Technically speaking yes.
In reality, look at the ticket thread, or social media, you can pick up tickets for 90% of games for buttons.
New Stadium | 100k Stadium to be built - design visualisation released
- Thread starter FootyGirl88
- Start date
In reality, look at the ticket thread, or social media, you can pick up tickets for 90% of games for buttons.
Is your point Spurs prefer White Hart lane and Arsenal wished they stayed at Highbury? Everton's fans seem to love their new stadium for what it's worth.
I agree there is a broader conversation which can only really be done in the future - if ticket prices keep rising, if games price people out, is it worth it? But then the same would happen if we stayed at OT re price increases. I still maintain I want a new stadium but with much more of an OT nod, but then it's evident we need to either move or completely redo OT, aesthetics aren't that big a deal to me.
I do agree on seating, I've always thought it an oddly insecure thing that fans want to have the 'biggest' stadium. Like who cares? But if it allows United to make more money and therefore be better (as long as ticket prices aren't silly) I am for it.
Generally speaking Spurs and Arsenal supporters I speak to much preferred watching the match at their previous stadiums, yes. Everton is a slightly different case in fairness, Goodison has gone 10-20 years longer as an already old stadium than Highbury/WHL did and is 10-20 years further in terms of disrepair. They do need a new stadium and their fans have known such for what, 10-15 years at this point? And I agree, everyone who's been near it says it is very impressive, I saw some pictures from what will be the new away end on Sunday night and am looking forward to going. Old Trafford is nowhere close to that level of disrepair and is still a top quality football stadium despite what those who watch matches on their TV believe.
Prices at OT will continue to rise but not at the pace we'll see with a new stadium, that's just how it is and it's of particular annoyance to me because its not something we as supporters have asked for.
Yeah, I'd agree with this. The hardcore Spurs and Arsenal lot miss their old grounds. Can imagine Evertonians will start to miss Goodison soon.
Goodison Park was one of my favourite away grounds. It's a proper stadium. White Hart Lane was ace aswell.
The prices are gonna be insane across the league in 5 years and it will drift more towards the American model. Teams will drift even further away from their communities and the fans who treat football like a TV show will lap it up.
In that time, I'll inevitably end up drifting around Non League grounds.
They'll need vehicle access for machinery during the build. Afterwards they'll want it for machinery (like mowers), emergency services like ambulances and routine deliveries like catering and stuff. I guess they might bring in the team coaches in that way as well.
Whether they'd want any kind of public access that way I'd doubt though I guess if you're a super-VIP who wants access to his penthouse box - something could be arranged.
Somewhere at the stadium they'll need to have pickup/dropoff points for disabled fans - but I'd expect that to be at normal ground level not down to the pitch level.
"Meanwhile, increased leisure spending at New Trafford is, to a large extent, simply going to relocate leisure spending from elsewhere in Manchester. Put it like this: if someone builds a new restaurant near your favourite restaurant, you’re not suddenly going to start eating two dinners."
Man United has a global fan base so I'm not sure this is true.
The extra 25,000 fans visiting the ground could come from anywhere in the UK, Europe or the world. They will spend money on hotels, bars, restaurants, cafes, shops etc...
Also the ability to host other events like concerts, England games, CL finals etc brings in more revenue.
It seems a mean spirited article. Most of the money will be private investment.
That area of Manchester is prime for regeneration anyway. I'm actually surprised it's taken this long.
That post perfectly captures the culture of mindless uninformed rage from the right. Liew's got a fair few good points in there.
This is probably the most ridiculous part of the entire thing. It's so short-sighted. Manchester's food and drink offer has exploded in recent years, and while not fully recovered from the pandemic, more places opening doesn't mean others have to close down. Manchester is expanding, increasing the capacity and draw of Old Trafford is brilliant for the city.
Imagine if London or other major cities had should little ambition.
First thing my boy said when I showed him the designs. He plays football every week, but shows no interest in watching it, so this is my first glimmer of hope.
You don’t get rage from me, you certainly get a sigh. Whilst I look forward to when students grow up and operate in the real world, where people have to go out and work a living and where success is actually celebrated, not derided.
What were the fair few good points he brought up?
