Old Trafford Revamp

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,596
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
I’ve said with the amount of land the Glazers have acquired surrounding Old Trafford we should look to build a new stadium on the same site, just further away from the train lines to it can be level all the way round. Unfortunately we would need new owners of Bin Salman resources standard to make it happen.
Yeah why renovate and modernize an iconic, historical stadium and the home of Manchester United for more than a century. When we can spend 5 times as much on a brand new stadium with zero history to serve the exact same purpose right beside the one we already have.
 

ZIDANE

Full Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
6,931
Location
Manchester
Supports
The Philosophy.
Glazers will wait until it’s cheap enough to 3D print parts of a new stadium.
 

DoomSlayer

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
4,476
Location
Bulgaria
Have they even thought of fixing the more glaring problems of the stadium during the pandemic? It would have been the perfect time as there were no fans allowed for more than 1 year.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,596
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
The Denver Broncos needed a new stadium so they built it in the car park, then knocked down the old one and that became the new car park.



I’m not necessarily advocating this option, just saying it’s plausible.
No doubt that wasn't funded by the Broncos themselves, probably paid for by the Denver City council I assume?
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,120
Location
Tameside
Not having to rest your knees on the shoulders of the person in front would be a nice start.
Yeah, places like the Emirates and New Wembley may be 'soulless' (whatever that means) but at least you can move in your seat. The amount of times I've been wedged in place for 90 mins because the guy next to me is over 5'8" is roughly equivalent to the number of times I've watched a match at OT. We cram far more people per metre squared in than they do elsewhere.
 

decorativeed

Full Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
10,120
Location
Tameside
This is part of what's crazy to me. The Glazers were property developers, or at least Malcolm was. Why would they buy up so much property surrounding OT and then do nothing with it? With development and construction booming in Manchester, surely they could have turned it into something to generate revenue for the club (more likely for themselves). Lease the land to developers or develop it themselves.
They leased the land to the businesses that were already on that land, so that makes a lot of sense. It was good safeguarding. Sadly they looked at the slip of land right opposite the stadium next to the canal and clearly thought nobody could do anything with it.
 

Rado_N

Yaaas Broncos!
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
101,565
Location
Manchester
No doubt that wasn't funded by the Broncos themselves, probably paid for by the Denver City council I assume?
Yes I believe the team paid something like 25% and the rest came from the taxpayer, after the taxpayers voted for it.

Stadium funding in the NFL is a joke.

All I was saying is it’s workable from a construction standpoint.
 

Rado_N

Yaaas Broncos!
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
101,565
Location
Manchester
Yeah, places like the Emirates and New Wembley may be 'soulless' (whatever that means) but at least you can move in your seat. The amount of times I've been wedged in place for 90 mins because the guy next to me is over 5'8" is roughly equivalent to the number of times I've watched a match at OT. We cram far more people per metre squared in than they do elsewhere.
Yep, every game I go to I leave with neck and shoulder ache from having to sit at an angle and look sideways at the pitch.
 

Jacko21

Full Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
3,935
Location
Manchester
Re the South Stand, the cost's are just unrealistic for the club to redevelop unfortunately.

Its the fault of the person who decided to build it right next to the railway line at the time unfortunately.
I suppose that’s where you need an owner who has ambition and a vision for the club beyond the bottom line. But equally, I guess even an owner of that kind might conclude that a larger capacity and improved facilities would be best achieved through the construction of a entirely new stadium.

I know feasibility studies have been conducted several times over the last decade to see if improved engineering solutions could mean the cost and logistics of the work are less prohibitive.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,596
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Yes I believe the team paid something like 25% and the rest came from the taxpayer, after the taxpayers voted for it.

Stadium funding in the NFL is a joke.

All I was saying is it’s workable from a construction standpoint.
It's definitely feasible from a construction standpoint mate, but it would only happen under the Glazers if like in the NFL someone else is paying for most or all of it.

I happen to think that's a big part of why they haven't developed OT at all. Putting their own money into the stadium probably seems alien to them, didn't they threaten to move Tampa to get a new stadium built for them or did I imagine that one?
 

wolvored

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
6,519
When you are at ground level its not so bad its when you look at aerial photos it looks dated and the BC stand makes it look odd.
 

United442b

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
40
Yeah, places like the Emirates and New Wembley may be 'soulless' (whatever that means) but at least you can move in your seat. The amount of times I've been wedged in place for 90 mins because the guy next to me is over 5'8" is roughly equivalent to the number of times I've watched a match at OT. We cram far more people per metre squared in than they do elsewhere.
I've resorted to wearing knee pads at OT - I'm not joking.
 

Tomuś

Nani is crap, I tell you!
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
5,351
Location
Świdnik
Never got this impression whenever I've been. Not really sure, what anyone wants in the upgrades too?

