New Stadium or Revamp Old Trafford

[sullydnl]

People need to be careful what they wish for. If they do redevelop the ground or build new, do you think the average fan will see much of a benefit? Or will the money be spent on suites for entertaining...? The East stand itself is fine. The concourse isn't great but could be tarted up. Food and drink isn't too expensive considering. I just want to turn up and watch decent football. I'm not that bothered by suites for hob nobbing. £150 a ticket and your watching the same game from the same seats as the rest of us.

You just want to turn up and watch football.

But when we talk about "the average fan", it's the average fan from a pool of attendees who also include children, the elderly, families, day-trippers, tag-alongs with no real interest in United or perhaps even football, foreign fans who may only get to Old Trafford once in their life, tourists attending just to attend, etc etc. In other words people who are in no way diehard, just-there-for-the-game supporters but who pay the same as anyone else for their tickets so want the best experience they can get from it all the same. And who may be a lot more likely to return if they have best experience they can get from it.

And that cohort of people would quite likely enjoy more comfort, more convenience, better food, better facilities, better ability to socialise around the games and there generally being more on offer in the area besides just that 90min match. And it's hard to imagine those fans' experience wouldn't benefit from a revamp.

After all, the stadium isn't just for the hardcore football fans who care much more about the game than anything else. It's for anyone who pays the (relatively expensive) price to attend.

 

[Rood]

It’s more outright investment than Barca, Real or Spurs got for their stadiums. I bet those three clubs would have loved £250 million pounds of cash investment, interest free.

Just speculation at the moment about any amount that INEOS might invest and what terms it is offered at.

Those clubs borrowed the money for stadium work, but we already have large debts so I have no idea how a new stadium could be financed on the back of a minority investment deal.

With 92F it was clear that the debts were being cleared and then £1bn extra offered for a new stadium - such a shame that this deal did not happen.

 

[Dan_F]

Just speculation at the moment about any amount that INEOS might invest and what terms it is offered at.

Those clubs borrowed the money for stadium work, but we already have large debts so I have no idea how a new stadium could be financed on the back of a minority investment deal.

With 92F it was clear that the debts were being cleared and then £1bn extra offered for a new stadium - such a shame that this deal did not happen.

Ah yes, the classic @Rood reply. We can’t believe any of the reporting around Jim’s bid, however we are to still believe every single word of Qatars.

Barca were 1.5 billion in debt when they got loans for their stadium. Ineos definitely have the ability to secure long term loans if they wanted to go down that route.

 

[bosnian_red]

For the life of me I can't understand why any fan would want a new stadium rather than just renovating Old Trafford. It's an iconic stadium. It's a dream to go there. Just keep it in good shape, but it doesn't need a million bells and whistles. It's a football pitch and stands. The main things are how many fans can fit there and the pitch is in good shape. Fix up whatever is needed structurally, make sure quality of life stuff like bathrooms/wifi signal/changing rooms/tunnel and all that are renovated.... And that's it. Weird as hell to want to build a new one.

 

[TrueRed79]

Do you seriously think that the planners/builders were thinking "that in a 110 years time the club will be fecked for because we built OT next to a trailway line?"

Who said anything about the club being fecked? Do you know that Nikola Tesla predicted the world would be connected by wireless technology in 1926? So yeah, I think architects could have seen that a railway line might be an issue behind a big stadium in the future. Why am I even bothering...

 

[Rood]

Ah yes, the classic @Rood reply. We can’t believe any of the reporting around Jim’s bid, however we are to still believe every single word of Qatars.

Barca were 1.5 billion in debt when they got loans for their stadium. Ineos definitely have the ability to secure long term loans if they wanted to go down that route.

92F info regarding debt free & stadium investment came directly from an official statement, it's not based on media speculation.

And if INEOS were buying the whole club then I'd have less worries about stadium finance but they aren't.

Even if it is £250m then this isn't going to pay for neither a new stadium nor a full OT modernisation.

What's likely is just a renovation of South Stand or something like that, so fans dreaming of what Real Madrid or Barça are doing are going to be sadly disappointed.

