Old Trafford revamp/could be torn down and rebuilt according to Glazer plans

What’s your preference for Old Trafford?

  • Rebuild

    Votes: 714 48.4%
  • Renovate

    Votes: 736 49.9%
  • Leave it as is

    Votes: 26 1.8%

  • Total voters
    1,476

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,486
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
Knock it down, build something new.

It's over 100 years old.

Time for change, time for a rebirth, a new stadium doesn't mean VAR rules out tiur history and legacy.

Once we start winning and building new memories in New Trafford, die hard NYMBY traditionalists will come around eventually.
All new stadiums feel empty and aren’t built for atmosphere, they’re built for seats and view. It takes years for a stadium to feel like ‘home’ again, and more importantly it takes big moments in big games to birth a stadiums legacy. Until then everything feels ‘plastic’.

I’d rather have all those things instead of a cheese room and more cooperate seating.
 

Gazza

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
32,644
Location
'tis a silly place
It seems a bit fanciful that an owner is going to cruise in, spend 6-8billion just to buy the club, then pump another 1billion in to build a new ground on the same site and downgrade the current one to some sort of B stadium for kids and women's teams.

Seems much more likely that they'll slowly improve the facilities of the ground we do have now.

Time waits for no man though and what was state of the art once won't be forever. The huge stands blocking half of the stands in many positions in the ground, and limited leg room aren't great are they?
I get the arguments in favor of a new stadium. What can I say, Old Trafford is special to me and a new stadium wouldn't be. I totally get it, leg room and unobstructed views are important, but building a new stadium would just dilute my connection with the club. I have been to Wembley and Emirates and they were somewhat soulless experiences.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
52,710
I get the arguments in favor of a new stadium. What can I say, Old Trafford is special to me and a new stadium wouldn't be. I totally get it, leg room and unobstructed views are important, but building a new stadium would just dilute my connection with the club. I have been to Wembley and Emirates and they were somewhat soulless experiences.
I suppose if you have to build a new stadium, the best way of doing it is at the same site.
So the surroundings and travel etc are familiar.
Plus they can keep a certain amount of the current ground for nostalgia.

Though I'm not sure how feasible it would be keeping 2 massive stadiums next to each other.
People talk about heavily reducing the original stadium, but then you've got the worst of all worlds - pay huge fee for the new stadium, and a huge bill to deconstruct the current one.

Let's see who the new owners are first!
When it's another lot like the Glazers It'll probably all be a moot point!
 

Bert_

Full Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2022
Messages
1,498
Location
Manchester
Along those lines, something like the Lucas Oil Stadium could be great.

I'm torn between renovate/rebuild but I'd switch to rebuild in an instant if we ended up with something like that!

The red brick and the factory look fits in brilliantly with the area too.
 

ZIDANE

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
7,537
Location
Manchester
Supports
The Philosophy.
It’s whether we can afford to go without the match day revenue from OT that will decide the approach of rebuild vs renovate. Under Glazer we couldn’t. It will need super wealthy owners or a very favourable agreement with City, council, police and the PL/CL fixture list. It would be the best approach construction wise to build to modern standards including green energy solutions.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
7,657
Just bumping this up, as I'm conscious that the SJR thread has been overtaken by stadium talk.

However, a part of any new owner taking over United has to be the redevelopment of the stadium, and all else it could offer. For me I like the idea of the "Manchester United Village" that Gary Neville spoke about. We should try and get the similar fan experience that the NFL offers their fans, such as at SoFi stadium or the AT&T Stadium of the Dallas Cowboys.
 

Dan

Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
14,329
Along those lines, something like the Lucas Oil Stadium could be great.

Wonder how the imprint of that stadium compares with Old Trafford?
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
Where’s the “Tear it down and move the team to London” option? Someone oughta bite
 

tentan

Poor man's poster.
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
4,503
All new stadiums feel empty and aren’t built for atmosphere, they’re built for seats and view. It takes years for a stadium to feel like ‘home’ again, and more importantly it takes big moments in big games to birth a stadiums legacy. Until then everything feels ‘plastic’.

I’d rather have all those things instead of a cheese room and more cooperate seating.
I hate it when people say things like that. I mean in what way? It be the same fans attending games right? And to be honest old trafford has been pretty lifeless the past 10 years.
 

