the stadium in the centre of it is not up to scratch and would look out of place. If it takes naming the stadium to offset some of the cost then so be it. It will still be OT to everybody anyway. Eventually the OT generation won't be around anyway. That is brutal, but how it is. People are clinging to OT when it isn't OT but the memories they are clinging to. The memories will always be there no matter what.
 
Selling the name of the stadium?

I guess Big Brexit Gristlin' Jim and his Chemical Brothers failed to convince hmG to foot the bill, despite cosying up to Keir.

Another failed negotiation.
 
DevilRed said:
I wonder if they've thought about pulling a city and just selling the naming rights for an inflated fee to INEOS or some affiliated company.

It would be the smart thing to do. Every other team is looking for loopholes and work arounds. Why shouldn't we do the same?
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever :lol:

You seem to have completely misunderstood the difference between a legit company working to budgets and a bottomless pit of state oil money.
 
I've worked in design for years and we have a saying in the industry "you can only bastardize a design so many times".

Basically what this means is, the original design, whatever it is, can only change a few times from the original before it either:
1. Starts to look a mess and nothing like the original

2. It's easier to rip it all up and start from scratch.

Old Trafford for me, is heading for number 2. Its been updated, changed and built up so much from its original design that it now looks like a kids Lego project. No designer in their right mind, would ever design Old Trafford the way it is now, not from scratch.

It's got to the point where Old Trafford needs to be rebuilt. It's been butchered enough for a 100 years.

I get the fans get emotionally attached to places and things, but rebuilding Old Trafford completely, won't change those memories. Most Spurs fans are not sitting in their shiny new stadium, missing White Hart Lane, trust me.

The perfect solution is a brand new, state of the art stadium, on the grounds of the old one. What it looks like is another debate. This would then ensure the old memories are kept alive by being in the same location, but the club will be making new ones in a purpose built stadium for the modern times.

From my perspective as a designer, it's not even open to debate. It's a new stadium all the way and the thought of designing it from scratch is exciting.
 
Last edited:
DomesticTadpole said:
Thought the council were getting involved with regards to developing the area around OT, in the leveling up scheme the current government set up, that is likely why he has involved Keir Starmer as well. They might not have fancied doing it unless there is an upgraded, new OT as a centrepiece.
Click to expand...
But that area around OT isn't in Manchester, is the point I'm making. So Manchester City Council will have absolutely nothing to do with it. Trafford council are in charge there, and I don't see them stumping up very much to help United out what with the amount of cash own owners have and the income we generate. The housing and infrastructure bits, maybe.
 
romufc said:
Who said its the council funding £2bn? If you listen to what Ratcliffe said, he said they will need the council's help for regeneration. He compared it to Wembley, where the stadium is built by the FA and the surrounding areas have been renovated.

He did mention it will be private funding along with public money as it will benefit the Manchester area.
Click to expand...
But, and it pains me to keep saying this, as I sound like a City fan, the entire area in question is not in Manchester and will get no funding from Manchester City Council, whether it is of indirect benefit to them or not.
 
decorativeed said:
But that area around OT isn't in Manchester, is the point I'm making. So Manchester City Council will have absolutely nothing to do with it. Trafford council are in charge there, and I don't see them stumping up very much to help United out what with the amount of cash own owners have and the income we generate. The housing and infrastructure bits, maybe.
Click to expand...
The infrastructure bit will be what they're asking for.

There seems to be a problem where people start off with understanding the difference between improving the ground and improving the area and then they lose it and confuse the two again.

It's ground by United owners, area by local authorities/government. Several authorities might benefit from better transport for example, not just one. I would dismiss the idea personally but with the likes of Coe involved it's looking possible. I detest Coe by the way, but that's a separate matter.
 
Hard to redevelop OT with the proximity of the railway and the lack of depth between rows. The cost might well be prohibitive.
 
decorativeed said:
But that area around OT isn't in Manchester, is the point I'm making. So Manchester City Council will have absolutely nothing to do with it. Trafford council are in charge there, and I don't see them stumping up very much to help United out what with the amount of cash own owners have and the income we generate. The housing and infrastructure bits, maybe.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a rep from both councils when they had their meeting?
 
decorativeed said:
But, and it pains me to keep saying this, as I sound like a City fan, the entire area in question is not in Manchester and will get no funding from Manchester City Council, whether it is of indirect benefit to them or not.
Click to expand...

I dont think they are asking the govt to pay for the ground and things like that, its more govt funding for housing, infrastructure projects which they will benefit from. We have seen multiple regeneration projects, Wembley being a perfect example.

The second reason to get the council involved is to make planning permission easier too.
 
stevoc said:
Either way the stadium will take years, it's not something that can be or should be rushed. It's been in it's current state since 2005 without major redevelopments so another few years won't hurt to get a proper plan and funding together.
Click to expand...
The decision is scheduled by the committee for December 24. Led by Lord Coe, the only way this happens quickly is if they decide that a new stadium is built on the land as proposed. The cost for that new stadium is £2billion.

The club is currently in debt by £1 billion, can’t see any bank lending then the cash however, Ineos could easily get a loan for £2billion and then use Bank of America, Amazon, Tesla, Apple to have a naming rights deal like Spotify did with Nou Camp where maybe the new stadium is called Something stupid like ; “Amazon’s new Old Trafford”. Yea I know it sounds ridiculous and a lot of fans would hate this like Spotify Nou Camp, no one calls it that they calm it the Nou Camp.

