New Stadium or Revamp Old Trafford

Would you rather a new stadium or rebuild Old Trafford?

  • New stadium

    Votes: 670 49.9%
  • Rebuild Old Trafford

    Votes: 673 50.1%

  • Total voters
    1,343

MegadrivePerson

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Messages
1,554
Why is there such an uproar about Sir Jim wanting the tax payer to contribute towards the stadium? No one complained about Spurs using taxpayers money to fund part of their new stadium.

If they build a new stadium it wont just host Man Utd home games it will be able host other events such as other Football matches, NFL, Boxing, Wrestling, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Music Concerts and much more with people attending from all over the North of England and beyond which would be good for the local businesses in the area.
It could be because the person calling for it is a British citizen that changed his residency to avoid tax?
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
12,383
Location
Tameside
It could be because the person calling for it is a British citizen that changed his residency to avoid tax?
Plus that individual has a personal wealth of billions - ample to cover the whole of the redevelopment - and there are parts of Manchester that could use the cash for greater public good.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,736
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
It could be because the person calling for it is a British citizen that changed his residency to avoid tax?
Hard not to blame him as his 2017 tax bill was over 100 million and that was his personal one, INEOS did and still do pay UK taxes
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,736
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Plus that individual has a personal wealth of billions - ample to cover the whole of the redevelopment - and there are parts of Manchester that could use the cash for greater public good.
And the greater good is what the money would be for, improved public transport and the area regeneration - if it was to build the actual stadium that would be a no-no but that's not what this is about
 

Steve Bruce

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
1,360
Build a new stadium to modernize the facility but do what is necessary to replicate some of the charm taht Old Trafford brings along with it's historical pieces such as the Munich tunnel
If a new stadium is being built next to the old one, just preserve the tunnel and convert the place into a museum.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
12,383
Location
Tameside
And the greater good is what the money would be for, improved public transport and the area regeneration - if it was to build the actual stadium that would be a no-no but that's not what this is about
How do they propose to improve public transport there in a meaningful way though? It's already served by three metrolink lines, it's just that no matter how frequently they run, there's just not the capacity there to get 90,000 people from the city centre to the ground and back over the course of an hour. If the capacity of a double tram is 200 people or so that'd require 3-400 double trams purely for football traffic (taking into account that others will continue to drive and try to park somewhere nearby). It's unfeasible. And I can't see them increasing the number of trains between Piccadilly and OT station to a level that's significant enough to make a difference either. Again, it's an issue of capacity on methods of transport that are also supposed to be used by weekend shoppers and commuters simultaneously.
 
Last edited:

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
20,307
Why is there such an uproar about Sir Jim wanting the tax payer to contribute towards the stadium? No one complained about Spurs using taxpayers money to fund part of their new stadium.

If they build a new stadium it wont just host Man Utd home games it will be able host other events such as other Football matches, NFL, Boxing, Wrestling, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Music Concerts and much more with people attending from all over the North of England and beyond which would be good for the local businesses in the area.
To be fair though no one gives a feck about Spurs.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,736
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
How do they propose to improve public transport there in a meaningful way though? It's already served by three metrolink lines, it's just that no matter how frequently they run, there's just not the capacity there to get 90,000 people from the city centre to the ground and back over the course of an hour. If the capacity of a double tram is 200 people or so that'd require 3-400 double trams purely for football traffic (taking into account that others will continue to drive and try to park somewhere nearby). It's unfeasible. And I can't see them increasing the number of trains between Piccadilly and OT station to a level that's significant enough to make a difference either. Again, it's an issue of capacity on methods of transport that are also supposed to be used by weekend shoppers and commuters simultaneously.
It's not just about getting football fans from the city centre every week, the regeneration plan includes shops, hotels, bars, restaurants and housing the customers and workers have to be able to get there so direct buses, trams and trains will need to be part of the equation on a daily basis
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
12,383
Location
Tameside
It's not just about getting football fans from the city centre every week, the regeneration plan includes shops, hotels, bars, restaurants and housing the customers and workers have to be able to get there so direct buses, trams and trains will need to be part of the equation on a daily basis
Sounds like it'll cause more problems than it solves though. I'd love to see their proposals to make moving around that area anything other than a nightmare on match days. I'm saying this as someone who has lived within a mile or so radius of the current ground (Manchester side for some time and Salford side for a while) and had to travel both to the match and to work in the city centre on match days. Where would these extra roads and rails go? They'll bottleneck at Cornbrook as they currently do.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,736
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Sounds like it'll cause more problems than it solves though. I'd love to see their proposals to make moving around that area anything other than a nightmare on match days. I'm saying this as someone who has lived within a mile or so radius of the current ground (Manchester side for some time and Salford side for a while) and had to travel both to the match and to work in the city centre on match days. Where would these extra roads and rails go? They'll bottleneck at Cornbrook as they currently do.
These regeneration plans have been proposed by Trafford Council, this isn't just about a new stadium