Yeah it doesn't make sense.
Man United fans travel from everywhere.
Also the extra away fans will spend more.
If they have concerts in the summer, that's more money again.
It's true that propping up a new stadium alone offers no economic benefit to the wider economy. Mainly because most stadiums are planted in the middle of no where, or in the case of America surrounded by acres of car park.
How ever Inglewood was virtually bankrupt before Sofi Stadium, 17% unemployment rate is down to 4%.
I live right next to the Olympic Park and the redevelopment of the land and area around it, has massively benefited the area and i doubt it's taken away people from other areas of London, because you have more housing and more businesses in the areas.
Its a real problem in sport. Kids and the youth growing up now have a shorter attention spans.
Not really, as usual with Liew, he makes clever sounding arguments that end up being very thin. He complains about creating insecure jobs or buy-to-let landlords buying up properties, but doesn't explain why having no jobs or no houses would be better.
Most bizarre is the claim that "Any uplift to local property prices comes at a cost to other areas of the city." This is a completely wild argument to read in the The Guardian. Rampant property prices due to lack of housing is one of the worst economic ills in the country. Yes, building more houses will slow or even lower the valuation of properties elsewhere in the city, and yes, this is absolutely a good thing. But in his attempt to make rattle out his arguments, he's put his critical faculties on hold, and ended up making a nimby argument that would be better served in the Telegraph.
This is normal Liew, he doesn't just do it about United to be fair, he's just a try hard.
A 'stain'?
It's pretty much the only newspaper surviving in this country that isn't owned by overseas billionaires or the family of ex-KGB officers.
100%. I was in Manchester last September (not for a match) and thought some of the stuff on offer was great. Definitely a place you'd go there if you wanted a few days away somewhere but didn't want to to anything touristy in particular or even a match.
Last edited:
"Extra away fans", what?
Agreed, that whole article is written in bad faith to try to make United look bad, the Guardian have some great football writers but he's not one of them.
That article was legitimately crazy. The editor should have been telling him to try again.
Considering The Guardian's long history in Manchester, it's a real shame that they don't want to get behind a major regeneration project. I'm sure I recall articles in the same paper championing the wonderful regeneration around City's ground. A stadium that was originally built with actual public money! Their owners have since gone further of course.
A new stadium for Utd is exactly the kind of tentpole (perfect word) project that is the catalyst for urban regeneration in that area. Without major works at Old Trafford or a new stadium you likely only get piecemeal projects and who wants to buy a new house or apartment within a run down industrial area. It needs to happen all at once or little will happen at all.
Away fans are a % of capacity or 3000. We may well offer more if we have availability."Extra away fans", what?
'The rules state that home clubs must offer the visiting team a minimum of 3,000 tickets if their capacity exceeds 30,000. If their capacity is lower, the minimum away allocation in the Premier League must be 10% of the seats in the stadium'
FA Cup rules are different but often allow for larger allocations up to 15% of home capacity.
I think you've taken some of those points in a different way to how they were intended.
I think the point is that the figures United have quoted are based on not much besides wishful thinking. 17,000 homes, for example? If they do manage to cram those in, somehow, they don't appear to be represented in the visuals we've seen, where you'd imagine less than 1000 apartments could fit into those buildings. And the cost to other areas of the city is in terms of stretched infrastructure on public transport, roads, hospitals and schools, not necessarily purely financial costs.
That argument isn't in his article. There's certainly an interesting argument to be made about the detail of the regeneration, but Liew didn't make it.
Its clear from the context he's talking about property prices, but even if he meant other costs, its simply the same nimby argument restated. Where exactly are these parts of Manchester with empty schools and under-occupied GPs we should be building housing instead?
Again, there's an interesting argument to be made for and against the location of any specific housing development and its composition, and maybe even about the continual growth of the population for economic gain, but Liew isn't going for that. He's just reached for as many 'anti' arguments as he can, and hasn't thought through their validity, or even whether they're compatible with one another.
Thanks for posting.