Ineos would probably get a 20 year loan at 5% like a fixed mortgage with annual £110m repayments.

For a club that has huge debts already the best way to solve this financing issue is a £500m naming rights over 10 years which is £50m per year and then the increase in stadium from 75,000 to 95,000 would probably mean matchday and merchandising goes up from £230m combined to maybe £290m so the additional £60m and £50m from naming rights basically covers the cost of the new stadium for the next decade.

The hope would be that the club starts to make huge profits again and then starts to pay off the legacy debt and then repay Ineos for the last £1billion of the stadium loan.

Maybe if the stadium is built in 3 years from 2026-2028, then the club is put back on the market especially if there is finished football campus by 2028 and still land owned by the club that has planning permission. SJR is 75/76 by then he might think he’s achieved what he wanted and flip the club for a huge profit to the Middle East.
 
Been expecting news of naming rights to break for months (possibly as much as a year). It would be weird but not exactly the end of the world and hasn't harmed City or Arsenal's brand. Much more pressing things to worry about (such as the rumours that Southgate was being considered as our manager)
 
DomesticTadpole said:
He is Manchester's Mayor though isn't he. Not from there so didn't know if Trafford has a local mayor.
Click to expand...
No, he's the Mayor of Greater Manchester. An elected official. All the other borough mayors are just a ceremonial title and do nothing but turn up for openings of stuff wearing the big necklaces.
 
Any money from public funds would probably have to come from Central Government and go through Trafford Council, not Manchester City Council and would probably not be a direct cost of building a new stadium for the Club, more to do with surrounding redevelopment, as Trafford Council would not be the owners of the club and they would not want to be (it's assumed). However I suppose it could be called, 'Trafford Council's Theatre of Dreams'. ;)

The money for City's ground came from Central Government for the building of the Commonwealth Games Stadium in 2002. It went through Manchester City Council because they would be the eventual owners. Its actual name was The City of Manchester Stadium (COMS).... but remember the 'Council House' as it was nicknamed by many Utd fans.

I was once told by someone (who claimed to be 'in the know') that Manchester City Council did not want to sell the ground to the club outright (allowed naming rights only), because any monies they received for such a sale would show as a profit on the Council's books, but in reality would have to be paid back to Central Government as part of the deal in 2002. Also, (my source also told me) the deal the council had with the club is that in all tickets sales over 45,000, a percentage went to the Council, which of course they would lose if they sold the stadium outright. (I emphasize this is hearsay only.)

Therefore, Sir Jim's so called "Wembley of the North" idea is perhaps just a ploy to try to imitate the position that existed when the Etihad was built, i.e. the new stadium would be of benefit to national interests and provide a venue for National events in the future.
 
Woziak said:
The decision is scheduled by the committee for December 24. Led by Lord Coe, the only way this happens quickly is if they decide that a new stadium is built on the land as proposed. The cost for that new stadium is £2billion.

The club is currently in debt by £1 billion, can’t see any bank lending then the cash however, Ineos could easily get a loan for £2billion and then use Bank of America, Amazon, Tesla, Apple to have a naming rights deal like Spotify did with Nou Camp where maybe the new stadium is called Something stupid like ; “Amazon’s new Old Trafford”. Yea I know it sounds ridiculous and a lot of fans would hate this like Spotify Nou Camp, no one calls it that they calm it the Nou Camp.

Ineos would probably get a 20 year loan at 5% like a fixed mortgage with annual £110m repayments.

For a club that has huge debts already the best way to solve this financing issue is a £500m naming rights over 10 years which is £50m per year and then the increase in stadium from 75,000 to 95,000 would probably mean matchday and merchandising goes up from £230m combined to maybe £290m so the additional £60m and £50m from naming rights basically covers the cost of the new stadium for the next decade.

The hope would be that the club starts to make huge profits again and then starts to pay off the legacy debt and then repay Ineos for the last £1billion of the stadium loan.

Maybe if the stadium is built in 3 years from 2026-2028, then the club is put back on the market especially if there is finished football campus by 2028 and still land owned by the club that has planning permission. SJR is 75/76 by then he might think he’s achieved what he wanted and flip the club for a huge profit to the Middle East.
Click to expand...
That's a good post. People might argue with individual amounts but the gist makes sense of what Ratcliffe is up to. You can also add that he may well have calculated for a large increase in club value that would cover any remaining Ineos debt and more. That's what the Glazers did after all, when others could not except in hindsight.
 
berbasloth4 said:
People need to release that is not the same stadium built in 1910, it’s not the stadium I first visited in 1992. It has constantly been renovated and done up etc but what has always stayed the same is where it is.

going to the theatre is not just about the stadium its walking down busby way or seeing it across the canal, moving the stadium even if its side by side will take a lot of the essence away. It is very very possible to turn our current ground into the biggest and best ground in the country again without moving it.

Stand by stand it can be done up and I’m sure season tickets wouldn’t mind temporarily being moved for the greater good.

ps if old Trafford was to get knocked down for a new stadium or a new stadium built beside it for safety we would need a temporary ground. We aren’t like spurs in London we can’t use Wembley. We would have to share city’s ground which is unthinkable.
Click to expand...
Why is this unthinkable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.