hey everyone, i was just wondering if anybody could shed some light on the idea that Manchester United's Old Trafford could be further expanded to 96,000 by adding 2 more tiers to the remaining single-tiered side and filling in the Corners to complete the bowl. What i want to know is:

1. Is is Possible?
2. Is it lightly to happen in the future? (2018 WC maybe?)
3. Could Man U fill it weekly?
4. are there any rumours suggesting another expansion?
5. What are your person oppinions on this matter?
6. and finally, is what i said above^ correct? or have i been mislead? :lol:

i personally think it would be great if it was possible and could happen, i think man u could fill a 96k capacity stadium every week with the amount of fans they have.

would it make Old Trafford the largest stadium with all seats covered in the world? (club stadium?)

1 Yes

2 No

3 Possibly but depends on price.

4 I've read that more boxes with outdoor balconies may be fitted.

5 None

6 you haven't said anything that can be disputed.

No it wouldn't make Old Trafford the largest covered stadium with seats in the World because Barcelona are going up to 106,000 with a retractable roof from Norman Foster.

ok thanks

does anybody have any home-made renders of what old trafford would look like as a full bowl?

ok thanks

does anybody have any home-made renders of what old trafford would look like as a full bowl?

Yes they do: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=300639&page=12 . Post #223 onwards.

Yes they do: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=300639&page=12 . Post #223 onwards.

thanks matey:D

thought i'd post it on this thread too seeing as it is the subject we are discussing

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/5a.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/1a.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/7a.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/6-3.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/4a.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/3-3.jpg

found this picture from a very talented forumer in that thread^^

http://i21.tinypic.com/vealgz.jpg

thanks Nosehairuk!

^^ All those images are fantastic, I had never seen those diagrams by Mo Rush before.

IMO I think it could be possible and they do continue to fill Old Trafford with each expansion. They also had the highest average attendance in Europe last season and am sure they want to keep that. It also looks good on TV with the stadium being full. However I wouldn't see them add an extra 20,000 seats straight away. Maybe another 10,000 or 12,000, then see if that gets filled week in week out, then up to 96,000.

I also read on some thread some where that no English stadium can have a larger capacity to Wembley. I think this is a load of rubbish as have never heard anything of the sort in the past. But is it true, has anybody else heard of this rule?

^^ All those images are fantastic, I had never seen those diagrams by Mo Rush before.

IMO I think it could be possible and they do continue to fill Old Trafford with each expansion. They also had the highest average attendance in Europe last season and am sure they want to keep that. It also looks good on TV with the stadium being full. However I wouldn't see them add an extra 20,000 seats straight away. Maybe another 10,000 or 12,000, then see if that gets filled week in week out, then up to 96,000.

I also read on some thread some where that no English stadium can have a larger capacity to Wembley. I think this is a load of rubbish as have never heard anything of the sort in the past. But is it true, has anybody else heard of this rule?

never heard of a rule like that...it seems pretty stupid tbh if that is the case. Im sure that if a club is successful enough to expand beyond the capacity range of it's country's national stadium, then i doubt they would have much objection.

never heard of a rule like that...it seems pretty stupid tbh if that is the case. Im sure that if a club is successful enough to expand beyond the capacity range of it's country's national stadium, then i doubt they would have much objection.

Yes it would be a rather stupid rule if it is the case. However the English FA do have some stupid rules so who knows it might exist!

It would be odd though if Old Trafford had a larger capacity then Wembley. Would it take the shine away from FA Cup finals with more fans showing up to the semi final at an expanded Old Trafford, then to the final at Wembley? Would Old Trafford then state a claim to host the final of a potential World Cup due to superior capacity?

Yes it would be a rather stupid rule if it is the case. However the English FA do have some stupid rules so who knows it might exist!

It would be odd though if Old Trafford had a larger capacity then Wembley. Would it take the shine away from FA Cup finals with more fans showing up to the semi final at an expanded Old Trafford, then to the final at Wembley? Would Old Trafford then state a claim to host the final of a potential World Cup due to superior capacity?

All Semis are now going to be held at Wembley so Old Trafford won't be holding any Semis. It really annoyed me that the Semis are at Wembley because it really takes the shine off the Semi and the fact your already at Wembley.

Ths Semis or even the League Cup final should be held at the Millennium Stadium.

All Semis are now going to be held at Wembley so Old Trafford won't be holding any Semis. It really annoyed me that the Semis are at Wembley because it really takes the shine off the Semi and the fact your already at Wembley.

I bet that was a move by the FA to get as much money as possible. It does take away magic of the journey on the road to Wembley.

once they see a half full Wembley for a few years, they will revert back to the old system.

In terms of World Cup final, it does not have to be the largest ground.

In 1982, Spain hosted it, the Bernabaeu had the final and the larger Nou Camp, the opening ceremony.

Those pics of an expanded Old Trafford do look impressive - especially that last one.

I could certainly see Old Trafford being expanded again within the next 5 or 6 seasons but I get the feeling that there would be more executive seating and boxes being incorporated into the new South Stand simply because there is more money to be made out of the Prawn Sandwich brigade.

An extension with a load of exec boxes and seating capacity being brought up to just shy of 90,000 would be what I expect. At least if that was to happen, maybe the executive seats and family section that are in the Stretford End could be moved out to the South Stand. Then we could have a hardcore fan base camped in the Stretford End to really get the atmosphere going.

I bet that was a move by the FA to get as much money as possible. It does take away magic of the journey on the road to Wembley.

Wouldn't bet, its a fact. That's the only reason they have done it, so they can put ticket prices up and charge £60 for a burger.

Wouldn't bet, its a fact. That's the only reason they have done it, so they can put ticket prices up and charge £60 for a burger.

They better not cost extra for adding cheese at that price.

you can super size it for £60.30p

Would love for it to happen but with United in £800m debt we'd want Glazer to sell up and some cash rich Arab/Russian/Chinese investor to come onboard to make it happen. To be honest if the PLC were still in charge with over £100m+ in cash it could already be happening, now we can only wait and see. Oh well 74k at the League Cup last night was great but the ATS doesn't have many friends!

Those pics of an expanded Old Trafford do look impressive - especially that last one.

I could certainly see Old Trafford being expanded again within the next 5 or 6 seasons but I get the feeling that there would be more executive seating and boxes being incorporated into the new South Stand simply because there is more money to be made out of the Prawn Sandwich brigade.

An extension with a load of exec boxes and seating capacity being brought up to just shy of 90,000 would be what I expect. At least if that was to happen, maybe the executive seats and family section that are in the Stretford End could be moved out to the South Stand. Then we could have a hardcore fan base camped in the Stretford End to really get the atmosphere going.

That does seem to be the way stadiums are going at the moment and Man Utd are already behind Arsenal and may soon be behind Liverpool in that department. If the corners are done at the same time I'd guess its more likey they'd go for a 2 tier design and wrap the two ends around directly with the exec seating at the bottom of the second one.

IMO Old Trafford is a great stadium in its current state.

Might not have the fancy curves of Emirates or Wembley but there is something about it I like.

Can only get better if any expansion happens.

I also read on some thread some where that no English stadium can have a larger capacity to Wembley. I think this is a load of rubbish as have never heard anything of the sort in the past. But is it true, has anybody else heard of this rule?

theres no such rule, who would be silly enough to believe that? :bash:

It has already been proven to costly for United as the railway line behind the South Stand cannot be moved too easily. I'm sure they ant to add at least one more tier, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.

It has already been proven to costly for United as the railway line behind the South Stand cannot be moved too easily. I'm sure they ant to add at least one more tier, but I can't see it happening anytime soon.

So I guess that is it then? No more expansion at Old Trafford!

