Still would be small time--we would sell out their ground most weeks....point still stands..their average is 74,000 we would average 85+

Sell-outs 95,000:
Liverpool
City
Chelsea
Arsenal
Spurs
Newcastle
Aston Villa

75,000 (based on today capacity!)
All the rest!

Probably more.

Why don't you post the other pics :D

I only took a small selection of the best ones which give a fairly good impression. ;) And I guess you can confirm this. :D I will try to make some pictures of the stadium from Tuesday's match Manchester Untied - Glasgow Rangers. :) I will post these as soon as possible then.

Some detailed pics would have been nice :)

Still would be small time--we would sell out their ground most weeks....point still stands..their average is 74,000 we would average 85+

Sell-outs 95,000:
Liverpool
City
Chelsea
Arsenal
Spurs
Newcastle
Aston Villa

75,000 (based on today capacity!)
All the rest!

Probably more.

Barça has 85k season ticket holders and is selling over 90k tickets for every game.
Reason attendance is only in the 70ies is because season ticket holders are not attending. This happens in most spanish stadiums because season tickets are much more cheaper than single tickets over a whole season. You usually have to attend less than half the game to get even.

Anyway sorry for OT.

Nice pics EPA001. Is there a guided tour in the stadium or can you walk around freely?

Is there a guided tour in the stadium or can you walk around freely?


It is a guided tour :)

^^ And it is quite a nice tour which I can recommend to anybody who wants to visit Old Trafford. :)

^^ And it is quite a nice tour which I can recommend to anybody who wants to visit Old Trafford. :)

^^^^

It is quite cheap too, you get your moneys worth

Still would be small time--we would sell out their ground most weeks....point still stands..their average is 74,000 we would average 85+

Sell-outs 95,000:
Liverpool
City
Chelsea
Arsenal
Spurs
Newcastle
Aston Villa

75,000 (based on today capacity!)
All the rest!

Probably more.
I thought Everton would be in that group,or mabye I'm wrong?

the north stand when it was demolished in 1995,the only bits that remained were F stand and J stand

http://i54.tinypic.com/nmco0g.jpg

Does anyone know if United have plans to add big screens to Old Trafford? It's crazy that such a great stadium is still using crappy scoreboards. I know that during the rugby league final they put screens in the corners of the south stand but this reduces capacity. Is there any reason why they couldn't just hang them under the roof on the west and east stands, or incorporate them into those roofs like at White Harte Lane?

Does anyone know if United have plans to add big screens to Old Trafford? It's crazy that such a great stadium is still using crappy scoreboards. I know that during the rugby league final they put screens in the corners of the south stand but this reduces capacity. Is there any reason why they couldn't just hang them under the roof on the west and east stands, or incorporate them into those roofs like at White Harte Lane?

Hanging down or Incorporating, no the roof slopes down and it would cover the pitch.

Personally, I would rather watch the match..if you want to watch telly stay at home or clear off for a drink & pie with 15mins to go in the half.

Nah, I like the brooding stands...it most scares the opposition...hence we have the best home record in European football.(check how many defeats!)

if united wanted to expand the south stand then surely they WOULD have to purchase the houses next to railway line. i looking at a few ariel pictures they would be able to bridge over the railway and add another tier to the south stand withouth demolishing the houses but they would have to build on the houses gardens. and lets face it who would want to buy a house without a back garden?

they should buy those houses, knock em all down and do whichever is cheaper between adding another tier or knocking it down and rebuilding the whole stand (forgive my nievity in these matters my field of expertise is nursing not construction!!)

if united wanted to expand the south stand then surely they WOULD have to purchase the houses next to railway line. i looking at a few ariel pictures they would be able to bridge over the railway and add another tier to the south stand withouth demolishing the houses but they would have to build on the houses gardens. and lets face it who would want to buy a house without a back garden?

they should buy those houses, knock em all down and do whichever is cheaper between adding another tier or knocking it down and rebuilding the whole stand (forgive my nievity in these matters my field of expertise is nursing not construction!!)

The necessary access routers through those houses have already been purchased and demolished.

Personally I think the project is good to go, whenever the funds/attendances future dictates.

Best guess....2018 bid..in 3 months if the bid is successful then United will get a grant (1966, 1995 precedents) to part-fund the expansion.

So...next Spring announcement of the plans? Conostruction would be in 2014,2015 or 2016? Takes one year (North Stand example)?

It will happen, just a question of when.

The necessary access routers through those houses have already been purchased and demolished.

Personally I think the project is good to go, whenever the funds/attendances future dictates.

Best guess....2018 bid..in 3 months if the bid is successful then United will get a grant (1966, 1995 precedents) to part-fund the expansion.

So...next Spring announcement of the plans? Conostruction would be in 2014,2015 or 2016? Takes one year (North Stand example)?

It will happen, just a question of when.

aaaaaaah, so theyve got the space now to do it, but its just the means i suppose.

good luck to united. as a rovers fan id love our riverside stand to be knocked down and have a matching stand put in to make ewood match on all sides, but given we rarely have the ground at capacity it clearly not worth the money, but i rekon united could easily add another 10/20,000 to their gates if not a lot more

aaaaaaah, so theyve got the space now to do it, but its just the means i suppose.

good luck to united. as a rovers fan id love our riverside stand to be knocked down and have a matching stand put in to make ewood match on all sides, but given we rarely have the ground at capacity it clearly not worth the money, but i rekon united could easily add another 10/20,000 to their gates if not a lot more
depends on the opposition and ticket prices.

im sure if united upped their capacity by that much they could at the very least reduce their season ticket waiting list by quite a few thousand

The necessary access routers through those houses have already been purchased and demolished.

Personally I think the project is good to go, whenever the funds/attendances future dictates.

Best guess....2018 bid..in 3 months if the bid is successful then United will get a grant (1966, 1995 precedents) to part-fund the expansion.

So...next Spring announcement of the plans? Conostruction would be in 2014,2015 or 2016? Takes one year (North Stand example)?

It will happen, just a question of when.

I'm guessing not with the Glazers in charge but perhaps soon afterwards if a new owner whats to put their stamp on the club.

If it does happen then I don't see them replicating the north stand. That design was afterall never intended to be joined up into a bowl and took alot of fiddly work with the quads to join things up. The more logical devolpment clearly seems to be to wrap the 2 tier ends around to the south stand.

