http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/Manchester_City.svg/150px-Manchester_City.svg.png
Manchester City FC

2x Champion:
1937, 1968

5x Cup Winner:
1904, 1934, 1956, 1969, 2011

2x League Cup:
1970, 1976

3x Supercup:
1937, 1968, 1972

1x UEFA Cup Winners' Cup:
1970




My favorite in the UK
Ground Name: City Of Manchester Stadium
Capacity: 48,000 (all seated)
Year Ground Opened: 2002
Club: Manchester City FC

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/mancity30.jpg

http://www.groundhopping.de/mancingr1.jpg

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/eastlands1.jpg

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/mancity21.jpg

http://www.betterpublicbuildings.org.uk/assets/images/finalists_2003/manchester_stadium/manchester_stadium_large_1.gif

http://www.london2012.org/NR/rdonlyres/24245000-140E-41FD-9A8C-CD0A3201E1BE/0/northwest_sport.jpg

2 impressive pano's ------->>>>

http://www.uit.no/mancity/pictures/stadium-new5.jpg

http://www.filmo.co.uk/photos/full/mancity.jpg

those things holding the roof look HIDEOUS

but from the inside it looks good

also one of my favorites in the UK!

Sure, it looks sleek and modern. Steel and glass and all that. Sexy, curved roofline.

But I don't think it's a great design for a football stadium. I particular don't like either end. In English football (if not elsewhere), the ends are where the hard core fans generally congregate (and yes, I'm aware that the main area at City's old ground, Maine Road, was the Kippax, along one of the sides) and where the best atmosphere should be generated. But both ends of the COM stadium are too small. Furthermore, because of the design, the roof at either end and in the corners is too high, meaning that the atmosphere is dissipated.

I've always been disappointed by the atmosphere at the COM stadium whenever I've been there. Which is a shame, because City fans are among the better fans in the Premiership. It's not their fault. It's the fault of the design.

some similar designs:

Zentralstadion Leipzig, Germany (capacity 44.193)
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/deutschland/zentralstadion/a_ost_03.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/deutschland/zentralstadion/b_sued_03.jpg
http://www.wm-2006-leipzig.de/images/umbau/luftbild052004xl.jpg


Incheon Munhak Stadium, South Korea (capacity 52.179)
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/suedkorea/incheon_munhak_stadium/160.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/suedkorea/incheon_munhak_stadium/170.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/suedkorea/incheon_munhak_stadium/190.jpg

The new Porto stadium is also fairly similiar.
http://www.nrk.no/img/372543.jpeg

Sure, it looks sleek and modern. Steel and glass and all that. Sexy, curved roofline.

But I don't think it's a great design for a football stadium. I particular don't like either end. In English football (if not elsewhere), the ends are where the hard core fans generally congregate (and yes, I'm aware that the main area at City's old ground, Maine Road, was the Kippax, along one of the sides) and where the best atmosphere should be generated. But both ends of the COM stadium are too small. Furthermore, because of the design, the roof at either end and in the corners is too high, meaning that the atmosphere is dissipated.

I've always been disappointed by the atmosphere at the COM stadium whenever I've been there. Which is a shame, because City fans are among the better fans in the Premiership. It's not their fault. It's the fault of the design.

Totally agree - This stadium hardly has any confined atmosphere at all. The away arrangments are also stupid. Half the time if teams like Fulham or Blackburn play it looks as if the stadium is half empty.

Thats what I love about Wolves plans for the future of Molineux, keeping the South and North bank seperated, but just adding more tiers to them.

The new Porto stadium is also fairly similiar.
http://www.nrk.no/img/372543.jpeg


This one and Leipzeig's look better from the inside. The top tiers look better proportioned. But the Council House is much better from the outside than either of them.

the Council House

:lol:

Sure, it looks sleek and modern. Steel and glass and all that. Sexy, curved roofline.

But I don't think it's a great design for a football stadium. I particular don't like either end. In English football (if not elsewhere), the ends are where the hard core fans generally congregate (and yes, I'm aware that the main area at City's old ground, Maine Road, was the Kippax, along one of the sides) and where the best atmosphere should be generated. But both ends of the COM stadium are too small. Furthermore, because of the design, the roof at either end and in the corners is too high, meaning that the atmosphere is dissipated.

I've always been disappointed by the atmosphere at the COM stadium whenever I've been there. Which is a shame, because City fans are among the better fans in the Premiership. It's not their fault. It's the fault of the design.

Well, you have to remember that it wasn't designed/built as a football stadium, but rather an athletics stadium. IMO it is one of the better examples of a stadium conversion, and much better than the Stadio Delle Alpi is and will be. The struts holding up the roof at COMS are also far nicer than the Stadio Delle Alpi too.

Well, you have to remember that it wasn't designed/built as a football stadium, but rather an athletics stadium. IMO it is one of the better examples of a stadium conversion, and much better than the Stadio Delle Alpi is and will be. The struts holding up the roof at COMS are also far nicer than the Stadio Delle Alpi too.

Granted that it's one of the better conversions but that's faint praise. It's still a compromise and not a great design for football.

My club, Spurs, have a real problem about what to do next about a desperately needed major capacity increase. But I am grateful, at least, that the Pickett's Lock stadium in north London for the proposed London 2005 World athletics championship never materialized. Otherwise, the site was earmarked as the new home for Spurs, after a similar conversion to that carried out at the COM stadium. I would have hated that.

very nice one:)

I like stadiums like this

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/united_kingdom/england/north_west/manchester_city_stadium.jpg

http://img269.echo.cx/img269/764/womensfootball1za.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

i went to see some of the commonwealth games events, and the red hot chili peppers here. great atmosphere at bothevents, great stadium!

Totally agree - This stadium hardly has any confined atmosphere at all. The away arrangments are also stupid. Half the time if teams like Fulham or Blackburn play it looks as if the stadium is half empty.

Thats what I love about Wolves plans for the future of Molineux, keeping the South and North bank seperated, but just adding more tiers to them.

Molineux looks great already!

Aerials thanks to Eddyk
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/stadiums/manchester_football.htm

The 'b of the bang' sculpture now stands outside the stadium at 184ft.
A comparison with other sculptures around the world:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/richardjamesbrowning/BofTheBangcomparison.gif
a picture with the stadium in the background:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/richardjamesbrowning/BofTheBang.jpg

http://img243.echo.cx/img243/8170/coms2xk.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

that picture was taken during the commonwealth games, those stands without the roof were temporary and are now completed stands.

The reason the stands without roof is there is because after the commenwealth games the engineer actually will convert it to a fully football stadium.The ground is dig a 4m deep and the stands is actually is temporary and made by wood.

The home of Manchester City FC. City of Manchester stadium.

http://www.betterpublicbuildings.org.uk/assets/images/finalists_2003/manchester_stadium/manchester_stadium_large_1.gif

http://www.aidan.co.uk/md/ManCityStadIntE3X16.jpg

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Photo/competitions/WOCO/262308_MEDIUMLANDSCAPE.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/619.$plit/C_17_photogallery_246_list_photo_list_photo_item_3_photo.jpg

http://www.design-for-all.org/images/City_of_Manchester_Stadium_1.jpg

http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/sports/mcfc-int-v-portsmouth.jpg

http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/sports/mcfc-england-v-iceland.jpg The stadium has been used for England internationals some times whilst the New Wembley is being buillt.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/299.$plit/C_4_Image_1758_largeImage.jpg
The stadium was used for commonwealth games before beeing turned into the 48,00 seater stadium that it is today.

http://www.ma.man.ac.uk/~higham/photos/manchester/041220-1519-28_std.jpg

At the moment this is truly the best stadium in the country, it was designed by the london based group KSS Design who have designed the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge, Fratton Park and the planned redevelopment of White Hart Lane.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c6/Mcfc.png/150px-Mcfc.png
Manchester City FC