 

[marktan]

Build a new 200k stadium. It'd still sell out.

 

[Red in STL]

For the life of me I can't understand why any fan would want a new stadium rather than just renovating Old Trafford. It's an iconic stadium. It's a dream to go there. Just keep it in good shape, but it doesn't need a million bells and whistles. It's a football pitch and stands. The main things are how many fans can fit there and the pitch is in good shape. Fix up whatever is needed structurally, make sure quality of life stuff like bathrooms/wifi signal/changing rooms/tunnel and all that are renovated.... And that's it. Weird as hell to want to build a new one.

I do, and I have been there several hundred times, last time I went I could barely walk afterwards, the legroom is appalling if you're anything close to 6' or more, it's only a matter of time before a player is seriously injured on the pitch slope, most of the iconic memories are from a stadium that looks and feels nothing like the current one, the tunnel and the changing rooms are actually fairly modern improvements as are the dugouts

 

[lex talionis]

I was last at Old Trafford in February (for the Leicester City match) and didn't see anything truly out of order. I don't deny there are structural issues, but from a fan experience perspective I loved it. It's not in the same league as the new Spurs stadium, but the historic quality of OT is vastly more impressive than the bling of Spurs new stadium. There's no wrong answer, but the right answer comes down to how best to improve the fan experience. I'd really like the property around the stadium modernized while still retaining the historic character of the stadium itself.

 

[Dan_F]

92F info regarding debt free & stadium investment came directly from an official statement, it's not based on media speculation.

And if INEOS were buying the whole club then I'd have less worries about stadium finance but they aren't.

Even if it is £250m then this isn't going to pay for neither a new stadium nor a full OT modernisation.

What's likely is just a renovation of South Stand or something like that, so fans dreaming of what Real Madrid or Barça are doing are going to be sadly disappointed.

The Ratcliffe info is a very likely a leak from the camp, given it’s being reported by multiple reputable outlets. The Qatar statement was words, no more or less. Everything about that bid was shady as hell, including the front man and his dad, neither of which had enough reported wealth to buy the club.

If people want to speculate about potential investment, given the latest reports, I don’t see the problem. No one has access to inside information, so everyone is assuming, including you about the failed Qatar bid. Either treat both with skepticism or don’t.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think they will come in and fund a new stadium either. I don’t think the club is stable enough to commit that kind of money, and external factors like building supply costs and inflation are wouldn’t help. The club is certainly not desperate for a new stadium right away, match day revenue is good. I think the initial money will go on the training ground, as any commitment to the current stadium at this point means they are tied in to that path.

 

[Rood]

The Ratcliffe info is a very likely a leak from the camp, given it’s being reported by multiple reputable outlets. The Qatar statement was words, no more or less. Everything about that bid was shady as hell, including the front man and his dad, neither of which had enough reported wealth to buy the club.

If people want to speculate about potential investment, given the latest reports, I don’t see the problem. No one has access to inside information, so everyone is assuming, including you about the failed Qatar bid. Either treat both with skepticism or don’t.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think they will come in and fund a new stadium either. I don’t think the club is stable enough to commit that kind of money, and external factors like building supply costs and inflation are wouldn’t help. The club is certainly not desperate for a new stadium right away, match day revenue is good. I think the initial money will go on the training ground, as any commitment to the current stadium at this point means they are tied in to that path.

Don't want to make this an ownership thread but suffice to say that I disagree entirely about the 92F bid. There is plenty of info out there that shows HBJ is one of the richest men in the world plus Sheikh Jassim himself is the chairman of a bank, so I see no reason to doubt their promise to fully finance a new stadium.

In any case, it seems we agree that there will not be enough money in the pot under the SJR 25% deal to fund a new or fully modernised stadium and that is a huge disappointment.

In terms of matchday revenue the club are not desperate for a new stadium, but in terms of keeping up with other top clubs of the world we are undoubtedly falling behind.
The Glazers know this too and that's why feasibility studies for the stadium have already been done, it's also a major reason why they are seeking new investment as the debt levels mean we simply can't afford it.

