Old Trafford revamp/could be torn down and rebuilt according to Glazer plans

What’s your preference for Old Trafford?

  • Rebuild

    Votes: 714 48.4%
  • Renovate

    Votes: 736 49.9%
  • Leave it as is

    Votes: 26 1.8%

  • Total voters
    1,476

Utd7

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
2,434
Location
New York City
Would build a new state of the art stadium next door. But include the exterior aesthetic of classic Manchester architecture. Someone mentioned Lucas Oil Stadium for the Colts as a blueprint. That would be perfect.

For original OT, leave the classic Sir Bobby stand that has the Munich clock/tunnel etc and the pitch, downsize the remaining stands and utilize it for the Women’s team and academy games.
 

next_number_seven

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
684
A new build would likely take 7-10 years from announcement to completion (based on similar stadium projects eg Wembley, Emirates and Tottenham). 2030 would possibly be a realistic timescale.
Planning, design, tendering etc takes longer than the actual building. It could be built in 2 years probably
 

next_number_seven

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
684
Would build a new state of the art stadium next door. But include the exterior aesthetic of classic Manchester architecture. Someone mentioned Lucas Oil Stadium for the Colts as a blueprint. That would be perfect.

For original OT, leave the classic Sir Bobby stand that has the Munich clock/tunnel etc and the pitch, downsize the remaining stands and utilize it for the Women’s team and academy games.
I'd like something memorable and unique which refers to our history or to Manchester
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,881
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
United property manager said this about the land they have been buying.

"This is not an investment portfolio. Properties have been acquired at different times for strategic reasons looking into the future. We have no specific plans for these sites at the moment but our owners feel it is prudent to prepare for the future when they might be needed for sports-related development"

You don't build a £300 million land and property portfolio without being able to do what you eventually plan to do.

Leasehold land, still lets you build/develop on that land within the terms of the lease.
You think they'll be allowed to knock down a rail freight terminal think again, the rest would be probably fine though
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,951
A new build would likely take 7-10 years from announcement to completion (based on similar stadium projects eg Wembley, Emirates and Tottenham). 2030 would possibly be a realistic timescale.
We consulted architects a couple of times in the last few years so we may be somewhat down the road in terms of scope and initial drawings. Obviously new owners would change things but things like feasibility and planning may have been looked at.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,881
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
We consulted architects a couple of times in the last few years so we may be somewhat down the road in terms of scope and initial drawings. Obviously new owners would change things but things like feasibility and planning may have been looked at.
How do we get the Polish lads back though, there's a huge shortage of construction workers
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,217
Location
Hell on Earth
I don't think I'd mind a knockdown to be honest. But seeing this fills me with dread. The design can't be this 'bowl' effect that seems so popular now.
Wasnt the initial complaint that the OT pitch hardly gets enough sun and the airflow was poor? Thus the poor conditions for grass growth, in patches.
With a bowl, I don't think it helps with the restrictions in air flow and the limiting sunlight.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,881
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Wasnt the initial complaint that the OT pitch hardly gets enough sun and the airflow was poor? Thus the poor conditions for grass growth, in patches.
With a bowl, I don't think it helps with the restrictions in air flow and the limiting sunlight.
That was true 20 years ago, not the case anymore, pitches are not just grass anymore they're a combination of grass and artificial fibre, I also think the type of grass is different
 

Waynne

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
1,884
Build a new modern, state of the art stadium with best in class facilities. Retain Old Trafford but turn it into a museum and let the women play there.
 

sglowrider

Thinks the caf is 'wokeish'.
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
25,217
Location
Hell on Earth
That was true 20 years ago, not the case anymore, pitches are not just grass anymore they're a combination of grass and artificial fibre, I also think the type of grass is different
The ol 5G grass?

But I still see them lighting up the grass at night in OT.
 

meamth

New Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
5,946
Location
Malaysia
I want a big red, white and black stadium. Build it next to Old Trafford.