JB7

Full Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
8,826
I hate it when people say things like that. I mean in what way? It be the same fans attending games right? And to be honest old trafford has been pretty lifeless the past 10 years.
They tend to be much more spacious than older grounds, in many cases less steep and also the roofs tend to be unnecessarily high, particularly the stadiums with curved roofs, all of which means supporters are less crammed together, there is more empty space between the fans and the roofs and therefore a lot of supporter noise is lost. The most extreme example of that was probably Arsenal going from Highbury to the Emirates. Although in fairness I think obviously the past few years clubs have become more aware of the impact of losing the atmosphere and are doing more to combat it - for example the large single tiered end at the new Spurs ground. Additionally, the roof on Old Trafford currently wasn't build with atmosphere in mind, for example the roof above the Stretford End (and the East Stand too I guess but that's generally much quieter) is set up in such a way that a lot of the noise, particularly from Tier 2, never makes it to the pitch - which is why TRA campaigned for the club to give them the corner around the tunnel, so that they could make use of the South Stand low roof. Which leads me onto my next issue with your post; Old Trafford has probably been better on average over the past 3/4 years than the previous 10 combined. It did go through a stage of being pretty lifeless, particularly for the 75% of games that weren't considered "big", I'll agree, but TRA are doing good work with regards to the atmosphere IMO.
 

maverickjesus

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
117
All new stadiums feel empty and aren’t built for atmosphere, they’re built for seats and view. It takes years for a stadium to feel like ‘home’ again, and more importantly it takes big moments in big games to birth a stadiums legacy. Until then everything feels ‘plastic’.

I’d rather have all those things instead of a cheese room and more cooperate seating.
By your own definition all of those things that make a stadium feel like home will come with time, so your entire argument seems to be driven by resistance to change at the expense of having a modern fit for purpose ground thats not falling to bits. Madness.
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
63,107
Location
eerF Palestine.
Love the term 'soulless' when describing new stadia. Suppose OT was a soulless bowl when constructed a over century ago or looked like a modern day identikit ground circa 94.
 

MadMike

Full Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Messages
11,607
Location
London
It’s been mentioned previously and so has playing at the Reebok :lol:
I mean, I’m just saying what everyone is thinking right? We all love Manchester United but does any one of us even like Manchester? No, of course not. Come on you feckers, bite
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,228
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
The atmos in some of the world cup games has been great. Surely these days they can build stadiums with comfortable seating that is also able to maximise acoustics and retain the crowd noise.
 

Revaulx

Full Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
6,031
Location
Saddleworth
The atmos in some of the world cup games has been great. Surely these days they can build stadiums with comfortable seating that is also able to maximise acoustics and retain the crowd noise.
Of course they can. Just because Emirates and Wembley are awful doesn’t mean that lessons haven’t been learned from them.

It’s fashionable to diss the new White Hart Lane on here as a result of it having been ridiculously bigged up by Spurs fans, but away fans I’ve spoken to reckon the atmosphere is far better than the Emirates, despite the lugubrious football played by the home side.
 

sifi36

Full Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Messages
223
I’m strongly in favour of knocking it down and starting again. In terms of the arguments against:

-Soulless. Not everything has to be a glass and metal bowl. Build it from Manchester red brick and make the acoustics a key part of the design and it’ll develop its own soul with time and new memories. It’s not like the current ground has the best acoustics for atmosphere anyway.

-We don’t need a cheese room. Notwithstanding the fact that it takes forever to get served anything due to the tiny concourses and thus catering facilities, not everyone is happy with a pie and a pint. Manchester is now over a third Black, Asian or mixed, never mind the fact that we get visitors from all over the world. The food and drink served at the stadium should reflect the people of the city as it is now, not what it was like in the 1950s. If you are vegetarian or halal or don’t drink alcohol you’re woefully underserved by the current catering. Is anything kosher even available for our Jewish supporters?

-History. Every single stand has been torn down and rebuilt on multiple occasions. The pitch has been relaid numerous times and, more recently, been built up to improve drainage. How much of the original stadium is even left? Or even the stadium from before the development to an all-seater?

-Relocation during the build. This is a problem without an easy solution. Maybe build the youth and women’s stadium in the car parks first and then play there whilst Old Trafford is rebuilt?