My personal preference is a modernisation of Old Trafford similar to what is happening in Madrid and Barca, but these projects are incredibly expensive (maybe more expensive than simply building from scratch) and without a full sale I don't think it's possible.

 

[Dan_F]

Don't want to make this an ownership thread but suffice to say that I disagree entirely about the 92F bid. There is plenty of info out there that shows HBJ is one of the richest men in the world plus Sheikh Jassim himself is the chairman of a bank, so I see no reason to doubt their promise to fully finance a new stadium.

In any case, it seems we agree that there will not be enough money in the pot under the SJR 25% deal to fund a new or fully modernised stadium and that is a huge disappointment.

In terms of matchday revenue the club are not desperate for a new stadium, but in terms of keeping up with other top clubs of the world we are undoubtedly falling behind.
The Glazers know this too and that's why feasibility studies for the stadium have already been done, it's also a major reason why they are seeking new investment as the debt levels mean we simply can't afford it.

My personal preference is a modernisation of Old Trafford similar to what is happening in Madrid and Barca, but these projects are incredibly expensive (maybe more expensive than simply building from scratch) and without a full sale I don't think it's possible.

You’re right, it’s pointless talking about that when Qatar couldnt even come up with enough funds to convince the Glazers to sell. Ratcliffe himself can fully finance a new stadium with his personal wealth and it wouldn’t touch the sides, let alone INEOS and the potential to leverage very long term, low interest loans.

No doubt he will require full ownership to do that, so we will have to see what the plan is for the long term once the 25% is hopefully announced. I don’t see any reason for Ineos or Jim to commit so much money and not deal with the stadium. As I said before, right now is probably the worst timing possible to be doing any big stadium projects.

 

[ROFLUTION]

You just want to turn up and watch football.

But when we talk about "the average fan", it's the average fan from a pool of attendees who also include children, the elderly, families, day-trippers, tag-alongs with no real interest in United or perhaps even football, foreign fans who may only get to Old Trafford once in their life, tourists attending just to attend, etc etc. In other words people who are in no way diehard, just-there-for-the-game supporters but who pay the same as anyone else for their tickets so want the best experience they can get from it all the same. And who may be a lot more likely to return if they have best experience they can get from it.

And that cohort of people would quite likely enjoy more comfort, more convenience, better food, better facilities, better ability to socialise around the games and there generally being more on offer in the area besides just that 90min match. And it's hard to imagine those fans' experience wouldn't benefit from a revamp.

After all, the stadium isn't just for the hardcore football fans who care much more about the game than anything else. It's for anyone who pays the (relatively expensive) price to attend.

Fair points, but you also gotta look at this point: Old Trafford has been sold out for so many games for so many years. Obviously the impact of "how bad" the stadium is, is not great enough to make them not turn up.

A big part of visiting also has something to do with what a historic stadium Old Trafford is and the charm comes also from not being modernly perfect. That's sightseeing too, even though it's not a brand new state of the art stadium. For me that's the charm, and the same reason I would visit Nou Camp in Barcelona. Of course no one would want pissfilled toilets and a leaking roof, but I don't think I would visit a stadium if it was a shiny new generic stadium with no history in it.

As a tourist, speaking for myself, I would like to experience the local parts and charms of a stadium, not an executive branch or a generic stadium like Arsenal's. But you do have some fair points about just modernizing the facilities inside Old Trafford and outside Old Trafford. I just don't think these type of fans warrant a new stadium in themselves. They'll mostly go anyways. But you do need to upgrade facilities if you also upgrade the stadium's capacity.

 

[Rood]

You’re right, it’s pointless talking about that when Qatar couldnt even come up with enough funds to convince the Glazers to sell. Ratcliffe himself can fully finance a new stadium with his personal wealth and it wouldn’t touch the sides, let alone INEOS and the potential to leverage very long term, low interest loans.

No doubt he will require full ownership to do that, so we will have to see what the plan is for the long term once the 25% is hopefully announced. I don’t see any reason for Ineos or Jim to commit so much money and not deal with the stadium. As I said before, right now is probably the worst timing possible to be doing any big stadium projects.

