When you're used to 74k OT, 30k may not sound that much but it's still a substantial stadium. Forest, Stoke and Ipswich are there or thereabouts. I'd have thought they'd have been looking more at 10/15k capacity.
New Stadium or Revamp Old Trafford | Aim is to build 100k seater stadium
- Thread starter Ian Reus
- Start date
It would be the south stand along with small stands around the East, West and North sides. The south stand holds over 11k. Add in small single tiers around the ground and you can see where 30k comes from.
The south stand is the key one from a history perspective.
While United do own a lot of space, they do not have a big enough single parcel of land for a 100,000-seat stadium, without knocking down Old Trafford first. This means they will almost certainly have to buy at least a slice of the rail depot next door. Owned by logistics company Freightliner, the important distribution hub would most likely need to be moved to a new, out-of-town site.
“This is where the political support of the local authority, the city and the national government all help,” says Nuttall. “There is a parallel with what happened at Arsenal where they had to build a new waste recycling centre to get the land they needed for the Emirates — all their directors became experts on waste management.
“Manchester United will have that expertise, too. (United’s chief operating officer) Collette Roche, who has been overseeing the stadium project, used to run Manchester Airport, which is a pretty complicated transport hub.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5672535/2024/08/06/manchester-united-new-stadium-project-explained/
That was from Matt Slater with quotes from Ian Nuthall.
“This is where the political support of the local authority, the city and the national government all help,” says Nuttall. “There is a parallel with what happened at Arsenal where they had to build a new waste recycling centre to get the land they needed for the Emirates — all their directors became experts on waste management.
“Manchester United will have that expertise, too. (United’s chief operating officer) Collette Roche, who has been overseeing the stadium project, used to run Manchester Airport, which is a pretty complicated transport hub.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5672535/2024/08/06/manchester-united-new-stadium-project-explained/
That was from Matt Slater with quotes from Ian Nuthall.
It’s hardly a reasonable comparison though.
We do have a need for a home stadium for the women’s team. We can also make use of the smaller stadium for academy games. Having that all together on one campus brings the club together as one instead of random games at Leigh Valley or wherever we rent on any given year.
It’s also quite plausible that visiting fans might catch a women’s game on a Saturday and then the men’s team on the Sunday for example.
Yeah, I see that. Trouble is the South Stand is also the most outdated and problematic part of the whole stadium. Knocking down parts of it that are 25 years old, but keeping 50 year old bits with huge maintenence bills doesn't sound logical if you're considering only the money/business aspect. And the idea that our ownership aren't going to mainly consider that seems fanciful.
No, the new stadium will have 4 stands honouring our more recent history and the men that made it possible:
- an Antony stand where people walk round in circles
- a Di Maria stand where the fans permanently ask to leave
- a Bailly stand where people constantly get injured
- a Malacia stand where they just go inexplicably missing for 12 months
That's realistically the best outcome possible.
How about keeping East Stand and South Stand as they are, and then reducing Stretford End and Sir Alex Ferguson Stand to the same size/height as South Stand.
Would be about 40k capacity, keeping the familiar shiny face of the East Stand with the square in front and the history of South Stand while making room for the new stadium to the northwest.
The women teams have broken attendance records lately, and the numbers will keep going up. The work wouldn't be completed until ~2035 anyway.
Would be about 40k capacity, keeping the familiar shiny face of the East Stand with the square in front and the history of South Stand while making room for the new stadium to the northwest.
The women teams have broken attendance records lately, and the numbers will keep going up. The work wouldn't be completed until ~2035 anyway.
I doubt we do without buying the freight terminal and managing to downsize or move it.
No its not.
The stadium is being retained and downsized, used for ladies team and tours etc. As I said yesterday.
You said we don't have space for a new stadium beside it. We do. Keep up.
The articles speculating on this also say we don't, and that to accommodate both, we'd have to buy the freight depot and have it relocated.
Keep up.
We would have to buy part of the freight terminal, or possibly trade part of it for some of our parking area
I can't see them downsizing OT.
Can't forget a Youngy stand (wtf Ole?) where there's a row of pigeons continuously being fed bread, and ready to poop down someone's mouth
We could relocate FC UoM into one of the stadiums and play the United derby. Still a better attendance than Etihad on CL nights
Is there an estimate of what that would cost? Just to put in perspective of the overall project.
Smart idea. Only shame is new 100,000 seater stadium would take 6 years to build.
No, it's all speculation, but I'd imagine it'd be hundreds of millions at least. So unfeasible, in my opinion.
No, you said keep Old Trafford, full stop.
I responded that made no economical sense unless they downscaled it to a much smaller academy stadium, because maintaining two huge stadiums is economically ludicrous.
You agreed.
No need to thank me for the education.
Just get your facts straight
Turn the entirety of the north stand into a hotel. Glass it from the side of the pitch up and have rooms looking out over the pitch and older stands. Then keep 3 stands of the old stadium with a roof the height of the Sir Bobby stand around it. Would end up with a roughly 25k stadium and a unique hotel and asset.
It is but we do have to rent other facilities for the women etc. It would mitigate some of the cost by having our home stadium. Not to mention that there is cost in demolition too.
Eh no I didn't and we don't have the space.
I said I doubt we have enough space for a new 100k seater stadium and the current stadium as is, I also said OT will have to be either demolished or partially demolished (downscaled) to accomodate the new stadium. Which is similar to what the new reports said, obviously OT would have to be reduced in capacity to make room for the new stadium.
Never mind keep up. You need to brush up mate, on your comprehension.