I know exactly what the area is like, I worked for more than a decade about 200 yards from the ground nest door to the Trafford pub
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,938
It's not just about getting football fans from the city centre every week, the regeneration plan includes shops, hotels, bars, restaurants and housing the customers and workers have to be able to get there so direct buses, trams and trains will need to be part of the equation on a daily basis
Maybe it’s time for a proper subway line then. Old Trafford to Manchester Piccadilly and it could even go out to the Etihad in the other direction.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,736
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Maybe it’s time for a proper subway line then. Old Trafford to Manchester Piccadilly and it could even go out to the Etihad in the other direction.
Doubt that's happening but there is a train line next to the stadium that one would presume could be made use of
 

sparx99

Full Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
3,938
Doubt that's happening but there is a train line next to the stadium that one would presume could be made use of
Probably not but it’s better to think about these things now than when they are needed desperately ten years from now. If you are going to create a Trafford district then overbuild the infrastructure now.

Unfortunately the current Govt in Westminster has been so short sighted about HS2 and ‘levelling up’ etc. All those northern rail projects that should have been done 20yrs ago.
 

No1_Dave

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 12, 2022
Messages
12
As a Utd fan for over 30 years, I definitely agree the club (and its fans) should be paying for the stadium itself, any public/tax payer money should only be used for surrounding areas and also public transport infrastructure etc, in order to fully justify the "area regeneration" criteria. Also stopping rival fans from using it as a stick to beat the club & our fans with.

I posted my opinion a few days ago regarding the stadium:
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/new-stadium-or-revamp-old-trafford.479592/post-31663889

It seems that plan (downsized OT + new stadium), is also being seriously considered by Sir Jim:

https://archive.ph/Oq4ja
https://theathletic.com/5290146/2024/02/21/jim-ratcliffe-manchester-united-transcript/

And a stadium for the women’s team as well?
“If you use that as a centre of regeneration, a bit like the Olympic Village, then I think what you probably finish up doing is Old Trafford would end up being reduced in size to a smaller facility still in the same footprint but a smaller facility which can be used for all sorts of community things, be it a concert or whatever. The ladies teams could play there. The academy teams could play there. Some of the local teams could play there and Old Trafford could sort of become a community asset and then you’d have this world-class stadium next door to it.”

As for the people criticising Sir Jim regarding his move to Monaco, I very much agree with his reply, worked hard and paid your taxes for most of your life, then move to sunnier climes when you reach retirement, it's a very British thing to do:

Might your tax status, having relocated to Monaco, pose a challenge in the optics of requesting state support?
“I paid my taxes for 65 years in the UK. And then when I got to retirement age, I went down to enjoy a bit of sun. I don’t have a problem with that, I’m afraid.”
Looking at it in another way, by moving to Monaco, his tax savings helped him tremendously in having the money to take United (27.7% so far) from the hands of the Glazers, thus saving us from more years of mediocrity, that's a big positive for me. (He might be saving personal tax money, but his company INEOS still employs thousands in the UK and pay full UK taxes)
 
Last edited:

RoyH1

Full Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
5,980
Location
DKNY
Rich man decides to live in nicer country?
The problem is not moving to a "nicer" country. Had he moved to Italy, Spain or France I don't think anyone would have mentioned it. It's the tax advantages of living in Monaco that one cannot help notice in this move. It's a bad look to ask for government money for your stadium. Surrounding infrastructure, yes, sure, but not the stadium itself.
 

horsechoker

The Caf's Roy Keane.
Joined
Apr 16, 2015
Messages
52,203
Location
The stable
I think a new stadium would be incredible as long as it abided by certain principles. None of this bed-pan shit that's currently in fashion. Something to stand the test of time and have fans at the heart of it. I like the idea of it having a kind of industrial/timeless look whilst still being modern.

That being said, my opinion means feck all because I do not go to games regularly so they should listen to and give more weight to the thoughts of match-going fans over anyone else.
I'd have it in the shape of a ship
 

SouthMancRed

Cheimoon's Fault
Joined
Aug 14, 2022
Messages
464
The problem isn't the people that legally dodge paying tax. It's the tax laws in place that allow them to do it.
 