I'd be comfortable about the future of Old Trafford if SJR was going for full ownership - it's the half way house of minority investment that creates huge doubts about when the club will be in any position to undertake major infrastructure projects.

Hopefully we can end the speculation and
get an official announcement with some kind of clarity for the future of the club.

 

[matherto]

For the life of me I can't understand why any fan would want a new stadium rather than just renovating Old Trafford. It's an iconic stadium. It's a dream to go there. Just keep it in good shape, but it doesn't need a million bells and whistles. It's a football pitch and stands. The main things are how many fans can fit there and the pitch is in good shape. Fix up whatever is needed structurally, make sure quality of life stuff like bathrooms/wifi signal/changing rooms/tunnel and all that are renovated.... And that's it. Weird as hell to want to build a new one.

The current ground is as is from 2006/2007

Before that it was changed in 1999/2000

Before that 1995

Before that 1993

The oldest current part is 1960s.

The current ground is not the ground from 1910, despite being on the same spot. It's not like we're peering at Georgian era stands is it?

I don't think it's weird at all to want the ground rebuilt. It would effectively be a new ground because you'd be knocking down the old stands, so the idea of 'rebuild' or 'new' is pretty much moot as it'd be new regardless. They aren't gonna do what the likes of Moscow did with Luzhniki and keep the exterior and rebuild inside because there's nowt about the exterior that's 1910 vintage and worth keeping, it's just glass, bricks and metal and there's not much point in merely repainting bits of the ground and saying have done with it so with that in mind.

Why not move it slightly further North and West? Away from the train line? You could then end up with an iconic stadium that isn't bound by being stuck next to somewhere unworkable.

The things that make any stadium iconic are the things that happen in them and the memories they create, not the building itself, especially when the building has changed beyond recognition multiple times.

I think it's a case of you don't know what you're missing until you get it. For all those saying it doesn't need bells and whistles - it needs legroom/standing room, it needs fit to standard concourse areas with good toilets, bars/refreshment areas that serve quickly and efficiently, more corporate facilities for the prawn sandwich brigade and a general nicer matchday experience for everyone else. It wouldn't need to be 'bells and whistles', just vast improvements in all areas. As much as it's something to moan about - wifi is essential for modern life and it also needs to be fit for purpose when thousands of fans are connecting - probably the easiest thing you could add to OT as is but if you're gonna commit to improving the ground, why not go the whole hog and have the best ground in the world? You simply won't get that giving current OT a wash and a paint and fixing the roof.

I wonder how many Spurs fans miss the old White Hart Lane given the new ground barely moved so it's comparing like for like?

 

[devilo]

The current ground is as is from 2006/2007

Before that it was changed in 1999/2000

Before that 1995

Before that 1993

The oldest current part is 1960s.

The current ground is not the ground from 1910, despite being on the same spot.

I don't think it's weird at all to want the ground rebuilt. It would effectively be a new ground because you'd be knocking down the old stands, so the idea of 'rebuild' or 'new' is pretty much moot as it'd be new regardless. They aren't gonna do what the likes of Moscow did with Luzhniki and keep the exterior and rebuild inside so with that in mind.

Why not move it slightly further North and West? Away from the train line? You could then end up with an iconic stadium that isn't bound by being stuck next to somewhere unworkable.

The things that make any stadium iconic are the things that happen in them and the memories they create, not the building itself, especially when the building has changed beyond recognition multiple times.

Agreed. I could understand people being concerned if OT was being rebuilt somewhere else. As long as it's in the general vicinity of the existing stadium then I fail to see what the issue is.

 

[The Hilton]

This poll isn't really fit for purpose, because there are too many variables that change the answer.

I think every fan's ideal option would be to renovate Old Trafford to fix all of the glaring issues, expand the South stand to mirror the North stand in capacity, and retrofit all the great facilities that modern stadiums have, such as the new Spurs stadium. The problem is, that would cost boatloads more than building a new stadium.