It'll be 3000. Unless space dictates, no current PL club offers considerably higher than 3000 and United wouldn't either. Leicester for example is usually the highest away end at just under 3300 but that is because their away end is configured at that many seats; most are at or very close to 3000. United currently give 3009 iirc. If United build this stupid ground and start handing out 5,6,7 thousand away ends in league games (which they won't) I hope it gets burned to the ground.
Been at Old Trafford only one time, when SAF in his last United season beat Liverpool 2:1, RVP and Vidič scoring before new Pool signing Sturridge got a late consolation goal. The stadium looked a bit old already but nothing major, still fit for purposse.
Now I read upon comments of regullar match goers on this great forum, and there seems to be a host of serious issues with the state of the ground. From leaking roofs, toilets in bitts, not enough room to serve 70k+ people right before/after the match or at HT, not to mention poor choice/quallity of food and drink, logistics.
And I´d even not mind a dissgusting Carling served as I came to watch fantastic game of footie not to get plastered. My main gripe, and I´ve only mention a few problems posted by people going to OT these days, would be the most dangerous slopes behind a goal I´ve ever seen. Apparently they simply cant get rid of them. Its almost a miracle no serious injury have happened there. I´ve seen a few near misses of bone breakers thought, on top of number of players getting hurt.
Now with United seemingly buying fast, strong, direct players liking drive close to a byline for a put back (with Amorim absolutelly loving this play as its even easier finninsh than a penalty kick) with a grock of defender sliding in, pushing you towards a steel hoarding in fulll pelt. Your Dorgu´s then have only too choices: adapt their game to simply avoid a serious injury = you are limiting your game as you cant use a full lenght of the pitch as there is a little room behind a goal. And a fecking slope like at Velká Pardubická main horse race.
You have had number of valid points as for not to built a new ground in numerous posts but I also disagree with your (negative) points of financial aspect of a new stadium and subsequet regeneration of the area. Will try and challenge them when I get a time later on.
Yeah and how many of those who moan about Old Trafford regularly frequent other stadiums too? I've seen United all over the world and comparatively, Old Trafford is nowhere as bad as you're led to believe. If there's half a leak at Old Trafford it's worldwide news, yet in the last 12 months alone I've been at Dortmund, Anfield and the Emirates and seen leaks (Dortmund was way beyond anything I've ever seen at OT) and nobody says a word. If it rains hard enough, you'll find a corner or section of guttering - usually at the front - of pretty much any stadium that drips or overflows, new or old stadium. Toilets are shite at any stadium anywhere in the world - the San Siro has genuinely has mens and womens toilets that are just holes in the floor in 2025 for gods sake.
I've no issue whatsoever with a regeneration of the area, it is badly overdue but that is fault of successive governments and Manchester United should not need to spend £2bn on a new stadium to kick their arse into gear to actually spend money on the area. Regarding the stadium financials, unless you're going to tell me that my season ticket isn't going to dramatically increase to pay for a stadium I have never asked for, I really wouldn't bother wasting your time pal.
Class - I was skeptical of the AI-looking visualisation upon first release, but appreciate hearing from the architects themselves on their design choices.
Sure in the PL. But for the FA cup for example could be higher. The usual ruling is 15% but gets limited by the local safety advisory group. So that could be 15,000. Arsenal restricted us from an expected 9000 to 5000 when we faced them though so its likely that our local SAG would restrict numbers for safety.
UEFA games require 5% so that would be 5000.
No matter what though its an increase to away fans even ifs it's relatively small compared to the increased home fans.
I want a bigger stadium so I can buy a season ticket. If I still can't get one I'd like to be able to attend more than the 2-3 games I usually get to. There is still pent up demand even though we've called so far on the pitch.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...reams-at-risk-of-repeating-the-tottenham-trap
I think Jonathan Wilson sums up the lack of a financial case for this.
The club will be adding an extra £2bn in debt for this stadium. To pay that off over say 30 years needs the stadium to generate an extra £100m -£150m per year, assuming interest of 3%-5%.
Spurs' ticket revenue last year was £117m and total commercial revenue £227m. (United currently about £110m for ticket revenue and about £300m total commercial).
Whilst revenue from Uniteds new stadium will obviously be higher than Spurs, given the larger size, it seems a huge increase.