Seriously though, I assume that United have looked into extending the South Stand many times before, and each time it will have proven to be more costly than developing the other three sides. And so, United went and developed the other three sides first. However that does not mean that developing the south stand will be too expensive for United. It just proves that it has always been the more expensive option when compared to the other phases of development that have occurred over the past 12/13 years.

As for moving the railway line, well do you honestly think that was part of the plan in the first place? You got to remember to do that the houses behind the railway line would need to be knocked down and then the line re-routed where the houses currently stand. Now that isn't gonna happen now is it?

If the South Stand was to be developed I would doubt very much that the railway line would be touched at all. It would either be a smaller 2nd tier that just overhangs the railway, or a big massive construction that bridges the line. No railway would be moved at all.

Besides has there ever been any estimates released of how much it would cost United to expand the south stand and the corners?

One I never ended up posting before.
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/7964/ot90kdayex0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

IMO you can keep your Emirates and New Anfield. That would be a proper British football stadium.

And thanks for posting that new image nosehairuk, it's friggin brilliant! :applause:

I wish they would paint the exposed concrete on the corners!

I don't think that the stadium would be quite like the renders. My understanding was that part of the problem with expansion is the trainline behind runs too close,so it would be necessary to build over it (and include an internal Old Trafford railway station). Also, the new quadrants are far more ugly than depicted in the renders :)

That's a great pic above -really gives a good impression of the size of that stand. It's sometimes hard to gauge if you haven't been there because of the way the roof hangs down.

Oh definitely, I've been up there in the gods, and its a rediculously big stand, and then everytime you're anywhere other than the North Stand, you would never think theres an extra tier. Nearly killed my dad trying to get to the third tier.

And I didn't like the quadrants in the renders, but everytime I've been back to OT since they've been done, I've started to really like them. OT is a brilliant ground, whether I'm biased or not.

I personally think they should remove the railway. Surely football comes before everything else!

I personally think that would be pretty tricky. Still, I really don't see how building over the railway would be that expensive. It sounds like an excuse. The new stand would have to have a tunnel for the railway to travel through, but this building work shouldn't distrupt trains at all.

Old Trafford already had large gaps under the stands for vehicles to move through, so its not technically impossible to build a larger one for the railway.

Well, If Man Utd can build it, they will build it. That poxy train line won't stop them. I think they've just left it to last purely because it requires a little more thought than the other sides, and also to gauge what capacity they might fill.

1. Is is Possible?
2. Is it lightly to happen in the future? (2018 WC maybe?)
3. Could Man U fill it weekly?
4. are there any rumours suggesting another expansion?
5. What are your person oppinions on this matter?
6. and finally, is what i said above^ correct? or have i been mislead? :lol:

i personally think it would be great if it was possible and could happen, i think man u could fill a 96k capacity stadium every week with the amount of fans they have.

would it make Old Trafford the largest stadium with all seats covered in the world? (club stadium?)
1. Yes it is 'possible'. The train lines behind it is the main problem, and I think there are some houses near to that which might also come into play, but with some co-operation and a bit more money invloved those issues 'could' be recified.
2. Will it happen....possibly. I think it's probably actually inevitable that it will happen sometime in the future, as Man Utd are one of the biggest clubs in the world and obviously will want to maximise their profits and viewing potential by expanding their ground. Before 2018....not sure really. It's certainly not out of the question, especially if a 2018 WC bid would somehow be a motivation point....not sure how that would work, but anyway...
3. They could I think almost certainly fill it (or near fill it) weekly, especially if it's for CL or Premiership matches. Very few (if any) of the 'big' clubs in the world fill their stadiums on a weekly basis (if they've got very large capacities). You'll see Real Madrid and Barcelona have empty seats in a fair few of their matches throughout a football year. But Man Utd could fill the ground to full, or near-full, capacity almost every week.
4. There have been rumours for many years about it I believe, with Fergie commenting on it on a few occassions.
5. Well, if (as I believe) Utd can fill such a capacity most weeks, and as such a club will always be looking to become bigger and more prosperous, it would be a desirable thing that will most likely take place sometime in the not-too-distant future. PLus, if it helps with the 2018 WC bid....sall good.
6. ....nah, you're talking rubbish! :D

They don't neccessarily have to have a three-tiered expansion though...they could just match the 2 two tiered sides and fill in the corner sections more normally....maybe they wouldn't have to go so far back then and they might not have problems with train lines or houses....but I don't really know the details of all that.

look at the new stamford bridge:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2096/chelsea1234gt6.jpg

IMO you can keep your Emirates and New Anfield. That would be a proper British football stadium.

And thanks for posting that new image nosehairuk, it's friggin brilliant! :applause:

Granted the Emirates is nothing like a proper British football stadium, but I think The new Anfield would have far more to claim that.

96,000 prawn sarnie munchers....:ohno:

Is this speculation if the wake of news that the New Anfield may reach 76k, or are there official plans in the works?

By the time this happens, Wembley would probably be 100k anyway.

look at the new stamford bridge:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2096/chelsea1234gt6.jpg

looks great, did you make it or is it official? :lol:;)

What capacity will that be?

55,800

96,000 prawn sarnie munchers....:ohno:

As opposed to 44,000 Scandinavians. :)

Is this image really anything more than something for Chelsea fans to masturbate and dream over?

I assume this entails keeping the West stand (one opposite the TV cameras and from pictures has this sort of image) and replacing all others, that means demolishing the Chelsea Village hotel and restaurants, all right whilst Roman is underwriting you, but surely as a self sufficient long term club other income from the stadium site is important.

The old East stand would have to be demolished and that would mean moving the railway line behind it or building over it into Brompton cemetery which is effectively a Royal Park. From recollections I think the area next to the stadium is full of burials. If it is not going to cross the railway I fail to see how you increase the capacity, especially with all those curves.

There is also a substantial looking building behind the North Stand although I confess ignorance as to what this is and whether it is owned by Chelsea and if so could this be demolished easily and cheaply.

exactly.

by the way, chelsea village will be rebuilt behind the new developed south stand (in a new concept.. of course).

Granted the Emirates is nothing like a proper British football stadium, but I think The new Anfield would have far more to claim that.

96,000 prawn sarnie munchers....:ohno:

Is this speculation if the wake of news that the New Anfield may reach 76k, or are there official plans in the works?

By the time this happens, Wembley would probably be 100k anyway.

With Stanley Park costs going through the roof(£400 Million now up from £250 Million), 76k is looking like a pipe dream.

Is this image really anything more than something for Chelsea fans to masturbate and dream over?
I've no idea if this picture is any more than pure fantasy but here's the answer to your other questions anyway.

I assume this entails keeping the West stand (one opposite the TV cameras and from pictures has this sort of image) and replacing all others, that means demolishing the Chelsea Village hotel and restaurants, all right whilst Roman is underwriting you, but surely as a self sufficient long term club other income from the stadium site is important.
What I've heard is that the West Stand is the only one which will be left intact though the Shed End will have a third tier added to it (which assumes the hotel is demolished). The north and East Stands would be brand new. The issue with the hotel(s) is not so much that we need the income (they've never really made any money) but that they've been leased to Millennium & Copthorne on long-term deals and have just been expensively refurbished.

The old East stand would have to be demolished and that would mean moving the railway line behind it or building over it into Brompton cemetery which is effectively a Royal Park. From recollections I think the area next to the stadium is full of burials. If it is not going to cross the railway I fail to see how you increase the capacity, especially with all those curves.
That's just one thing that hasn't been adequately explained. If the new East Stand was a near mirror of the current West Stand then it would stretch right across the tracks.

There is also a substantial looking building behind the North Stand although I confess ignorance as to what this is and whether it is owned by Chelsea and if so could this be demolished easily and cheaply.
This is the old Chelsea World of Sport building and it is owned by the club. But also behind that stand is the District Line which passes very close to the North West corner of the stadium. So I would assume that an expanded North Stand would have to stretch over the railway lines too.