2x League:
1937, 1968

4x Cup:
1904, 1934, 1956, 1969

1x UEFA Cup Winners' Cup:
1970

The home of Manchester City FC. City of Manchester stadium.

http://www.betterpublicbuildings.org.uk/assets/images/finalists_2003/manchester_stadium/manchester_stadium_large_1.gif

http://www.aidan.co.uk/md/ManCityStadIntE3X16.jpg

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Photo/competitions/WOCO/262308_MEDIUMLANDSCAPE.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/619.$plit/C_17_photogallery_246_list_photo_list_photo_item_3_photo.jpg

http://www.design-for-all.org/images/City_of_Manchester_Stadium_1.jpg

http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/sports/mcfc-int-v-portsmouth.jpg

http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/sports/mcfc-england-v-iceland.jpg The stadium has been used for England internationals some times whilst the New Wembley is being buillt.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/299.$plit/C_4_Image_1758_largeImage.jpg
The stadium was used for commonwealth games before beeing turned into the 48,00 seater stadium that it is today.

http://www.ma.man.ac.uk/~higham/photos/manchester/041220-1519-28_std.jpg

At the moment this is truly the best stadium in the country, it was designed by the london based group KSS Design who have designed the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge, Fratton Park and the planned redevelopment of White Hart Lane.

Sorry about posting the thread twice it was taking ages for some reason and I clicked on the submit button again really sorry about that people.

apparently they are building a massive wind turbine at one end of the ground which will provide power for the stadium and 2000 nearby homes. it has yet to recieve planning permission, but i don't see any reason why it would be rejected (the area is already has the tallest scutlpure in britain, just outside the stadium) so it looks pretty likely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4742675.stm

This is not the best stadium in the UK, the best stadium is the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff (and its not just personal bias).The Millenium Stadium has a retractable roof, holds 72,000 people (during the U2 concert it held around 120,000 people), has been used for more high profile events (because it is the best). Plus is set in a much nicer area i think. The stadium has also held more internationals, 2 rugby world cups as well as the FA cup finals.

Maybe he was on about just England when he said it was the best in the country :dunno:

please post commonwealth games opening ceremony images from manchester 2002 thanks...

Nice ground and the team is better then Tottenham.

Yeah one of my fave premiership grounds. The pitch is huge it actually has the largest field dimensions of all football grounds in the UK.

Here are a couple of the 2002 Commonwealth Opening Ceremony

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/542.$plit/C_4_Image_1323_largeImage.jpg

http://www.cgcs.org.uk/Images/M2002%20Opening%20Ceremony.jpg

This is not the best stadium in the UK, the best stadium is the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff (and its not just personal bias).The Millenium Stadium has a retractable roof, holds 72,000 people (during the U2 concert it held around 120,000 people), has been used for more high profile events (because it is the best). Plus is set in a much nicer area i think. The stadium has also held more internationals, 2 rugby world cups as well as the FA cup finals.

Everything in the world is based on opinion I admit that the Millenium stadium is class but MY opion is that the of the City of Manchester Stadium (CMS) design is better at the end of the day I feel that Emirates will be better than Millenium but in some people's opion the millenium is better than Emirates.

I belive that the design of the city of manchester stadium is of poorer design, for one it does not have a roof in the wetest city in the UK!

The stadium does have a roof....what you on about :dunno:

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/stadiums/aerial/mc15-man-city.jpg

I think he looked at the pics of the opening games not realising they altered the stadium after it hosted a major event in the height of summer. :D

please post commonwealth games opening ceremony images from manchester 2002 thanks...

I thought the closing ceremony was even better, one of the few that actually held my attension with great visual displays and music rather than the tacky nationalistic cheese that normally makes up such events.

http://www.francismorgan.com/all_images/events/events1/light5.jpg

i mean a roof over the pitch, when it rains matches have to be cancelled because its too wet to play. Dont get me wrong, i like the stadium and thought it was great having the comonwealth games there, but i think the millenium stadium is better because it can opperate in all weathers, has a bigger seating capacity, has a better architectural design(in my oppinion), better setting and a bigger profile
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b353/sanstiss/Cardiff_SouthWest_M.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b353/sanstiss/cardiff020805011.jpg
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b353/sanstiss/fly-29.jpg

i mean a roof over the pitch, when it rains matches have to be cancelled because its too wet to play.

Don't be silly. Days of waterlogged pitches at top flight football grounds have long gone. And it's a football stadium, not an indoor one. Only a handful of grounds have retractable roofs around the world. Frankly, they're shit for atmosphere, as they feel like theatres and not a football grounds.

I didnt think premiership games were allowed to be played indoors.

Ill look into it.

I find the notion of indoor football ridiculous. The point is being able to be the best on the shortest and longest grass on the hottest or wettest of days. Within reason of course, but for fucks sake, retractable roofs? Wembley has the right idea with it being on the away ends for sunny days, but covering a full pitch for a footy game so the 2 teams of Frenchmen/Spaniards/insertnationalityhere don't get cold? Naff.

Anyway, COMS is amazing, a truly superb stadium. Some lettering on the seats wouldn't go amiss though, and maybe something draped from the tips of the roof in a dark blue to give the fans a more enclosed feel. Something gay like that. Been there to see City but I also went to the Commonwealth Games opening ceremony and that was proper awesome like.

I like this stadium alot...

The only thing that lets it down is the lack of video screens.

I didnt think premiership games were allowed to be played indoors.

Ill look into it.

I can only speak for the German Bundesliga: Here it is allowed to play with the roof closed. Today both games at Schalke and Frankfurt were played with closed roofs.

What was the Capacity during the Commonwealth Games?

Stu

Easily the finest stadium in Manchester with Bolton coming a clear second.

Commonwealth capacity was 38,000. After the games, the temporary stand was knocked down to complete the bowl and the pitch was sunk a few meters to construct a new bottom tier all the way around the bowl taking it up to 48,000.

I belive that the design of the city of manchester stadium is of poorer design, for one it does not have a roof in the wetest city in the UK!

Manchester isn't as wet as Plymouth, Cardiff, Swansea, Glasgow, Belfast and other places in the west of GB.

http://www.worldweather.org/010/m010.htm

http://img243.echo.cx/img243/8170/coms2xk.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2049/1504898846_2834d1022b_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/428573521_303713bcf2_b.jpg
bigger one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/diebmx/428573521/sizes/o/


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/50/151979238_70306892b4_b.jpg
bigger one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jandnphotos/151979238/sizes/o/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/176/475773310_fbbf23aeed_o.jpg

This one was really nicely converted into a football ground.

The ends are what they should have done originally with the Sydney Football Stadium. The biggest problem there is that the SFS was really made too small initially (40,000). At least now its closer to what COM Stadium is now that it has a 45,000 capacity.

Doesn't the stadium have any plan of expansion? The club was taken over to a Thai billionare and it seems he tries to upgrade ManCity to the big club level. I think it's time for considering stadium expansion.

I doubt they would contemplate expansion until they have at least won a trophy or qualified for the Champions League.At the moment the stadium is just the right size I reckon. Good choice for The EUFA Cup Final.

City don't own it. The Council do.

I belive that the design of the city of manchester stadium is of poorer design, for one it does not have a roof in the wetest city in the UK!

The spectators are covered by the roof. The pitch has a surface infiltration rate of 150mm per hour. The cost of this pitch to construct was in the region of 750k.
The players are able to play with excellent surface charachteristics on such a pitch when wet or heavy rain.
If it were to rain in uk 150mm in one hour you would need to worry about other things than attending a football match.
The cost to construct a retractable roof for this stadium would have been in the region of 200 million pounds extra.

What you and many others on these forums are saying when you bang on about retractable rooves simply does not make economic sense to the constructor.

I might be a Man U fan, but if there was a league for best kept pitch, City would storm it. The groundsman there does a grand job. Who needs a roof?

Commonwealth capacity was 38,000. After the games, the temporary stand was knocked down to complete the bowl and the pitch was sunk a few meters to construct a new bottom tier all the way around the bowl taking it up to 48,000.