The question needs to be about what can be done based on the budget. If we could expand the South stand and fix the structural issues and leaks, then I'd vote to keep OT given the history, but if the choice is between fixing the OT roof or a new stadium, then new stadium wins.

 

[stevoc]

Isn't the big issue with a major rebuild that we'd have nowhere to play in the interim?

Madrid got lucky in a bizarre way as they could play in their smaller academy stadium during covid and were essentially not losing out during that time. They then only had 18 months or so playing with a reduced capacity.

Barca are able to play in the Olympic stadium.

London clubs (Spurs) have Wembley.

We could play at the Toughsheet.

 

[stevoc]

It's difficult to decide.

On the one hand, the soul and history of the club is entwined with the stadium. I like the idea that it's the pitch that George Best and Charlton and Cantona played on.

Also that Sir Matt and Sir Alex sat in the same dugout. I know the dugouts have changed but you get the idea.

I like the idea of grandfathers/grandmothers going with their grandchildren and saying I saw Best/Charlton/Cantona/Giggs/Rooney/Ronaldo score here.

The soul of a club is it's history and it's fans and the memories.

But at the same time, if you're planning for the next 100 years, we're better off building a brand new stadium right next door.
Aim for the best stadium in the world. 80,000 or 90,000 capacity. Best of everything.

A "red wall" bigger than Dortmund's "yellow wall". Huge standing section with cheaper tickets for young people/students etc..

Maybe downsize Old Trafford to 20,000 and have ladies and youth team play there. Keep the museum there and South Stand since that's the oldest part.
That way you keep the history at least.

I think it's a moot point anyway as I don't think the money's there.

An option but you have to remember United just don't have the owners or the money to build the best stadium in the world. And even if you did 15-20 years down the line it will become dated anyway and need redeveloped. With where the club is right now with the Glazer cnuts still in charge I just don't see a new stadium happening.

 

[#07]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Some valid points, but this is overblown clickbait shite driven by a spate of chanting from away fans and those still raging that they're not getting their blood money palace.

 

[buchansleftleg]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Prediction - Within the week the Glazers / Sir Jim will get some poor sod to go up there with 5 litres of Hammerite white paint and cover up the rusty bits you can see from that angle.

 

[Norris Cole]

I voted refurbish.

Where would the new stadium likely be if we did build new?

 

[#07]

I voted refurbish.

Where would the new stadium likely be if we did build new?

Where the Old Trafford car park is now.

 

[Longshanks]

Where the Old Trafford car park is now.

The problem with that is the area isn't big enough you would likely have to demolish half of the current stadium to do the work, meaning at the very least you would be looking at 1-2 season where your unable to play at old Trafford. So where do we play our home games in the mean time?

 

[Norris Cole]

The problem with that is the area isn't big enough you would likely have to demolish half of the current stadium to do the work, meaning at the very least you would be looking at 1-2 season where your unable to play at old Trafford. So where do we play our home games in the mean time?

Its not like we have the Spurs option of somewhere like Wembley.

The only feasible choice would be the Eithad surely?

 

[decorativeed]

I was last at Old Trafford in February (for the Leicester City match) and didn't see anything truly out of order. I don't deny there are structural issues, but from a fan experience perspective I loved it. It's not in the same league as the new Spurs stadium, but the historic quality of OT is vastly more impressive than the bling of Spurs new stadium. There's no wrong answer, but the right answer comes down to how best to improve the fan experience. I'd really like the property around the stadium modernized while still retaining the historic character of the stadium itself.

You're using the word 'historic' referring to a stadium that over 80% of is no more than 30 years old.

 

[decorativeed]

Some valid points, but this is overblown clickbait shite driven by a spate of chanting from away fans and those still raging that they're not getting their blood money palace.

True enough. Imagine a large business needing to put its bins outside for collection within view of the business itself... Shocking stuff!

 

[norm87cro]

41% want Old Trafford gone but still ETH has 70% of the CAFs support. A bad state indeed.

Obviously I voted counter to this two but if we are to get rid of Old Trafford we need to have a 100 k to 120 k stadium with all the modern requierments that the Spurs ground looks like a provicional 2 k stadium.

