He knows a lot more that yer average forum dweller that's for certain. I don't always agree with what he says but he is connected.
Manchester United officials looking at plans to expand Old Trafford capacity to 88,000 | Scrapped?
- Thread starter KM
- Start date
I'm not confused about what a loan facility is, thank you very much. The last I read, was they had drawn down on that to pay for the escalating, unplanned, construction costs. The club would typically keep most of the operating cash on hand, as they will need to reinvest in the squad sooner rather than later, and given their debt load, a lot of that will have to be done in cash.
Rivals' grand designs put Glazers neglect of Old Trafford in spotlight.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-glazers-neglect-of-old-trafford-in-spotlight
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-glazers-neglect-of-old-trafford-in-spotlight
The Bernabeu refurbishment plans look pretty zoomy,we need some serious upgrade/renovation plans in place which is unlikely until we have a change of ownership!
I was expecting that of the Glazers, based on what I read about Tampa around the time of the takeover. I can't remember exactly what it said but the point was they didn't want to spend one dollar on anything related to a stadium. Although of course in America it works differently, why would they then spend the money here.
Will the Glazers invest in a refurb?
I don’t know much about sports finance as I work in corporate finance but I’d expect a loan for stadium construction is going to be significantly cheaper than any money you would borrow to sign players. That means if you have any cash reserves you are indeed better off spending it on squad.
Tampa Bay is a perfect example of Glazernomics. They’ve not made the play-offs in eleven consecutive years, sacking their manager every second or third years, sticking with general managers who say the goal is to spend wisely, looking for value in the market. Simultaneously, the value of the club has increased six-fold.
Incidentaly, a new stadium was built: paid for by the city/state because the Glazers threatened to move the club elsewhere. Milton Keynes take notice.
Sounds eriely familiar.
Well the state or council will not pay for OT to be refurbed etc.and nor will they have the audacity to able to move the club.
Probably not, but there's the railway issue, and also, how many times a year do we need more capacity?
I mean refurbish the ground. Not increase capacity. It does look in need of a refurbishment imo.
Probs even less chance of that, as they wouldn't see any profit from it.
That's my thinking on it too. They're looking like leaving us behind the competition both on the pitch and off the pitch at this rate.
It surely must get to a point where they realise that with the fees needed these days, they're fighting a losing battle. The value of the club surely won't go much higher, so it'd make sense to sell when they can.
I think the ground's getting to the point where the hospitality and boxes are looking seedy as well. I know people who've given up boxes as they can't impress their customers any more - instead they've bought a few expensive seats in the hospitality areas for people who actually want to go to the match, but the pre-match/post-match entertaining is done away from the ground.
That pole is looking more and more funnier every week.
Brave of him to post that article the week Spurs belatedly moved into their new ground. Fantastic journalism.
I wish more people would start talking about how amazing Spurs' new stadium is, honestly I've barely been able to find a murmur. Oh and don't even get me started on the Glazers I mean, we've only spent more on transfers and wages than any other cub in world football since Sir Alex retired, muppets. Should have spent some of the money we spent on DiMaria on new carpets for the press room or something and kept our reputation intact.
Also coincidences with Real reveling the plans on their ground. It's not about being brave, it's about emphasising a point.
Also, no one questions the amount spent, it's how the monet has been allowed to be spent...very scatter gun approach
True, but I think it's a bit harsh to start having a go at the Glazers on the stadium (at the moment) when they've been authorising a lot of spend on the playing squad - because they're trying to compete with a club in the very same city that has repeatedly broken FFP laws not long after being gifted a stadium off the tax payers.
Agree. By no means do I think the Glazers are doing the worst job, however, they need to employ the correct people at the club for the correct job. Ed and his boys just aren't cutting it on the football side of things.
Normally I'm in K stand but had some corporate hospitality in both the Charlton and Ferguson stand. The Ferguson stand was ok but the Charlton stand felt like you were entering a nuclear bunker. Narrow corridors and low ceilings. It's a joke main stand for one of the biggest clubs in the world. Companies are going to be sending clients to the Etihad if they want to impress.
Ugh how has everything around this club become so fecking depressing?
Matchday revenues are becoming a shrink proportion of total revenues. At some point, the Glazers will have to look at the ROI of investing in increasing the capacity of the stadium -- and then handcuffing the transfer spending of the club, as happened to many other clubs -- and think its just not worth it in the current environment.
Maybe the timing ain't great for this level of investment too considering that other revenue streams may slow down with the expected recession coming up in 2020? (The partners may not be willing to spend as much or new partners may not be able to spend as much marketing $$ in the next couple of years.)