I didn't know that the stadium used to have athletic tracks that enabled it to host Commonwealth games. Thanks for the info!

It is the most ideal way to dig the ground a few meters to construct a new bottom tier all the way around the stadium. I wonder why they don't do the same to other athletic stadiums in the world, especially many Italian stadiums.

For example, I heard that George Soros is considering taking over AS Roma and constructing new stadium for it. But instead of newly building the stadium, AS Roma can get a fantastic "pure fooball stadium" of at least 90K for much less money if they do the same to Olympico as people did to Mancity stadium!!!!!!!!

Of course I know that Olympico is owned by the city so they might have to purchase the stadium itself before converting it into football specific arena but even if so, it would be much cheaper than newly building the stadium because the purchase of Olympico would not cost much(It was built so long ago!)

Maybe the structure of Olympico makes it impossible?

Rome Olympic stadium is used for Atheletic events

BTW, whats the exact capacity of this stadium?

I might be a Man U fan, but if there was a league for best kept pitch, City would storm it. The groundsman there does a grand job. Who needs a roof?

There is such a league for every division and an award every year. This year I think in premier was Arsenal,spurs and villa. City i dont know about 7th I think. Man u could be excellent they have the money to adpot the same technology as man city and others like arsenal but so far they havent done it and no one knows why its a mystery. Maybe they prefer a medium quality pitch rather than an excellent surface?

http://www.dadams.co.uk/wallpaper/mancity2-1024x768.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i177/ickleweb/cofmstadium2.jpg

http://www.getyourkitsout.com/man-with-steps.jpg



The place will rock like it never has before when the Rangers play there.

[QUOTE=G.C.;20250460
The place will rock like it never has before when the Rangers play there.[/QUOTE]

Lol...the whole city will, never mind the stadium.:)

It's a pity that COMS has been chosen for the UEFA Cup Final, nice enough stadium but it's less than half the size it ought to be for that game. Rangers will take one of the largest travelling supports to any football game in history, and the Greater Manchester area will be more like Glasgow than Manchester that week.

Alonzo predicts 1-0 to the Rangers

There have been numerous smaller stadiums host the UEFA cup final. Noteably Eindoven, Gothenburg and Copenhagen. Last years final at Glasgow only had 5,000 more seats.

Yeah the stadium is way to small for us we are only getting 15k of tickets when we get 50k at ibrox. I have been to every home game this season plus cup games ant hampden and Barcelona but i have no chance of a ticket it seems unfair. Still going to Manchester so im at least in the city anyone got a ticket they can name there price and I will pay it. Wish the final was at old trafford or Wembley. Nice stadium just to small.

the stadium is not too small at all look at the past stadiums that have hosted the uefa cup.. of course not every person who wants a ticket will be able to go its called ticket scarcity or just scarcity in general.. im sure a billion people want to go to the world cup final but they can't build a stadium to fit a billion people

A European Final that has Rangers in it will need at least 70,000 seats to accolcate all of the Rangers supporters who would travel to it. I was looking to go to it myself, but as I'm only in the ticket lottery I very much doubt I'll be getting a ticket.

I hear demand for chip board in Manchester has gone through the roof! ;)

Seriously, though, I spent quite a long time thinking that this was just another generic bowl of a stadium. I never really gave it the credit it was due until I actually saw it in person. Excellent stadium. Definately one of the best in the country and actually quite beaiutiful to behold as well. The transformation of this stadium from athletics to football is a credit to those involved.

Now if only Man City could win something... :p

I might be a Man U fan, but if there was a league for best kept pitch, City would storm it. The groundsman there does a grand job. Who needs a roof?
I was thinking the same thing, what a superb pitch! Hats off to the groundsman.

Watched the final yesterday. Stadium looked nice but the atmosphere seemed surprisingly muted. I wonder if it was the fault of the TV coverage or a problem with the acoustics of the stadium. I have read criticism elsewhere suggesting that the design of the roof is not ideal for holding in crowd noise.

Watched the final yesterday. Stadium looked nice but the atmosphere seemed surprisingly muted. I wonder if it was the fault of the TV coverage or a problem with the acoustics of the stadium. I have read criticism elsewhere suggesting that the design of the roof is not ideal for holding in crowd noise.It isn't but it's also not as bad as one would think. The design wasn't focused on crowd noise and, let's face it, at that size it shouldn't have to be. It's more structural and weather related than sound related.

Overall a very graceful and gorgeous facility, I feel. I love seeing it on TV. Cheers. :cheers:

I agree it is a very cool stadium but it was something that struck me while watching. On reflection I suppose the Russians did make themselves heard so it may just have been an off day for the normally more noticeably noisy Rangers support.

It is a great stadium. It looked awesome when viewed from the helicopter during the final.

The raucous Rangers support was outside the stadia.

Any pics or vids of the Rangers supporters from inside?

There aren't many pics of the stadium in UEFA mode for some reason :dunno: however found this great shot:

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1792/1403104968socceruefacupnq7.jpg

I hate it that the third tier doesn't continue to slope down. It ends too ubruptly and ruins what is otherwise a good stadium.

Any pics when it had a running track? Just curious I like it without one better.

^^
It was awful.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41009000/jpg/_41009336_man_city_bbc_416x300.jpg
Another good pic here:
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/manchester/c10_commonwealth_games_stadium.htm

Looks good now though.

Is it true that the city banned concerts from Eastlands?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/City_of_Manchester_Stadium_2002.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Eastlands_East_Stand.jpg/800px-Eastlands_East_Stand.jpg


I think they did a brilliant job with that conversion. Why cant they do something similar in Bremen or Stuttgart?

^^ as far as i know the city stadium was always gonna be for football, so it was designed for easy conversion. In the pictures it doesn't look great for athletics...

GNU;

The reason would appear to be structural; the COM was designed with its conversion in mind. The result is that, if you look at the lower tier with the athletics track (second tier in current configuration), you'll see that the structure is built on concrete supports, rather than on the ground. This allowed for easy conversion and suitable access / egress to the new lower tier. The Weser-Stadion, certainly, doesn't appear to be built in a similar way. The Weser-Stadion does not give the impression that it would be easy to suspend its current first tier over a new lower tier. The COM was designed with this eventuality in mind.

In my opinion, the result is that it would prove difficult to build a separate lower tier in Bremen because of structural / support / access issues, while a simple continuation of the current lower tier still leaves fans in certain seats the same distance from the pitch, may still have access issues given the scale of the new lower tier and could still end up leaving seats behind the goal a considerable distance from the pitch.

Right, still it must be possible to add a decent lower tier on the sideline stands methinks.
The stands behind the goals are being newly constructed in Bremen and Stuttgart, so thats not much of an issue.

Prob been asked a million time but can the roof portions be removed somehow to increase capacity for a World Cup bid. Suppose the benefit to cost ratio would not be that great.

IMO, one of the most underrated stadiums in the EPL.

I would agree, out of all of the Premier League stadiums I have been to, and I have been to most, this would be in the top three. I'm not sure if its anything specific, as a package it the stadium just works. There is a card system on entry which makes entry fast and easy, spacious concources that don't feel sperated from the stadium bowl, and a genuine design to the stadium, unlike several indenikit bowls that have appeared.

Manchester City are planning to expand their stadium to 60,000. Read the article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/aug/18/manchester-city-stadium-upgrade-eastlands

Manchester City are planning to expand their stadium to 60,000. Read the article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/aug/18/manchester-city-stadium-upgrade-eastlands
cool! an overall third tier would be very nice.

cool! an overall third tier would be very nice.

Agreed. It would look more 'finished'.

I don't think the capacity of this stadium can be expanded any further. It may involve altering the shape of its roof. I mlike itin its current capacity.

It may involve altering the shape of its roof.
Well it's been done before - it hosted the commonwealth games a few years ago.