Looking at it from that point of view, the new stadium makes no financial sense other than for PSR purposes. But, whilst it gives more PSR breathing room, you still need to have the cash to pay off the debt, unless you've got a sugar daddy.
Ultimately its inevitable that the cost to supporters to go to a match is going to increase massively, or money for new signings will be even tighter for the forseable future.
I think Jonathan Wilson sums up the lack of a financial case for this.
The club will be adding an extra £2bn in debt for this stadium. To pay that off over say 30 years needs the stadium to generate an extra £100m -£150m per year, assuming interest of 3%-5%.
Spurs' ticket revenue last year was £117m and total commercial revenue £227m. (United currently about £110m for ticket revenue and about £300m total commercial).
Whilst revenue from Uniteds new stadium will obviously be higher than Spurs, given the larger size, it seems a huge increase.
Looking at it from that point of view, the new stadium makes no financial sense other than for PSR purposes. But, whilst it gives more PSR breathing room, you still need to have the cash to pay off the debt, unless you've got a sugar daddy.
Ultimately its inevitable that the cost to supporters to go to a match is going to increase massively, or money for new signings will be even tighter for the forseable future.
It's right there in this bit:
The Guardian said:
Again, wrong end of the stick entirely. Not the argument being made at all.
Thoughts on this Guardian piece from journalist Jonathan Lew?
The roof of the proposed new Manchester United Stadium has three points, which is more than can often be said for the team who will play underneath it. According to Nigel Dancey of the architectural firm Foster + Partners, the three giant masts will “create a distinctive presence on the skyline”, presumably in the same way that Roy Keane created a distinctive Prescene on Alf Inge Haaland's Knee.
But of course aesthetic quibbles are the least of our concerns here. If Manchester United want to erect a giant plastic canopy over their new 100,000-seat stadium in a way that evokes a chicken being wrapped before roasting, then frankly who are we to demur? Beauty is in the eye of the freeholder, and all that. The more pressing question – as someone who, unlike part-owner Jim Ratcliffe, still pays income tax in this country – is what exactly the rest of us are getting out of this.
Why knock down the biggest club stadium in the UK, the fifth biggest in Europe? Why not simply refurbish a venue that already generates plenty of revenue? Indeed, why even unveil this project now, before a single penny of funding for this £2bn project has been secured?
On the last of these at least, United’s chief operating officer, Collette Roche, had this to say. “Until you actually articulate the mission and show the art of the possible, nobody takes you seriously,” she said at the MIPIM property trade show in Cannes, where United were pitching for external investment. And of course for a club drowning in debt, laying off staff, projecting the redevelopment as a grand shiny infrastructure project is the only feasible way of unlocking the public money that will turn New Trafford into an effortless cash machine.
In one sense, this is a fait accompli. The goverment has given it's backing and Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, sounds supremely confident about securing the £200m‑£300m of government investment that would be required for related infrastructure. Already fantastical figures are wafting through the media ecosystem with a bare minimum of scrutiny: 17,000 new homes, 92,000 new jobs, an extra £7.3bn a year to the UK economy.
And it is at this point that we meet our first knot of resistance. The academic literature is pretty unequivocal on this point: economists have consistently found virtually no evidence to suggest that new stadiums provide any net benefit to a city in terms of wages, tax receipts or jobs. As the late economist Allen Sanderson put it: “If you want to inject money into the local economy, it would be better to drop it from a helicopter than invest it in a new ballpark.”
So where do these numbers come from? Mostly from somewhere else. Any uplift to local property prices comes at a cost to other areas of the city. Any new housing will almost certainly be hoovered up by buy-to-let investors. Meanwhile, increased leisure spending at New Trafford is, to a large extent, simply going to relocate leisure spending from elsewhere in Manchester. Put it like this: if someone builds a new restaurant near your favourite restaurant, you’re not suddenly going to start eating two dinners.
As for jobs, most of the extra work will be seasonal, part-time security and catering employment: the foundation stones of the exploitation economy. The plan to prefabricate the new stadium and move it up the Manchester ship canal will put a firm ceiling on the amount of construction labour required. Indeed, one of the centrepieces of the new development involves relocating the Trafford Park rail freight terminal beside the stadium, which will probably be moved at great expense to Parkside East in St Helens. So, actually … moving jobs out of Manchester to Merseyside. How does that tend to go down?