Architecture and design go in cycles. In 30years time, the traditional stadia look will be back in vogue. Then the Glazers would have been proven correct not to invest in such superficial decisions.
Maybe the timing ain't great for this level of investment too considering that other revenue streams may slow down with the expected recession coming up in 2020? (The partners may not be willing to spend as much or new partners may not be able to spend as much marketing $$ in the next couple of years.)
Architecture and design go in cycles. In 30years time, the traditional stadia look will be back in vogue. Then the Glazers would have been proven correct not to invest in such superficial decisions.
Have we made any significant capital improvements at the club in the last 14 years under the Glazers? I would appreciate if someone can guide me to a list.
The silence to your question speaks volumes. Glazers too busy milking their cash cow.
If the likes of Spurs, Atletico and Everton can get new stadiums, I don't see why United shouldn't be going all out for the best either. Surely having a magnificent stadium that befits United's stature could only be a good thing for the brand.
We did some work on Carrington a few years ago; I think around the time Sir Alex retired? There was talk about us being able to do medicals on-site now as opposed to at the Bridgewater hospital like before. They also did some work on the car park to set-up a display with the club's name for when guests arrive.
LVG also requested some changes with the floodlights and planting trees to block the wind, among other small-ish things.
Can't remember anything at OT since the quads were done, not counting the disabled supporters area that I think we were forced to do?
They've put some Dyson Hand Dryers in the South Stand toilets
Have those wanting a new stadium been frequenting OT all their lives? I can't imagine doing so and wanting one. An update, sure, but a soulless bowl stadium with loads of rounded edges and extra corporate space, nah.
You can't replace OT but it requires some updating. We should always be seen as having the best.
The United legacy is more than bricks and mortar, sir.
Yes is the answer to your question...
That's fine. Strange and some may say wrong, but somewhat acceptable.
Definitely. Nicer seating, a more modern roof but still incorporating the famous white stanchions (possibly in a new way), and an update to the halls perhaps. That'd do me. No mean feat with the roof, but nothing a few architects shouldn't be able to work out.
Of course, but you lose OT and you're losing some soul, without a doubt.
A new stadium if done right can still retain the soul. Imagine the Old Trafford look but with completely new parts and a modernized twist. Not to mention more seats across the spectrum + internet access.
Not supporting the Glazers but ...
NFL teams have an equal cap and the Buccs are currently one of the teams closest to the cap.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001020137/article/nfl-salary-cap-for-2019-season-set-at-1882m
We could do with a cap given what we blow on wages.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...age-bill-balloons-almost-300m-second-highest/
Is the Buccs lack of success more down to not drafting a top quarterback? Winston hasn't delivered what's expected of a no 1 draft pick. Maybe this is what we share with Buccs, in that we have both failed in recruiting the right players. United certainly have players using the free agency market to get the best salaries.
NFL teams often get the tax payer to pay for the stadium, but if they could get away with that owning United, then they would definitely be threatening to go off to MK.
Not underestimating the huge differences between US franchises competing in a socialist regulated market, and the European blend of protectionuism and free market capitalism.
Rather I find it interesting that the Glazers apart from Ferguson era United have seemingly ran two clubs so similarly below expectations, particularly since Malcolm himself became older.
Neither club can be said to be well run.
Every time this thread gets bumped I get a glimmer of hope for some sort of renovation 
Same, although I can't see serious talks even happening for a while and at this rate it'll be about 2025 before we have a chance of seeing anything begin.Every time this thread gets bumped I get a glimmer of hope for some sort of renovation
Some people will argue it doesn't matter so much, but I think other big teams/rivals improving their stadiums while we stand still just stinks of the club settling and stagnating. You can see what kind of lift it gives the fans from what Spurs have done, even if it went over budget, the long-term gains will make it worthwhile in the end.
Once Chelsea finally build their new ground, we'll be lagging in another area.
It is difficult for us though as if any major refurbishment is going to take over three months then I can't see it ever happening. There isn't a ground close enough to Manchester that can house us for a while, even very short-term, without having to cancel some season ticket holders tickets for select matches.
Hypothetically, we would probably have to arrange to play our final two games of one season away from home (making for a potentially tricky title race or top four qualification if they were down to the wire) and the first three or so games of the following season away. This still only gives the whole of May, June, July, and August to get anything finished, but IMO too much needs to be done. So much so, that it might even be worth knocking it down and starting again. But who knows, maybe it is possible for us to do the South Stand and Quadrants in four months, then do the facelift in four months the season after or a few seasons after?
We should be able to get the "light show" lighting. Celtic have recently had it installed.