Heated seats?
Cupholders on every seat?
Leg rests?

What features do you have in these new stadiums?
Heard some of them get gloryholes in the loos
 

Redplane

( . Y . ) planned for Christmas
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
7,474
Location
The Royal Kingdom of Trumpistan
I said this already in another thread last year: from a technical perspective, building over train tracks is no issue. My company built a 8-storey high production building directly over the subway. Lowest basement is around 2 meter above the multitrack-tube. So it is possible, but the money would be a factor. As the new production building is generating a huge amount of income and on the other side OT would just add a few more seats
Of course we could just take the Russian approach and build glorified bleachers over the tracks like these :



Surely that can't be too expensive?
 

Gazza

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
30,648
Location
The District
I'd be interested if anyone could ballpark estimate what kind of hit on capacity we would have to take to make the seating more comfortable. We've already the biggest club stadium in England by about 16,000.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,596
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
I'd be interested if anyone could ballpark estimate what kind of hit on capacity we would have to take to make the seating more comfortable. We've already the biggest club stadium in England by about 16,000.
Someone said on the last page and they're probably right. About 60k-65k max with more spacious seating.
 

Buchan

has whacked the hammer to Roswell
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
16,243
Location
The Republik of Mancunia | W3102
I'd be interested if anyone could ballpark estimate what kind of hit on capacity we would have to take to make the seating more comfortable. We've already the biggest club stadium in England by about 16,000.
Someone said on the last page and they're probably right. About 60k-65k max with more spacious seating.
And offset any decrease in stadium seating capacity with safe-standing implemented across the whole Stretford End.

Win-win for everyone.
 

Spoony

The People's President
Joined
Oct 27, 2001
Messages
55,364
Location
Get to the chopppaaaa.
They'd need bigger seats and wider treads...I'm not sure that'd be cheap to do...plus there'd be a huge drop on capacity. So they'd have to extend and all. Any refurb is probably going to cost over £700m... It's just not happening.
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,316
There are a whole host of (basic) issues at OT that require looking at;

Inside the Ground;
Better 'sight lines' in some stands;
Better seat size and spacing (all over);
New safe standing-only facilities; (probably Stretford end)
Better PA system;
Large Screens;
Better space for consuming food & drink
Better toilet facilities and access/egress;

Outside the ground
Better/safer access and egress to car parks ('pinch points' current North =Canal; South =Railway)
Require separation of vehicle and pedestrian walkways (car parks/bridge over canal)

One issue that has been improved is disability access/lifts to higher tiers (tick for that)

To address all these issues is a new stadium required?
 

bazza3727

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
26
I suppose that’s where you need an owner who has ambition and a vision for the club beyond the bottom line. But equally, I guess even an owner of that kind might conclude that a larger capacity and improved facilities would be best achieved through the construction of a entirely new stadium.

I know feasibility studies have been conducted several times over the last decade to see if improved engineering solutions could mean the cost and logistics of the work are less prohibitive.
One of the main issues, according to Trafford council and GMP, has been that any increased capacity would lead to further traffic and parking problems, which are already pretty difficult on matchdays. So it seems, regardless of other issues or the Glazers, that any further development would be opposed by the powers that be.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,596
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
There are a whole host of (basic) issues at OT that require looking at;

Inside the Ground;
Better 'sight lines' in some stands;
Better seat size and spacing (all over);
New safe standing-only facilities; (probably Stretford end)
Better PA system;
Large Screens;
Better space for consuming food & drink

Better toilet facilities and access/egress;

Outside the ground
Better/safer access and egress to car parks ('pinch points' current North =Canal; South =Railway)
Require separation of vehicle and pedestrian walkways (car parks/bridge over canal)

One issue that has been improved is disability access/lifts to higher tiers (tick for that)

To address all these issues is a new stadium required?
Does OT really need large screens? Wouldn't they just take up seating area or block views if suspended?

And what do you mean better space for eating? Seating areas in the concourse?

I think the priorities have to be the current roof if that was removed (its leaking and falling apart anyway) and a new roof was built pointing upwards instead of down to give better views around the stadium and maybe a new facade on the outside of the ground. Plus seating, access improved as you've pointed out that would be a start. Increased capacity isn't happening any time soon I don't think not under the Glazers anyway.
 

pascell

Full Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
9,012
Location
Sir Alex Ferguson Stand
Does OT really need large screens? Wouldn't they just take up seating area or block views if suspended?

And what do you mean better space for eating? Seating areas in the concourse?