No, that was expansion of the roof and capacity to its current shape. No way this stadium can be expandable to 60k capacity. It is not designed to hold that many spectators.

why?

all you need to do is replace the roof and then you can fit bigger stands?! thats how expansion works in nearly every stadium?!

No, that was expansion of the roof and capacity to its current shape. No way this stadium can be expandable to 60k capacity. It is not designed to hold that many spectators.

That was a much bigger job than increasing capacity. They had to move the stands in and get rid of the athletics track.

WTF is that doing in this thread??

He's posted it everywhere!

WTF is that doing in this thread??

He's posted it everywhere!
Looks like I missed all the fun. http://ultimatesportsboards.com/forums/img/smilies/shrug.gif

Looks like I missed all the fun. http://ultimatesportsboards.com/forums/img/smilies/shrug.gif

Nah just some guy spamming some renders for a stadium everywhere. I guess he got banned.

That was a much bigger job than increasing capacity. They had to move the stands in and get rid of the athletics track.

The job wasn't as big as it would have seemed; tiers two and three in the current design were the tiers that were there for the Commonwealth Games. If you look at various pictures, you can see that the (current) second tier was built on pillars to be suspended above a new lower tier, as any second tier would be. The result was that, on three sides, the conversion simply involved digging down and building a new lower tier on the ground.

One end of the stadium during the Commonwealth Games was a temporary stand which was removed and replaced with a complete new-build structure. The job to convert from athletics to football certainly wasn't massive.

The way the roof is supported, I don't think it would be too difficult to add a third tier behind the goals and re-pitch the roof. I think we're talking about changing 16 of the supports at each end to manage that, plus the pillars outside the stadium, of course. This may well be worth it, given that it could take capacity towards 60,000.

How long would it take and where would City play in the meantime?

Prob been asked a million time but can the roof portions be removed somehow to increase capacity for a World Cup bid. Suppose the benefit to cost ratio would not be that great.

I don't suppose cost would be of too much importance to their current owners considering the size of their bank balance.

^^ exactly, unlike abramovich they seem to at least want to leave some sort of legacy at the club.

The way the roof is supported, I don't think it would be too difficult to add a third tier behind the goals and re-pitch the roof. I think we're talking about changing 16 of the supports at each end to manage that, plus the pillars outside the stadium, of course. This may well be worth it, given that it could take capacity towards 60,000.

It is possible to change the roof at the ends of the stadium, but there are structural problems with that. If you look at this picture, maybe you can see that roof is supported by a steel wire ring.
http://www.heritageexplorer.org.uk/file/he/content/upload/database/2066_700.jpg

On this picture I coloured it red.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/4206679283_4cf6437e1b_o.png

The ring is supported by the steel towers all around the stadium.
This is why that on the running track version of they stadium there are also steel towers in that end with no roof.
This means that it will be easy to remove the roof in the ends, but difficult to remove the steel towers, because the hold up the steel wire ring.

If they want to expand the end stands they would have to get a bigger and higher roof. This is a problem because the steel towers at the end are quite lower than the other towers.
http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/690CityofManchesterStadium_pic2.jpg

You would basically have to add new higher towers first and then remove the old ones. Is tricky and maybe the balance of the hole roof will change.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4206772723_de35d0fa1a_o.png

Expansion to 80,000?

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-City-considering-plans-to-extend-Eastlands-into-the-biggest-stadium-in-England-Exclusive-article379025.html

They seem like smart businessmen with a real plan. There were plans released earlier last month that said an expansion to 60,000 was on the cards, along with the development of the Eastlands complex.

Being smart businessmen, they will see that 60,000 is the right figure. City could hope to fill a 60k seater in the future on a regular basis (they could definitely do it for a number of key fixtures throughout the season). An 80,000 seater is another thing though. Plus the whole supply/demand theory comes into play with a 60k seater. Case in point, Arsenal.

But it seems inevitable that Eastlands will be expanded at some point in the near future.

Manchester City's owners are assessing plans to make Eastlands the biggest stadium in English club football.

Sunday Mirror Sport can reveal that the Abu Dhabi United Group’s blueprint to oversee a major regeneration of the East Manchester area will include a project to expand their council-owned ground.

One of the plans being discussed is to add another tier and 30,000 seats to take the capacity of the City of Manchester Stadium to almost 80,000. City’s bitter rivals Manchester United currently have the biggest ground in the Premier League, with Old *Trafford able to hold 75,769.

But City owner Sheikh *Mansour has already *promised to build one of the best teams in world football – and he wants a stadium to match.
Click here to find out more!

Feasibility studies are being conducted to formulate how Eastlands’ 47,726 capacity can be increased.

A City source confirmed: “The owners want to build the best football club possible – both on and off the pitch.

“Everything is at a very early stage and the only thing that is set in stone at the moment is the development of a City Street outside the stadium, based on a *European-style fan zone. But the owners are *looking into every single aspect of how the club is run – including the possibility of expanding the stadium.

“But it won’t be just about increasing stadium capacity. We are looking at the whole match-day experience, from how fans are catered for on the concourses to how we look after corporate guests.”

The Blues are currently the third-best supported team in the Premier League, with only United and Arsenal boasting bigger average attendances this season.

But there is a belief at the club that if City become a major force in Europe demand for tickets will outweigh current supply.

One revolutionary idea being discussed is pitching ticket prices at a level that will attract future generations of fans to the club. City already offer some of the best deals in football, with junior *season ticket prices just £90 and tickets for some games as low as £5 for under-16s.

Prices for next season have yet to be announced, but City have asked all of their 36,000 season ticket holders to fill in an on-line questionnaire so to gauge how they can offer even better value.

Sunday Mirror Sport *revealed last month how City are planning to build a £50million training ground close to Eastlands.

They have since entered into a partnership with Manchester Council and the New East Manchester Regeneration Agency that will see major redevelopment in the area around the stadium.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-City-considering-plans-to-extend-Eastlands-into-the-biggest-stadium-in-England-Exclusive-article379025.html

In my opinion, add another tier to the ends behind the goals that look similar to the 3 tiered stands and leave it there.

The answer to any proposal to expand the City of Manchester Stadium is NO. The stadium wasn't design to support any expansion and is fine the way it is.

What about winning first and building later?

^^How about winning first and building NEVER?

I wouldn't like it to be expanded myself because it's nice the way it is, and City hardly fill it anyway. But they have the money to do it and they probably will do it.

So now the City of Manchester Stadium can be expanded by extending the upper tier throughout the stadium?

Nothing major, but they're spending £1.5m on improving the conference and hospitality facilities over the summer.

Manchester City Football Club is committing over £1.5 million to overhaul conference and hospitality facilities at the City of Manchester Stadium this summer.

Work starts this week at the venue, which entertains 75,000 corporate hospitality guests a season, together with 250,000 annual conference and events delegates.

The investment from the Premier League big spenders will include an upgrade of all executive boxes to Platinum standard and refurbishment of The Boardroom dining facility.

The twelve super deluxe Platinum boxes, trialled last season, will be rolled out to create 54 more, including six double boxes able to entertain 20 guests.

Additional panoramic window seating will be created in the Legend’s area, together with a new bar.

Head of sales at Manchester City, David Chell, tells conference-news: “The £1.5m investment in the City of Manchester Stadium will have a significant impact on our conference and events offering. The upgrade of suites and boxes, together with a new culinary line-up, will ensure our 250,000 annual conference and events delegates enjoy the very best facilities as part of a premium experience.”

He adds: “With a new pitch, ongoing investment in the team and our sights set on bettering our Premier League performance next season, it is essential our hospitality facilities are upgraded.”

talk of 30000 expansion is silly. a further 15000 cant be added to the ends, not enough space. 15000 people is what one stand at braga looks like. so that big an expansion would have to include the side stands...however
...that wavy shape of the bowl is there for a reason, the side stands are as far from the pitch as they can possibly be.
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6422/zwischenablage01m.jpg

for a 50000 seater football stadium filling out this limit is bad, very bad. its essentially capped. maybe they can add 5000 at each end. but they wont make 80000.

special thanks to sercan for uploading that image from a FIFA pdf.