Old Trafford site should be rebuilt as a museum, megastore or art complex for tourists.
 

Zlaatan

Parody Account
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,784
Location
Sweden
The original plan for the Olympic stadium was for it to be dismantled after the Olympics, it was a temporary venue. The plan then changed for a football team to use it hence why it became a thing between West Ham/Spurs/Leyton Orient.

How is a comparison with the Qatar WC not a great comparison when it shows that you can build large, temporary venues fitted out exactly like we need and then have it dismantled when we've got a new ground?

And no, I don't see a stadium sitting idle in Manchester, that's why you'd build one for us to play in whilst a new OT is built, temporary stadiums don't take long to go up and it's a fairly common practice these days, it's not rocket science.

You can laugh all you like but you're just showing that you know absolutely nothing about stadium construction.
Where would the temporary stadium be and wouldn't it be 1000x more cost effective to just build the new permanent stadium in that location instead and continue to play at OT until it's done? This temp stadium just seems like a huge project that solves a problem that doesn't really exist, unless you think for some reason that the new permanent stadium has to sit in the same space as OT sits in today. And if so, why?
 

DomesticTadpole

Doom-monger obsessed with Herrera & the M.E.N.
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
101,280
Location
Barrow In Furness
Has anybody got pictures of the best stadiums and their concourses etc. So we can see what we should be aiming for, people seem obsessed about the outside look, when inside seating and leg room, concourses, toilet facilities are as important. Making it capable of being used for other events without ruining the pitch. I have always found OT dated, even walking round it is like going through a concrete underpass.
 

Hal9000

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
6,317
You think they'll be allowed to knock down a rail freight terminal think again, the rest would be probably fine though
Knock down what excatly? a few warehouses? most of that land is just for the storage of containers. An new stadium and a whole new campus with a mini stadium, training facilities, leasure facilties and other stuff for the wide community will be far more economically viable. Plus Port Salford being open just down the road, means there is still a better area for frieght nearby.

As i said though, the Glazers/United would not spend however much money they did on that land to not be able to do what they wanted with it when the time comes.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,881
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Knock down what excatly? a few warehouses? most of that land is just for the storage of containers. An new stadium and a whole new campus with a mini stadium, training facilities, leasure facilties and other stuff for the wide community will be far more economically viable. Plus Port Salford being open just down the road, means there is still a better area for frieght nearby.

As i said though, the Glazers/United would not spend however much money they did on that land to not be able to do what they wanted with it when the time comes.
I guess you didn't see all the train tracks
 

Andersons Dietician

Full Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2016
Messages
13,244
Why wouldn't they be? It's our land. The reason why we've been buying up the land was because of "sporting developments and security" how ever the Sporting developments never came because Glazers...
Planning permission, but I’m not sure if this is true but didn’t they buy the land after screwing up with Hotel football. I’m sure I recall reading they went and bought the land to prevent other such things from being built around OT if it was possible.
 

Hal9000

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
6,317
I guess you didn't see all the train tracks
I did, the train tracks into the freight terminal terminate there, they are only for the terminal. Between the mainline and the canal on the other side. You have 5 depots, a big logistics warehouse and a smaller warehouse. Then the storage yard for the containers, then the car parks for United. It's 26 acres. I also highlighted earlier that we own the land between the canal and wharfside road. (so all the white roof buildings at the forefront of the photo, and the warehouse just before the north stand of OT. Not to mention the car parks.

If you make a triangle between the white warehouses, left and right at the forefront and the white warehouses at the back left. All that is United owned. But hey if Qatar win's we shall see who is right :)

 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,881
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
I did, the train tracks into the freight terminal terminate there, they are only for the terminal. Between the mainline and the canal on the other side. You have 5 depots, a big logistics warehouse and a smaller warehouse. Then the storage yard for the containers, then the car parks for United. It's 26 acres. I also highlighted earlier that we own the land between the canal and wharfside road. (so all the white roof buildings at the forefront of the photo, and the warehouse just before the north stand of OT. Not to mention the car parks.