The real focus of an redevolpment would IMHO be the corperate/luxury market aswell rather than going for maximum capacity. I don't know the exact deatilas but I'm betting a large part of the reason why Arsenal have surpassed you in matchday income is that the Emirates caters to that market better.

A two tier south stand wrapped around to the sides with the lower part of the second teir as luxury seats and a ton of luxury facilties giving a capacity around 85-88Ks is what I'd expect to see

so whats the deal with the north stand then?

was it meant to be completely different? or did they not look far enough into the future and just erected a stand that meant more work would be needed if they wanted to expand afterwards?

so whats the deal with the north stand then?

was it meant to be completely different? or did they not look far enough into the future and just erected a stand that meant more work would be needed if they wanted to expand afterwards?

The xtra 5,000 seats on the 3rd tier are monumentally high up, something like 180foot up. The stand was built with the aid of a grant for Euro 1996 so maybe United used that cash and chucked another deck on top?

They really should replicate the stand size on the south side because it is a truly huge structure. I remember it going up and the massive cranes, without the roof you got an idea of the scale of the structure, something the roof now hides. From the pitch on a Euro night it must look awesome.

yeah the roof does hide just how big that stand is. i mean it looks pretty impressive as it is but if it was a flat roof it would look immense!

it would have looked pretty amazing if they had have kept a flat roof so that it looked the same as it did in the 90s, essentially just added another tier all the way round.

whenever they do decide to up the capacity tho, ive no doubt it will look damn impressive!

http://www.arnemadsen.dk/OldTrafford/slides/Old%20Trafford%201994.jpg

if theyd added a tier or 2 all the way around and basically made the old ground higher it would have looked quality!! it does know IMO but on here ive seen a lot of people moan about how the stands look unevern n all that but like i always say, grounds that arent completely uniform all the way round seem to have much more soul than modern bowls.

i rekon old trafford was probably the last bowl ground with character as it was added to over the years rather than built from scratch

Shop Juicy Couture & More Online: Find New Summer Favorites Now!wholesale juicy couture belts Cheap Juicy belts Replica discount Juicy Couture belts Deals on Juicy Couture Belts.Theyre happening Now at ajxwholesale.net.Wholesale Juicy Couture belts 2008 - Discount swimsuits from Cheap Juicy Couture belts Click on any photo below to see more belts styles from that group. We Offer 2,500+ Charms. Explore juicy couture belts. Discount Juicy Clothing Designer Clothing At Bargain Prices Online! Juicy Couture belts sale (http://www.ajxwholesale.net/Juicy-Couture-belts-Wholesale-377.html) Below Bargains Low Prices where can i find cheap name Juicy Couture belts brand Clothes?

im sure if united upped their capacity by that much they could at the very least reduce their season ticket waiting list by quite a few thousand

there is no waiting list....you can still buy season tickets.
As for the stadium development since 93,there seemed to be no long term plan for the stadium,it was 'we'll build the north stand and that'll be enough seats....oh we still need more seats...we'll do both ends and that'll be enough...oh right,still not big enough,we'll link up the corners....but they dont link up properly,the gradiants are different...oh well,that'll do for now anyway'.

the north stand should have been part1 of a long term plan rather than making do.

I want to wear the NFL jerseys (http://www.trademic.com/wholesale-nfl) on the pitch to run!!!

Why can't find any photos of the North stand construcion anywhere?
It's like one day it just magically appeared.

the north stand when it was demolished in 1995,the only bits that remained were F stand and J stand

http://i54.tinypic.com/nmco0g.jpg

there ya go.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs572.snc3/31233_398946893296_621518296_4066121_5781223_n.jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs532.ash1/31233_398946903296_621518296_4066122_657309_n.jpg

http://www.arnemadsen.dk/OldTrafford/slides/Old%20Trafford%201994.jpg

if theyd added a tier or 2 all the way around and basically made the old ground higher it would have looked quality!! it does know IMO but on here ive seen a lot of people moan about how the stands look unevern n all that but like i always say, grounds that arent completely uniform all the way round seem to have much more soul than modern bowls.

i rekon old trafford was probably the last bowl ground with character as it was added to over the years rather than built from scratch

It was only a bowl for a very short space of time. The Stretford End was, as well as being a terrace, a very different looking structure due to its odd roof. The end was only seated in 1993, and the whole stadium in 1994. Just a year later they demolished one side to make way for the new 25,000 seat stand.

So in all, it was only a bowl for a year, and then in an era when bowls were still, if not non-existent in the country. The Riverside didn't open until 1995, which was the first newly built stadium built here with the "plain single tier on at least 3 sides" look that's come to symbolise the bland conformity of modern stadium design.

How come the original capacity of Old Trafford was 80,000 yet it was never filled up to that capacity because the attendance record was around 76,900?

nice stadium.!! awsome.!! amazing!!

lets check our stadium projecy in indonesia

visit us

national stadium Indonesia (http://suasanapekanbaru.blogspot.com/2011/05/update-terbaru-stadion-utama-pon-2012.html)


Indonesiam stadium (http://suasanapekanbaru.blogspot.com/2011/05/stadion-balikpapan.html)

other nice stadium (http://suasanapekanbaru.blogspot.com/2011/05/stadion-utama-pon-2012-pekanbaru-riau.html)
peace world!

How come the original capacity of Old Trafford was 80,000 yet it was never filled up to that capacity because the attendance record was around 76,900?

Because Manchester United weren't a big club until the 1940/50s, in fact City were bigger. They spent a lot of the 30s yo-yoing and struggling at the bottom of the second division. By the time the Busby Babes came along and then the media obsession that came with it (especially post munich) their stadium was much smaller.

A lot of clubs played in stadium's whose capacity was never officially tested.

Because Manchester United weren't a big club until the 1940/50s, in fact City were bigger. They spent a lot of the 30s yo-yoing and struggling at the bottom of the second division. By the time the Busby Babes came along and then the media obsession that came with it (especially post munich) their stadium was much smaller.

A lot of clubs played in stadium's whose capacity was never officially tested.

Hmm, not sure if this is true. United averaged higher pre-Munich than post Munich until the 1990's bar the 1967-68 league winning season.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

As an example 1948 54,890 average 2nd top behind Arsenal by 2 people!

Man City were 7th.

Indeed a challenge can be had to find a year City averaged more than United.

When were City the biggest club in town. I await to be enlightened!