Any expansion would require an entirely new roof.

Then they'll build a new roof?

Eastlands definitely needs to become 60,000 in the near future. Considering that Mansour has commissioned work to be done around the stadium, its only a matter of time before they expand.

To all the people who actually believe the 80k stories, calm down it wont go any higher than 60k.

Whether extending the sides is achievable or not, it is worth pointing out that as part of the original discussions in the late 90s (before the formal documentation was signed), the City Council had a plan to make this an 80,000 capacity stadium with.... United as tenants.

The story is included in my new updated version of "Manchester A Football History" (ISBN 9780955812736) due out the 1st week of December.

Copies can be pre-ordered from www.manchesterfootball.org

Any expansion would require an entirely new roof.

Not sure about that, Reptilikus's post suggests to me that it maybe only the very edge of the roof that needs to stay at the same level to support the sides. If an extra tier were added to the ends then that roof could remain at the same height but instead of sloping downwards stay level as at the sides.

One big factor to consider aswell is that UEFA are talking about limating spending on players to turnover. Thats potentially bad news for suger daddy teams since it limates the amount their owners can invest. A way of getting around that would be to expand their stadiums even if it wasnt cost effective because higher turnover = more spending power.

I don't think its any coincidense that Chelsea's interest in Earls Court has suddenly sparked up again aswell.

If it's feasible, surely the most logical way to expand the stadium at present would be to lower the pitch and add a few more rows of seating, a la the Mercedes-Benz arena? Lowering the pitch would also reduce the sizable gap between the stands and the touchlines as well.

Are there any reasons why this wouldn't be a possible expansion solution? I suppose there would be immediate trouble with regards to sheltering these seats because they might not be covered by the existing roof. Any other reasons? I only ask as I'm genuinely interested. Cheers:cheers:.

Not sure about that, Reptilikus's post suggests to me that it maybe only the very edge of the roof that needs to stay at the same level to support the sides. If an extra tier were added to the ends then that roof could remain at the same height but instead of sloping downwards stay level as at the sides.

One big factor to consider aswell is that UEFA are talking about limating spending on players to turnover. Thats potentially bad news for suger daddy teams since it limates the amount their owners can invest. A way of getting around that would be to expand their stadiums even if it wasnt cost effective because higher turnover = more spending power.

I don't think its any coincidense that Chelsea's interest in Earls Court has suddenly sparked up again aswell.



1. I think that removing the roof at the ends might be possible that there was no roof at the one end during the Commies.

2. The owners could pool private funds into a bigger pool comprising private and public funds, to fund the expansion, in a way creating a different body e.g. the ODA

Not sure if this would work.

hello,

How many meters between pitch and first row ?

thks...

Hello everybody. This stadium is so beautiful! I can see it during Manchester City games in the premier league. This stadium is used for concerts? if I'm not wrong I believe oasis have played there. Greetings from Colombia.

City of Manchester Stadium no more!



http://content.mcfc.co.uk/~/media/Images/Home/News/Club%20news/2011/July/etihad_city_plane.ashx

http://www.breakingtravelnews.com/images/uploads/airline/Etihad_Manchester_City.jpg

Manchester City Football Club and Etihad Airways have today announced a 10-year comprehensive partnership agreement significantly expanding their existing commercial relationship.
The deal was signed today by Garry Cook, CEO of Manchester City FC and James Hogan, CEO of Etihad Airways before the Manchester City first team squad departed on a pre-season tour to the United States.

Etihad Airways has also announced the introduction of twice-daily flights between Manchester and Abu Dhabi from August 1, reflecting the growing demand for travel between the two cities.

Key elements of the comprehensive partnership agreement are as follows:

Etihad Stadium and Campus
The City of Manchester Stadium will be renamed the Etihad Stadium effective immediately, forming the centre piece of a newly-named Etihad Campus, which encompasses a large part of the Sportcity site in East Manchester, the popular City Square entertainment space and additional existing and planned facilities.

On current trends and with the added benefit of UEFA Champions League football in 2011-12, global visibility of the Etihad Stadium will be dramatically enhanced and up to two million visitors to the Etihad Campus are expected during the year.
Shirt Sponsorship
Etihad Airways has extended its shirt sponsorship deal reflecting an increased media value due to the Club's improved on-pitch performance in the 2010-11 season, qualification for the UEFA Champions League, growing international retail network and a commitment to further enhance the already impactful visibility of the Etihad logo on all home and away shirts moving forward.

Media Cooperation
MCFC and Etihad Airways will expand cooperation on media outreach and content creation initiatives including the provision of increased MCFC content, match coverage and DVD material on Etihad's in-flight entertainment system and website. Both parties will also collaborate on joint media initiatives in shared target markets such as India, China, the United States, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.

Business Cooperation
MCFC and Etihad Airways will draw upon their existing customer databases and loyalty schemes to create new opportunities for targeted marketing initiatives tailored to the commercial priorities of both parties.

The two organisations will also explore business cooperation at an operational level drawing upon the hospitality, customer service, ticketing and training capabilities of both parties to exchange relevant expertise and potentially deliver shared recruitment, training and call centre services from the Etihad Campus in the future.

Community Cooperation
Through its flagship City in the Community program, MCFC will partner with Etihad on joint community initiatives in the East Manchester area, in the UK and internationally. International CITC initiatives such as the delivery of youth football programs in disadvantaged areas will leverage the two parties' shared international interests.

International Cooperation
MCFC and Etihad will work together to build their respective profiles in key markets around the world benefiting from the natural alignment that already exists in shared target markets such as India, China and the United States, in addition to the other target markets of each organisation.

MCFC and Etihad will also cooperate within their home markets of the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates respectively with the new MCFC-branded Etihad Airways A330-200 plane to be used as a flagship on the Manchester-Abu Dhabi route.

Garry Cook, CEO of Manchester City Football Club, said: "We are delighted to be expanding our relationship with Etihad Airways through this comprehensive partnership agreement. Most importantly, in addition to delivering significant revenue at a key stage in the Club's evolution, the agreement creates exciting opportunities for our two organisations to cooperate more deeply commercially and on media and community initiatives in the future."

James Hogan, CEO of Etihad Airways, said: “This is a game-changing partnership agreement that redefines the traditional sports sponsorship paradigm. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for two iconic brands that share the same vision to promote far-reaching global awareness and business growth.

“Etihad's work with Manchester City Football Club has already yielded a significant return on our investment and we are thrilled to build on our relationship. Their well-established name and loyal fan base have allowed us to tap into a new and increasing global audience. In addition to being a sensible alignment for our brand from a business perspective, it is also one that we can get very excited about, especially at a time when MCFC's winning attitude is bringing increased success for the team on the national and international stage."

The deal builds on Etihad’s already strong commitment to Manchester. The extra flights will be followed by the opening of a call centre in the city employing up to 160 people in 2012. The airline also opened a new First and Business Class lounge at Manchester Airport in November 2010 for its premium passengers.

Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council, said: "The relationship between Etihad Airways and Manchester City Football Club further supports Manchester’s international profile and global connectivity and the city’s ability to attract leading brands to invest and create job opportunities. It is great news for Manchester, reinforcing our sporting, transport and economic growth priorities and is particularly welcome news for east Manchester.”

Charles Johnston, Property Director at Sport England, said: "This announcement is positive for grassroots sport and people in Manchester. The re-negotiated stadium agreement will generate further investment in community sport and sports facilities in the local area.”

To coincide with the signing of the comprehensive partnership agreement, Manchester City Football Club has also announced plans to conduct a public consultation process in the near future on the proposed development of a new youth training and football development facility in East Manchester.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/July/8-July-Manchester-City-and-Etihad-partnership-announcement

City of Manchester Stadium no more! In other words, they need to find ways to skirt UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules in order to keep buying players who otherwise wouldn't come to City unless they were paid well beyond market value.

