He's thinking short term.
Sir Jim is planning for the next 100 years.
A 100,000 capacity stadium is vital for that.
We're at our lowest ebb in recent history at the moment.
New Stadium | 100k Stadium to be built - design visualisation released
- Thread starter FootyGirl88
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
He's thinking short term.
Sir Jim is planning for the next 100 years.
A 100,000 capacity stadium is vital for that.
We're at our lowest ebb in recent history at the moment.
It'll take a whole lot more than a few years to pay off the stadium with the revenue from the additional seats.
There will be additional revenue from hospitality and depending on how many of these additional seats will be hospitality would have an affect, but it could take anywhere between 35 and 70 years to pay it off that way.
Say the additional 25,000 seats sell for £100 on average for every game (picked a high figure here, I know). This would work out to an additional £2.5m in revenue per game, allow 28 games per season (19 Prem, 6 Europe and 3 Cup Games) gives an additional £70m per season in ticket revenue.
A build of £2.5b in total would take 35-36 years to pay off with an additional £70m in revenue per season. If the average price of the additional tickets was £75 then it would be 45-50 years and if it was £50 then it would be over 70 years
Obviously there will be a whole range of other revenue from other things (concerts, restaurants, kiosks etc) that will chip away at this, but it would still take years to pay off.
Naming rights will knock a chunk off it also.
Maybe 30m a year or higher even. They can have separate sponsors for the plazas also.
I wouldn't worry about the financing. It's no big deal. It'll be offset by future increase in revenue.
Selling the land around the stadium to developers will raise lots of money also.
The key really is buy-in from local and central government. Public transport infrastructure is key to attracting developers.
Also moving the freight line and yard.
Lots of moving parts. It's a complex operation overall to make it work.
As Arnie once said, dont listen to the naysayers
It truly is amazing. Any of the new staduims over the last 10/20 years have been blasted as generic etc... which most of them have been. United come along with something different and the same cnuts are still moaning presumably just because it's United 
Hated, Adored, Never Ingnored
Hated, Adored, Never Ingnored
Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. At least as part of a fanciful initial design, although it is reminding me of Homer Simpson's car design in that respect.
You recreate Old Trafford in a modern version and make it bigger. That would carry over what we will lose with this new toilet bowl.
I think people underestimate how much will be gone in regards to emotional connection once Old Trafford is demolished and we walk into the American Express arena.
People who reference "but the money" really don't understand the value of nostalgia and memories.
I would prefer to renovate the old stadium but thinking in terms of the next 100 years, it's better to start from scratch and aim for perfection.
We're aiming for the best football stadium in the world with a 100,000 capacity which I think will give us the highest average attendance in world football.
I don't think that's possible without starting from scratch.
I'm not sure it's possible to increase the capacity much on the current site. The train line causes too many problems.
Moving the stadium is much better for access as it can be accessed from all sides then.
Also in terms of regenerating the area, it probably requires moving the stadium and upgrading public transport infrastructure.
Big Word for Paul that is.
On your comments, this is a worry for some fans, because the owners will be chasing to pay off the stadium costs as fast as possible. So extortionate ticket prices and non United events (England, American singers etc) will be important in doing so. Therefore the club doesn’t remain as the main focus.
It’s all well and good now. But if results on the pitch don’t change we’ll look pathetic as a club when Taylor Swift is performing the night after we’ve been spanked against Bournemouth for example. But some fans will reel out the old, ‘the clubs still making money’ argument.
Ineos have already made some poor signings so I’m more concerned about them getting this right and having us heading in the right direction on the pitch before new stadium stuff is spoke about.
I’d be curious to know how many of 845 who have voted on this poll so far, will be going tonight.
Just my opinion, which holds no more weight than anyone else’s here and will be scoffed at by some, which they have the right to do, but this whole thing looks more like a financial dream for the owners (who won’t recycle the profits back into the club) then it does on actually improving results on the pitch. Which is all that matters to me. I couldn’t give a damn how many homes or jobs are created. It’s not Manchester United’s responsibility to give people homes or provide catering jobs.
Don’t disagree with any of that. Negotiating with the past is tricky business—a business the club haven’t been good at for the past decade.
In the interview with one of the architects I listened to, not Foster, he said they designed it first and then thought—oh, that looks a bit like a trident. Classic retrofitting.
I'd be happy with it if they got rid of the tent.
I think they wanted to do the canopy and then decided on the Trident shape last minute.
I think they like the height of it also, with it being visible across the city.
I'm unsure about it but I do like the canopy idea.
Paul Merson is actually fàbregasted. What a stupid rant, not sure why they are even calling him for anything.