AFC NimbleThumb

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
8,363
The problem is not moving to a "nicer" country. Had he moved to Italy, Spain or France I don't think anyone would have mentioned it. It's the tax advantages of living in Monaco that one cannot help notice in this move. It's a bad look to ask for government money for your stadium. Surrounding infrastructure, yes, sure, but not the stadium itself.
Both Arsenal & Spurs took out under inflation Bank of England loans during the pandemic. Who foots the shortfall? The taxpayer.

West Ham have a what, 100 year lease on a stadium they didn’t pay to convert & pay £3mil a year, yes £3mil a year, for the privilege.

Let’s not even talk about the Etihad & it’s surrounding land that was sold off for pennies on the pound.

Sir Jim’s biggest issue will be he answers questions too openly. The stadium itself will likely be funded via a loan but I think the government will be asked to come in on the surroundings & transport links which they should do/have done for other projects.

I hate to sound like I’m defending tax dodging, Tory funding, Brexiteer but honestly what he’s seeking is far less than multiple clubs have received already. The problem is the way he’s put it forward means it’ll be talked about as if the Government/taxpayer will be paying for everything.
 

AFC NimbleThumb

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
8,363
Stadiums have long moved on from the soulless Arsenal & Benfica carbon copies.

I think given the hubbub around any new stadium will mean that it’ll have a unique look to it that will pay homage to OT.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
12,383
Location
Tameside
These regeneration plans have been proposed by Trafford Council, this isn't just about a new stadium

I know exactly what the area is like, I worked for more than a decade about 200 yards from the ground nest door to the Trafford pub
I saw the plans for the area separately last week, and it seems to basically add a bunch of housing and a small park in one area, add some retail and leisure bits to another and designate the bulk of the land that we all know United own (the stadium footprint and car parks) as 'stadium zone'.

So they amount to increasing footfall and traffic in the area, which will be served mainly by the Trafford centre metrolink line in terms of public transport. Like I say, that will exacerbate transport problems on match day before we even think of adding another 15,000 or so to the capacity of the ground.
 

Hal9000

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
6,316
Yes they did.

People complained about Man City and West Hams stadium situations as well.
I've live next to West Hams ground, it's subsidised by the council heavily even now. They don't pay for policing, energy, water and other things.
 

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,390
The problem is not moving to a "nicer" country. Had he moved to Italy, Spain or France I don't think anyone would have mentioned it. It's the tax advantages of living in Monaco that one cannot help notice in this move. It's a bad look to ask for government money for your stadium. Surrounding infrastructure, yes, sure, but not the stadium itself.
So he should move half hour down the road to Nice and pay millions a year for the privilege of it? Why would he live in Italy when he owns a club half an hour drive from Monaco?

He seems to suggest that he paid tax for most of his adult life in the UK, I don’t really see the issue with choosing to live elsewhere.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
50,366
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
He seems to suggest that he paid tax for most of his adult life in the UK, I don’t really see the issue with choosing to live elsewhere.
Moving somewhere to avoid paying tax and then asking taxpayers to fund something (which you could easily afford) isn't a great look.

It's perfectly legal and I kinda admire the cheek of it but I can see why people are annoyed.

Personally I'd rather my tax money go on developing football stadia than a lot of the shit it gets wasted on but there we go.
 

Prodigal7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
2,258
Location
Daenerys' pants
Moving somewhere to avoid paying tax and then asking taxpayers to fund something (which you could easily afford) isn't a great look.

It's perfectly legal and I kinda admire the cheek of it but I can see why people are annoyed.

Personally I'd rather my tax money go on developing football stadia than a lot of the shit it gets wasted on but there we go.
If you’re able to avoid tax legally then you do it. Everyone would, regardless of how wealthy you are and I don't see a problem with it. It’s up to the government to close out the loopholes if they can even be considered loopholes.

I also don’t see a problem in asking for tax payer money. It’s not a giveaway it’s an investment in the economy. One that should return taxpayers further income towards services that they use. That’s the principle behind asking for the tax payer money.

then again lots of people simply react by seeing someone with more money than them and wanting to take some of it. Seems to be a relatively recent cultural trend.
 
Last edited:

Dan_F

Full Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
10,390
Moving somewhere to avoid paying tax and then asking taxpayers to fund something (which you could easily afford) isn't a great look.

It's perfectly legal and I kinda admire the cheek of it but I can see why people are annoyed.

