Old Trafford Capacity Statistics
- Thread starter GCHQ
- Start date
Brilliant!Put that quote into context.
If they only go up an extra tier on the South Stand, then chances are they won't need to go over the railway anyway...
It'll not happen...
Although if you think about it adding a potential 15,000 seats, and costing in the region of £50m, you're looking at about £3,333 a seat...
It'd pay for itself in about 95 games, at £35 a pop, and that doesn't include exec seats, and sales of merchandise, food, programmes, etc...
Obviously it'd never be full, but they could move people from tier 3, and have that as an overspill area...i.e, for the big games Tier 3 opens, but for non sell out games, keep it shut...it's shit up there anyway...
It'll not happen...
Although if you think about it adding a potential 15,000 seats, and costing in the region of £50m, you're looking at about £3,333 a seat...
It'd pay for itself in about 95 games, at £35 a pop, and that doesn't include exec seats, and sales of merchandise, food, programmes, etc...
Obviously it'd never be full, but they could move people from tier 3, and have that as an overspill area...i.e, for the big games Tier 3 opens, but for non sell out games, keep it shut...it's shit up there anyway...
:d
You should work for the club. Great ideas.
If the club cant fill the seats they already have week-in-week-out, then adding even more seats is a daft idea.
Depends really... if we're at least 95% full for every match, and sold out for half of them, then extra seating, at the right price, makes perfect sense.
You are effectively suggesting that every club should set their capacity at their lowest gate of the season, which is crazy when you think about it.
Obviously from a purely financial point of view, there is a sweet-spot to be hit in terms of capacity, demand, ticket price, related revenue (pies), development costs and running costs (pie sellers), but it's far from clear-cut where that point lies withouth detailed information on all factors.
From a supporter's point of view, I'd rather they sorted out seat allocation so that people who want to stand and sing aren't made to sit in silence, and people who want to sit in silence aren't made to stand in order to see.
I'm actually not too bothered about having an extra 15,000 in there if the atmosphere remains exactly the same. But the pipe dream of 90,000+ all rocking the stadium to its foundations remains an alluring one!
That's a bit unfair, have the club not sold out every Premiership game this season thus far?
I think everyone understands that we wouldn't fill 90,000 week in week in out but we'd definitely do it for half a dozen games minimum. And as the guy you quoted said, the club could just close down tier 3 for smaller games.
Barcelona and Madrid don't sell out most games either, Barca's average attendance in 2009 was 78,913, Madrid's was less than us, 74,895.
Having more seats to sell for the bigger games whilst offering the tier 3 fans a better match day experience for smaller games sounds like good business to me.
I don't think the proximity to the tracks is a problem because the south stand is near enough adjacent to the tracks anyway. The problems lie within having to offset the track towards the houses, thats provided your'e not allowed to have a stand hanging over the railway line. It's all down to costspermissions and regs, it can be done. I'll ask the opinion of one my lecturers as I'm studying Civil Eng.
I think the houses would have to go whatever happens, for reasons of access etc - the new stand would basically be in their back gardens.
I'd have thought that building over the railway was more likely than diverting it - as with the previously (possibly not) mooted idea of an underground tunnel, not only does a railway need a shallow incline over a long distance, but it also needs shallow bends over a long distance.
For what it's worth, I measured it up on a map, and an exact replica of the North Stand would go pretty much exactly to the far side of the railway, while the ends stands actually go just about as far back too, so would probably end up about one track short of the south side of the railway.
Given that all those stands have major solid parts on the outside (ie the staircases, which are outside of the tunnels), an exact replica would no be possible unless the tracks were diverted.
I guess the options would be a stand with no bigger footprint than the current one, but which overhangs the railway, or a stand with a larger footprint, with staircases etc right over where the back gardens are now.
The former seems unlikely, as it's hard to see how adequate access could be provided to such a big stand, whereas the latter could incorporate plenty of extra corporate guff, conference suits etc, which seems to be where it's at these days, so seems more likely to me.
Given that all those stands have major solid parts on the outside (ie the staircases, which are outside of the tunnels), an exact replica would no be possible unless the tracks were diverted.
I guess the options would be a stand with no bigger footprint than the current one, but which overhangs the railway, or a stand with a larger footprint, with staircases etc right over where the back gardens are now.
The former seems unlikely, as it's hard to see how adequate access could be provided to such a big stand, whereas the latter could incorporate plenty of extra corporate guff, conference suits etc, which seems to be where it's at these days, so seems more likely to me.
Of course, there's still a small part of me that thinks they bought the goods yard with a long term aim of building a whole new stadium there....
I once asked what the difference between a bridge and a tunnel was, from the railway's point of view. The answer given was that bridges have numbers and tunnels have names. Fecking useless that was, then.
Anyway you are correct, folk are using the word tunnel as meaning enclosing rather than digging miles down.