If you make a triangle between the white warehouses, left and right at the forefront and the white warehouses at the back left. All that is United owned. But hey if Qatar win's we shall see who is right :)

I didn't say you couldn't build there, just not where the rail terminal is
 

Hal9000

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
6,317
Planning permission, but I’m not sure if this is true but didn’t they buy the land after screwing up with Hotel football. I’m sure I recall reading they went and bought the land to prevent other such things from being built around OT if it was possible.
I posted earlier a quote from United property director. They've maintained that the land was being brought up for sporting purposes. You don't buy up all that land without knowing what you can and can't build on it, not for the prices they have been paying.

Hotel Football, well that land was owned by a group of fans that wanted to build a clubhouse and refused to sell to the Glazers. Then they sold to Neville. I believe the Glazers initially objected, again because they said they were buying up land in the area and had a vision of a future project that the hotel didnt fit into.
 

Hal9000

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
6,317
I didn't say you couldn't build there, just not where the rail terminal is
No frieght buildings, no need for that terminal or lines? The lines there are not publically owned, they are part of the 26 acres that the club own. We would not be touching the mainline.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,881
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
No frieght buildings, no need for that terminal or lines? The lines there are not publically owned, they are part of the 26 acres that the club own. We would not be touching the mainline.
I assume that those lines are used for transportation of goods in and out of Trafford Park, I've no idea who owns them but I can't see anyone being allowed to tear them up if it fecks up commerce in Trafford Park - one day I guess we may find out
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
No frieght buildings, no need for that terminal or lines? The lines there are not publically owned, they are part of the 26 acres that the club own. We would not be touching the mainline.
One of the few good things the Glazers did was buy the surrounding lands. It will be a contributing factor in the high selling price.

No doubt the designs that Populous would have created, would have been shared with the bidders. Would love to see the optional designs.
 

Nori-

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
1,188
We really have to try and remove the nostalgia from the equation and think about what's best for the club.

As much as you spend on refurbishing Old Trafford it will never be the same as a new stadium. Imagine something like Spurs stadium but with a 100,000 seats (which we could fill), a giant red wall like Dortmund have, fans almost pitch side rather than those sloped edges of the pitch, an area that doubles as an entertainment venue for boxing, MMA, restaurants to take family to, hotels etc all on the same grounds. The revenue you could generate would be incredible and allow us to spend more while being within FFP.

I understand people associate happy parts of their life with Old Trafford, like I do but if you stand still you get left behind.
 

LordSpud

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
2,429

Put this in the sale thread but I suppose it belongs here too
 

dove

New Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
7,899

Put this in the sale thread but I suppose it belongs here too
Explains why they left a stadium to rot. It's because he clearly values it so much that we are trying to preserve it in the state it is.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
We really have to try and remove the nostalgia from the equation and think about what's best for the club.

As much as you spend on refurbishing Old Trafford it will never be the same as a new stadium. Imagine something like Spurs stadium but with a 100,000 seats (which we could fill), a giant red wall like Dortmund have, fans almost pitch side rather than those sloped edges of the pitch, an area that doubles as an entertainment venue for boxing, MMA, restaurants to take family to, hotels etc all on the same grounds. The revenue you could generate would be incredible and allow us to spend more while being within FFP.

I understand people associate happy parts of their life with Old Trafford, like I do but if you stand still you get left behind.
Agreed. We're in a new era now. What is needed from a stadium has changed, especially when you're having to pay billions for it.
 

kaku06

Full Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2022
Messages
2,400
Such a good short video. What do you think look the best option? Apologies if posted already.
 

V.O.

Last Man Standing finalist 2019/20
Joined
Jan 12, 2019
Messages
8,030
Such a good short video. What do you think look the best option? Apologies if posted already.
If we're going to do it, can we just have something with a bit of character instead of another copy-paste toilet seat?