New Stadium | 100k Stadium to be built - design visualisation released

Thoughts on the design?

  • Total voters
    1,174
  • Poll closed .
Great turn by Macedaaa said:
Agreed with every word there. Rival fans are already ripping it. At this point I am convinced Jim is not a United fan and is secretly enjoying this . We have become a laughing stock since he arrived. Really wish he would go away
Click to expand...
Rival fans will knock it no matter what …. spurs stadium has been called the toilet bowl etc and it’s without doubt the best stadium in the country.

Most people seem to have an issue with how it looks from afar … but the litmus test will and should be the matchday experience.

The memories I’ve had at OT are never going to disappear, but I’ve sat in the lower tier more often that not these last few years (previous had a season ticket in the upper tier) and it’s shocking. I’m far from a modern fan and would welcome standing or “the old days”, but at the moment fans are semi standing and moving around their row / seat leaving half of a seat to the not so confident fans … it’s not a great experience, especially for those who do value a little comfort for their £65.

Ultimately, yes it’s fair to say that many don’t like the aesthetics of the design, but I find it hard to argue with the potential matchday experience improvement.
 
DeludedOptimism said:
Rival fans will knock it no matter what
Click to expand...
This is clear, even if it's extraordinary once built there'll be oppo fans who will find a loose bolt or a stupid thing to dislike about it. If anyone is basing their appreciation for it on what oppo fans might say or how they'll mock it, let's just say they have very thin skin.
 
DeludedOptimism said:
Rival fans will knock it no matter what.
Click to expand...

And rightly so. If Liverpool were building a brand new stadium we'd go out of our way to find things to criticise, because the idea of admitting to being in "awe" of a New Anfield would be nauseating.

Ditto the stadiums of other rivals, which regularly get disparaged for being "soulless" or (as in the case of Spurs' objectively excellent stadium) mocked for having particularly plush "cheese room" style amenities.

What's weird is Manchester United fans expecting the approval of rival supporters, as if they have no experience of being Manchester United fans.
 
Crimson King said:
Seriously, why do we even need rival fans on here when we've got people like you?
Click to expand...
Oh my apologises, I didn’t realise supporting your club meant supporting each and every decision they make.

I better retract my thoughts on Antony and Maguire.
 
Pav1878 said:
Oh my apologises, I didn’t realise supporting your club meant supporting each and every decision they make.

I better retract my thoughts on Antony and Maguire.
Click to expand...

Facetiousness is also the go-to coping strategy when you go against the status-quo in this place, like the very concept of a conversation, on a FORUM, no less, is diabolical and can only be responded to with flippancy because they just need to say something, without adding anything to the conversation whatsoever.
 
JB7 said:
Football stadium built for football is boring when there is no football. Exactly how it should be let's be honest, rather than stadiums built for everything except football but can just host football when it hasn't had a better offer.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but if I'm really going to be honest then you have an incredibly simplistic and narrow view of what the stadium should be. You want the club to spend £2b+ on what would basically be a bowl with seats and grass inside it, that only gets any footfall once or maybe twice a week, and not at all for 3 months of the year? You think that is a good use of that kind of money?

Firstly, they're building this to underpin the regeneration of the entire area. It needs to be for the govt to get involved in helping improve transport links, as a bare minimum. Because of that it needs to be much more of a hub for people, not just a stadium for match days. It's fine if that's all you use it for, but it's not being built just for you.

Secondly, this is going to be a 100,000 seater stadium. How many clubs have actually built that from scratch? It's fine for Everton to build a stadium just for football, because it's half the size, and they're Everton so nobody gives a shit outside of Liverpool. People aren't going to travel a thousand miles to see it. United are trying to build a monument, not just a stadium. A monument to United, to football, and to Manchester.

Again, it's fine if you don't like the designs. I'm not entirely sold on the spikes either (although I'd urge people to go and look at all the pictures and the video with Foster, and not just the select few media outlets are running with), but I find it disappointing that so many people just want to build OT, but bigger.
 
Pav1878 said:
Oh my apologises, I didn’t realise supporting your club meant supporting each and every decision they make.

I better retract my thoughts on Antony and Maguire.
Click to expand...
I more so think it’s because it feels overly critical.

The club needs to modernise and find new ways at bringing money in, a one hundred thousand seater stadium, & I can’t figure out why this is being glossed over in favour of the “circus tent”, a ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND seater stadium and people aren’t excited?!