More here: http://therepublikofmancunia.com/stats-united-vs-city-the-best-supported-club-since-the-1940s-and-before-premiership/

Indeed after the Munich crash, attendances plummeted, so the `truth' about fans supporting United because of Munich does not stand true when the subject was at it''s rawest.

Only seeing Best, Law, Charlton got the average higher, once, than it was just after the war.

Munich being the cause of our high attendances thus being an urban myth.

The three seasons after WWII where Man Utd used Maine Road (46-48) they averaged better than City and that was a full decade before the Busby Babes.

From what I can see, the 21 seasons during the inter-war period City averaged more, but their numbers weren't particularly great - only once did they average over 40k (although crowd numbers before the War should be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt as we all know). Most of their figures are between 25-35k and they never maxed the official capacity of - a very large - 88k. They do boost some stonking 82/3k numbers though for some league games.

United averaged lower than 20k on just 5 occasions out of 21 during the period. However, technically most of their averages were above 25k (11 seasons, so just a majority), with 4 above 30k. They had good attendances for the immediate seasons following WWI (supposedly getting over 70k for one league game during 1920), and one of their best during the 20s & 30s was when they finished bottom of D1 in '22 - they averaged almost 28k. 9 seasons later when they again finished bottom in D1 they got a pathetic 11k.

Firstly the fly you have completely missed the point hence why you have got so offended. Jim asked why United's crowd was so "low" I was merely explaining that when old trafford was of the capacity to break that record United were not a big club, ie prior to the second world war. Anyway on with your post

Hmm, not sure if this is true. United averaged higher pre-Munich than post Munich until the 1990's bar the 1967-68 league winning season.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

As an example 1948 54,890 average 2nd top behind Arsenal by 2 people!

1. That's a misprint Arsenal average 54,982 not 892.
2. United played in a bigger stadium (maine road) thus their mean crowds were pulled up by the bigger top crowds they got. The Football league record attendance of 83,000 was pulled by United (Against Arsenal) in that season, Arsenal didn't pull a crowd of more than 72,000.
3. Manchester United were third, Newcastle were first with a then record average of 56,283 but they were in the second division which European football stats doesn't cover
4. Most importantly take the post war crowds with a pinch of salt this was in the sports boom of post war when even county cricket got 5 figure crowds. The postwar boom is a massive outlier.

Man City were 7th.


Indeed a challenge can be had to find a year City averaged more than United.

When were City the biggest club in town. I await to be enlightened!

More here: http://therepublikofmancunia.com/stats-united-vs-city-the-best-supported-club-since-the-1940s-and-before-premiership/

Prior to the war, when they were amongst the biggest in the country (prior to the 1930s) and United were struggling like I said in my post which you clearly didn't read.

Indeed after the Munich crash, attendances plummeted, so the `truth' about fans supporting United because of Munich does not stand true when the subject was at it''s rawest.

Only seeing Best, Law, Charlton got the average higher, once, than it was just after the war.

Munich being the cause of our high attendances thus being an urban myth.

I never said that, I said they became popular because of the media obsession especially post Munich, nothing to do with Munich specifically. What I mean is if you talk to many around at that time they'll tell you that the myth of Manchester United was a 1960s media creation that turned them into the media darlings (england's team if you will) whether that be through the print media or Match of the day.

It's also obviously not just Munich but being the first English team to win the European Cup. How I hear it is that you had fans from everywhere descending on old trafford long before Fergie plotted up.

The three seasons after WWII where Man Utd used Maine Road (46-48) they averaged better than City and that was a full decade before the Busby Babes.

From what I can see, the 21 seasons during the inter-war period City averaged more, but their numbers weren't particularly great - only once did they average over 40k (although crowd numbers before the War should be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt as we all know). Most of their figures are between 25-35k and they never maxed the official capacity of - a very large - 88k. They do boost some stonking 82/3k numbers though for some league games.

The fact that the numbers weren't great doesn't matter, the numbers of most teams weren't great (in the modern sense). The point is they were pulling bigger crowds illustrating the point that United weren't the big dogs in town when Old Trafford had the capacity to house more people than its record attendance.

Also the highlighted point is not strictly true. All crowds since 1925/26 are official (rather than estimates). It's really all crowds prior to the 80s that should be taken with a pinch of salt as there was a much dodgy counting then as before the war (if not more).

United averaged lower than 20k on just 5 occasions out of 21 during the period. However, technically most of their averages were above 25k (11 seasons, so just a majority), with 4 above 30k. They had good attendances for the immediate seasons following WWI (supposedly getting over 70k for one league game during 1920), and one of their best during the 20s & 30s was when they finished bottom of D1 in '22 - they averaged almost 28k. 9 seasons later when they again finished bottom in D1 they got a pathetic 11k.

I think the point to note is Manchester Central were denied a place in the football league through fear that Manchester United would go bankrupt if they were let in. United struggled when old trafford had a large capacity remains my point.

I still find it astounding that you say United struggled pre-War.

To whom are your comparing? Take Arsenal's 1930's (you use United's use of Maine Road as an `excuse' for us averaging 54,000) out of the equation and how were their crowds.

Crowds go up and down.

United, from the period 1945-1995 had the their highest average crowd (bar the 1967 League title season) 10 years before Munich.

United have always been well supported.

Compare the 1945-2011 top 10 crowds with the 1917-1939 top 10 crowds and then a discussion can be had.

Using the data shown in this forum, everything is mere speculation bar the post 1945 figures.

That is the point. No dig. Just want balance & proof!

The fact that the numbers weren't great doesn't matter, the numbers of most teams weren't great (in the modern sense). The point is they were pulling bigger crowds illustrating the point that United weren't the big dogs in town when Old Trafford had the capacity to house more people than its record attendance.

Oh I'm not disagreeing there, I'm just not sure that this could be used as an indication that City were a bigger club, rather than a reflection of their respective performances and league positions.

Also the highlighted point is not strictly true. All crowds since 1925/26 are official (rather than estimates). It's really all crowds prior to the 80s that should be taken with a pinch of salt as there was a much dodgy counting then as before the war (if not more).

I meant more in terms of the method of calculation and crowd control, which I am imagine was less accurate than later years, not least because authorities appeared more lax in terms of how many to allow. Did grounds not become more restrictive after the War (over the decades) in this regard?

I think the point to note is Manchester Central were denied a place in the football league through fear that Manchester United would go bankrupt if they were let in. United struggled when old trafford had a large capacity remains my point.


Man city also vetoed the club's application didn't they? Smart move in retrospect.