I think the priorities have to be the current roof if that was removed (its leaking and falling apart anyway) and a new roof was built pointing upwards instead of down to give better views around the stadium and maybe a new facade on the outside of the ground. Plus seating, access improved as you've pointed out that would be a start. Increased capacity isn't happening any time soon I don't think not under the Glazers anyway.
OT definitely doesn't need big screens and yes it would obstruct views. The problem with big screens is that you lose some fan engagement of the game as they're too busy watching the screen.

The only problems I see with OT are and I agree with the poster you quoted, sight lines in some aspects of the stands, the concourses are too packed as the queues are so big (there's nothing we can do about the concourse sizes as that's how they've been built), the roof leaking is obviously a pressing concern and the toilets.
 

Buster15

Go on Didier
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
6,420
Location
Bristol
Supports
Bristol Rovers
Manchester United Football Club is much more than just the playing side. It is an identity. An icon of football world wide.
It is THE theatre of dreams.
And as such, it simply has to strive to be the best at everything.
The stadium is also iconic and must not be left to decay.
 

Jacko21

Full Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
3,935
Location
Manchester
One of the main issues, according to Trafford council and GMP, has been that any increased capacity would lead to further traffic and parking problems, which are already pretty difficult on matchdays. So it seems, regardless of other issues or the Glazers, that any further development would be opposed by the powers that be.
Yeah, guess that's why it would need to be done as part of a wider regeneration of the surrounding area - to see if there's scope to improve the logistics. Like you say, getting to and from the stadium is already a frustrating matchday experience.
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
2,316
Does OT really need large screens? Wouldn't they just take up seating area or block views if suspended?

And what do you mean better space for eating? Seating areas in the concourse?

I think the priorities have to be the current roof if that was removed (its leaking and falling apart anyway) and a new roof was built pointing upwards instead of down to give better views around the stadium and maybe a new facade on the outside of the ground. Plus seating, access improved as you've pointed out that would be a start. Increased capacity isn't happening any time soon I don't think not under the Glazers anyway.
Large screens? Well most new grounds seem to have them, if only to stare at whilst VAR reaches a conclusion, and they would need to be part of a roof replacement project in any case, or as you say they would obstruct the views.

The 'eating' thing is just a suggestion, I agree the current concourse is unsuitable, IMO for serving food never mind consuming it, but struggling back to your seat (too small anyway) with pies, coffee, etc. is difficult especially when (as in my case).... I have to bring the wife's as well as my own!!

Agree with your roof suggestion for the reasons you've given.

Also agree that increased capacity is as far off now as it ever was, not just because of the Glazer factor, but because of other issues, access and egress in particular and possibly even left over Covid rules.
 

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
9,949
Location
left wing
Someone said on the last page and they're probably right. About 60k-65k max with more spacious seating.
Probably about right - it would definitely be a significant reduction.

Purely anecdotally, I went to a Bayern game a few years ago and the Allianz feels like a far bigger and more imposing stadium than OT, despite capacity being about the same - we've just crammed the seats into a smaller area.
 

stw2022

Full Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
311
I appreciate the spectacle of our ground in comparison to identikit modern stadia but an upgrade is needed and it will be expensive. I think expanding the south stand and incorporating the rail line inside the stand as an indoor station is the expensive but viable solution and also maybe decreasing number of seats inside the existing part of stadium to allow greater comfort and room.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
12,596
Location
And Solskjær has won it!
Large screens? Well most new grounds seem to have them, if only to stare at whilst VAR reaches a conclusion, and they would need to be part of a roof replacement project in any case, or as you say they would obstruct the views.

The 'eating' thing is just a suggestion, I agree the current concourse is unsuitable, IMO for serving food never mind consuming it, but struggling back to your seat (too small anyway) with pies, coffee, etc. is difficult especially when (as in my case).... I have to bring the wife's as well as my own!!

Agree with your roof suggestion for the reasons you've given.

Also agree that increased capacity is as far off now as it ever was, not just because of the Glazer factor, but because of other issues, access and egress in particular and possibly even left over Covid rules.
Yeah that's the only way I see screens working at OT.

Yeah they'd have to put some major investment into the infrastructure around OT before thinking about increasing OT. I have no doubt we'd fill it but it was hard enough getting out of the stadium back when I went regularly. No idea what it would be like with another 10-15k supporters. You'd have people leaving with 20 minutes left to beat the traffic :lol:
 

Glazers Out!

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 4, 2021
Messages
24
Coming from an American Closed Franchise system I can tell you exactly what the Glazer's want.
1. They are hoping to get into a closed Super League or get immunity from relegation.
2. They will then force the city and citizens to pay or give tax breaks for a new stadium or massive upgrades or threaten to move the team to another city (in England or Europe)

This happens all the time in America as their is no way to get promoted to the top league. Franchises become commodities that newer cities try to lure to their town with new stadium packages.