It’s going to be magnificent, really loud and we are going to become a fortress again, I can’t wait!
 
Crimson King said:
I'm sorry, but if I'm really going to be honest then you have an incredibly simplistic and narrow view of what the stadium should be. You want the club to spend £2b+ on what would basically be a bowl with seats and grass inside it, that only gets any footfall once or maybe twice a week, and not at all for 3 months of the year? You think that is a good use of that kind of money?

Firstly, they're building this to underpin the regeneration of the entire area. It needs to be for the govt to get involved in helping improve transport links, as a bare minimum. Because of that it needs to be much more of a hub for people, not just a stadium for match days. It's fine if that's all you use it for, but it's not being built just for you.

Secondly, this is going to be a 100,000 seater stadium. How many clubs have actually built that from scratch? It's fine for Everton to build a stadium just for football, because it's half the size, and they're Everton so nobody gives a shit outside of Liverpool. People aren't going to travel a thousand miles to see it. United are trying to build a monument, not just a stadium. A monument to United, to football, and to Manchester.

Again, it's fine if you don't like the designs. I'm not entirely sold on the spikes either (although I'd urge people to go and look at all the pictures and the video with Foster, and not just the select few media outlets are running with), but I find it disappointing that so many people just want to build OT, but bigger.
Click to expand...
Agree. In this day and age you have to be bringing money into the club via other means. Concerts, other sporting events, improve the catering and conference facilities. OT as it is will not be used for a European final or any international matches. It is all income lost to the club at present.
 
astracrazy said:
Because if we are going to build a new stadium I'd rather them be in owe, instead of seeing a glaring design flaw that instead gives them a reason to rip it instead - of which they aren't wrong.

Remove the three posts and it's great.

I personally think the trident thing was an after thought anyway after they had already designed it. I don't see how that's the most relevant thing could come up with as something to design the stadium around.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that removing the towers will make rival fans look at our stadium in awe? Fair that you don't like them, but using 'fear of rival fans mocking us' as an argument for your view makes no sense, especially when it comes to this. I mean, we're finding a way to mock the current runaway leaders, despite having our worst ever seasons in modern times. I bet you'll find some Liverpool fans rattled by that, how absurd it sounds objectively.
 
Crimson King said:
I'm sorry, but if I'm really going to be honest then you have an incredibly simplistic and narrow view of what the stadium should be. You want the club to spend £2b+ on what would basically be a bowl with seats and grass inside it, that only gets any footfall once or maybe twice a week, and not at all for 3 months of the year? You think that is a good use of that kind of money?

Firstly, they're building this to underpin the regeneration of the entire area. It needs to be for the govt to get involved in helping improve transport links, as a bare minimum. Because of that it needs to be much more of a hub for people, not just a stadium for match days. It's fine if that's all you use it for, but it's not being built just for you.

Secondly, this is going to be a 100,000 seater stadium. How many clubs have actually built that from scratch? It's fine for Everton to build a stadium just for football, because it's half the size, and they're Everton so nobody gives a shit outside of Liverpool. People aren't going to travel a thousand miles to see it. United are trying to build a monument, not just a stadium. A monument to United, to football, and to Manchester.

Again, it's fine if you don't like the designs. I'm not entirely sold on the spikes either (although I'd urge people to go and look at all the pictures and the video with Foster, and not just the select few media outlets are running with), but I find it disappointing that so many people just want to build OT, but bigger.
Click to expand...

I think that alot of people who are negative about it are because who the stadium is being pitched by, when you want someone to fail so badly, you will end up picking all the negatives and try to downplay anything good.

They have obviously gone through various designs and agreed upon that one, with one of the top architect firms.

Whilst fans are talking about the netting being tent/ circus like, why dont fans look at it practically? having an open space outside the stadium where it will be nice and dry.. keep the atmosphere in, perhaps could give a better fan experience during matchdays?

The easy option would be to just do what every club does and build a bowl, instead they are incorporating the trident, I quite like it tbf.
 