I still find it astounding that you say United struggled pre-War.

But they did, on and off the pitch. Crowds were lower than City's and the team didn't win a trophy between the outbreak of WWI and the end of WWII. Financial difficulties blighted the club constantly throughout the first half of the 20th Century, but then again they were hardly unique in that respect.

I agree with BBM about the context of the post-war boom, when a rapidly growing population and a society starved of normality fulled huge crowds. Tons of clubs got big averages in the late 40s and 50s, look at a meddling Everton or Liverpool (bar the latter's title win in '47). Look at Chelsea or Spurs. Man Utd coming good during this period (people forget Bubsy's first great side, which finished outside the top 2 just once in a 6 year period between the late 40s and early 50s, as well as being regular visitors to the QF and beyond of the FA Cup) was a nifty stroke of luck to a degree. Imagine if Everton's great side during the 80s weren't robbed of playing in the EC? Between '85-'87 they were arguably the best club side in Europe for periods but never got a chance to prove it. If they'd won a couple of EC it would have had a lasting impact.

You can never divorce context.

I still find it astounding that you say United struggled pre-War.

You obviously don't know the history of your own club, this is well known.

Manchester united nearly went to the wall in 1931/32. You can be astonished all you like but the facts are the facts

To whom are your comparing? Take Arsenal's 1930's (you use United's use of Maine Road as an `excuse' for us averaging 54,000) out of the equation and how were their crowds.

1. it's hardly an excuse, taking the mean attendance always means outliers affect the true figure. This debate has been had on here many times the median is the best figure for true average attendance not the mean. ~United's crowds were pulled up by larger crowds at Maine Road, the true average was lower, whereas Arsenal and Newcastle's true averages were higher.

2. What do you mean to whom am I comparing? Isn't it obvious the crowds of other clubs. For most of the inter war era United were outdrawn by Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City, Villa, Everton and Spurs and occassionally by plenty of other clubs including Grimsby Town.

3. I find it funny that you deflect onto Arsenal, this is about Manchester United not Arsenal. But any way Arsenal's crowds were consistently good between the wars and until the 1960s (even though they weren't bad in the 60s just average). Always amongst the top 1-3 in the attendance charts (a much meaner feat in that era). It was bad decisions in the mid 50s (like appointing Billy Wright as manager) that fucked us up in the long term.

Crowds go up and down.

OF course they do that's why the only way to fairly compare crowds in different eras is not by numbers but by position in the attendance chart.This is obviously because attendance isn't just affected by the club but also the climate of the day, well supported in the 1980s wasn't the same as well supported in the 1950s.

United, from the period 1945-1995 had the their highest average crowd (bar the 1967 League title season) 10 years before Munich.

United have always been well supported.

Not true, post war they have, but prior to the war as mentioned repeatedly

Compare the 1945-2011 top 10 crowds with the 1917-1939 top 10 crowds and then a discussion can be had.

Using the data shown in this forum, everything is mere speculation bar the post 1945 figures.

That is the point. No dig. Just want balance & proof!

Speculation my Arse you just don't want to admit the truth, anyway here's your proof...

http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k551/supermjXL/Manch-1.jpg?1305801934

Oh I'm not disagreeing there, I'm just not sure that this could be used as an indication that City were a bigger club, rather than a reflection of their respective performances and league positions.

But that's how we surely discern who the bigger club is. In that era you didn't have enough history to say that it was a blip as the big crowds only rolled in (regularly) post WW1.

I meant more in terms of the method of calculation and crowd control, which I am imagine was less accurate than later years, not least because authorities appeared more lax in terms of how many to allow. Did grounds not become more restrictive after the War (over the decades) in this regard?

Arsenal had electronic turnstile counters in the 1930s, from what I read most clubs didn't have them until the 1960s. It was really after the safety of sports grounds act (1975) that things changed.

Man city also vetoed the club's application didn't they? Smart move in retrospect.

I dunno, they played in North Manchester (city South East, united South West) and probably would've had more effect on your Oldham's, Bury's and Bolton's...

Sighs.

Show me the mean, you have already told us crowds dipped below 11,000 for one year.

How does that compare with the other clubs during the period 1918-1939?

You have chosen one year to highlight your argument.

When you can show the highest and lowest and median (or indeed average) crowds for this period then I will be happy to look at your statement of fact.

Settle down, I am merely asking for proof and figures and not statements with no facts!

Pick a more definitive year please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930%E2%80%9331_in_English_football

Of note this season was Manchester United's record of the worst start in a major European league – they lost their first twelve games of the season[1] and went on to be relegated.

So we finished 22nd in the League and 34th highest attendance.

Seems about normality to me.

Save you the bother, found it:

http://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/attendances.htm

Now for a comparison? With Arsenal (there golden period!) or others?

http://www.stadium-attendances.com/Arsenal,historical,attendances.html

So United had bigger attendances than Arsenal in 1920?

Not sure there is much to see in the stats other than all clubs averaged between 20,000-36,000 pre-War.

Any of the other big clubs stats available?

And United were tremendously unsuccessful during this period and crowds were ok.

Because Manchester United weren't a big club until the 1940/50s, in fact City were bigger. They spent a lot of the 30s yo-yoing and struggling at the bottom of the second division. By the time the Busby Babes came along and then the media obsession that came with it (especially post munich) their stadium was much smaller.

A lot of clubs played in stadium's whose capacity was never officially tested.

Yet the stats clearly show United were the best supported team 10 years before Munich and the `media obsession'

Define `media obsession' for me?

When the current league champions and likely European Cup finalists perished on the runway. A team with at least 5 years of dominance built in. Perhaps better than Real Madrid? At least a good challenger with Charlton, Edwards, Bryne etc etc. Why would this not create a media storm.

If anything United are not revered in the UK as much as they should be. Typically a British response to success is to slag them off and drag them down to the lowest common denominator.

But that's how we surely discern who the bigger club is. In that era you didn't have enough history to say that it was a blip as the big crowds only rolled in (regularly) post WW1.

I dunno. The only way would be to analyze a whole load of clubs' attendances and their respective positions in the league. Considering how poor Utd did during that era and how, in comparison, well City did, their crowds were, on the whole, not much separated. The '31/32 season you highlight seems like a bit of an anomaly to me, it's the only time in the past 100 years the club averaged under 17k.

Anyway, point taken regarding the original one.

I dunno, they played in North Manchester (city South East, united South West) and probably would've had more effect on your Oldham's, Bury's and Bolton's...