In terms of arguments for:

-The proximity of the railway line means that any development will almost certainly need to move the pitch to enable a decent sized South Stand. At that point you might as well knock the whole thing down. Moving the railway line will probably cost more than a new stadium. This will also limit any meaningful increase in capacity.

-Knocking down individual stands and rebuilding is unlikely to resolve the legroom problem.

-Going stand by stand will take way longer due to the considerations for ensuring matches can still take place safely and not impinge on the pitch. The cost of this will also be significant.

-Starting from scratch means being able to build something with all the latest technology and also plan for future developments (like VR experiences). A decent phone or data signal would be a good start!

-The drop off the side of the pitch due to the aforementioned building up of the pitch, is dangerous for players and doesn’t help the view of the bottom couple of rows.

-A show of ambition to both fans, sponsors and prospective players. Provided it doesn’t limit investment in players or training facilities, I think this speaks for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Invictus

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,486
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
By your own definition all of those things that make a stadium feel like home will come with time, so your entire argument seems to be driven by resistance to change at the expense of having a modern fit for purpose ground thats not falling to bits. Madness.
Falling to bits! :lol: :lol:

I never said those things wouldn’t come with time. We have a fit for purpose stadium, we play football there every 2nd week, sometimes twice a week, in fact I’d say it fulfils its purpose expertly. This drive to have ‘modern’ ground stems from having something new and shiny because someone else has one. It’s pointless right now when the squad and training grounds should be the priority.
 

sifi36

Full Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2020
Messages
223
Falling to bits! :lol: :lol:

I never said those things wouldn’t come with time. We have a fit for purpose stadium, we play football there every 2nd week, sometimes twice a week, in fact I’d say it fulfils its purpose expertly. This drive to have ‘modern’ ground stems from having something new and shiny because someone else has one. It’s pointless right now when the squad and training grounds should be the priority.
Saying the stadium is fit for purpose is true in the absolute sense that we can host games twice a week, but only by the bare minimum definition. That being said, the roof leaks, the seats are way too cramped, refreshments aren’t adequately available (if you need to queue through and after half time to get a pie and a pint then that’s not good enough), the toilets are minging, the acoustics are average and you can’t get a phone signal. I’d describe that as a public space that is woefully unfit for purpose.

By that logic, McFred are fit for purpose as our starting midfield because they can complete a 90 minute football match in those positions. The fact that they do so pretty terribly would be irrelevant by your logic.
 

Red in STL

Turnover not takeover
Joined
Dec 1, 2022
Messages
9,331
Location
In Bed
Supports
The only team that matters
Falling to bits! :lol: :lol:

I never said those things wouldn’t come with time. We have a fit for purpose stadium, we play football there every 2nd week, sometimes twice a week, in fact I’d say it fulfils its purpose expertly. This drive to have ‘modern’ ground stems from having something new and shiny because someone else has one. It’s pointless right now when the squad and training grounds should be the priority.
Saying the stadium is fit for purpose is true in the absolute sense that we can host games twice a week, but only by the bare minimum definition. That being said, the roof leaks, the seats are way too cramped, refreshments aren’t adequately available (if you need to queue through and after half time to get a pie and a pint then that’s not good enough), the toilets are minging, the acoustics are average and you can’t get a phone signal. I’d describe that as a public space that is woefully unfit for purpose.

By that logic, McFred are fit for purpose as our starting midfield because they can complete a 90 minute football match in those positions. The fact that they do so pretty terribly would be irrelevant by your logic.
Spot on
I think there's only 1 real option, build a new stadium in the car park across from the current one and then knock the existing one down, there shouldn't be any sentimentally, the current stadium has no resemblance to the one I went to in the 70's, 80's and beyond.

Whether you like it or not the match going audience of today doesn't want a cramped seat, pie and a pint, piss trickling down their leg or a drip on their head
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,105
Location
bin
I mean, I’m just saying what everyone is thinking right? We all love Manchester United but does any one of us even like Manchester? No, of course not. Come on you feckers, bite
Exactly. Liverpool is miles better. Why listen to the Happy Mondays when you can listen to The Beatles.
 

matherto

ask me about our 50% off sale!
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
17,511
Location
St. Helens


Wembley at it's widest and longest points. It's known for it's legroom and size of the footprint.