BarstoolProphet said:
What makes you think that removing the towers will make rival fans look at our stadium in awe? Fair that you don't like them, but using 'fear of rival fans mocking us' as an argument for your view makes no sense, especially when it comes to this. I mean, we're finding a way to mock the current runaway leaders, despite having our worst ever seasons in modern times. I bet you'll find some Liverpool fans rattled by that, how absurd it sounds objectively.
Click to expand...
When did I say I fear rivals mocking us? Even our own fans think the posts make it look like a circus tent.
 
Last edited:
G3079 said:
It's where the clowns jump off from into the tiny waterglass at the bottom. Sorry, nobody made a circus tent allegation on this page yet, had to do it.

I had first thought that it was a viewing platform but looking again it seems like it's purely a design element.
JF1w7ut.jpeg
Click to expand...
Perhaps not this page but it was made on the very first page and multiple times since
 
astracrazy said:
When did I say I fear rivals mocking us?
Click to expand...
By saying you want them to "be in awe" and keeping the towers would give them a chance to rip into us. Like you would find a Liverpool fan being in awe of a Manchester United building. We could build the Qasr Al Watan of football stadiums and you still would have tons of fans (both our own and rivals) criticise it. What rivals rival fans think about the architecture should never influence your view.
 
astracrazy said:
Remove the three posts and it's great.
Click to expand...
As has already been said, you can't just remove the three pylons without completely redesigning everything about the roof. They're structurally vital to suspend the roof from. You can build more smaller towers to suspend them from, or you can build a forest of support beams from below. But you can't just scratch them and keep the rest as is. And you'll still have the tent-like look that will make it look "like a circus" according to some people with no taste.
golden_blunder said:
Perhaps not this page but it was made on the very first page and multiple times since
Click to expand...
It's almost as if I was making fun of those posts, eh?
 
G3079 said:
As has already been said, you can't just remove the three pylons without completely redesigning everything about the roof. They're structurally vital to suspend the roof from. You can build more smaller towers to suspend them from, or you can build a forest of support beams from below. But you can't just scratch them and keep the rest as is. And you'll still have the tent-like look that will make it look "like a circus" according to some people with no taste.

It's almost as if I was making fun of those posts, eh?
Click to expand...
Could have fooled me
 
G3079 said:
As has already been said, you can't just remove the three pylons without completely redesigning everything about the roof. They're structurally vital to suspend the roof from. You can build more smaller towers to suspend them from, or you can build a forest of support beams from below. But you can't just scratch them and keep the rest as is.

It's almost as if I was making fun of those posts, eh?
Click to expand...

"The architects, Nigel Dancey and Patrick Campbell, suggested the addition of the trident was almost an afterthought"
"The trident is an aesthetic extra that will come at significant cost "

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/how-architects-decided-trident-new-31180728

I presume they'd already had this planned.
 
golden_blunder said:
Could have fooled me
Click to expand...
This didn't tip you off?
G3079 said:
Yeah but that was a few pages ago. Somebody has to mention it at least once per page because it is such a new, smart and funny observation and the prime concern of the new stadium design should definitely be what sorts of jokes opposition fans can crack about it.
Click to expand...

astracrazy said:
"The architects, Nigel Dancey and Patrick Campbell, suggested the addition of the trident was almost an afterthought"
"The trident is an aesthetic extra that will come at significant cost "

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/how-architects-decided-trident-new-31180728

I presume they'd already had this planned.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I wonder how they were planning to do the roof then. Because afaik you need that sort of tent-like structure and beams to suspend it from in order to drain off the forces into the ground. Would be interesting to see how they had planned it originally then.
 
G3079 said:
This didn't tip you off?



Interesting. I wonder how they were planning to do the roof then. Because afaik you need that sort of tent-like structure and beams to suspend it from in order to drain off the forces into the ground. Would be interesting to see how they had planned it originally then.
Click to expand...

The full quote makes clear that it was the idea of it representing a trident that came later, not the idea of having that sort of structure at all:

And I think our idea, particularly as we're looking at it within the context of master planners, was to really open it up and to do that with the roof and have these covered spaces.

And I think as it kind of grew, the idea of a covered space, well how do you do a structure for that? The verticality of the mast kind of helps.

To be fair, the trident kind of came later, we'd already designed the stadium and then somebody went, ‘Hey, you know, that looks a bit like’. ‘Okay, that's interesting’."
Click to expand...
 
sullydnl said:
The full quote makes clear that it was the idea of it representing a trident that came later, not the idea of having that sort of structure at all:
Click to expand...
Ah, so just the actual implementation as a trident design was an afterthought. Gotcha, thanks.
 
romufc said:
I think that alot of people who are negative about it are because who the stadium is being pitched by, when you want someone to fail so badly, you will end up picking all the negatives and try to downplay anything good.