Just checked and Wiki says both clubs blocked the bid. It makes sense. Manchester (in the sense of its boundaries) isn't a big place either geographically or in terms of population, even during its peak and going from one section to another is nothing like London (although technically OT isn't in Manchester). There were already plenty of clubs in the greater Manchester area and considering how crowds responded to success (or lack of) and the financial link between gate income and overall health and it's logical. In the short-run they were a bigger threat to Utd, but a downturn in City' fortunes could have led to trouble.

Pick a more definitive year please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930%E2%80%9331_in_English_football


So we finished 22nd in the League and 34th highest attendance.

Seems about normality to me.

1. For an average sized club, notice the crowds of second division clubs such as Everton, Spurs and Plymouth. FFS Plymouth came close to getting relegated from the second division and still pulled 8,000 more fans than you. There was no normality to those crowds they were awful. Hence the assertion that Manchester United were struggling

2. I'm not going to scan every season from the 1920s/30s. Let's put it this was 11,685 was the second lowest top flight average since official records began in 1925 until Notts County in 1982/83.

Save you the bother, found it:

http://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/attendances.htm

Now for a comparison? With Arsenal (there golden period!) or others?

http://www.stadium-attendances.com/Arsenal,historical,attendances.html

So United had bigger attendances than Arsenal in 1920?

1. Once again what do Arsenal have to do with it? Does that prove that Manchester United weren't struggling in the early 30s?
2. Crowds before 1925 are best estimates

Not sure there is much to see in the stats other than all clubs averaged between 20,000-36,000 pre-War.

Any of the other big clubs stats available?

All clubs?

Man City pulled 37,000 in the second division in 1927/28
In the 1930s all Arsenal averages were above 37,000, in fact all but 2 were above 40,000.
Vila had four consecutive seasons with crowds above 37,000.

I've got all the average attendance stats since the football league began including all estimates prior to 1925. Putting united in context they were one of the pack in the 1920s, stuggled in the late 20s/early 30s (as stated) before bouncing back to be one of the pack again by the end of the 1930s.

And United were tremendously unsuccessful during this period and crowds were ok.

Of course United were tremendously unsuccessful that was the fucking point. You are being so deliberately obtuse. Man U struggled and their top end crowds weren't big enough to fill their stadium, Man city got bigger crowds. What's hard about that to understand? You're the one getting upset that there is evidence that man united weren't always well supported.

Yet the stats clearly show United were the best supported team 10 years before Munich and the `media obsession'



No they don't the 10 years prior to Munich Arsenal outdrew united in all but two seasons. So you've just completely made that up.

1947/48

2. Arsenal 54,982
3. United 54,890

1948/49

2. Arsenal 51,478
3. United 48,808

1949/50

2. Arsenal 49,001
8. United 43,282

1950/51

2 Arsenal 50,474
9. United 39,008

1951/52

2 Arsenal 51,030
4. United 42,916

1952/53

1 Arsenal 49,191
9 United 37,571

1953/54

1 Arsenal 50,278
10 United 35,458

1954/55

3 Arsenal 43,735
9 United 35,960

1955/56

2 Arsenal 42,034
3 United 39,254


1956/57
1. United 45,481
3 Arsenal 41,093

1957/58
1. United 46,073
3 Arsenal 39,835

So where are these stats that show United were clearly the best supported in the ten years prior to Munich?

Define `media obsession' for me?

when the current league champions and likely European Cup finalists perished on the runway. A team with at least 5 years of dominance built in. Perhaps better than Real Madrid? At least a good challenger with Charlton, Edwards, Bryne etc etc. Why would this not create a media storm.

1. Using the myth of Manchester United to sell papers or get people to view programs, that is promoting Manchester United as England's team and encouraging people to support them as neutrals choice take the 1958 FA cup final were Bolton where iirc vilified for beating them

2. Perhaps better than Real Madrid? I'm not saying the babes weren't good but there is a lot of revisionist history surrounding just how good they were. They were 5th 6 points (3 wins) off the lead when the disaster happened, where was the 5 years of dominance?

If anything United are not revered in the UK as much as they should be. Typically a British response to success is to slag them off and drag them down to the lowest common denominator.

In modern times

1. Using the myth of Manchester United to sell papers or get people to view programs, that is promoting Manchester United as England's team and encouraging people to support them as neutrals choice take the 1958 FA cup final were Bolton where iirc vilified for beating them And there we have it.

United cashed in on Munich did they? Gloried in it's death.

ABU.


2. Perhaps better than Real Madrid? I'm not saying the babes weren't good but there is a lot of revisionist history surrounding just how good they were. They were 5th 6 points (3 wins) off the lead when the disaster happened, where was the 5 years of dominance?

In modern times
Erm, European Cup semi-final appearance secured for 2nd year running.

So, if you do not win the league every year you are not dominant?

So,now United are not dominant because Chelsea won the league last year, whilst we were licking our European injury wounds?

So, 12 titles in 17 years and you pick the 5 fallow years to say United are not dominant just like 1956, 1957 league champions were not dominant? Huh?

ABU?

Rushing back from Europe to play a league game the FA refused to postpone? Munich aye! Who would have thought!

.

I dunno. The only way would be to analyze a whole load of clubs' attendances and their respective positions in the league. Considering how poor Utd did during that era and how, in comparison, well City did, their crowds were, on the whole, not much separated. The '31/32 season you highlight seems like a bit of an anomaly to me, it's the only time in the past 100 years the club averaged under 17k.

Anyway, point taken regarding the original one.

They averaged below 17,000 in both 30/31 and 31/32



Just checked and Wiki says both clubs blocked the bid. It makes sense. Manchester (in the sense of its boundaries) isn't a big place either geographically or in terms of population, even during its peak and going from one section to another is nothing like London (although technically OT isn't in Manchester). There were already plenty of clubs in the greater Manchester area and considering how crowds responded to success (or lack of) and the financial link between gate income and overall health and it's logical. In the short-run they were a bigger threat to Utd, but a downturn in City' fortunes could have led to trouble.

I know both clubs blocked the bid, the point was the Manchester then as now could/can sustain 3 clubs (Salford, Trafford and the city have over 1 million people), the problem isn't so much Manchester but it's satellite towns which is the difference between London/Birmingham and Manchester whereby the satellite towns and suburbs in the former aren't saturated with professional clubs like in Manchester (For instance 6 clubs in the Brum metropolitan area which is larger than Manchester's which has 8).