And they hope to get this agreed by all the relevant authorities? Hmm.

http://i11.tinypic.com/6llr3lz.jpg

this pic really makes you think about how big the stadium would look as a complete bowl, i wonder if any talented forumers could make a render based on that picture with the completed bowl-shaped old trafford?

I've seen a completed bowl render before. I'll have a look.

Edit: I think that was the St. James's Park render of the whole bowl. Equally as impressive, but not what you were looking for. I did find this though, quite recent work by someone on these forums:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/oldtraffordlarge.jpg

yes that is very impressive...

St. James' park you say? a full bowl?

could you post that on here please? if you still have it or know where it is...

With Stanley Park costs going through the roof(£400 Million now up from £250 Million), 76k is looking like a pipe dream.

they spent all that money to change the design so it can be increased, so i cant see it being a pipe dream, if anything it shows how serious they are about getting it over 70k

yes that is very impressive...

St. Jame's park you say? a full bowl?

could you post that on here please? if you still have it or know where it is...

Sure:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/sjp2010.jpg

This render shows it as a 60,000 seater:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/gallowgateow8.jpg

Sure:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/sjp2010.jpg

There are other versions that show it as a 60,000 seater, but I lost them sorry!

thanks for that :D

wow! that would be fantastic for the city, i'm guessing the capacity for that would be around 75k? (assuming you think about what the inside of the completed bowl would really look like, as there wouldn't be 3 tiers i dont think)

Correct me if I am wrong -but that aint gonna happen is it? A full bowl? Do they have room?
Looking at that render, it's got world cup stadium written all over it. I know they would use st. James' anyway, but that looks fab.

Correct me if I am wrong -but that aint gonna happen is it? A full bowl? Do they have room?
Looking at that render, it's got world cup stadium written all over it. I know they would use st. James' anyway, but that looks fab.

doesn't look likely as i think there are listed buildings behind the main single-tiered stand.

they spent all that money to change the design so it can be increased, so i cant see it being a pipe dream, if anything it shows how serious they are about getting it over 70k

If they were serious about going over 70k why don't just just built a 76k stadium to start with? Its already costing a bomb and its going madly over the original budget. Surely going for 76k now would be cheaper now than expanding it in the future. It makes me think firstly they are scared that they might not sell out and two its just all talk trying to big them selfs up against the big boys in Europe.

i'm guessing the capacity for that would be around 75k?

At least 80,000! - just a bit smaller than the San Siro in Italy :)

Correct me if I am wrong -but that aint gonna happen is it? A full bowl? Do they have room?
Looking at that render, it's got world cup stadium written all over it. I know they would use st. James' anyway, but that looks fab.

They could expand to 60,000 without too much trouble, as it's just building over a road. Expanding to 80,000 would be near impossible as the buildings behind are listed. It will definetly be used as a World Cup stadium if England win the bid in 2018.

Sorry for taking the thread off topic!

My bet's on another Old Trafford expansion in the next few years, certainly before 2018 if England host the World Cup that year. As for OT's typical "it's difficult to build over a railway line" excuse... Lansdowne road in Dublin did it in 1876! So it should be no problem!

(stand on the left): http://www.stadiumguide.com/lansdowneroad.htm

St James and Old traford expanded looks great, anyway hear is my main point the san giro in Glasgow (celtic park) big stand? dont no what side it is has an overhang onto a grave yard and it was built on the very cheep so surly man utd could managed a railway line and if you look at the South stands footprint its not that much smaller than the rest as they are.

With Stanley Park costs going through the roof(£400 Million now up from £250 Million), 76k is looking like a pipe dream.

ah so it is, thankyou for answering my question.

Chelsea in filling 80,000 seater stadium shocker :D

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8035/otnightbw7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

nosehairuk, you are a legend!

With the south stand being completely rebuilt (hopefully oneday!), I reckon they would work on the other two quadrants at the same time. Hopefully resulting in a more 'seamless' feel.

Once finished, put the TV gantry into the north stand and from a TV perspective you won't see the rather more ugly older quadrants.

Just an idea...

Top PhotoShop job nosey! And well done for deleting the Old Trafford sign on the right hand stand under the floodlights ;)

Wot? where's it gone? All I got for Nosehairuk's post is a blank:bash: Someone get it back up for me!

If they were serious about going over 70k why don't just just built a 76k stadium to start with? Its already costing a bomb and its going madly over the original budget. Surely going for 76k now would be cheaper now than expanding it in the future. It makes me think firstly they are scared that they might not sell out and two its just all talk trying to big them selfs up against the big boys in Europe.

They already had a design, and planning permission for a 60,000 seater stadium in a listed park. The new stadium is designed for 78k+ or something - have a look at the design, there is a whole tier missing off the end opposite the Kop. The idea of putting in another planning application for exactly that size but completely redesigned stadium first was to get the project under construction as soon as possible, as the planning process was faster. They'll now submit further planning apps for the missing tier, and i think they need to part fund a new train station.

As for Bigs Boys in Europe, indeed! LFC have 1 uefa cup, 2 european super cups, 1 champions league in the last 6 years, including 2 champions league finals in the last 3 seasons, whilst "big boys" Man U, Arsenal & Chelsea have won .. erm what exactly? "the plaudits"? Really now! Know your place :)

Oh I see it now. Jesus Christ! That's quality. How the hell did u manage that Nosehairuk? Can't see the fold/cut, and attention to detail is phenomenal.....
:applause::applause::applause:


Pity about the rugger posts though.

One thing that's not been mentioned is the fact that the pitch at OT is notoriously difficult to maintain. Whilst on a tour of the ground a question was asked by an american tourist of all people whether the south stand would ever be developed further the answer was simple. No. This is not because of fears the stand wouldn't be filled OR the railway causing a problem, but becase of sunlight. As some of you are probably aware, a south facing garden is desirable as it will get the majority of the sunlight during the day. If the South Stand was any higher the OT pitch would almost constantly be in shaddow. Therefore the pitch would not be able to grow as well and become even worse come winter. As for using sun-lamps which are already used across Europe, this too was brought up by the American tourist to which the highly informative guide informed us that the extent to which they would need to be used at an OT with an extended South Stand the cost of running could run in to the thousands everyday, therefore to make them cost effective the price of tickets, which even in his opinion as an employee of OT is already too high, would have to be raised in price by upto 15% to 25%.

Personally I would be in favour of further development but only if it was possible without affecting the quality of the football, which at the moment seems to be impossible

One thing that's not been mentioned is the fact that the pitch at OT is notoriously difficult to maintain. Whilst on a tour of the ground a question was asked by an american tourist of all people whether the south stand would ever be developed further the answer was simple. No. This is not because of fears the stand wouldn't be filled OR the railway causing a problem, but becase of sunlight. As some of you are probably aware, a south facing garden is desirable as it will get the majority of the sunlight during the day. If the South Stand was any higher the OT pitch would almost constantly be in shaddow. Therefore the pitch would not be able to grow as well and become even worse come winter. As for using sun-lamps which are already used across Europe, this too was brought up by the American tourist to which the highly informative guide informed us that the extent to which they would need to be used at an OT with an extended South Stand the cost of running could run in to the thousands everyday, therefore to make them cost effective the price of tickets, which even in his opinion as an employee of OT is already too high, would have to be raised in price by upto 15% to 25%.

Personally I would be in favour of further development but only if it was possible without affecting the quality of the football, which at the moment seems to be impossible

Then why not have a transparent roof ?

Then why not have a transparent roof ?

thats what i was thinking, a glass roof might solve the problem, but they may have to change the way the roof is held up

Not just that, there's also air circulation to consider.

would be amazing if it gets that big. but Wembley would still be a better stadium

thats what i was thinking, a glass roof might solve the problem, but they may have to change the way the roof is held up

Personally I think its unlikey you'd see the south stand redevolped the same way as the others anyway. The big money these days is in corperate/luxury seating and Old Trafford is way behind the Emirates and probabley the new Anfield in that department at the moment. Something more modest in size that adds say 10,000 to the capacity with a glass or retractible roof is what I'm expecting if anything happens at all in the next few years.