Can we can the new one Trad Bricks Stadium?
Think it would be a smart business move if it's feasible. People will still pay money to go on tours if the old South Stand still exists. Not to mention 30K seat stadium where the pitch isn't used as frequently would be an ideal place for concerts and other events that would bring money to the club. Especially if they have a hotel on sight as well.
It would be really cool if the new Stretford end somehow overlapped with where the old one was and the Sir Alex stand became a hotel with views from rooms onto both pitches.
It would be really cool if the new Stretford end somehow overlapped with where the old one was and the Sir Alex stand became a hotel with views from rooms onto both pitches.
Used to have a Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego when the Chargers used to play there.
Because I us want to be able to say to others: I like telling you that I’m the best, and I like you having to swallow it! BECAUSE I AM!!
Bruce Lee Sharpe Field at Enter the SnapDragon Stadium. Really flows off the tongue.
I reallllly hoped for this outcome! It’s brilliant! Best of both worlds and a huge nod to the growing women’s football game which is absolutely fab.
Hope they leave OT bigger than 30k though, think they’d regret making it small as I can see demand increasing over the next few years. Also our women’s team having their own large stadium will be a huge recruitment draw.
Hope they leave OT bigger than 30k though, think they’d regret making it small as I can see demand increasing over the next few years. Also our women’s team having their own large stadium will be a huge recruitment draw.
Nice to see there have been quite a lot of developments since I last posted in this thread.
Here's a post that I made in this thread in February this year:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/new...uild-100k-seater-stadium.479592/post-31663889
It seems Sir Jim/INEOS are leaning heavily towards what I said back in Feb as my 2nd choice. But thinking about it a bit more now, and as long as they're keeping a downsized OT (most important is the position/location of the pitch, and the original player tunnel), then building a new 100k state of the art stadium next to it has now become my 1st choice, for the long term well being of the club and the transformational regeneration of the whole area.
Also over on skyscrapercity.com, there is a long dedicated thread discussing Old Trafford, and many other discussions on many other stadiums (I think a few redcafe members are already members over there too).
I made this post over there in March:
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/posts/187687850/
I also drew some very rough lines showing how the new 100k stadium and a downsized OT might look like (can't post images so here's a link):
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/atta...council-p-council-documents-edit-jpg.6873798/
I realised even back then that if we're to use the current OT's full capacity uninterrupted whilst building the new stadium, we'll definitely need to buy (or do some land swap) with the Freight Terminal next door. Since then I read some detailed reports from the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5523887/2024/06/05/old-trafford-freight-train/ (https://archive.ph/9szXm) saying if possible the club plans to turn the whole Freight Terminal into a big train station, for helping to transport a large amount of the 100k fans on match days.
Also coupled with Andy Burnham saying he's open to moving the Freight Terminal away to Port Salford or Parkside, that would be great timing for the club, use some of the Freight Terminal's land for the new stadium, and then use what's left/required land and turn it into a proper "Old Trafford station", having a proper station next door will definitely help with satisfying the regulatory needs for transporting such a large amount of people. So I think this is where the "public money" is required, transport links, amenities, housing etc around the stadium is legitimate use of public funds, but as for the actual stadium itself(or anything else that's owned by Manchester United), that'll need to be paid for by Manchester United (owners, fans etc).
Here's a post that I made in this thread in February this year:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/new...uild-100k-seater-stadium.479592/post-31663889
It seems Sir Jim/INEOS are leaning heavily towards what I said back in Feb as my 2nd choice. But thinking about it a bit more now, and as long as they're keeping a downsized OT (most important is the position/location of the pitch, and the original player tunnel), then building a new 100k state of the art stadium next to it has now become my 1st choice, for the long term well being of the club and the transformational regeneration of the whole area.
Also over on skyscrapercity.com, there is a long dedicated thread discussing Old Trafford, and many other discussions on many other stadiums (I think a few redcafe members are already members over there too).
I made this post over there in March:
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/posts/187687850/
I also drew some very rough lines showing how the new 100k stadium and a downsized OT might look like (can't post images so here's a link):
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/atta...council-p-council-documents-edit-jpg.6873798/
I realised even back then that if we're to use the current OT's full capacity uninterrupted whilst building the new stadium, we'll definitely need to buy (or do some land swap) with the Freight Terminal next door. Since then I read some detailed reports from the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5523887/2024/06/05/old-trafford-freight-train/ (https://archive.ph/9szXm) saying if possible the club plans to turn the whole Freight Terminal into a big train station, for helping to transport a large amount of the 100k fans on match days.
Also coupled with Andy Burnham saying he's open to moving the Freight Terminal away to Port Salford or Parkside, that would be great timing for the club, use some of the Freight Terminal's land for the new stadium, and then use what's left/required land and turn it into a proper "Old Trafford station", having a proper station next door will definitely help with satisfying the regulatory needs for transporting such a large amount of people. So I think this is where the "public money" is required, transport links, amenities, housing etc around the stadium is legitimate use of public funds, but as for the actual stadium itself(or anything else that's owned by Manchester United), that'll need to be paid for by Manchester United (owners, fans etc).
Absolutely! And it's objectively a shit hole!
I swear if I hear that stupid name one more time..
It’s “Old Trafford” because of the area. To call it “New Trafford” would not only be like something random but also sounds like a name a kid would come up with in a few seconds
Why would they relocate a 3rd party into one of their grounds?
Wow! Love it!
You beat me to it, get a slice of that HBO money too.
Indeed.... can a tunnel get injured?
What? New Trafford?