I would've suspected depending upon the success of Central that it would have more likely taken fans away from Stockport, Oldham and possible City than United seeing as Bell Vue stadium is in the east of Manchester (got the location wrong) rather than the west (where united play). Personally I think the fear was irrational (as it often is).

1947 Runners Up
1948 Runners Up
1949 Runners Up
1950
1951 Runners Up
1952 Won
1953
1954
1955
1956 Won
1957 Won
1958 Munich
1959 Runners Up

Not bad, looks pretty good to me..Only Leeds, Arsenal and Liverpool with a sustained record. Looked like we were dominating to me?

No more assertions that United were the best supported team prior to Munich, I thought not, the facts get in the way too much.

And there we have it.

United cashed in on Munich did they? Gloried in it's death.

ABU.

I never said United did... I said the media used United

Erm, European Cup semi-final appearance secured for 2nd year running.

European cup never has and never will be a barometer of how good at team was, Real won it 5 years in a row but won La Liga twice during the same period. Too many bad/average teams in the competition and too much luck involved in the draw.

So, if you do not win the league every year you are not dominant?

So,now United are not dominant because Chelsea won the league last year, whilst we were licking our European injury wounds?

I never said that, you said they would dominate for the next 5 years based upon what they had done the previous two years (in dominating style) and getting to a European cup semi final. When the facts which are all we have show that United weren't necessarily on an upward curve when the disaster happened (especially not compared to the previous two seasons). The point is there was nothing to suggest the dominance would continue.

So, 12 titles in 17 years and you pick the 5 fallow years to say United are not dominant just like 1956, 1957 league champions were not dominant? Huh?

ABU?

I had to look up ABU, that attitude you have is so embarrassing despite winning all time you still have a massive chip on your shoulder.

I never said you had to win every year to be dominant.

1947 Runners Up
1948 Runners Up
1949 Runners Up
1950
1951 Runners Up
1952 Won
1953
1954
1955
1956 Won
1957 Won
1958 Munich
1959 Runners Up

Not bad, looks pretty good to me..Only Leeds, Arsenal and Liverpool with a sustained record. Looked like we were dominating to me?

Haha I love the way you brought in seasons before the babes as well as that massive 3 season gap between two periods. The babes team was from the mid 1950s, they'd dominated the league the previous two years with high points totals that year they weren't and were back in the chasing pack, lending credence to the suggestion that their pre-eminance was coming to an end. Don't forget "Super Spurs" were yet to come, who would've thought they'd only win the league once.

If you look at Liverpool in 1990 people would've laughed if you told them Liverpool's dominance would end, but it did.

Anyway the Fly I can't be bothered with this anymore so I'll leave it there

Quite, you have said enough.

Edwards died aged 22
Charlton was 18

We finished runners-up in 1959.

I'll take that as an indication of our likely success or not.

Nah, ABU is far from a chip. We are totally and utterly dominant on and off the pitch and have been statistically for the last 60 years. It is you with your `agenda' who has the chip offering all kinds of spurious points to dismiss United's position with every post.

You have not quoted facts and needed prodding to show your true colours and motivations.

Quite, you have said enough.

Edwards died aged 22
Charlton was 18

We finished runners-up in 1959.

There is no point speculating, as unforeseen variables could have come into play. Players like Taylor and even Edwards may have reached their peak in their early 20s, look at Owen, Fowler, Ronaldo (brazilian one) all players whose best years were before they were 25. If Munich never happened the whole of football's timeline would have changed and a whole load of new events would have happened.

Nah, ABU is far from a chip. We are totally and utterly dominant on and off the pitch and have been statistically for the last 60 years. It is you with your `agenda' who has the chip offering all kinds of spurious points to dismiss United's position with every post.

That's silly, the club weren't dominate for long periods. Even in the stands Spurs, Everton and Liverpool had periods and years in the 60s, 70s and 80s where they averaged better than Utd. During the first half of the 60s ('59/60 - '63/64) the club didn't obtain the highest average total once.

There is no point speculating, as unforeseen variables could have come into play. Players like Taylor and even Edwards may have reached their peak in their early 20s, look at Owen, Fowler, Ronaldo (brazilian one) all players whose best years were before they were 25. If Munich never happened the whole of football's timeline would have changed and a whole load of new events would have happened.


That's silly, the club weren't dominate for long periods. Even in the stands Spurs, Everton and Liverpool had periods and years in the 60s, 70s and 80s where they averaged better than Utd. During the first half of the 60s ('59/60 - '63/64) the club didn't obtain the highest average total once.

Yet we have challenged all for 60 years.

How many 1st and 2nds since the war?

You may be surprised.

Dominant.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2651/5790318821_b46865ce27_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholaslambert/5790318821/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2009/5790885066_c4c4b50134_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholaslambert/5790885066/

if theyd added a tier or 2 all the way around and basically made the old ground higher it would have looked quality!! it does know IMO but on here ive seen a lot of people moan about how the stands look unevern n all that but like i always say, grounds that arent completely uniform all the way round seem to have much more soul than modern bowls.

i rekon old trafford was probably the last bowl ground with character as it was added to over the years rather than built from scratch

Now you're just being silly. There's nothing about bodging a project that adds/results in 'soul'. There just isn't. Old Traffords' always been a bowl, Leitch designed it that way, And it looked better that way. This lionizing of the shed end with stands at different heights/sizes, is silly. It's parochial and frankly it belongs to the championship folk who moan and whinge about the 'tippy tappy' football the premadonna's play. But you're welcome to it. If it works for them lot then fine, just don't bring it here.

The place really didn't fit well when they added the seats, wrong circumference and gradients for it. If things we're done properly we'd have something that looked better than the san siro or bernabeu by now. Or are they just more soul-less bowls?

Now you're just being silly. There's nothing about bodging a project that adds/results in 'soul'. There just isn't. Old Traffords' always been a bowl, Leitch designed it that way, And it looked better that way. This lionizing of the shed end with stands at different heights/sizes, is silly. It's parochial and frankly it belongs to the championship folk who moan and whinge about the 'tippy tappy' football the premadonna's play. But you're welcome to it. If it works for them lot then fine, just don't bring it here.

The place really didn't fit well when they added the seats, wrong circumference and gradients for it. If things we're done properly we'd have something that looked better than the san siro or bernabeu by now. Or are they just more soul-less bowls?