Personally I think its unlikey you'd see the south stand redevolped the same way as the others anyway. The big money these days is in corperate/luxury seating and Old Trafford is way behind the Emirates and probabley the new Anfield in that department at the moment. Something more modest in size that adds say 10,000 to the capacity with a glass or retractible roof is what I'm expecting if anything happens at all in the next few years.

Huh?

Care to elaborate on Emirates and the New Anfield being ahead of Old Trafford on corporate/luxury seating quota?

As a percentage of total seats?
By revenue?
By quality?

I hope you are right!

If so, then United being of a much larger magnitude for demand then I would expect another huge expansion to be in advanced planning already!

what about if they re-built the south stand as it is now,single tier, but added 4 or 5 stories of boxes above the stand? kind of like the monumental u in lima
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/peru/lima_monumental2.jpg

they could get around the railway line issue by not building over it and increasing matchday revenue

what about if they re-built the south stand as it is now,single tier, but added 4 or 5 stories of boxes above the stand? kind of like the monumental u in lima
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/peru/lima_monumental2.jpg

they could get around the railway line issue by not building over it and increasing matchday revenue

I reckon that would ruin the stadium because of how low the roof slants down to - meaning the south stand's roof would have to be completely different from the rest of the stadium.

Maybe they could rebuild the south stand the same way as the north with the addition of an extra tier or two (small ones mind;)) just for executive boxes etc. and maybe, to make up for the loss in capacity, they could extend the top tier around the the quadrants- making the full bowl and the largest football stadium in the UK :D

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/11/22/Photo_11-thumb.jpg

I would think a stand like this at Ford Field in Detroit would be the most likely option for the Main Stand at Old Trafford.

this video gives an idea of how the outside of the stadium would look if they build the south stand up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne40UhLlEfI

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/oldtraffordlarge.jpg

Impressive albeit it would look more like a 60k stadium generally speaking.
Ive always wondered how they get so many specs into OT.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/oldtraffordlarge.jpg

Impressive albeit it would look more like a 60k stadium generally speaking.
Ive always wondered how they get so many specs into OT.

Are you kidding??? look at the size of it, its massive!! Emirates is 60k, and looks nowhere near as big as that.

looking at a similar pic its easy to tell OT is bigger, the seats are also closer together too (in some areas) which also justifies the extra capacity, im not sure about the OT expansion it seems a lot of money to build over the railway line (which they'll have to do) but i also agree i dont think it will be skyboxes as they're not the current trend for corporates. Im hoping by 2018 something will be done but they cant really expand in any other way and the demand is there.

http://www.rialtoplus.com/common/custom/EVT0000100001140.jpg

Are you kidding??? look at the size of it, its massive!! Emirates is 60k, and looks nowhere near as big as that.

Not sure about that. It certainly doesnt look like 96k. If the expansion would be done Ot would maybe would look slightly bigger (due to that 3rd tier) than the Signal Iduna Park in Dortmund I guess.

Signal Iduna Park
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/337474904_eda624eab1_b.jpg

OT
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/246009325_14b24f680c_b.jpg

The sloping roof hides or shadows most of the 3rd tier, i think if you took the roof off it would look closer to its capacity.

Image of the matchstick model from the Youtube vid earlier in the thread:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8730/bscap0003fa3.jpg

Doubt you'd get 96,000 in this one though. :)

Nah it wouldn't, they'd just need some of Lowry's Matchstick men!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/manchester_united/article3998992.ece

How do you make United bigger? Is expanding the stadium part of it?

“I’m on to David Gill all the time about that. I know what we can do. In the main stand, at both ends, you build a steel structure up and across. Right? We can’t build back, because of the railway line behind, so we build upwards the way I’m talking about. Or shove all you press boys somewhere out of the road. That would get us 200 or 300 seats . . .

“Building just one corner of the main stand would get us another 6,500 seats and take us up to around 83,000 capacity. We could sell 100,000 tickets for our games but, architecturally, that’s not possible. At least if we build the way I’m talking about, it would make the façade of the stadium symmetrical all the way round and we’d reach Real Madrid’s level in terms of capacity, and it would make us bigger than anyone in England could do.”

Man Utd boss Ferguson pushes for stadium expansion

tribalfootball.com - May 25, 2008

http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=94594

Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson has warned chief executive David Gill he won't stop his nagging about expanding Old Trafford.

"I would hate to think that Real Madrid could ride roughshod over us with a player all the time," he said. "There is this movie called You've Got Mail which is about a shop on the corner being engulfed by a supermarket. We don't want to be one of those small shops.


"The club have done brilliantly commercially. The only thing I can do is to produce a winning team. David Gill and his team have the expertise in other areas and they have got some clever people in now.

"The only thing that matters to me is that black type - the winner's name. We want to be playing in European Cup finals.

"But I'm on to David all the time about expanding the stadium. I know what we could do with the main stand at both ends; we could build a structure up and across. We could do one corner at least and maybe get another 6,500 seats to take the total capacity to 83,000.

"We could fill it. In fact, I think we could get 100,000 in, but it's not feasible architecturally to get the stadium to that size. But we could build that structure and it would at least make the inside of the stadium symmetrical - and it would make us bigger than anyone could get close to, certainly in England."












:)

I think Utd could feasibly add a small tier around the top of the main stand, that overhangs the existing one. This could be around 5-6000 in total, would offer great views, and raise capacity to 81,000.

Other than that, I'd like to think that in the coming years we may see a return to standing. The lower tiers behind the goals could easily be returned to standing, adding another 2-3,000 to total capacity.

Unlikely I know, but legislation changes, and it's possible.

Do you mean 3,000 extra on top of the South Stand and 1,500 on each of the Southern Quadrants with the roof being realigned?

Or how about full sized quadrants 3,000 each and then a combo of seating and boxes over the south stand with an overall capacity increase over 10,000 seats, all in all messy, someone needs to shut that railway line......

BTW how are United meant to fund all this, the interest on the current Red Football loans are hardly generous!

BTW how are United meant to fund all this, the interest on the current Red Football loans are hardly generous!

By selling Ronaldo

Do you mean 3,000 extra on top of the South Stand and 1,500 on each of the Southern Quadrants with the roof being realigned?

Or how about full sized quadrants 3,000 each and then a combo of seating and boxes over the south stand with an overall capacity increase over 10,000 seats, all in all messy, someone needs to shut that railway line......

BTW how are United meant to fund all this, the interest on the current Red Football loans are hardly generous!

I can picture a smaller upper tier (perhaps 10-15 rows deep) wrapping around the south stand and adjoining the upper tiers of the end stands. This might be a good compromise and would avoid railway issues, although I'm sure any extension to this stand would still be an engineering nightmare. I know from my own job how difficult Network Rail can be.

To pay for it? Well, sell Ronaldo and Rooney. I'm sure everyone would support that. ;)

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/Dsc_2617d70sm5.jpg
You are more likely to see a structure of luxury boxes with an overhanging seating section.

Can somebody tell me why they can't extend the South Stand over the railway lines and just have a tunnel for the trains to go through?

united don't own the railway line

I know that, but that doesn't explain why they cannot build over it - surely the council and Network Rail would allow them to? There's no reason why they wouldn't give permission?

too expensive, the foundations would have to withstand a train crash by about 10 trains at once.

too expensive, the foundations would have to withstand a train crash by about 10 trains at once.

That's simple enough, modern structures are designed to withstand such impacts.

And if it's that big a problem then the line can be tunnelled around the extension.