If Chelsea or City are allowed to win a CL trophy under this financial doping I'll give up hope in the professional game. This excess is making the MLS single-entity model look exceptional. :ohno:

In other words, they need to find ways to skirt UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules in order to keep buying players who otherwise wouldn't come to City unless they were paid well beyond market value.

If Chelsea or City are allowed to win a CL trophy under this financial doping I'll give up hope in the professional game. This excess is making the MLS single-entity model look exceptional. :ohno:

It's shamless isn't it! Not subtlety about it whatsoever. To City's credit, it's the obvious play given that Uefa's FFP system was so half assed in the first place it was bound to be open to abuse. What I find hilarious is how easy it is to get away with it. Next up, the Millhouse LLC Arena@The Bridge.

Football's fucked, I've seen the difference in the 15-20 odd years I've been going over to London for games. As Dylan once said "Money doesn't talk, it swears"

Can someone explain?

Can someone explain?
Traditionally, a football club operates on the revenue it generates via media contracts, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc. There have been incidents in the past where owners have supplemented team revenues to boost their squad, but in the modern professional era such use of outside funding to enhance team pay has been pretty marginal.

Since Roman Abromovich purchased Chelsea FC he's "invested" more than $1 BILLION US dollars into the club for salaries and player purchases. In other words, he's using personal funds to pay not only above what Chelsea could afford on its own, but in many instances above and beyond what any other club on the planet could afford. Even at the increased value for the club now he's technically lost at least half that amount because it cannot be recouped.

While this has virtually lifted Chelsea to a global brand over a few years but has also created a hyper inflated market for top players. Now City is doing the same thing, and those clubs are able to lure players from other teams, especially competitors, because they can pay wages scales beyond the normal market. Some abide by this because they know the current football market does (regrettably) favor the existing power clubs. They see this as a welcome challenge to the oligopoly enjoyed by the likes of Man U. But the clubs hurt in the process are the likes of Villa, Spurs and Everton who might be legitimatly doing better in the league and possibly qualifying for Europe, if not for these clubs' financial ability to lure more and better talent. All thanks to outside funding.

The sad thing is both clubs were solid enough that they don't need to be doing this.

Yes, the current system of league revenue payouts and UEFA distribution needs amending to address the funding imbalance, but failing to curtail the influence of outside revenues only exacerbates the problem.

So now we have two Etihads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Stadium

:nuts:

how much per year?

£10-15 million

In other words, they need to find ways to skirt UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules in order to keep buying players who otherwise wouldn't come to City unless they were paid well beyond market value.

Tbh the figures they are talking are hardly huge and if they were they would fall foul of UEFA's fair value test.

From the guardian

"The naming rights could provide an early test, however, for Uefa's FFP panel, which requires any sponsorship deal with a party related to the club's owners to pass a "fair value" test."

I don't see anything financially abnormal with this deal, it's not the club who creates the value its the competitions they play in (or have the potential to) and how good the team is. In this case City play in the world's most visible domestic league and Europe's premier club competition, as well as having one of the largest home media markets in Europe.

Traditionally, a football club operates on the revenue it generates via media contracts, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc. There have been incidents in the past where owners have supplemented team revenues to boost their squad, but in the modern professional era such use of outside funding to enhance team pay has been pretty marginal.

Since Roman Abromovich purchased Chelsea FC he's "invested" more than $1 BILLION US dollars into the club for salaries and player purchases. In other words, he's using personal funds to pay not only above what Chelsea could afford on its own, but in many instances above and beyond what any other club on the planet could afford. Even at the increased value for the club now he's technically lost at least half that amount because it cannot be recouped.

While this has virtually lifted Chelsea to a global brand over a few years but has also created a hyper inflated market for top players. Now City is doing the same thing, and those clubs are able to lure players from other teams, especially competitors, because they can pay wages scales beyond the normal market. Some abide by this because they know the current football market does (regrettably) favor the existing power clubs. They see this as a welcome challenge to the oligopoly enjoyed by the likes of Man U. But the clubs hurt in the process are the likes of Villa, Spurs and Everton who might be legitimatly doing better in the league and possibly qualifying for Europe, if not for these clubs' financial ability to lure more and better talent. All thanks to outside funding.

The sad thing is both clubs were solid enough that they don't need to be doing this.

Yes, the current system of league revenue payouts and UEFA distribution needs amending to address the funding imbalance, but failing to curtail the influence of outside revenues only exacerbates the problem.

Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiments of this post, I will disagree with where the blame lays. Although you reference it at the end you seem to think the hyper wage inflation etc is all the fault of the Nouveau riche like Chelsea and City when it is totally and without doubt the fault of the Champions League and the bosman rule.

The champions league revenue is as much outside revenue as owners income imho. At the start you say traditionally clubs raised money from media and sponsorship when that isn't true, it's actually when those started to factor in football that things started to go awry. I can understand why clubs would want outside investment when they're having to compete with clubs being doped by the champions league, Man U and Arsenal are more to blame than City and Chelsea. Tbh I find the protestations quite hypocritical as likes of Spurs, Villa and Everton (who you reference) would never have turned this investment down and the majority of their fans would have the same attitude as city fans.

The Bosman rule inflated the wages, widened the player pool for the wealthy clubs and made it easier for the wealthy clubs to get the best players. You claimed that both clubs were "solid enough" but as I recall it Chelsea were on the brink of collapse before Ambramovich came in after spending a load of dosh just to keep up with United and Arsenal

All financial fair play will do is cement the status quo as there is no provision to make revenue distribution fair. If UEFA really were trying to help they would've done them both at the same time but as was documented it was the big clubs who called for financial restrictions in the first place to stop clubs like Man CIty threatening their cosy little world.

Traditionally, a football club operates on the revenue it generates via media contracts, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc. There have been incidents in the past where owners have supplemented team revenues to boost their squad, but in the modern professional era such use of outside funding to enhance team pay has been pretty marginal.

Since Roman Abromovich purchased Chelsea FC he's "invested" more than $1 BILLION US dollars into the club for salaries and player purchases. In other words, he's using personal funds to pay not only above what Chelsea could afford on its own, but in many instances above and beyond what any other club on the planet could afford. Even at the increased value for the club now he's technically lost at least half that amount because it cannot be recouped.

While this has virtually lifted Chelsea to a global brand over a few years but has also created a hyper inflated market for top players. Now City is doing the same thing, and those clubs are able to lure players from other teams, especially competitors, because they can pay wages scales beyond the normal market. Some abide by this because they know the current football market does (regrettably) favor the existing power clubs. They see this as a welcome challenge to the oligopoly enjoyed by the likes of Man U. But the clubs hurt in the process are the likes of Villa, Spurs and Everton who might be legitimatly doing better in the league and possibly qualifying for Europe, if not for these clubs' financial ability to lure more and better talent. All thanks to outside funding.

The sad thing is both clubs were solid enough that they don't need to be doing this.

Yes, the current system of league revenue payouts and UEFA distribution needs amending to address the funding imbalance, but failing to curtail the influence of outside revenues only exacerbates the problem.
Clubs like Chelsea and Citeh wouldn't have to undertake such measures if UEFA instituted a wage cap of sorts -- we'd see a much more even distribution of talent across the top-flight Euro leagues -- right now it's pretty much the haves (the G-14 and the dopers) and the have-nots (everyone else).

Clubs like Chelsea and Citeh wouldn't have to undertake such measures if UEFA instituted a wage cap of sorts -- we'd see a much more even distribution of talent across the top-flight Euro leagues -- right now it's pretty much the haves (the G-14 and the dopers) and the have-nots (everyone else).

I disagree wage caps aren't about creating competition or distributing talent they are about control wages. You have to remember wage caps do not control out of football earnings, and tbh you can earn more in sponsor deals at Manchester United than you could at Aston Villa so unless Aston Villa can pay enough to make up for those lost earnings a Europe wide cap wouldn't work.