Yeah, the architects said that trident design came pretty much as afterthought or when it was all finished. It's not a bad idea, but if they proceed with it I think it can look even better. As someone said conecting it in some way with United Trinity would be nice for example.
Someone show this thick cnut Spurs revenue increase over the last 5 years and he might actually start to understand the real economic benefits of a new stadium.
He's probably thinking 'why don't they spend that £2 billion on new players over the next 5 years instead?'
An now to moronic cokehead on his own sofa for inane ramblings over things he doesn't understand.
Are people genuinely getting overstimulated by the rantings of Paul fecking Merson? I don't think there is an opinion in the entire world of sport that I have less respect for.
Bottom 3 at least, alongside Le Tissier and Conor McGregor.
Bottom 3 at least, alongside Le Tissier and Conor McGregor.
On reflection, I like it. Exciting future
What the hell has it got to to with Paul Merson.
So does Manchester City, the trident is unique to us.
So we picked some tent fetishist to design our stadium. Great.
Hopefully at least it gives us sexual powers.
In 10-15 years whole thing could be paid off just in extra revenue, which isn't too bad imo.
https://www.ssbm.ch/how-manchester-uniteds-stadium-project-is-a-lesson/?utm_source=perplexity
I'm personally massively in favour of the new stadium
Ideally this wouldn't be coming after 10+ years of underachievement. But Liverpool could start building a 100k stadium this year and by 2030-2032 when it is done, they could be a significantly worse team than United. Same for United but they could be genuine title challengers by then. I think there is a reason United are targeting young signings who in theory should be around their prime in the early 2030's.
United can fill a 100k stadium on a regular basis, not sure any other club in England could. And for me, United should have a stadium on par with Real Madrid and Barcelona. I'm confident the aim is to build a squad on par with them too.
Yep the updated Brenabeu won't be paid off until 2053.
Thanks!
Yeah I meant to put in my original post about the extra sponsorship etc it will likely bring too. As the article says, I think it'll certainly pay itself off reasonably quickly and then start to make us very profitable. In theory of course.
Norman Foster is a big fan of tents. He has been developing tent structure building technogoly for decades. Here is the biggest tent building in the world, Khan Shatyr (King's Tent) Mall in our capital Astana.
Designed by Foster+Partners. Source: Foster + Partners website
Yeah he's just using the same design.
Some tent fetishist?
That's Manchester's own Norman Foster you're talking about, I think you'll find he's actually one of the world's foremost tent fetishists.
"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now."
Somebody already trotted out this proverb in the thread (so apologies to that person for reusing it) but it fits here. Somebody needs to remind Paul that we've been spending a shit ton of money on players and it hasn't gotten us anywhere. You can't wait for something to be right, before starting on something else that's necessary.
We probably have seen the last title won whilst at OT though. Which is kind of sad, when you think about it.
I don't even know why Sky Sports give him such air time. He has no clue.
What these outfits such as Sky Sports need to realise is just because you were a professional footballer, doesn't mean they are intelligent.
Why is he even there commenting on United stuff.
No degree in architecture but as Paul Merson has it, I have to agree with him its a bad project. If Merson doesnt like it then who am I to like it.
Voice of reason, Merson, and always has been. Hopefully Jimmy has seen this video and will quickly discard this project.
Voice of reason, Merson, and always has been. Hopefully Jimmy has seen this video and will quickly discard this project.
How is that relevant? We have a global fanbase and the majority of the people on this forum cannot attend games every week, if at all, for all manner of reasons.
Give it a rest mate. Yesterday you were in this thread claiming that "people who like the stadium don't understand what the club is about" and now you are implying that if people don't actually attend games then their opinion is somehow worth less than those who do. We get it, you're a top red that is lucky enough to go to games each week, but you don't get to be arbiter of how to support the club.
In regards to the "best stadium in the world" - every new big stadium aims for that. Some achieve it but for how long? Two years? Three? Until the next big thing comes along, and then it isn't the best anymore.
Personally I don't think it has to be the best in the world, it is a rather subjective thing.
I agree that current Old Trafford cannot be transformed into a modern stadium. For me the new stadium might cut the last tie to the club I have. The last ten years have eroded the connection and I don't see how that comes back with the direction we're heading.
For this very reason, it drives engagement.
They don’t care for quality but for you and others to click and be irate.
I really like it, its different as in the next stage of stadium evolution. I would also trust Norman Foster to get this right.
Which physical shape would the stadium take if themed after the Theatre of Dreams?
I'm guessing a lift up to an observation deck maybe.
The stands don't need to be as tall then to accomodate the amount of seats needed.
No, I never click on that has Paul Merson on it... I can't stand that bloke.