Depends, not if it was a new stadium. No one says Highbury, Upton Park etc. Plus im sure TV companies, video games etc will be contracted to use the official name. That’s why the money is paid.
Old Trafford revamp/could be torn down and rebuilt according to Glazer plans
- Thread starter GE
- Start date
Depends, not if it was a new stadium. No one says Highbury, Upton Park etc. Plus im sure TV companies, video games etc will be contracted to use the official name. That’s why the money is paid.
But those were replaced by new stadiums built in completely different locations.
The new OT will be located literally no more than a couple of hundred metres away, on the same OT property.
United fans will still call it OT, but I think it’s naive to think that will stay. Of course if it’s named “something old Trafford” that would be different.
I know there's complications in building a new stadium at the current location because of the rail tracks and canal, and more or less likely in having to play at a different location while the new stadium is being built. But could they knock down a stand each season and build it up while using the 3 other stands for the crowd?
For e.g
2022/23 - South Stand knocked down and built up. North, East and West stands operate as normal.
2023/24 - East Stand knocked down and built up. North, West and South(new) stands operate as normal.
2024/25 - North Stand knocked down and built up. West, South(new) and East(new) stands operate as normal.
2025/26 - West Stand knocked down and built up. South(new), East(new) and North(new) stands operate as normal.
2026/27 - All stands are now complete and a brand new stadium.
I think that could work.
The South Stand is the reason why we've held off a full redevelopment over the years so it can't be the first knocked down.
We need to move away from the railway line. If we knocked down the South Stand, where would we put the new one?
Knock down the ticket office and build a platform over the canal to get as close to the AKW Warehouses (unless we can buy the land and knock them down?).
Then build the skeleton/mostly fit out a new North and West/Stretford in that space. Start building the new South Stand towards the current ground.
Then knock down the North and West stands from the current ground and build a new East.
Fit it out with seats and amenities, fit the roof properly over that side and then knock the rest of the old stadium down and continue the full build of the stadium.
Like this basically.
Bilbao played a season with the open end but everything else was fully fitted out.
disagree, United fans would always call it Old Trafford, no matter what.
Personally I don't see a problem, it would get us a shit ton of money, that could be used for tranfers.
Garbage. Rebuild. I'm sick of the pain digging in my legs from the seat in front. Plus we get a new women's/youth small stadium instead of having to go out to Leigh.
So you’ll be happy when the club is expected to give a return to the group that buys it for 4 billion? It’ll be very interesting how the club services 8 times the current debt.
Id much rather the Glazers allow fans to buy a percentage of the club and give them more of a voice, over new owners who are going to want the club to repay them or leverage the debt against the club once more.
If we’re building new or even seriously refurbishing it must surely impact transfer spending?
I’m okay with that but I think it’ll be a dangerous path to push the club to demand City-level spending whilst also pumping hundreds of millions into the refurbishment
I’m okay with that but I think it’ll be a dangerous path to push the club to demand City-level spending whilst also pumping hundreds of millions into the refurbishment
How about no dividends for 5 years, problem solved
Selling the stadium name rights really wouldn't be a big deal at all, some football fans are too sentimental.
£20m per year? £100m yeah that’ll pay for a new stadium and maybe another Pogba? Problem solved.
How long before we hear what they plan to do? A year?
It wouldn’t bring in much money, that’s the issue.
It'll cover costs. After the initial 5 years Sportify will sponsor the Camp Nou for £25-30m per annum. Anyway, it's only £200m...they'll claw the money back. It's not as if they're rebuilding the stadium. A South Stand and a lick of paint.
Just build the south stand the same size it is now.
If United sold the land adjacent to Old Trafford and another team built a stadium there would it also be called/known as/considered Old Trafford?
Why?
Whenever I read someone talking about the debt and how that will be an impediment to the team as we'll raise more debt to build a stadium, I think they probably don't fully get debt at that level. Unlike your 50 pounds a month you owe for your new iPhone, debt in the scale of 100s of millions can and will be restructured. It will be such that Manchester United will not be inhibited by the debt for expenditure, and such that the banks are happy to wait for the recoup. Reason? BECAUSE IT'S MANCHESTER UNITED. Banks aren't stupid. They understand that United will always make money and be able to pay the interest. It's a matter of time. Now... would it be better to have zero debt? Yes. Will it change our footballing fortunes? Not really, that's management and decision making. We've spent close to a BILLION since SAF left. Money is there and there to be spent. A brand new super stadium would be wonderful, and the debt can and will be managed. Who better than bankers to manage that.
Fun fact: The USA, one of the world's most wealthiest and splurgy countries on the planet, has a debt of $26 Trillion. That's 99.3% of their GDP as of 2020. The UK has debt of 2.2 Trillion and that's 94% of their GDP (Per Statista). Do you see these 2 countries collapsing? No. Why? Because they are countries ffs, but the point of the matter, they make money! Same with Manchester United. We make money in the 100s of millions, keep the debt steady, and still spend on average a 70 million a season (give or take!). The bankers may be poor football owners but money is something they know.