In reality it's about two things, controlling movement and incentivising playing. Controlling movement creates fair distribution of players (I personally like the idea of more rigid squad size caps and squad recruitment rules) and incentivising playing would be restricting wages of players who don't play, by offering a basic salary and win and draw bonuses so that sitting on the bench at United or Barcelona doesn't pay at all, at least relative to starting for other clubs in their leagues.

I don't see anything financially abnormal with this deal, it's not the club who creates the value its the competitions they play in (or have the potential to) and how good the team is. In this case City play in the world's most visible domestic league and Europe's premier club competition, as well as having one of the largest home media markets in Europe. Oh, I don't think this will violate the FFP rules. It's a mere thing in and of itself, just the principle I'm fussing about.

... when it is totally and without doubt the fault of the Champions League and the bosman rule.No disagreement about this, and as I've touted before the system should be changed. I simply see the Chelsea and City issue as a simple ill (relatively) easily cured that's otherwise being permitted through apathy, angst, etc. Just because one aspect (CL money) is wrong shouldn't allow this.

Tbh I find the protestations quite hypocritical as likes of Spurs, Villa and Everton (who you reference) would never have turned this investment down and the majority of their fans would have the same attitude as city fans.If so, this is why the trend should be curtailed for fear of where we're headed. In the meantime those clubs have seemingly been the most impacted by the financial largesse of City, either by losing players to their outlandish wage deals or missing out on the CL.

You claimed that both clubs were "solid enough" but as I recall it Chelsea were on the brink of collapse before Ambramovich came in after spending a load of dosh just to keep up with United and ArsenalI'll rephrase: Both clubs were certainly big enough that they could grow organically without the need for such intervention. That one or both may had been mismanaged is another matter.

All financial fair play will do is cement the status quo as there is no provision to make revenue distribution fair.Sadly, I concur. UEFA and League revenues must be distributed more evenly as a start.

Clubs like Chelsea and Citeh wouldn't have to undertake such measures if UEFA instituted a wage cap of sorts... Politically and logistically difficult. More importantly I think other measures can combine to yield 90% of the effective intent without as much fuss or draconian policy.

- - -

Meanwhile, I'm sorry for straying OT. I've said my peace. Regardless of the name and the club, it's one of the better venues in England right now.

^^I take your points gunnnerjacket and yes I agree way off topic.

how much per year?

It looks like it's a lot more than previously thought

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/08/manchester-city-deal-etihad-airways

Manchester City bank record £400m sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways

• Uefa poised to assess fairness of the 10-year arrangement
• City consulted with Uefa to ensure deal breaks no rules


Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.

The 10-year agreement, which means City's ground is renamed the Etihad Stadium, will be worth more than twice the previous record, JP Morgan Chase's $300m (£187m) for the new Madison Square Garden, while simultaneously demonstrating the growing disparity between the top clubs in English football.

To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest. Newcastle have also been unable to find a sponsor since the club's owner, Mike Ashley, tested the waters with a short-term arrangement in the 2009-10 season that resulted in their ground taking the name of his sportswear business as the sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium.

Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City, as well as financial backing for what will be known as the Etihad Campus, a vast area of land around the stadium that already includes the City Square fans' village, and has other major development planned, including a new training ground and sports science centre.

Garry Cook, the City chief executive, described it as "one of the most important arrangements in the history of world football", made even more remarkable because City do not own the stadium. Manchester city council allowed City to negotiate the naming rights as part of an improved rental agreement, agreed this year, which means the club will pay £20m over the next five years to an authority in the grip of financial cuts.

City must now convince Uefa that the amounts involved do not contravene the incoming financial fair play regulations and, specifically, the condition that stipulates sponsors with close links to club owners pay a fair price.

Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi government and the airline's association with the City owner, Sheikh Mansour, a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, will almost certainly prompt Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, to investigate.

A Uefa spokesman said: "We are aware of the situation and our experts will make assessments of fair value of any sponsorship deals using benchmarks."

Under the terms of financial fair play, clubs have to show they can break even in the medium term if they are to take part in European competitions and, for City, that represents a significant issue given that their last financial figures reported a £121m loss and the next accounts, to be published in September, are expected to be worse.

The club have, however, made extensive inquiries of their own, consulting with Uefa in the process, to ensure the Etihad deal fits in with the rules and cannot be construed, in essence, as a different twist to 'mates' rates'.'

A significant part of the deal will go towards developing the Etihad Campus and, crucially, Uefa does not count money spent on improving infrastructure, regenerating surrounding areas and youth development when it comes to totting up losses. Although the club have not been willing to provide the media with the precise breakdown of where the money will be spread, they will present the figures to Uefa if necessary.

Nonetheless, City face the possibility of other clubs raising the matter with Uefa. Arsenal's Supporters' Trust has already signalled its intention to ask the London club to request that Uefa look into it as a priority and deliver an early verdict.

Tim Payton, the Trust spokesman, said: "The deal at Manchester City stretches credulity to the limit. The numbers just don't stack up."

It's not like Mansour renamed it Mansour stadium in a £2billion 10 year deal though, that would be a way for him to continue 'investing' as well as complying to the Uefa rules, is £15m per year really that much when you think how much they are paying for players!!

It's £40m a year, vastly more than clubs with bigger 'brands', although using Arsenal as example is a bit of journalistic licence as it's well known they hugely undersold their naming rights.

It looks like it is packaged together with other elements though and that changes things. It isn't £400 just for stadium naming rights, so the comparison with MSG is slightly misleading, as JP Morgan Chase aren't getting their name on any shirts for a start. Until we know the entire breakdown of how much is being spent on what it's difficult to say if UEFA can throw out the deal, but it seems unlikely.

which is the total annual budget of manchester city
how much pay television to the club in a season?

Some info here (http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/club-news/2010/january/financial-results-announced):

Turnover for the year ended 31st May 2009 increased by 6% to £87.0m (2008:£82.3m), with this increase being offset by a significant increase in operating expenses to £121.2m (2008:£83.9m) primarily driven by increased playing staff costs.

This resulted in a Net Operating Loss of £34.2m (2008:£1.6m) and a Net Loss for the Year after amortisation of player contracts and financing charges of £92.6m (2008:£32.6m).

Match day attendances were up to 42,890 from an average of 42,081 in the previous season, with ticketing revenues ahead by £1.8m mainly as a result of the extended UEFA Cup run. TV Revenues were up 12% to £48.3m mainly as a result of UEFA cup performance, offset partially by a lower league placing than in the previous year.

...and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oct/01/manchester-city-annual-report-huge-loss).

Their income of £125m was entirely eclipsed by the wage bill which, for all staff, rose to £133m, up from £83m. That meant the club spent £8m more than their entire turnover on wages alone.

It's £40 million/year for both stadium naming and shirt right?

Not that crazy when Liverpool and Man Utd get £20 million for just the shirt. I don't see how UEFA can throw it out and defend it.

It's £40 million/year for both stadium naming and shirt right?

Not that crazy when Liverpool and Man Utd get £20 million for just the shirt. I don't see how UEFA can throw it out and defend it.a) City isn't United or Liverpool, especially prior to this run. Not even close.
b) The deal is based in part on "sponsorship" of a slate of land development projects adjacent to the stadium, which I don't think should be credited toward the operation of the team.
c) FFP is supposed to be based on what the general market would offer. If some outside entity was preparing to offer City £40M per year then good for them and they should've taken it because then no one would be questioning all this. But odds are they would've only garnered about half of that at best, thus the inquiries.

http://www1.clikpic.com/lightboxaerial/images/_LBP6050.jpg

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00351/F_200708_August17ed_351726a.jpg

http://pds10.egloos.com/pds/200809/06/52/c0016152_48c20b4460ae2.jpg

http://cdn-wac.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.406510.1310053998!/image/2466869476.jpg

http://www.premierleagueon.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/800px-City_of_Manchester_Stadium_East_Stand.jpg



if you want to see more stadia pictures , Please visit below URL.



http://cafe.daum.net/stade/Manchester (http://cafe.daum.net/stade/5Ay7/816)



http://www.fanzone.co.uk/Images/Stadia/Football/English-Football/city_of_manchester_stadium.jpg

a) City isn't United or Liverpool, especially prior to this run. Not even close.