Baltimore Colts > Indianapolis Colts (NFL)
Cleveland Browns > Baltimore Ravens (NFL)
Montreal Expos > Washington Nationals (MLB baseball)
Oakland Raiders > Los Angeles Raiders > Oakland Raiders > Las Vegas Raiders (NFL)
Vancouver Grizzlies > Memphis Grizzlies (NBA basketball)
Minnesota North Stars > Dallas Stars (NHL hockey)

These creatures (Glazer's, Kroenke's) feel entitled that it is there right that they do not have to pay for anything and that the cities and fans fund their stadiums or give then huge tax breaks on the surrounding land development. Even if they have 10 years of losing seasons, they still make tons of money and because they can't get relegated, they can hold cities and teams hostage by threatening to move if they don't get a new stadium.

Stan Kroenke moved his St. Louis Rams out of his own home state to Los Angeles because he felt he could make more money and Los Angeles was going to provide his development company with huge taxbreaks.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,300
If you go to other stadiums semi-regularly it becomes fairly apparent how dated OT is. I hang around with a group of mixed football fans and on a basic level they don't like going to Old Trafford because it's uncomfortable and the facilities are generally worse. Which sucks for me because I end up going to away games more but you can't really argue with their logic.

The reality is that a lot of the people who attend games aren't hardcore football/United fans who only care about things that directly impact their view of the game and are happy to dismiss other aspects as "luxuries". There are also families, kids, casual football fans and people working at OT to consider too. And the "luxuries" of modern stadiums matter to them, on top of the more pressing issues like the roof or whatever. We're supposed to be the best club in England, so why shouldn't we offer the best experience to people turning up to watch us play, for whatever reason?

Case in point: one thing I have heard journalists complaining about for years is the WIFI at OT. Now while that doesn't impact on someone who just wants to watch the football, it does impact on the media working from OT every week. And given how basic a requirement wifi is for them, it's pretty ridiculous that a club of our wealth wasn't able to provide it to a decent standard. Specifically I remember Daniel Taylor pointing out that you could get better signal in the Masai Mara than in OT, which is just stupid.

You could also point to something like the long-standing (though hopefully now addressed) issues Old Trafford had with rodents as evidence of the club's lack of care for the stadium. It's not good that we reached the point where the council were publicly criticising us for not dealing with it appropriately in 2015.

I also can't imagine how difficult it would be for anyone with mobility issues to navigate OT either. Which, again, should be a pretty basic requirement in a modern stadium.

When you look at our peers in Europe, Bayern, Juve, Atletico, Arsenal and City have all moved into new stadiums during the Glazers' time here. The San Siro is currently due for a rebuild. Real Madrid and Barcelona are doing major rennovations on their stadiums. I think Dortmund did some renovation during that period too? Meanwhile Old Trafford has just been left looking shabbier with every passing year. It all speaks to the general lack of care from the owners for the club.

We talk about Old Trafford having prestige, history and soul but that doesn't ameliorate a lack of care and modernisation. In fact it's a reason for there to be all the more care and modernisation. It's something that needs to be maintained through renovation, not left to decline in the past.
 

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
4,254
Location
Normally dark rooms
Have they even thought of fixing the more glaring problems of the stadium during the pandemic? It would have been the perfect time as there were no fans allowed for more than 1 year.
I guess the problems with this are 2 fold.
  1. obviously now we know it will have been a year well over a year between when fans are allowed in the stadiums. We did not know that at the beginning of the pandemic. Also doing massive renovation works during the pandemic has been problematic, to say the least.
  2. The club is utterly hemorrhaging money, probably by the end of the pandemic it is going to have lost 200million in revenue, trying to drum up the funds for a major renovation is very pie in the sky.
 

DoomSlayer

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
Messages
4,476
Location
Bulgaria
I guess the problems with this are 2 fold.
  1. obviously now we know it will have been a year well over a year between when fans are allowed in the stadiums. We did not know that at the beginning of the pandemic. Also doing massive renovation works during the pandemic has been problematic, to say the least.
  2. The club is utterly hemorrhaging money, probably by the end of the pandemic it is going to have lost 200million in revenue, trying to drum up the funds for a major renovation is very pie in the sky.
Not major renovations, just fix the most glaring issues.
 

Nytram Shakes

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
4,254
Location
Normally dark rooms
Not major renovations, just fix the most glaring issues.
A lot of them would require major work. From roof issues to access issues to a massive refit and refurbishment of internal areas.

Also, I'm not even sure if they could do it during the pandemic due to the covid secure protocols stadiums have been under.
 

Utd7

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
2,265
Location
NYC
More concerned about renovating Carrington than OT. Players spend a majority of their time at a training ground. You want it to be like a 5 star hotel but with football pitches. It’s a strong recruiting tool. Look at Carrington compared to Madrid’s, City or even Leicester’s new ground.