They have obviously gone through various designs and agreed upon that one, with one of the top architect firms.

Whilst fans are talking about the netting being tent/ circus like, why dont fans look at it practically? having an open space outside the stadium where it will be nice and dry.. keep the atmosphere in, perhaps could give a better fan experience during matchdays?

The easy option would be to just do what every club does and build a bowl, instead they are incorporating the trident, I quite like it tbf.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The worst thing to do would be to spend an absolute fortune on this, incredibly hindering the club's ability to sign players for nearly a decade, just to end up with a lifeless husk that gets easily surpassed by one of your closest rivals within one generation.

You know, like Arsenal.
 
The netting effect reminds me of Ena Sharples I suppose that is as close to a reference to the industrial past of Manchester as it gets. Nothing about the Trinity, Matt Busby Dennis Law or Ferguson statues.
 
Pav1878 said:
Oh my apologises, I didn’t realise supporting your club meant supporting each and every decision they make.

I better retract my thoughts on Antony and Maguire.
Click to expand...
If your thoughts were just personal attacks like calling Maguire 'Slabhead' and Antony a 'fidget spinner', then yes, you should retract them.
 
zbcrow15 said:
I don't love the design at all. But I'm not opposed to a new stadium
Click to expand...
I hope not. It’s childish and lazy.
Old Trafford is a nod to the area it’s in. New Trafford is just the lazy opposite of old Trafford

If it was my choice I’d name it ‘2 Old Trafford’ or ‘Trafford Stadium, Old Trafford’ or not be confused by nukes ‘The Trident stadium, Old Trafford’
 
G3079 said:
This didn't tip you off?



Interesting. I wonder how they were planning to do the roof then. Because afaik you need that sort of tent-like structure and beams to suspend it from in order to drain off the forces into the ground. Would be interesting to see how they had planned it originally then.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I missed that
 
Great turn by Macedaaa said:
Agreed with every word there. Rival fans are already ripping it. At this point I am convinced Jim is not a United fan and is secretly enjoying this . We have become a laughing stock since he arrived. Really wish he would go away
Click to expand...

Rival fans would rip literally anything that came out, it's what they do.
 
astracrazy said:
"The architects, Nigel Dancey and Patrick Campbell, suggested the addition of the trident was almost an afterthought"
"The trident is an aesthetic extra that will come at significant cost "

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/how-architects-decided-trident-new-31180728

I presume they'd already had this planned.
Click to expand...

Yep, its good to pick and chose the quotes.

"And I think as it kind of grew, the idea of a covered space, well how do you do a structure for that? The verticality of the mast kind of helps"

So basically it was during their design process. These are still concepts, so it wouldn't really be an afterthought.

They state that the masts help the structure.
 
manichester said:
The netting effect reminds me of Ena Sharples I suppose that is as close to a reference to the industrial past of Manchester as it gets. Nothing about the Trinity, Matt Busby Dennis Law or Ferguson statues.
Click to expand...
As somebody said earlier in the thread, that will be in the next lot of computer images released. This one is just to give a general impression.
 
Crimson King said:
I'm sorry, but if I'm really going to be honest then you have an incredibly simplistic and narrow view of what the stadium should be. You want the club to spend £2b+ on what would basically be a bowl with seats and grass inside it, that only gets any footfall once or maybe twice a week, and not at all for 3 months of the year? You think that is a good use of that kind of money?

Firstly, they're building this to underpin the regeneration of the entire area. It needs to be for the govt to get involved in helping improve transport links, as a bare minimum. Because of that it needs to be much more of a hub for people, not just a stadium for match days. It's fine if that's all you use it for, but it's not being built just for you.

Secondly, this is going to be a 100,000 seater stadium. How many clubs have actually built that from scratch? It's fine for Everton to build a stadium just for football, because it's half the size, and they're Everton so nobody gives a shit outside of Liverpool. People aren't going to travel a thousand miles to see it. United are trying to build a monument, not just a stadium. A monument to United, to football, and to Manchester.

