That would be a first for Glazer owned United!Excuse me, but what does the future of Old Trafford have to do with your foundation? Nothing, so please mind your business.
The best people for the task will be selected.
Are they good at their job, though?The question should be if they are good at their job and not about their race.
how does a fart like that get coverage in the BBC?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The accusation comes from the Anthony Walker Foundation. All the bbc is doing is reporting the news.See my hard earned money paying the license fee is being put to good use, absolutely pathetic from a organisation that’s still living in the dark ages living off its distant past glories
Not if you’re institutionally racist like us.Surely you’d select the best people possible regardless of race or gender.
Look up Neville, he is involved in several large redevelopments in Manchester. It’s not just his hotelAre they good at their job, though?
Don't know if Neville has much experience in stadium planning, or was anything past the money in his hotel projects. Ineos didn't build Nice's plush stadium. Burnham can help smooth the gears. Sebastian Coe is a massive twa...
So, how do we know they're good at the job in hand?
That would be a huge footprint, but I'd like to see 100k.90,000 doesn't really sound like future planning. If we're investing hundreds of millions on a new stadium it should be 120-150,000.
Other than that, it's great to see the new owners being so pro active.
It’s an argument focused on race, and it’s a story about United. It ticks all the boxes for them!how does a fart like that get coverage in the BBC?
We probably shouldn't provoke them blithely dismissing the legitimate concerns of a charity founded to commemorate the racially motivated murder of a teenager. Certainly not with the usual 'political correctness' tropes.It’s an argument focused on race, and it’s a story about United. It ticks all the boxes for them!
I was mocking the BBC, not the charity.We probably shouldn't provoke them blithely dismissing the legitimate concerns of a charity founded to commemorate the racially motivated murder of a teenager. Certainly not with the usual 'political correctness' tropes.
Anyway, the article says the board has not been completed, so any perceived agenda is mitigated.
Let's see..I was mocking the BBC, not the charity.
Yep.How many other businesses have they criticised for not having black representation?
Does a task force with the remit of regenerating a privately owned football stadium really need diverse representation?
Maybe there time might be better spent questioning why there is no black mayoral candidate for Manchester for example - an actual representative of the people.
That's my point exactly. By pointing at their race, we take the focus away from their competence but hey,race will make more news than competence.Are they good at their job, though?
Don't know if Neville has much experience in stadium planning, or was anything past the money in his hotel projects. Ineos didn't build Nice's plush stadium. Burnham can help smooth the gears. Sebastian Coe is a massive twa...
So, how do we know they're good at the job in hand?
Good post.We probably shouldn't provoke them blithely dismissing the legitimate concerns of a charity founded to commemorate the racially motivated murder of a teenager. Certainly not with the usual 'political correctness' tropes.
& again. In particular the bolded part.We know why diversity quotas exist. Without them, racist employment strategies may continue under the disingenuous guise of 'the best man for the job'. Which is disingenuous because of the arbitrary nature of the term.
For what it's worth, I don't particularly agree with the charity's assertion but can absolutely see why they'd make it, and why the BBC would report it. Consider how we may apply for local or central government funding to complete 'Wembleh'.
It'll be interesting to see if (and what) diversity is represented when the completed board is established.
Did he point at their race or does he point to the lack of any other races? I’d suggest you actually read what was written.That's my point exactly. By pointing at their race, we take the focus away from their competence but hey,race will make more news than competence.
Am pretty sure if any of us was a patient in dire need of medical care, we'd be more worried about the Doctor's competence rather than his race.
Did you actually read my post, or was it too difficult to see it from your high horse?Let's see..
Yep.
Mocking (or impugning) the charity's reputation with the usual tropes of whataboutery, misinformation and insinuations of an agenda against our beloved football club.
We know why diversity quotas exist. Without them, racist employment strategies may continue under the disingenuous guise of 'the best man for the job'. Which is disingenuous because of the arbitrary nature of the term.
For what it's worth, I don't particularly agree with the charity's assertion but can absolutely see why they'd make it, and why the BBC would report it. Consider how we may apply for local or central government funding to complete 'Wembleh'.
It'll be interesting to see if (and what) diversity is represented when the completed board is established.
Or you build for expected demand, bake into those plans what and how a future expansion phase can be achieved, and then asses demand/feasibility/cost/benefit in future.90,000 doesn't really sound like future planning. If we're investing hundreds of millions on a new stadium it should be 120-150,000.
Other than that, it's great to see the new owners being so pro active.
They tried to banter Antony recently too, sinking to the Sun levels of "journalism"The BBC scraping the barrel when it comes to concocting another negative story about United. Pathetic organisation!
I wouldn't be surprised if the demand is there already. Season ticket waiting list was supposedly at its highest ever last year, combined with the buy out I'd imagine that the waiting list will be even longer now.Or you build for expected demand, bake into those plans what and how a future expansion phase can be achieved, and then asses demand/feasibility/cost/benefit in future.