But of course none of this is really the point. To investors and powerbrokers the great appeal of stadium economics is that it so rarely functions like economics at all. Football fans do not behave like rational customers. Millions of people pay a significant portion of their increasingly stretched incomes to watch a football team mostly not win, for ever.
This blind loyalty, this guaranteed bottom line, is what makes football such an irresistible investment vehicle. But it also means the only way to secure the kind of exponential growth the modern investor demands is essentially to move these fans out, upgrade them, replace them with richer, less discerning consumers.
On reflection, the giant roof seems to serve a social as a well as an architectural purpose. Traditionally the football stadium served as a kind of nucleus to its local community: generating concentric waves of buzz and footfall and revenue that would emanate out to the streets and cafes and pubs that surrounded it. The stadium makes money. The chip shop next to the stadium makes money. The pub behind the chip shop makes money. The community centre behind the pub charges £10 for parking.
The modern stadium-campus, by contrast, takes a more proprietary view of its role in the built environment: not simply the beating heart but the entire body. Everything from the chips to the pints to the parking is taken in-house. You work for us. Everything here is the property of Manchester United plc, exists entirely on our sufferance, and we built this roof to be sure.
And at the root of all this lies a pointed question. If all this development is such a nailed-on wealth generator, why are the Glazers not funding it themselves? Why are investment funds not clambering over each other to get involved in the Trafford Park rail freight relocation project? Why is Ratcliffe, a man who moved to Monaco in order to avoid paying the British exchequer an 4 billion in taxes, not putting his outrageous fortune where his muttering mouth is?
Because, of course, this was never about regeneration, and never will be. This is simply neoliberalism at play, carving up our cities for their benefit and expecting us to be grateful for footing the bill. Cut some jobs. Abolish ticket concessions. Raise season-ticket prices. Make a sad face while you’re doing it. Meanwhile, allow us to show you this irresistible investment opportunity. It’s a win-win. It’s easy money. You might even call it a distinctive presence on your local economy.
A new Manchester United stadium isn’t about regeneration and never will be
The roof of the proposed new Manchester United Stadium has three points, which is more than can often be said for the team who will play underneath it. According to Nigel Dancey of the architectural firm Foster + Partners, the three giant masts will “create a distinctive presence on the skyline”, presumably in the same way that Roy Keane created a distinctive Prescene on Alf Inge Haaland's Knee.
But of course aesthetic quibbles are the least of our concerns here. If Manchester United want to erect a giant plastic canopy over their new 100,000-seat stadium in a way that evokes a chicken being wrapped before roasting, then frankly who are we to demur? Beauty is in the eye of the freeholder, and all that. The more pressing question – as someone who, unlike part-owner Jim Ratcliffe, still pays income tax in this country – is what exactly the rest of us are getting out of this.
Why knock down the biggest club stadium in the UK, the fifth biggest in Europe? Why not simply refurbish a venue that already generates plenty of revenue? Indeed, why even unveil this project now, before a single penny of funding for this £2bn project has been secured?
On the last of these at least, United’s chief operating officer, Collette Roche, had this to say. “Until you actually articulate the mission and show the art of the possible, nobody takes you seriously,” she said at the MIPIM property trade show in Cannes, where United were pitching for external investment. And of course for a club drowning in debt, laying off staff, projecting the redevelopment as a grand shiny infrastructure project is the only feasible way of unlocking the public money that will turn New Trafford into an effortless cash machine.
In one sense, this is a fait accompli. The goverment has given it's backing and Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, sounds supremely confident about securing the £200m‑£300m of government investment that would be required for related infrastructure. Already fantastical figures are wafting through the media ecosystem with a bare minimum of scrutiny: 17,000 new homes, 92,000 new jobs, an extra £7.3bn a year to the UK economy.
And it is at this point that we meet our first knot of resistance. The academic literature is pretty unequivocal on this point: economists have consistently found virtually no evidence to suggest that new stadiums provide any net benefit to a city in terms of wages, tax receipts or jobs. As the late economist Allen Sanderson put it: “If you want to inject money into the local economy, it would be better to drop it from a helicopter than invest it in a new ballpark.”