Either way there's no reason why the stand can't be extended, any reason given for not doing it is just an excuse for not shelling out the money.

Either way there's no reason why the stand can't be extended, any reason given for not doing it is just an excuse for not shelling out the money.

:yes:

That's simple enough, modern structures are designed to withstand such impacts.

And if it's that big a problem then the line can be tunnelled around the extension.

Either way there's no reason why the stand can't be extended, any reason given for not doing it is just an excuse for not shelling out the money.

Money is the big reason and it's a very good reason. Money is a measure of the effort required and the return expected. You can do anything with money. The cost per seat would not merit going over the railway line.

Unless you fancied a few seasons of mid table football.

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/Dsc_2617d70sm5.jpg
You are more likely to see a structure of luxury boxes with an overhanging seating section.

^ memorial stadium, nebraska - had a great day out watching the huskers there last autumn.

a capacity of 81,000 in a city of 241,000. still fill it every game as well. jolly good show and all that.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/091507-USCNeb-MemorialStadium.jpg/800px-091507-USCNeb-MemorialStadium.jpg

Vote: Old Trafford vs New Anfield

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=639171

What's there to vote on Mo? A stadium full of history and character, and home to the champions of Europe. And the other just some drawings on a few pieces of paper!

I wouldn't mind but the way it's going at Scouserland, will this stadium ever be built? It's been designed and changed 3 times, building work has been delayed (again) and they ain't even sure who will be owning the club next season.

Hard to have a vote on something which at the moment seems like 'pie in the sky'.

Image of the matchstick model from the Youtube vid earlier in the thread:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/8730/bscap0003fa3.jpg

Doubt you'd get 96,000 in this one though. :)

Someone needs to send thhis to Sir Alex.
:)

To make him stay?


He'll be gone by the time this is finished.

Yeah but he could have a seat upstairs ;-)

http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/Dsc_2617d70sm5.jpg
You are more likely to see a structure of luxury boxes with an overhanging seating section.

If they did go with stacked luxury boxes to avoid having to deal with the rail line I'd guess its more likey you'd see the reverse of that. That is boxes directly over the current stand(or a rebuilt version of it) and a smaller teir of seating above.

If they did go with stacked luxury boxes to avoid having to deal with the rail line I'd guess its more likey you'd see the reverse of that. That is boxes directly over the current stand(or a rebuilt version of it) and a smaller teir of seating above.

that would create sightline problems for the seats above, they would have to be angled far too steep. the back seats would not see the near touchline.

that would create sightline problems for the seats above, they would have to be angled far too steep. the back seats would not see the near touchline.

The stand infront of them is fairly deep though, if the stand behind was as steep as at the ends I wouldnt be supprized if there was space for 3 rows of boxes aslong as they werent espeically tall. If they built the directors boxes at the back not only would they be along way from the action but the view probabley wouldnt be very good unless they changed the design of the roof.

Really though the way clubs are going after the luxury market seems to be moving away friom boxes and towards seating with luxury dinning/bar facilties behind. I still think the most likey devolpment is a 2 teir design similar to the ends just with the first few rows of the second tier as luxury seating.

If you put the seating on top of the boxes, the roof design would probably have to be a "goalpost" to free up the space behind the stand for a tier of seating, otherwise the bigger cantilevers would interfere with the railway "airspace"

By stacking up the boxes and including a small tier of seating infront of them, the club could stick with a similar roof as exists at the present, slightly modified to slope down a little.

check the last two paragraphs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/2463040/Manchester-United-abandon-Dimitar-Berbatov-bid-because-of-Tottenham-demands.html

A lad found this. Seems the next move will be 76,000 to 82,000.

He just mentions to corners in that...and not like...another tier on whatever the name of that side of the ground is.

if they do develop the south stand i hope they mirror the north. staium would look fantastic then! but i wonder what they would do about the new quads? would they build them to mirror the existing ones i.e. have that ugly wall running through them to make them look symmetrical. i think they would because if they made them seamless(as the existing quads should have been) it would make those walls stand out like a sore thumb.

Hey, I've got a question.. about south stand:

Is it possible that south stand will be bigger then the north one?
The 3rd tier: 5,000 and 19 rows. If the 3rd tier has got 40rows the capacity will increase up to 101,000!! (96+5) and beats the Camp nou!

Hey, I've got a question.. about south stand:

Is it possible that south stand will be bigger then the north one?
The 3rd tier: 5,000 and 19 rows. If the 3rd tier has got 40rows the capacity will increase up to 101,000!! (96+5) and beats the Camp nou!

i was thinking about this also, but i think the idea would be too expensive and take up way too much space - something old trafford isnt blessed with. Of course, it would be absolutely fantastic to see this happen but i doubt it very much:ohno:

Just a point. From the sounds of the proposed corner expansion it sounds like the two corners will be curled around 1/3 or 2/3 of the way for sightline reasons, this could mean that the next move after this would be a smaller second tier say 5-6,000 similar in size to the North Stand top tier taking capacity to just below 90,000 with the South Stand roof still being slightly lower than the rest of the stadiums roof, doing this could be cheaper then a full size tier or two tiers like the North Stand. Does anyone reckon this is a possibility? I reckon this would be a better capacity and option for MU.

i think that the best option for MU is to built south stand as big as it's possible.. becouse Old Trafford is always full and it will pay-off..

When the 2nd tier will be bigger the capacity could increase even up to 105,000.. Is it an amazing ?

I can see where you are coming from berkshire royal as i think OT could be expanded as you have said without being affected by the trainline. As you see with the picture below, there would be enough space for a small second tier above the 'South stand', as there the offices/suites/boxes at the back of the stand that stick out some way when compared to the rest of the first tier (ie. compare main stand to corners).

http://www.premierfootballbooks.co.uk/images/manunited_aerial.jpg

However i personally think Utd should wait till they can rebuild (or extend) the main stand as large as they possibly can to maximise revenue and complete the redevelopment of Old Trafford, if they were to do this i think they would be the most powerfull club in the world with probably the best stadium as well. A legacy i think Sir Alex would love to leave behind him.

http://www.portugoal.net/images/stadiums/Old-Trafford.jpg

I also believe that a stand similar in shape/size to the North stand could be built in replace of the South stand, with the third tier overhanging the trainline supported by some clever engineering. With no affect on the trainline at all, however it is the thousands of extra fans access that would need to be thought about, hence the purchasing of houses the other side of the tracks, with bridges (i would imagine) feeding into the new stand. It would look incredible if it were to happen.

I think my idea could be better then having a mirror North Stand.

From the noises that have been coming out of the club it sounds like the next phase of work at OT will involve making putting corners into the south-east + south-west quad areas but due to sightline problems these will only go round 1/3-2/3 of the way (unsure how tall they will be) this will leave a few options with the South Stand. They could construct a smaller tier which could potentially be done without going over the rail line also there would be no need to finish off the corners. Or they could build a bigger stand a copy of the North Stand with the corners getting finished off. With the smaller tier proposal construction time would be much easier + quicker.

I also would prefer this option because I personally would not want OT to be bigger then Wembley.
And also in simple business sense if OT had a capacity of around 100,000 that would be pushing the demand for tickets to the maximum, having a slightly capped capacity actually helps to fuel demand and ensures that every games is a sell out.
In my mind my idea would be the quickest and cheapest to construct, it would leave OT with a perfect capacity of around 85,000, as well as a potential increase in Suites. And I reckon something quite interesting could be done with some decent architecture and design work, I prefer individual stand design and I reckon having a unique smaller tier could look pretty good.

Obviously I'm not the one involved in the project and as I'm not a United fan I don't know all the facts it might be that even a small tier would go over the railway line and cost a huge amount.
I’m hope I am explaining what I have in mind well, not really sure if I am.
Although I can see the plusses of having a North Stand mirror I actually think it wouldn't look very good as well as also being extremely expensive.