I know that. But can UEFA really stopp the deal and say it's because they are not as big a "brand" as Liverpool and Man Utd so they can't have as much sponsorship as them? I would think Man Utd could get something similar if they sold both the shirt and stadium name. That was the point. There could be legal problems with that i would think. This is a loophole that i don't think UEFA can do much about. You could argue that Liverpool got £20 million for the shirt and they are not even in the Champions league wich Man City are etc.

I know that. But can UEFA really stopp the deal and say it's because they are not as big a "brand" as Liverpool and Man Utd so they can't have as much sponsorship as them?...

There could be legal problems with that i would think. This is a loophole that i don't think UEFA can do much about.The issue is not the volume of money, per se, but where it's coming from - The club's owners. If an outside entity was giving that much then it would truly be considered earned revenue. But the contract was made with the owner's corporate interests, and speculation is that the owner is deliberately overpaying so as to funnel more money into the team's revenues then they would have normally earned.

If City show just cause that other, outside firms were willing to match or mirror the sponsorship deals then they'll have no problem. If they can't, then they'll have to justify to UEFA why they should be allowed to spend in excess of revenues. And UEFA is perfectly within their rights to set conditions for participation in UEFA events. They're not saying the club can't do this, they're simply saying the club can't do this if they wish to participate in the CL or Europa League... because that's an unfair financial avantage.

And no, this isn't simply to pick on City since the condition applies to all clubs. United, Barca and others must also justify that their financial model is self sustaining.
You could argue that Liverpool got £20 million for the shirt and they are not even in the Champions league wich Man City are etc. Man City are in the CL BECAUSE of the financial doping, and one year does not make a club historic. Liverpool have 5 European championships and 18 League titles, City has 0 and 2, respectively. That's a large part of why one club has a global fan base and the other is trying to get there but still has a long way to go. Even with this years success I'd wager City is no better than 6-7th in terms of popularity among English clubs: United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea... with reasonable expectation that Villa, Everton and possibly Newcastle were right there with City, if not ahead of them.

Without their money I doubt City lands Yaya Toure, Silva, Tevez, Barry and others, meaning they likely wouldn't even be in the CL next year while some other team (spurs?) enjoyed that spot.

wanna be there once^^

M.C rocks:angel1:

I like this stadium, it looks good from the air, it's a shame it will likely become another wavy Eastdio de Luz/Emirates/New White Heart Lane when demand dictates the need for expansion in a few years time!

Only joking! ;)

But if the club goes on to dominate in the way Chelsea did but on a bigger scale by having £unlimited, then they might struggle to fit their fans - old and new alike - into >50,000 so expansion might be looked at.

The issue is not the volume of money, per se, but where it's coming from - The club's owners. If an outside entity was giving that much then it would truly be considered earned revenue. But the contract was made with the owner's corporate interests, and speculation is that the owner is deliberately overpaying so as to funnel more money into the team's revenues then they would have normally earned.

If City show just cause that other, outside firms were willing to match or mirror the sponsorship deals then they'll have no problem. If they can't, then they'll have to justify to UEFA why they should be allowed to spend in excess of revenues. And UEFA is perfectly within their rights to set conditions for participation in UEFA events. They're not saying the club can't do this, they're simply saying the club can't do this if they wish to participate in the CL or Europa League... because that's an unfair financial avantage.

And no, this isn't simply to pick on City since the condition applies to all clubs. United, Barca and others must also justify that their financial model is self sustaining.
Man City are in the CL BECAUSE of the financial doping, and one year does not make a club historic. Liverpool have 5 European championships and 18 League titles, City has 0 and 2, respectively. That's a large part of why one club has a global fan base and the other is trying to get there but still has a long way to go. Even with this years success I'd wager City is no better than 6-7th in terms of popularity among English clubs: United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea... with reasonable expectation that Villa, Everton and possibly Newcastle were right there with City, if not ahead of them.

Without their money I doubt City lands Yaya Toure, Silva, Tevez, Barry and others, meaning they likely wouldn't even be in the CL next year while some other team (spurs?) enjoyed that spot.

I'm a United fan so I don't even know why I'm wading in but the only people I seem to hear bitching about Manchester City is Arsenal fans. A bit insecure maybe? Manchester City aren't the first team to benefit from wealthy benefactors and they wont be the last. Its not the fans fault if wealthy owners buy their club, I'm sure we'd all like our teams to have unlimited capital.

I'm a United fan so... Replied via PM so as to limit threadjack.

:cheers:

"The Swiss Ramble" football finance blog has written an interesting article about the
city-deal. Breaking it down compared to other clubs.
http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2011/07/manchester-citys-incredible-deal-know.html

Manchester City - Swansea City

By ynysforgan_jack

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6049429594_bff018158d_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/6049429594/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6049466916_48b2c27fc8_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/6049466916/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6049473164_8ef32446f3_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/6049473164/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6202/6049487790_bf707f60a8_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/6049487790/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6070/6049424794_ac265bb248_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/6049424794/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6087/6049494558_ce3d550e91_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/6049494558/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6192/6048915125_32de4f28a7_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/6048915125/

Great stadium.

I really do like the blue lighting for the boxes. also the way for last season (I think it for an FA Cup game) they killed the lights and had a very NFL esk opening for the players to come out to.

Are the City fans happy with the new stadium?

Really nice stadium, but the stands are too far away from the pitch.

by Phil Midds (http://www.flickr.com/photos/midds/) http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6135057341_3c86efae8c_b.jpg

by davekpcv (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dave_kepcove/) http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/6128698674_72093a38c1_b.jpg

by FinlayD (http://www.flickr.com/photos/finlayd/) http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6151/6172698634_e927e6bb4a_b.jpg

Champions League
Manchester C. 2-1 Villarreal

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6163/6263589334_b75acf6d37_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flunkster/6263589334/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6054/6263060921_646a674479_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flunkster/6263060921/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6107/6263069677_98811af0bb_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/flunkster/6263069677/

Manchester City plan for bigger stadium

By Duncan White
22 Oct 2011

The club has conducted feasibility studies on various ways of expanding the ground, with the most ambitious plan to lift off the roof and add a whole new tier. That would give the Etihad stadium a capacity in excess of 70,000 and hugely increase the potential match-day income.

The club are trying to compete with their neighbours on every level. The first priority has been to build a team capable of matching them on the pitch but the club are also trying to drive their commercial and match-day revenues.

The Etihad Stadium’s capacity is currently 47,805 and with Old Trafford holding 76,000, the Emirates 60,000 and Liverpool and Tottenham looking for new stadiums, City do not want to be left behind. United themselves have discussed an expansion which could take them to 95,000 seats.
More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/8843970/Manchester-City-plan-for-bigger-stadium.html

new tier?
So the current 3rd one will be demoslished?

Think they would just build around that tier

More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/8843970/Manchester-City-plan-for-bigger-stadium.htmlWould be a shame to see them completely rewrite the stadium so, seeing as it's a fine venue as it is. Simply boxing it up a la Old Trafford seems silly.

In other news, Financial Fair Play can't come online fast enough.

The changing of the guard is well under way, so it's no real surprise that Man City are looking to increase the capacity of the stadium.

Manchester City Football Academy, just near Etihad Stadium
xlx7lg_manchester-city-football-academy_sport

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-1.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-2.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-3.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-4.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-6.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-6-Night.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-7.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-9.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-9-Night.jpg

http://www.info-stades.fr/images/uploads/centre-formation-manchester-city/MCFA-View-1-Night.jpg