I get where your coming from, except those last two grounds are far from uniform...indeed far more messy inside than OT. As an example just the seats in the San Siro are about 8 different styles/shades (and not a design feature)!

As an aside, the San Siro is a feckin dump inside, a total pile of steaming run-down, decrepit shite.

The attendance vs Blackburn Rovers was 76.098 in 2007!

That is a close stadium.
For many years and many years to go.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2009/5790885066_c4c4b50134_b.jpg

Is the 19 referring to how many times United touched the ball in the UCL final?

Is the 19 referring to how many times United touched the ball in the UCL final?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NpRums9accQ/SLkDqOpEEoI/AAAAAAAAA5I/gygpVfwEmeA/s400/laughingman.jpg

:rofl:

Is the 19 referring to how many times United touched the ball in the UCL final?

LOL :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15607907.stm

Man Utd rename Old Trafford stand in Ferguson's honour

Manchester United have renamed the North Stand at Old Trafford the Sir Alex Ferguson Stand in recognition of his 25 years as manager of the club.

Ferguson was given a guard of honour by his own players and visitors Sunderland as he made his way on to the pitch for Saturday's Premier League game.

The club also announced that a statue of the Scot would go outside the stand before the start of next season.

Ferguson, 69, succeeded Ron Atkinson as United manager on 6 November 1986.

Chief executive David Gill announced that the stand was to be named in Ferguson's honour on the pitch before the match against Sunderland, which United won 1-0 thanks to an own goal from their former defender Wes Brown.

Following a standing ovation from the crowd, the manager declared his pride at working for "the best club in the world".

After the match Ferguson said he was honoured to have had the stand named after him. "It was a surprise for me today, I didn't expect that," he told BBC Sport.

"I felt really honoured and emotional when I saw my name on that stand. I must say thank you to the club for that. My assistant didn't tell me - so he's sacked!"

When asked for the most memorable moment of his 25 years in charge, Ferguson said: "I'll never forget Barcelona [1999]. Never."



:) well deserved. the stand probably wouldn't even have been built if it wasn't for the great man :cheers:

The problem is, who next as Manager?.Basically you need a Scot(best managers in the world),but to follow Sir Matt Busby and Sir Alex Ferguson,its going to be almost impossible.The Man utd fans will have to start singing "Oh flower of Scotland,when will we see your likes again.That thought and died for,the English league again and stood against them,proud Man U army and send them homeward,to think again."

The problem is, who next as Manager?.Basically you need a Scot(best managers in the world),but to follow Sir Matt Busby and Sir Alex Ferguson,its going to be almost impossible.The Man utd fans will have to start singing "Oh flower of Scotland,when will we see your likes again.That thought and died for,the English league again and stood against them,proud Man U army and send them homeward,to think again."

Chelsea won the league 3 times with 2 managers.
Got to a champs league final with a 3rd
Won 2 league cups (?) with one and an FA cup with another.

So, United will be fine.

Happy days.

Fergie has got us to now...going forward we are a monolith...

How many rows of the lower tier are "covered" by the overhang of the upper tier? And are more or less than in Celtic Park?

The problem is, who next as Manager?.Basically you need a Scot(best managers in the world),but to follow Sir Matt Busby and Sir Alex Ferguson,its going to be almost impossible.The Man utd fans will have to start singing "Oh flower of Scotland,when will we see your likes again.That thought and died for,the English league again and stood against them,proud Man U army and send them homeward,to think again."

My guess has always been Mourinho.

As far as attendances go I see it this way...

Post ww2 - One of the best supported sides in the country.

Munich - Temporary boost to the biggest.

Early 60'a - Decline back to one of the best supported.

Mid 60's - Present - Rise to the best sported side in the country that's never been outside the top 2.

That seems pretty clear to me that while Munich boosted attendances for awhile it was the team of Charlton, Best, Law etc and the European Cup win that really secured them the largest perminant supporter base that no longer fluctuated as much depending on the clubs sucess.

My guess has always been Mourinho.

I agree. He's due to quit as Real Madrid manager in June, conveniently in time for the next EPL season. Maybe the bosses at Man U have already given him the job, and both Sir Alex and Mourinho are keeping it quiet?

the awkward issue with the next manager is if they started the season off the way we have this season (which isn't exactly terrible) then they will be under immediate pressure. ferguson is given a lot of leeway because he is so legendary and the next person to take over is going to have to have one hell of a cv and stubborn streak to get them to a level where they are going to feel comfortable.

Whatever happens post-Ferguson, you can be assured that United will never have another long term manager. Long term managers aren't even practical.

Even Guardiola has referred to staleness that comes with long term management. Either the team changes rapidly every few years, or the manager goes.

Fergies success has come from the fact that hes been able to change teams while still achieving success. Easier said than done, but United had a lot of help for a long time with their financial advantage in English football.

Whatever happens post-Ferguson, you can be assured that United will never have another long term manager. Long term managers aren't even practical.

Even Guardiola has referred to staleness that comes with long term management. Either the team changes rapidly every few years, or the manager goes.

Fergies success has come from the fact that hes been able to change teams while still achieving success. Easier said than done, but United had a lot of help for a long time with their financial advantage in English football.

yeah but at least united's financial advantage was earned through what the team achieved on the field.

offtopic ;)

offtopic ;)

can posts not slightly deviate from time to time? at least it keeps discussion open and prevents the thread from falling off the face of the planet.:bash:

Yes, but not so many post. Max. 1 page

How many rows of the lower tier are "covered" by the overhang of the upper tier? And are more or less than in Celtic Park?

I don't think there is any overhang at Old Trafford. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't think there is any overhang at Old Trafford. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, there is some overhang, albeit small between the 1st tier and the 2nd.

In the North Stand the entire 3rd tier overhangs

Yes, there is some overhang, albeit small between the 1st tier and the 2nd.

In the North Stand the entire 3rd tier overhangs

This picture shows it very well. I find this picture very interesting as you rarely see the 3rd tier on TV or in pictures as its hidden way up there under the roof.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/400150071_94b083d8da_b.jpg

This picture shows it very well. I find this picture very interesting as you rarely see the 3rd tier on TV or in pictures as its hidden way up there under the roof.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/400150071_94b083d8da_b.jpg

Copy the 3rd tier round and it would be 120,000 ish.

Mega stand


25,500 without the corners.

Copy the 3rd tier round and it would be 120,000 ish.

Mega stand


25,500 without the corners.