I think i understand what you mean and i think you also make a very good point about expansion and demand. As i am united fan i have no problem with OT being bigger than Wembley however :D.

With regards to the expansion of the two remaining corners i am slightly confused with the clubs fairly recent statement, something which you have rightly mentioned. As you say sightlines would prove to be an issue with the corners, which is why i dont understand why Utd themselves have said that this would be the next stage of redevelopment as i don't think it's possible. Unless of course they remove the south stand's roof completely, with the weather in Manchester being as it is, i can't see this happening! This is what i'm thinking of when you say 1/3 - 1/2 of the corner, maybe you can prove me wrong on that.

I guess they could taper around the corner, ie. gradually reducing from (say for example) 40 rows of the Stretford End's second tier to eventually 0, sloping down to meet the main stand. Slightly hard to explain, but i think that is possible, if not sligthtly unorthodox. It would also limit future expansion maybe, such as when they do develop the south (main) stand. Do you understand what i mean by this? I could maybe illustrate.

Although having said that i have just had an idea, where they could build the corner extensions, in preperation for the eventual south stand expansion and have "Void" areas, where the slightlines are such that you are unable to see a sufficient ammount of the pitch. With the South stand roof still intact, and the taper effect coming into play.

That is why i am slightly confused about the clubs statement, surely they would have to develop the south stand first, or at the same time as the corners in order for fans to be able to use the extended corners. I think the clubs statement is maybe to push along plans for the South stand redevelopment, stating that they can't expand any more till this has taken place, suggesting maybe that the council are limiting progress, although this is all purely hypothetical.

Is there any official plan of extending this stand? Any graphic visualization?
Or just MU fans speculations ?

Thinking about what you said and also what we have for info and I remembered that there is a stadium that has something awfully like what Man U are proposing. Charlton When they expanded their North Stand built in the 2 corners even though there is a considerable difference in height between the North and Jimmy Seed Stand. Unfortunately I couldn't get a better pic but you can still see from this picture how Charlton resolved their issues regarding the differences in height although it will be on a worse scale I think this could be a template for us too see how it could work at Old Trafford.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2324/2097047453_2f36547079.jpg?v=0

Regarding what you said about the sloping down roof do you mean something similair to the KC Stadium?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/threecounties/content/images/2005/05/20/kc_stadium_hull_empty_400x300.jpg

And with my idea in my mind I thought of a basic template of a stand that is extremely similar to the South Stand, which is the West Stand at Chelsea. It has the lower gradient that First Tier of the South Stand and also has two ends corners going right the way round meeting the West Stand. The construction process was also similar to what Man U are proposing in that the first tier was constructed before any of the additional tiers were built, to combat the problem of poor sightlines Chelsea just got rid of the roof on the Stand to Make sure that no one had an impeded view in the corner stand. Here is a pic of the stand I’m talking about.

http://www.freewebs.com/romano-soccer/Stadions/Stamford%20Bridge.jpg

My Proposal would be similar to this apart from that firstly I'd take away the top tier and the Second tier would be roughly double the size. Also the second tier would curl around slightly and there would be a small gap between where the corner and second tier meets. And the top of where the new quadrants meet the South Stand would be similar to the Charlton Corner with a bit of seating missing where the view would be severely restricted. This is just a basic idea but do you reckon this could work because to me this would be the most financially rewarding proposal.

I personally reckon a copy of the two quadrants and North Stand would look awful, this would be the more architecturally pleasing. With out wanting to sound too cocky I do think that my proposal would be perfect, there would even be room for future expansion.

Is there any official plan of extending this stand? Any graphic visualization?
Or just MU fans speculations ?

No visualizations, but there has been a few comments from the club regarding expansion it's purely speculation at this stage and probably will be for a long time yet.

I also would prefer this option because I personally would not want OT to be bigger then Wembley.

Old Trafford will never be bigger than Wembley. It just might have more seats.

Old Trafford will never be bigger than Wembley. It just might have more seats.

Bit of a contradiction in terms there Charlie. Surely more seats means a BIGGER attendance figure?

It ain't rocket science :)

Gill has said OT will always have 15k more seats than the next biggest English team side.

If the scousers go to 70k, expect OT to go to 85k (ish), this is of course dependent upon the Glazers being able to fund any expansion which I seriously doubt given how much we lose each year due to the loan repayments.

Gill has said OT will always have 15k more seats than the next biggest English team side.

If the scousers go to 70k, expect OT to go to 85k (ish), this is of course dependent upon the Glazers being able to fund any expansion which I seriously doubt given how much we lose each year due to the loan repayments.

I can't see United spending money on extending OT in the current financial situation.

If things get worse; it's quite possible attendances at OT will start to fall.

BTW. Liverpool's new stadium has been put on hold.

^^

Look the credit crunch does not mean the end of lending by banks.
The credit crunch was initiated by defaulting US homeowners and the realisation that there has been an horrific house price bubble over the last 10-15 years. All the usual muppets saying things are different and more affordable.

Anyway.

If United's expansion cost £50m and they will generate an extra £10m per year and the bank gets it's 7-10% interest rate then the project goes ahead.

If not a UK bank then why would United not approach a Chinese Bank or HSBC.

Plenty of money for projects not dependent on asset inflated schemes...ergo residential and office construction.

Having said all that, nothing will happen until the economy picks up and the demand and crucially the pricing can be gauged.

Unless we sell Ronnie for £80m!

Bit of a contradiction in terms there Charlie. Surely more seats means a BIGGER attendance figure?

No, more seats means a (potentially) higher attendance figure. My point was that Wembley is far bigger in scale, thanks to the more generous seating dimensions, huge concourses etc.

Ive been to Wembley and I wouldnt say it looks much better or bigger than Old Trafford. From the outside and distance at least Wembley doesnt look that impressive considering they had a blank canvass to start again and a huge budget. Maybe O.T. having stands designed and built over the period of a few years to slightly different designs doesnt help. But from the outside at least I think O.T. looks bigger.

^^


If not a UK bank then why would United not approach a Chinese Bank or HSBC.

Unless we sell Ronnie for £80m!

HSBC is a UK bank

HSBC = Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation.
They have a UK base for European operations, but that is a division of the bank based in... Hong Kong, China

^http://www.hsbc.com/1/2/about-hsbc

wrong thread

http://www.hsbc.com/1/2/about-hsbc


Good link The Hunted. The History wall that is mentioned in the link is in the foyer of HSBC "WORLD HQ" at canary wharf and it charts the complex origins of the bank going back hundreds of years. The oldest parts of the bank were from these shores. The History wall is asked as a point of interest on the knowledge and is well worth a look if you can blag your way through security at Canada Sq.

Do we think United will announce expansion plans in the New Year?

If you can assume that the debt is manageable, with increased income streams and the small matter of winning the European Cup to show in the accounts, will United invest in the ground.

Net transfer spend seem to be running under £20m per year, so with profits this year to hit £100m? then will they put this money towards expansion?

The back of the Stretford End is all space, as is the space under T2 here. The bottom section of the Stretty End quadrant is unused....seems to me this has been left fallow to allow relocation of the South Stand diners for any new construction?

Personally, I always prefer to look long term and if we needed to have a low spend summer to fund expansion to 82-85,000 then the benfefits to United over the next 20-25 years will be huge.

We would be easily the best supported team in Europe. El Pais was telling barca fans to turn up and support the team last week! Unbelievable!

United have a window, with their income stream and profits to push on and leave Arsenal (fixed to 60,000), Liverpool and Chelsea far, far behind.

Hilarious if Arsenal expanded by 22,000 to try to match United and 3 years later will start expanding back up to a 22,000-25,000 crowd lead.

We have to push for this.

Do we think United will announce expansion plans in the New Year?