I think we've space for something similarly sized in the land we've got, I dunno if someone could place it accurately to see?
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
You know it’s 2022 when footy fans are complaining about leg room :lol:. It’s not test cricket ffs.

As for “falling to bits” :eek: :lol: :eek: :lol:
You're really not letting it drop are you? The stadium is in a real bad way and the facilities are light years behind some of the competition too.

What's so bad about getting a new stadium? I think it would be amazing to have a a bigger more modern stadium.
 

crossy1686

career ending
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
31,486
Location
Manchester/Stockholm
You know it’s 2022 when footy fans are complaining about leg room :lol:. It’s not test cricket ffs.

As for “falling to bits” :eek: :lol: :eek: :lol:
The people complaining about leg room don't go, it's obvious, some bloke the other day was complaining about the lack of 'shopping' opportunities at OT for his family and a 15 minute walk to Salford Qauys was too much. They also have no idea where this extra leg room is going to come from, to give everyone extra leg room you'll have to watch the match from space if you're anywhere past half way up the stand.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
22,545
Location
Somewhere out there
You're really not letting it drop are you? The stadium is in a real bad way and the facilities are light years behind some of the competition too.

What's so bad about getting a new stadium? I think it would be amazing to have a a bigger more modern stadium.
It’s not falling apart, not in the slightest.

And I spent a good few years crammed behind a barrier in the old stretty, my best footy at atmosphere experience in a long long time was in Dortmund’s yellow wall. Most of us freeze our balls off stood on a sideline watching our mates, our teams or our kids on a Saturday or Sunday.
I think desperately wanting “comfort” at a 90 football match in something to poke a little fun at.

And no-one is light years behind, because no-one is “light years ahead”, only that colts stadium looks of that standard to me. I’ve been in tonnes of grounds over Europe and yet to see one “light years ahead”.
 

phelans shorts

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
27,217
Location
Gaz. Is a Mewling Quim.
You know it’s 2022 when footy fans are complaining about leg room :lol:. It’s not test cricket ffs.

As for “falling to bits” :eek: :lol: :eek: :lol:
Yeah, I get the leg room complaints with first class cricket which lasts 7 hours or so but I do struggle to see the necessity for a game that lasts at the very most 2 hours. It’s no worse than getting on a plane for instance. I would prefer a little more room but it’s far from a deal breaker.

It needs a bit of tlc, not ripping down to add an outlet mall on top of the one 15 minute walk away, or the one 20 minutes away on the tram, or the town centre 25 minutes away on the tram in the opposite direction.

People seem to want some hideous LED covered bowl that’s identical to countless other soulless stadiums because “that’s what the future looks like”. As you say in the posts afterwards of those mentioned only that Indianapolis stadium looks anything like what would even be palatable.
 

MF1138

Full Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
285
Bunch of short-arses don't think leg room is an issue... They probably complain about people standing up though :lol:
 

Nou_Camp99

what would Souness do?
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
10,274
It’s not falling apart, not in the slightest.

And I spent a good few years crammed behind a barrier in the old stretty, my best footy at atmosphere experience in a long long time was in Dortmund’s yellow wall. Most of us freeze our balls off stood on a sideline watching our mates, our teams or our kids on a Saturday or Sunday.
I think desperately wanting “comfort” at a 90 football match in something to poke a little fun at.

And no-one is light years behind, because no-one is “light years ahead”, only that colts stadium looks of that standard to me. I’ve been in tonnes of grounds over Europe and yet to see one “light years ahead”.
The South Stand is an absolute shambles mate and can't really be redeveloped either due to the train line.

New stadium please. Spending hundreds of millions developing the existing one is just kicking the can down the road. I'd rather have a shiny new 85,000 - 90,000 seater which blows your socks off.
 

#07

makes new threads with tweets in the OP
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
23,258
The South Stand is an absolute shambles mate and can't really be redeveloped either due to the train line.

New stadium please. Spending hundreds of millions developing the existing one is just kicking the can down the road. I'd rather have a shiny new 85,000 - 90,000 seater which blows your socks off.
Agreed and the advantage of building a new stadium over the Old Trafford car park is we could continue to play at the current stadium while its built.
 

Sushi Kagawa

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 14, 2012
Messages
151
Leg room is something that needs to be fixed and the only way to do that is build a new stadium