Personally I'd rather my tax money go on developing football stadia than a lot of the shit it gets wasted on but there we go.
If I were a billionaire, the first thing I’d be doing is flying out of the UK and that decision would be nothing to do with tax.

I don’t think taxpayers should foot the bill for a new stadium, even though the likes of city benefitted from that massively. The regeneration of the area is a different thing and I can completely see how some levelling up funding would be logical.
 

ArbeitervonWien

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 18, 2022
Messages
235
So he should move half hour down the road to Nice and pay millions a year for the privilege of it? Why would he live in Italy when he owns a club half an hour drive from Monaco?

He seems to suggest that he paid tax for most of his adult life in the UK, I don’t really see the issue with choosing to live elsewhere.
Getting as filthy rich as Ratcliffe means your probably morally bankrupt anyway. Choosing to live in an tax haven makes it even worse. It's not a good deed to pay your taxes, its the fecking least one should be expected to do. I don't remember getting a medal for paying my taxes either.

Anyway, I shouldn't bother too much. Everyone knows you don't get rich by being a decent human being.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
50,366
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
If you’re able to avoid tax legally then you do it. Everyone would, regardless of how wealthy you are and I don't see a problem with it. It’s up to the government to close out the loopholes if they can even be considered loopholes.

I also don’t see a problem in asking for tax payer money. It’s not a giveaway it’s an investment in the economy. One that should return taxpayers further income towards services that they use. That’s the principle behind asking for the tax payer money.

then again lots of people simply react by seeing someone with more money than them and wanting to take some of it. Seems to be a relatively recent cultural trend.
I agree, the system is fecked.

I'm not one of these "hate the game, not the players" types though. The game is rigged and the players are generally scumbags. I've got enough hate to spread around.

I'm (relative to a billionaire) poor though so if I try to avoid tax I'd go to prison.
 

Charlie Roberts

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
102
Something similar in shape to SoFi stadium would fit perfectly onto the land we have. You could even adjoin it to the current old Trafford and make it one big complex
 

Bobby Funk G

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 8, 2024
Messages
26
It‘s far too cramped and out of date.The only way forward is a new stadium.

At the time I was gutted when the stretford end was demolished(I had watched some great players from that old stand)and when the floodlight towers where taken down(I always liked the look of them walking to the ground)because both where traditional at the time but looking back they were the right decisions to move the club forward.
I suppose we can agree to disagree good sir.
 

AFC NimbleThumb

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2019
Messages
8,363
And I also realise the physical pitch itself has also been re-laid multiple times, but afaik the location/position of the pitch has been the same since the beginning? So for me keeping the pitch where it is the most important.

If we can't do a stand by stand rebuild, (due to time and costs/disruptions) then my 2nd choice would be to keep the OT pitch, then reduce the size of the stands (keeping the most historic South Stand largely as it is with the Munich tunnel etc, the most historic part is the old players entrance tunnel I think), and downsize OT to maybe a 25000 seater stadium, to be used by the United Woman's and Youth teams. I think that would be great for promoting Women and Youth football.

Then after reducing the footprint of OT, hopefully there is enough space to build a "state of the art" 100,000 stadium. Why 100k? well for me it's "go big or go home", if we're going all the trouble of building a new stadium, might as well go big and have a stadium that's going to last us 50+ years before any major works needs to done again, also having the bragging rights as the largest stadium in the UK. Also the seats that's right at the top might not have the best views, so those can be made significantly cheaper for younger fans or general admission, in order to attract the next generation of fans.

But looking at all the pics/maps used in various reports on news websites, even with a reduced size OT, they all overlay the new stadium onto the Freight Terminal, that might be a problem, as I don't think the club owns it, and extra costs and disruptions having to purchase it.
I know this was your 2nd choice but it’s pretty much my first.

Think your 100k point can’t be understated. You could feasibly, though with difficulty, rebuild OT to the 90-odd mark so if there is to be a new stadium it needs to truly be iconic In size and feel.

Being sympathetic to the current pitches location will surely be something they look at.
 

Victorian values

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2022
Messages
37
Supports
Linfield
With regards to the new stadium, it will still be in Old Trafford, and imho the extra tickets won't be for wee Davy from Droylsden, but for Rupert to bring Tarquin and Jeremy as a reward for getting a rosette in the gymkhana, but the increased corporate revenue will enable ticket prices to remain "reasonable" (if £60+ for a ticket for a football match is ever "reasonable"), and I expect a lot of club owned bars and food outlets to encourage people to get to the ground a couple of hours earlier and stay for an hour or two after the game, increasing match day income and alleviating traffic congestion and pressure on public transport.