If they copied the North Stand around the other sides, making it a 3-tier bowl, it would (by my very unscientific calculations) yield about 103,978 seats. They'd also get about 298 boxes assuming the line of them between the 2nd & 3rd tiers was continued all the way round as well. It would be the biggest football stadium in Europe unless the Camp Nou expansion happens.

Edit: Forgot to include the extra boxes in the final capacity. With them it comes to 106,158.

If they copied the North Stand around the other sides, making it a 3-tier bowl, it would (by my very unscientific calculations) yield about 103,978 seats. They'd also get about 298 boxes assuming the line of them between the 2nd & 3rd tiers was continued all the way round as well. It would be the biggest football stadium in Europe unless the Camp Nou expansion happens.

Maybe! As you say guess work>

South stand +10,000 for 2 more tiers
2 extra corners based on previous corner increase (67,000-76,000)=9,000

So, 19,000 more +75,000= 94,000

So, just how much a 3rd tier would be joining the two stands (North & South).

I think tier 3 holds about 5,000 and these new sections would be longer=7,000 x2

94,000 + 14,000 =108,000

So, I will go with your numbers myself ;)

This picture shows it very well. I find this picture very interesting as you rarely see the 3rd tier on TV or in pictures as its hidden way up there under the roof.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/186/400150071_94b083d8da_b.jpg

Man i wish that the roof was straight... massiveness of this stand would be unreal.. now its true size is kinda lost.

Man i wish that the roof was straight... massiveness of this stand would be unreal.. now its true size is kinda lost.
Not mentioning that people who sit there see barely anything apart from the pitch, which excludes them from the 'massive stadium' atmosphere.

How did that 3rd tier even get added, anyway?

when they built that stand....its always been 3 tiers

^^ Indeed:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/1091/31233398946903296621518.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/80/31233398946903296621518.jpg/)

The dated exterior:

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/504/24038175280b0e967ca7b.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/835/24038175280b0e967ca7b.jpg/)

i think the exterior of the north and east stands and the quadrants looks good. i wish they would clad the exterior of the stretford end with glass like the east stand and reclad the south stand if it's not going to get rebuilt any time soon.

Tier 3 holds 4088,the roof is awful,imagine the 3 new sides with a roof like twickenham.

Tier 3 holds 4088,the roof is awful,imagine the 3 new sides with a roof like twickenham.
The ground would visually double :)

This is such a massive and unique stadium. I like it.

I do often wonder if part of the reason they've never bothered to re-do the South Stand is because they've thought about changing the roof.

It's probably never, ever been on the managements radar to do it but noone could deny the stadium and fans would be better off with a roof that doesn't aim downwards like a hood over the stand.

Would be an absolutely massive and probably completely unfeasable project though, especially given the lack of benefit economically.

Still love the stadium though, biased as I am. When you're in there on a big European night or against Liverpool/City/Chelsea/Arsenal it's a sight to behold.

Best atmosphere I ever experienced was against Roma when we beat them 7-1, the fans were on edge after trouble in Rome and then I got caught up in it outside the ground before the second leg. The performance of the team definitely helped but even the corporate 'prawn sandwich brigade' sang their hearts out all night. Wonderful times.

I am sorry if I pissed anyone off. But this is a fact - Arsenal Point for Point are a more successful club than United. No doubt in my mind we will overtake United in terms of success in the next ten years to reclaim our Official Title of being more successful than them which was eaten away in early 90'ies.

I've just joined to publicly laugh at this post, from 2006.

:hahaha::hahaha::hahaha::hahaha::hahaha:

does anyone know when the south stand could, conceivably, be built up to resemble the north stand? considering the glazers are so keen to milk money out of us i would've thought they'd have been looking into developing the south stand as the extra revenue would and could be huge.

I think it'd take a long time for the new stand to repay the costs incurred by rebuilding, seen as they want instant return to repay the debt/make money out of us, I doubt it's high on the list of priorities.

isn't there a train track right behind it though? surely that'll make it difficult?

Not difficult (well, not for engineers/designers/etc) just a lot more expensive.

It's been done in many places before (Landsdowne Road for example).

It's not just "a" track though. It's three, fairly well spaced apart. They also don't own the land, and there could be issues with the houses on the other side of the track.

any picture of the front side of the stadium , the main entrance

I heard that United is trying to buy land. 9 Bond/Wharfside Way, Elevator Road og Europa Triangle to be precise.
Tha are attempting to buy this land from a group called Segro.
Can anyone show me what land this is on a map, and what land United already own?

I heard that United is trying to buy land. 9 Bond/Wharfside Way, Elevator Road og Europa Triangle to be precise.
Tha are attempting to buy this land from a group called Segro.
Can anyone show me what land this is on a map, and what land United already own?
This doesn't answer all of your questions, but it does show a fairly recent state of affairs. Go to Google, and click on 'Maps'. In the box at the top of the page, enter "N 53 27.72 W 2 17.48" and hit enter. The "Satellite" button will give the actual pix, and if you play around, a lot of information can be learned.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Glazer-family-planning-to-move-Manchester-United-to-New-York-article885127.html

april fish

After Man U-Everton draw
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/333/oldtrafford1.png
Screenshots from my tv record

Manchester United - Swansea City

By ynysforgan_jack
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7106/7005575432_73f58f4c70_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7005575432/

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8010/7005576138_1dd1b41f28_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7005576138/

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7252/7005576614_09553f2dae_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7005576614/

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8006/7005578292_5025f94f9a_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7005578292/

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7220/7151668649_a972a44732_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7151668649/

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7227/7005579362_638383d58a_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7005579362/

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7216/7005581638_9847937e73_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7005581638/

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5324/7005582360_afbccc01e0_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7005582360/

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7187/7005582932_c40a38a732_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ynysforgan_jack/7005582932/

I always thought it looks a bit small for 75k. I don't know if it's an optical illusion or what.

I always thought it looks a bit small for 75k. I don't know if it's an optical illusion or what.

Yeah its that low hanging roof that covers up have the stand and makes the stadium look small

Away fans are getting moved up to North Tier 3 next season. With them hidden away by the overhanging roof it could make the atmosphere worse with less banter between the fans but there are talks for a singing section to be introduced where the away fans currently sit. And hopefully it will make it more intimidating for the away team if they can't see or hear their fans :cheers:

I always thought it looks a bit small for 75k. I don't know if it's an optical illusion or what.

+1