Again, it's fine if you don't like the designs. I'm not entirely sold on the spikes either (although I'd urge people to go and look at all the pictures and the video with Foster, and not just the select few media outlets are running with), but I find it disappointing that so many people just want to build OT, but bigger.
Click to expand...
To answer the bolded point specifically, no, I don't want the club to spent £2bn on anything. I haven't asked for it, I gave my feedback like all the other STH and was unequivocal in what we views were on Old Trafford in its current form - which is still an outstanding stadium despite what the press would have you believe. Dortmund for example is held up as a shining light of a top level football specific stadium, despite having waterfalls far great than anything OT has ever seen and then entire interior of the stadium being pure concrete. Spurs is held up as a world class venue, which I'm sure it is; but that doesn't make it any less bland as a football venue. This whole idea of people travelling miles to see a new stadium is ridiculous too; people travel thousands of miles every week to see the current Old Trafford.

I've no issue with the new stadium being a hub, hosting concerts and all that jazz. It has to happen in the modern age. My issue is that hosting a football match should be priority 1, 2 and 3, then the other stuff such as concerts, NFL, whatever else, can come as priorities 4 and 5. If they do that, fine but nothing suggests that's the case from what I've seen so far it just looks like a venue. It's also feck ugly which probably doesn't help - and that doesn't change whichever video you watch.

DomesticTadpole said:
Agree. In this day and age you have to be bringing money into the club via other means. Concerts, other sporting events, improve the catering and conference facilities. OT as it is will not be used for a European final or any international matches. It is all income lost to the club at present.
Click to expand...
It literally hosted the last but one England game away from Wembley. So let's not invent nonsense or come back with the "it wasn't in the Euro 2028 bid" because it couldn't have been because the club couldn't guarantee it's availability because of the new stadium or renovations discussions. And if the San Siro can be awarded a Champions League final in it's current state which is an absolute disgrace then Old Trafford certainly could.

romufc said:
I think that alot of people who are negative about it are because who the stadium is being pitched by, when you want someone to fail so badly, you will end up picking all the negatives and try to downplay anything good.

They have obviously gone through various designs and agreed upon that one, with one of the top architect firms.

Whilst fans are talking about the netting being tent/ circus like, why dont fans look at it practically? having an open space outside the stadium where it will be nice and dry.. keep the atmosphere in, perhaps could give a better fan experience during matchdays?

The easy option would be to just do what every club does and build a bowl, instead they are incorporating the trident, I quite like it tbf.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I do want Ratcliffe to succeed. His was my preferred bid due to the joke of the other fake bid so less of the suggesting I wanted him to fail just because he's unveiled an ugly stadium that nobody asked for. As for, incorporating the trident, have you watched the videos? They put it all together with no thought of that whatsoever and after a while thought "oh them spikes look a bit like a trident from a certain angle", so they've marketed it as that.
 
We should be happy to have a new stadium. We want to be back amongst the best in the country/Europe, we should have a stadium like that.

Building a stadium is not enough. It needs to have a whole activity around, and not only on matchdays. Here, we'll have a new part in Manchester living everyday.

We should be sad of leaving OT, but it become to old and to be honest the whole club needs to move forward to a new dimension.

More importantly, the ticketing will bring more revenue to the club.

It's 24.000 new seats with 19 home games in the PL, or 456.000 more seats vs today. If you take an average of 60£ (which is lower) it 27M£ per year of income in addition just with these new seats.

Also, don't be foolish, the average cost will also increase for the tickets and will bring even more funds with ticketing.

So yes, it will bring more revenue to the club and hopefully more revenue to the first team, training grounds etc.
 
sullydnl said:
And rightly so. If Liverpool were building a brand new stadium we'd go out of our way to find things to criticise, because the idea of admitting to being in "awe" of a New Anfield would be nauseating.

Ditto the stadiums of other rivals, which regularly get disparaged for being "soulless" or (as in the case of Spurs' objectively excellent stadium) mocked for having particularly plush "cheese room" style amenities.

What's weird is Manchester United fans expecting the approval of rival supporters, as if they have no experience of being Manchester United fans.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I don’t think it has helped by seeing numerous mock ups of “what the new stadium will look like”, they were either similar to Spurs / Barca (ie no standout polarising feature), or looked like a shiny, newer version of OT, is some brick or recreation of the current roof style. This has probably set certain expectations so when this actually design has come through, it’s come from completely left field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.