So where do these numbers come from? Mostly from somewhere else. Any uplift to local property prices comes at a cost to other areas of the city. Any new housing will almost certainly be hoovered up by buy-to-let investors. Meanwhile, increased leisure spending at New Trafford is, to a large extent, simply going to relocate leisure spending from elsewhere in Manchester. Put it like this: if someone builds a new restaurant near your favourite restaurant, you’re not suddenly going to start eating two dinners.
As for jobs, most of the extra work will be seasonal, part-time security and catering employment: the foundation stones of the exploitation economy. The plan to prefabricate the new stadium and move it up the Manchester ship canal will put a firm ceiling on the amount of construction labour required. Indeed, one of the centrepieces of the new development involves relocating the Trafford Park rail freight terminal beside the stadium, which will probably be moved at great expense to Parkside East in St Helens. So, actually … moving jobs out of Manchester to Merseyside. How does that tend to go down?
But of course none of this is really the point. To investors and powerbrokers the great appeal of stadium economics is that it so rarely functions like economics at all. Football fans do not behave like rational customers. Millions of people pay a significant portion of their increasingly stretched incomes to watch a football team mostly not win, for ever.
This blind loyalty, this guaranteed bottom line, is what makes football such an irresistible investment vehicle. But it also means the only way to secure the kind of exponential growth the modern investor demands is essentially to move these fans out, upgrade them, replace them with richer, less discerning consumers.
On reflection, the giant roof seems to serve a social as a well as an architectural purpose. Traditionally the football stadium served as a kind of nucleus to its local community: generating concentric waves of buzz and footfall and revenue that would emanate out to the streets and cafes and pubs that surrounded it. The stadium makes money. The chip shop next to the stadium makes money. The pub behind the chip shop makes money. The community centre behind the pub charges £10 for parking.
The modern stadium-campus, by contrast, takes a more proprietary view of its role in the built environment: not simply the beating heart but the entire body. Everything from the chips to the pints to the parking is taken in-house. You work for us. Everything here is the property of Manchester United plc, exists entirely on our sufferance, and we built this roof to be sure.
And at the root of all this lies a pointed question. If all this development is such a nailed-on wealth generator, why are the Glazers not funding it themselves? Why are investment funds not clambering over each other to get involved in the Trafford Park rail freight relocation project? Why is Ratcliffe, a man who moved to Monaco in order to avoid paying the British exchequer an 4 billion in taxes, not putting his outrageous fortune where his muttering mouth is?
Because, of course, this was never about regeneration, and never will be. This is simply neoliberalism at play, carving up our cities for their benefit and expecting us to be grateful for footing the bill. Cut some jobs. Abolish ticket concessions. Raise season-ticket prices. Make a sad face while you’re doing it. Meanwhile, allow us to show you this irresistible investment opportunity. It’s a win-win. It’s easy money. You might even call it a distinctive presence on your local economy.
Thoughts on it are already all over the last two pages.
My interest ended with the tone setting Roy Keane Alf Inge haaland comment.
It didn't help establish a particularly reasonable tone of voice, did it? I think, in spite of that there are good points raised.
People keep saying this - if you can't deal with a minor jibe from someone who isn't a Utd fan the internet must be a rough place for you.
This is a weird argument to continue down. There is barely any increase to away support with a 100,000 seaters stadium. League games, ie the vast majority of games, will remain at 3k. FA Cup is capped at 9k, which we already offer. Largely irrelevant but we got 8k for Arsenal this year in the end. It is only European competitions that would see an increase in away support, and that would likely be of between 1k and 1.5k, assuming those clubs fans take up the full allocation which very often doesn't happen.
I get that but lets be honest, the amount of new season tickets offered will be minimal. But if you want to attend more than 2-3 games a year now and have the means to do so, I don't really get what is stopping you. There are tickets in the ticket thread for 90% of games at or under FV, same on social media. The demand is there for the bigger games, sure, but I've got my doubts about the majority of games.
I have doubts we will ever offer new STs again. Genuinely.