If you can assume that the debt is manageable, with increased income streams and the small matter of winning the European Cup to show in the accounts, will United invest in the ground.

Net transfer spend seem to be running under £20m per year, so with profits this year to hit £100m? then will they put this money towards expansion?

The back of the Stretford End is all space, as is the space under T2 here. The bottom section of the Stretty End quadrant is unused....seems to me this has been left fallow to allow relocation of the South Stand diners for any new construction?

Personally, I always prefer to look long term and if we needed to have a low spend summer to fund expansion to 82-85,000 then the benfefits to United over the next 20-25 years will be huge.

We would be easily the best supported team in Europe. El Pais was telling barca fans to turn up and support the team last week! Unbelievable!

United have a window, with their income stream and profits to push on and leave Arsenal (fixed to 60,000), Liverpool and Chelsea far, far behind.

Hilarious if Arsenal expanded by 22,000 to try to match United and 3 years later will start expanding back up to a 22,000-25,000 crowd lead.

We have to push for this.

If its going to come around like the others I'd expect plans to come out next year and building work to start at the end of the 2010 season. That's how the last three expansions have come about. 5 years between building work starting and 4/5 years between plans coming out.

Also I was thinking if United have some clever engineers they won't have to go over the railway line. They could do a Beetham type thing with an over hang over the railway on the tallest parts of the stand.

Yes, and if fairness to United, since Edwards cleared off, expansion has been genuinely impressive in scale. The North Stand is truly humongous on a world-scale. I would be brimming with pride if a similar scale structure was announced. I real statement of intent.
Perhaps the news of extra quadrants is really a smoke screen for the other clubs (Liverpool/Chelsea), it is after all a one-off thing this ground expansion. 95,000-100,000 seats puts the economics of a Chelsea/Liverpool/Arsenal affair to bed, forever. Is that not the aim after all?

Certainly if a new South Stand were to cost £50-£100m then this is fundable on most ideas of return on investment and the cash the club is generating?

The debt is collosal, but only becomes a concern to a banker if there is no cash-flow. United have cash-flow coming out of their ears with growth across the board. What effect the credit crunch has in this I do not know. The 1980's downturn was maybe hooligan/facilitiy lead, rather than economic?

I dunno about that, but I suppose only United know how many enquiries they get for tickets per match. I would assume that if say 15 games a season could have sold 100,000 then that makes the project a go-er if the other 10-12 games would pull in 76,000+ or more likely 80,000+ anyway???

Yes, and if fairness to United, since Edwards cleared off, expansion has been genuinely impressive in scale. The North Stand is truly humongous on a world-scale. I would be brimming with pride if a similar scale structure was announced. I real statement of intent.
Perhaps the news of extra quadrants is really a smoke screen for the other clubs (Liverpool/Chelsea), it is after all a one-off thing this ground expansion. 95,000-100,000 seats puts the economics of a Chelsea/Liverpool/Arsenal affair to bed, forever. Is that not the aim after all?

Certainly if a new South Stand were to cost £50-£100m then this is fundable on most ideas of return on investment and the cash the club is generating?

The debt is collosal, but only becomes a concern to a banker if there is no cash-flow. United have cash-flow coming out of their ears with growth across the board. What effect the credit crunch has in this I do not know. The 1980's downturn was maybe hooligan/facilitiy lead, rather than economic?

I dunno about that, but I suppose only United know how many enquiries they get for tickets per match. I would assume that if say 15 games a season could have sold 100,000 then that makes the project a go-er if the other 10-12 games would pull in 76,000+ or more likely 80,000+ anyway???

Lets say its an average of £35 a ticket. 24,000 extra tickets sold a game, 20 games at sold out capacity. £16.8 Million a year extra possible just from ticket sales from 20 league games. Add your programs, food/beer sales, cups games and prawn sandwich brigade paying £120 for a meal and ticket then that increases.

The expansion quickly seems more attractive to the club and the banker. If you were lending them that £600 Million in the current market. You'd be thinking this piece of business is the only thing that we own which could increase in value. £30 Million on a man or £50-100 Million to bring in that type of extra money to pay for that £30 Million man.

Lets say its an average of £35 a ticket. 24,000 extra tickets sold a game, 20 games at sold out capacity. £16.8 Million a year extra possible just from ticket sales from 20 league games. Add your programs, food/beer sales, cups games and prawn sandwich brigade paying £120 for a meal and ticket then that increases.

The expansion quickly seems more attractive to the club and the banker. If you were lending them that £600 Million in the current market. You'd be thinking this piece of business is the only thing that we own which could increase in value. £30 Million on a man or £50-100 Million to bring in that type of extra money to pay for that £30 Million man.

I don't think you'll be in the position where you needing to spend great amounts in the transfer market in the next couple of years anyway as most of your stars are in there mid 20's.

As I said before I suspect that the "£120 for a ticket and meal" crowd will be those cantered for most by a new expansion. While Old Trafford does have sizeable corperate facilties its still some way behind Wembley and the Emirates. A small devolpment of the south stand that didnt have to cross the rail line and say added another 5-10 K luxury seats could provide a very good return.

facilties its still some way behind Wembley and the Emirates.

Where do you get this information from?

I would be stunned that the club that had the most private boxes and restaurants is being out powered by the Emirates.
We did spend £45m two summers ago extending the corporates side of affairs alone?

Where do you get this information from?

I would be stunned that the club that had the most private boxes and restaurants is being out powered by the Emirates.
We did spend £45m two summers ago extending the corporates side of affairs alone?

Not sure about private boxes but I'd be supprized if the Emirates didnt have more luxury seats with the entire 2nd teir made up of them. That market between the ultra high end of the boxes and the basic tickets seem to be where alot of teams are focusing right now aswell. I'd guess because its an efficent use of the more precious internal bowl space(seats maybe slightly larger but the facilties behind are what people really pay for) and looks alot better.

Ontop of that the economics of stadium devolpment seem to have changed, costs have gone up so much that basic ticket sales don't seem to be able to justify new stadiums or extensions(or at least high spec ones) anymore. Man Utd's early extension of OT is starting to look like a very good move as a result IMHO.

Whilst increasing the size will add more restaurant seats, I do not think that it will be as pronounced as what some are suggesting, if you look at a picture taken between the Stratford End being completed and the South Stand Rebuilt, you can clearly see that the biggest stand in terms of depth was the main stand and that is because there is a big block which was full of restaurants/suites (I once went to a BBC Radio 5 phone in held in one of the suites). So if they have already filled back to the railway with restaurant spaces it will only leave tiers 2 and more to have restaurants behind them, and this may be prohibitive if the stands also have to "overhanging" the railway.

What would be most impressive and undoubtedly expensive would be to buy all the house on the opposite side of the railway, build over it, and then extend a big wide plaza up to the A56.

Whilst increasing the size will add more restaurant seats, I do not think that it will be as pronounced as what some are suggesting, if you look at a picture taken between the Stratford End being completed and the South Stand Rebuilt, you can clearly see that the biggest stand in terms of depth was the main stand and that is because there is a big block which was full of restaurants/suites (I once went to a BBC Radio 5 phone in held in one of the suites). So if they have already filled back to the railway with restaurant spaces it will only leave tiers 2 and more to have restaurants behind them, and this may be prohibitive if the stands also have to "overhanging" the railway.

What would be most impressive and undoubtedly expensive would be to buy all the house on the opposite side of the railway, build over it, and then extend a big wide plaza up to the A56.

As far as I was aware Manchester United already owned those houses.

At least 2-4 houses right in the middle of the block are missing, dont know if its been an empty site for many years.

I don't think you'll be in the position where you needing to spend great amounts in the transfer market in the next couple of years anyway as most of your stars are in there mid 20's.