Otherwise we should stick to Old Trafford. And building it up to 90 000 seems cheaper and we still get to keep our stadium.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Prediction - Within the week the Glazers / Sir Jim will get some poor sod to go up there with 5 litres of Hammerite white paint and cover up the rusty bits you can see from that angle.

I'm pretty sure they were repainted a couple of years ago, but I might be wrong. I do remember them being in a state for a while.

 

[#07]

The problem with that is the area isn't big enough you would likely have to demolish half of the current stadium to do the work, meaning at the very least you would be looking at 1-2 season where your unable to play at old Trafford. So where do we play our home games in the mean time?

It'd take some creativity but, if you bulldoze Ticketing and Membership, between the canal and United Road it's feasible.

If you can build over United road, which I think is an option, there's even more space to use.

 

[stevoc]

Its not like we have the Spurs option of somewhere like Wembley.

The only feasible choice would be the Eithad surely?

I wonder how feasible it would be to build a temporary stadium on the land next to OT. Because I imagine the Emptyhad won't be an option.

 

[Longshanks]

It'd take some creativity but, if you bulldoze Ticketing and Membership, between the canal and United Road it's feasible.

If you can build over United road, which I think is an option, there's even more space to use.

Its not feasible, not even remotely. There isn't physically enough room, there is at best about 130m between the back of the Stretford end and the boundary of the freight terminal. Nowhere near enough space to build a huge new football stadium and still be able to use the existing old trafford as a major sporting venue.

If it was to be a brand new stadium realistically it would have to built on a whole new site.

 

[#07]

Its not feasible, not even remotely. There isn't physically enough room, there is at best about 130m between the back of the Stretford end and the boundary of the freight terminal. Nowhere near enough space to build a huge new football stadium and still be able to use the existing old trafford as a major sporting venue.

If it was to be a brand new stadium realistically it would have to built on a whole new site.

Isn't it the case that the club owns the freight terminal, and could conceivably use some of that land?

 

[lex talionis]

You're using the word 'historic' referring to a stadium that over 80% of is no more than 30 years old.

Quite a bit of history was made during the last years, arguably the club’s greatest history.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

If we lose the stadium for a time, we'd play at the etihad, just as we played at Maine road in the past.

In the council's interest to make sure the matchday activity and revenue that goes with it stays in Manchester.

 

[Longshanks]

Isn't it the case that the club owns the freight terminal, and could conceivably use some of that land?

To use that land you would probably have to re-locate the freight terminal. Although the land is owned by the club that doesn't seem particularly viable.

 

[decorativeed]

Quite a bit of history was made during the last years, arguably the club’s greatest history.

True, which makes it the site of historic events, but not neccessarily a building of historic interest. It's a essentially a bunch of different buildings that has been in constant flux since the 1940s with hardly an original brick to be found.

 

[decorativeed]

If we lose the stadium for a time, we'd play at the etihad, just as we played at Maine road in the past.

In the council's interest to make sure the matchday activity and revenue that goes with it stays in Manchester.

Except we'd be dealing with two different councils. Trafford would want the revenue to stay where it is.

 

[#07]

To use that land you would probably have to re-locate the freight terminal. Although the land is owned by the club that doesn't seem particularly viable.

Admittedly, I am not an engineer but I don't think you would need the whole area of the terminal. Between W3 and W2, some of the freight terminal and the United road area, you probably have to mainly destroy buildings in the terminal rather than the lines. You could even switch some warehousing to W3 if there's space.

If you build horizontal to the canal, and use the most modern techniques, you should be able to build a new stadium. Admittedly it won't look anything like Old Trafford does now, probably have to go for the generic domed egg to maximise the space.

Even if the Stretford End needed to be demolished, it's not unprecedented. As you know, it was unavailable during the early 90s during the last major development. The other three stands could continue to be used until the new stadium is complete.

I think the only alternative would be to find a solution that effectively involves 'lifting' Old Trafford and moving it away from the railway line. I think any idea of building over the railway line is far fetched.