You don't just build for an extra 120-150 because the demand maybe there in future.
Maybe, but that demand has to be sustained. For example Spurs claimed they still had a waiting list when they moved, but cost of living and some bad years after the move and it's all but gone.I wouldn't be surprised if the demand is there already. Season ticket waiting list was supposedly at its highest ever last year, combined with the buy out I'd imagine that the waiting list will be even longer now.
So nothing like Camp Nou, new or old then.We should be thinking Nou Camp, Bernabeu, not a piss hole like Wembley.
We need fans close to the pitch.
I wasn't referring to that aspect of the Camp Nou.So nothing like Camp Nou, new or old then.
Have you been to the Camp Nou? One of the biggest shitholes I’ve ever visited, on level with old Wembley.I wasn't referring to that aspect of the Camp Nou.
Does it even cost anything to be on the waiting list?Maybe, but that demand has to be sustained. For example Spurs claimed they still had a waiting list when they moved, but cost of living and some bad years after the move and it's all but gone.
Yeah there maybe some hype after the buy out, but rising costs of everyday lift, the inevitable ticket price increase and if we continue to have turid years... then that demand will fall again.
For these things to be feasible you have to make sure that any demand there is, is sustained and will be sustained.
No chance we could only sell 90,000 each week. And of course you assess demand / cost / benefit etc. I just struggle to believe 90,000 is more beneficial to us than 120.Or you build for expected demand, bake into those plans what and how a future expansion phase can be achieved, and then asses demand/feasibility/cost/benefit in future.
You don't just build for an extra 120-150 because the demand maybe there in future.
I can remember a time when United had crowds for league games less than the then capacity of the groundNo chance we could only sell 90,000 each week. And of course you assess demand / cost / benefit etc. I just struggle to believe 90,000 is more beneficial to us than 120.
Anyway, a new stadium should be great.
I mentioned aesthetics and referenced some stadiums. We can go down the road of nearly every stadium is a shit hole close up, it's concrete and plastic chairs, I'm not asking to replicate old Wembley or a decaying Camp Nou or piss running down the steps. Perhaps you're not aware of how revered Camp Nou is or Bernabeu is, or Mestalla stadium, pleasing to the eye and bespoke and to some extent even Old Trafford.Have you been to the Camp Nou? One of the biggest shitholes I’ve ever visited, on level with old Wembley.
There aint much about the new Camp Nou plans that impress me either. Wembley, whilst I think is a bit crap… how on earth is this new Camp Nou so much better?
What do you think is so great about it?
Wembley is an eyesore
I’ve only been to Wembley once, but I don’t think it was that bad. Not as special feeling as I would have liked, it is just a clean functional stadium, very bog standard and basic from what I saw and experienced but certainly not an ‘eyesore’.Wembley, whilst I think is a bit crap… how on earth is this new Camp Nou so much better?
Your not wrong. When I went to the camp nou, the "shop" was in a series of porta kabins, and the stadium looked knackered. Feckin massive, but knackered.Have you been to the Camp Nou? One of the biggest shitholes I’ve ever visited, on level with old Wembley.
There aint much about the new Camp Nou plans that impress me either. Wembley, whilst I think is a bit crap… how on earth is this new Camp Nou so much better?
What do you think is so great about it?
New Trafford stadiumWonder what the new stadium be called? Follow Tottenhams lead and just call it “The Manchester United Stadium”
There has to be a sense of realism to the project. The club is extremely unlikely to take on nearly 2bn in debt on a stadium with only football gate receipts to back it up. We are going to need a multi-purpose stadium to secure any level of public money to contribute towards the project. Modern construction techniques mean that this should be able to be accomplished without compromise towards the primary user - the football club and fan experience.United should be building a beautiful large imposing stadium. I'd say some top designers from Spain or Italy should be involved if we want to avoid something quite ugly or toilet bowl esque. It should be distinct and aesthetically pleasing.
Wembley is an eyesore and like I've said before they made mistakes having large metal shutters in view of television cameras in each corner. They now put this tarp over them as they look like some awful shopping precinct with those huge metal shutters. Yes I know what they're for, you hide them and design it differently, typical ill thought out and ugly that we see here for decades.
We should be thinking Nou Camp, Bernabeu, not a piss hole like Wembley.
We need fans close to the pitch which can be done to look nice and expansive still as other stadiums show. I'm worried we'll end up with some multi purpose ugly stadium and throwing away something that is quite good and unique but still could've been better designed, like the quadrants, roof design and so forth. We should be trading up to something with more prestige and corrected rather than some commercial tick all boxes build. What is Seb Coe bringing exactly? Football, fans and community are important.
I hope we can get some designs offered to vote or express opinion on. Most people I know don't want a soulless bowl that looks like any other. Yes we have to acknowledge some commercial enterprise.
This is Manchester United and should not compromising for other sports, attractions.