Fun fact: The USA, one of the world's most wealthiest and splurgy countries on the planet, has a debt of $26 Trillion. That's 99.3% of their GDP as of 2020. The UK has debt of 2.2 Trillion and that's 94% of their GDP (Per Statista). Do you see these 2 countries collapsing? No. Why? Because they are countries ffs, but the point of the matter, they make money! Same with Manchester United. We make money in the 100s of millions, keep the debt steady, and still spend on average a 70 million a season (give or take!). The bankers may be poor football owners but money is something they know.
Last edited:
They should emulate the way the new Spurs stadium was built ie, raise Old Trafford in stages, building a new Stadium around it thus avoid closing sections during the season.
This is wrong on so many levels. Europe especially is living on borrowed time. The only reason the US can get away with it is because the USD is the reserve currency. They have been able to export their inflation to the rest of the world. With the recent mass overprinting, inflation has been much harder to mask and export, especially at a time where there are supply chain issues due to Covid 19 and Trump-era policies. China’s ability to produce goods at very low cost in a way also helped to smooth this in the past.
If our Management Team were so competent, we would not have had to pay such exorbitant interest rates for the Glazer takeover, even after refinancing. Well, maybe they are, and have vested interests to help their friends in the banks they came from. History should have taught everyone by now that for bankers, self-interest > common good.
I’m also surprised not many in Europe see the likely stagflation storm coming. The weak balance sheet as a result of MMT and social spending will leave very little room to manoeuvre during this crisis, and could result in a severe depression in many countries. Add to that the likely food crisis in Africa in H2 2022 and you’re going to see mass migration to Europe and a fight for ever scarcer resources.
For the sake of humanity I hope I’m wrong.
Yes it does
I hope it’s not a case of just doing the south stand and that’s it. Everyone will have their own priorities but sorting out the roof/acoustics should be high on the list.
It's going to be an odd one as they'll have to adjust the roof for the new/extended south stand. I think we'll hear a few ideas floated in the press in the next few months.
In the grand scheme of things, as we lost around 2-3k seats the disabled access revamp, won't we only be getting 10-11k more seats for £200m+?
Pretty much. Seems to me that 88k would be increasing the south stand to match the north, along with extra quadrants.
This means no adjustment of seating space, which seems to be another big issue for people. I’m not arsed as I’m 5’ 7” but I can see why it’s a problem.
You made a similar ridiculous claim and both I and another poster showed you those figures weren’t even close to the truth. Spotify will be paying Barcelona €5m per year for title sponsorship of the stadium.
They’ll feck it up. It’ll be underwhelming and leave the club in further debt. It’s what our owners do. Why should I feel any other way?
Nah, it's the breakdown I got from Barca fans.al - after 5 years they'll be getting £25m per annum for naming/title rights. You don't have to believe it.
I would love to know how these Barca fans are more privy to info that the likes the Bloomberg and FT aren’t? Unless you’re mates with Joan Laporta?
For 5 years until reconstruction has been completed. But it'll will increase to 25m per year - we could wait and see for the breakdown, but I don't see any reason why it's such an unbelievable amount.
I honestly thought any rebuild/new build by United would have gone for the magic 100,000 number.
Given the price and availability of steel nothing is happening any time soon
Well with any luck a lot of the new seats will be safe standing, might help a bit.
It's a fair point but maybe they could design with this in mind - wood? Composites? You could sell a wooden structure as being sustainable, green etc so is it beyond the realms? I think Forest Green did it with their (admittedly relatively tiny) stadium recently.
Edit: Looks like it's not actually been built yet but what a beaut https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...dium-moves-step-closer-to-reality-05-02-2021/
I suspect the figure will relate from info at hand how many extra seats to fill the ground. If we have around 10-15000 'only' on a waiting list for tickets then 88000 is enough and 100000 would mean money spent for nothing.
There is no way we have 10-15000 on a waiting list
My company did a bit if work on Annfield... Fulham and will be working Everton if it goes ahead
I think a structure at that size will have to be execution class 3 or 4 steel ... there isn't the technical docs in the eurocides for structural composites (frp etc)... concrete would be a eyesore and co2 nightmare.
Steel... and I'd bet 90% certain it goes to severfield for fab... and even without the current steel crisis they were stacked out for about 2 years with committed works... mostly hs2
Hares would be a risk as they dont do many stadiums and they are stacked out with hinckley
Don't think there is uk capacity beyond that and I don't think given the current import / export risks you want to bring it in from hollandia or similar
Severs... steel... if the steel market settles down soon and you get on planning asap perhaps you could start in 3 to 5 years? (Even then that rail line is gonna be problematic)
And that's assuming interest rates stay low
Double or triple the build cost (current steel prices have spiked and who knows when / if they reduce) and double the interest rates (likley if inflation is sustained) and I can't see the glazers funding it
Last edited:
I would agree that was an hypothetical answer to why not build to 100000. Maybe future projections have stated if successful we may get near to the 88000 figure.