As I said before I suspect that the "£120 for a ticket and meal" crowd will be those cantered for most by a new expansion. While Old Trafford does have sizeable corperate facilties its still some way behind Wembley and the Emirates. A small devolpment of the south stand that didnt have to cross the rail line and say added another 5-10 K luxury seats could provide a very good return.


You missed the point about spending money to make money. That's how United have worked for 16 years and it was working fine until the yanks came along. If United do the South Stand and corners I expect they'll do it proper. I don't expect to see some piss poor 2nd tier full of boxes with the corners missing. I don't even think they'll have to go over the railway line to do it. Manchester is full of overhangs. If Beetham can do an over hang Old Trafford is easy.

You missed the point about spending money to make money. That's how United have worked for 16 years and it was working fine until the yanks came along. If United do the South Stand and corners I expect they'll do it proper. I don't expect to see some piss poor 2nd tier full of boxes with the corners missing. I don't even think they'll have to go over the railway line to do it. Manchester is full of overhangs. If Beetham can do an over hang Old Trafford is easy.

Spending money to make money 10 tears ago is very different to today though with the big increases in construction costs. I hope your right and we get a full extension(either like the north stand or 2 tiers like the ends wraped around) but even if that happens I'd expect alot more luxury seats to be included.

Spending money to make money 10 tears ago is very different to today though with the big increases in construction costs. I hope your right and we get a full extension(either like the north stand or 2 tiers like the ends wraped around) but even if that happens I'd expect alot more luxury seats to be included.

Its not that different. Arsenal are doing it. Spurs, Liverpool and Everton want to do it. United spent £48 million on 8,000 seats 3/4 years ago. I don't think its much different, its just that costs are higher. They could do it in stages to spread the costs over 10 years but I don't think they'll do a cheap ohh lets add a hotel/lots of boxes on type stand. ala Chelsea pre Roman.

Its not that different. Arsenal are doing it. Spurs, Liverpool and Everton want to do it. United spent £48 million on 8,000 seats 3/4 years ago. I don't think its much different, its just that costs are higher. They could do it in stages to spread the costs over 10 years but I don't think they'll do a cheap ohh lets add a hotel/lots of boxes on type stand. ala Chelsea pre Roman.

Whats being built is different though, back when Utd expanded the side and ends the vast majority of the new capacity was basic seating for the normal fans. The quads like the Emirates, Wembley etc on the other hand included a much higher percentage of corperate/luxury seating because that extra income is needed to offset the higher cost of construction.

Whats being built is different though, back when Utd expanded the side and ends the vast majority of the new capacity was basic seating for the normal fans. The quads like the Emirates, Wembley etc on the other hand included a much higher percentage of corperate/luxury seating because that extra income is needed to offset the higher cost of construction.

It would likely be a mix of the two. Part of the 2nd tier would be luxury seating with a second set of boxes between the 2nd and 3rd tiers. United won't do this boxes over boxes thing. It would ruin Old Trafford as a stadium.

Not so sure myself. The quadrants were under construction when the Glazer boys rolled in so they have had no American input into stadium expansion.

The exec boxes are where the money is to be made.

Following on from the US model I would be stunned if they did not build a hotel & conference centre into the plans, with the hotel & conference element funding a large part of the cost.

We would probably still get at least another 10,000 seats but more importantly a huge, long-term increase in corporate.

This is the main stand and as such you would expect a statement from United.

Since Edwards and his complete lack of brand awareness left town the expansions have been very impressive. The North Stand is still a truly massive structure on a world scale...dwarfing stand size at Twickers and looking at the pictures, Wembley.

If the entire roof of the south stand is going to be rebuilt/lifted then thats a pretty major expense(plus potentially closing all/part of the stand) so I doubt you'd see just exec boxes built.

As I said it looks to me that while exec boxes are still a good source of income the new trend everyone seems to be riding on is luxury seating. Makes sense if you think about it was the most costly space in any stadium is inside the bowl and a box takes up alot of that while a luxury seat takes up the same or very slightly more space than a normal one. What brings in the extra income is the facilties(bars, restaurants etc) behind in the less expensive insides of the stand. Since the seats cost significantly less they also target a much larger market of well of but not mega rich fans rather than just the corperate sector.

Personally I think the most likey devolpments would be something similar to the quads but wraped around the entire south side of the stadum, although perhaps shallower if they don't want to cross the rail lines. Mirroring the other side doesnt seem very likey to me as that setup was never planned and would likey not be very cost effective. Also if the capcity rises again would the club want more seats like the 3rd teir on the north stand?

Maybe someone could do a sketch up of how it could look?

I believe there are photoshop jobs of what the interior would look like somewhere in this thread - no exterior shots though.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/8035/otnightbw7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

here you go,from page 4

this just has to be done

I would rather wait another 5 years to build the funds up then do half a job...

96,000 with the angled roof would be beyond fearsome....piss all over any stadium, anywhere!

I actually think it might be a good idea to make the South stand mirror the other two (east and west), that way you could fill in the corners properly and carry on the simple two tiers, making it look a bit neater. You wouldn't lose too much capacity compared to the other way, because I would imagine the normal continuation of the corner sections would be as large if not larger then the capacity for the corner sections when they stretch it up to the higher stand.

Plus, it might make it easier in terms of how far they have to go back near the railway line (which might have to be altered anyway for any such extension), and let more light onto the pitch compared to having the larger stand, and also keeps that North stand looking unique and imposing.

Just an idea though.

I actually think it might be a good idea to make the South stand mirror the other two (east and west), that way you could fill in the corners properly and carry on the simple two tiers, making it look a bit neater. You wouldn't lose too much capacity compared to the other way, because I would imagine the normal continuation of the corner sections would be as large if not larger then the capacity for the corner sections when they stretch it up to the higher stand.

Plus, it might make it easier in terms of how far they have to go back near the railway line (which might have to be altered anyway for any such extension), and let more light onto the pitch compared to having the larger stand, and also keeps that North stand looking unique and imposing.

Just an idea though.

The advantage of owning the houses is to nullify any challenges to planning permission, which given the proximity a new massive stand would be to their back gardens would probably succeed. However the existing plans for rebuilding of the south stand do not require any alterations to the houses or their gardens.

The railway line is not an engineering stumbling block. The problem is the fact that the land the line is on, and the land that would need to be built on, are privately owned and cannot be sold.

I beleive there are 2 separate architectural plans. One is the rebuilding of the south stand to mirror the sorth (stage 1 being the rebuilding of the corners). The second plan is for the south stand to mirror the ends. This would not require any work to be done to the railway line, but it would need the station to either be moved, or integrated into the design.

Other plans that have been mentioned but not seriously considered is extending the existing south stand with executive boxes.

The main issue with it is cost. Since the Glazer takeover, United cannot retain the cash reserves with which they funded the previous expansions. It is expected however that should England win the right to host the 2014 World Cup, they would be inclined to assist with the redevelopment.

Old Trafford will be finished eventually, but it comes down to cost rather than engineering/planning difficulties.

this just has to be done

I would rather wait another 5 years to build the funds up then do half a job...

96,000 with the angled roof would be beyond fearsome....piss all over any stadium, anywhere!

The angled roof is awful.....Old Trafford's biggest flaw by a considerable margin. It's one of the reasons why subsequent development of the corners was so problematic for one thing. More importantly, though, the roof obscures much of the remainder of the stadium from the view of those sitting high up. It cuts them off from the experience of being in a stadium with 76,000 other people - which is a great shame.

The angled roof is awful.....Old Trafford's biggest flaw by a considerable margin. It's one of the reasons why subsequent development of the corners was so problematic for one thing. More importantly, though, the roof obscures much of the remainder of the stadium from the view of those sitting high up. It cuts them off from the experience of being in a stadium with 76,000 other people - which is a great shame.

thats one opinion.

The angled roof is awful.....Old Trafford's biggest flaw by a considerable margin. It's one of the reasons why subsequent development of the corners was so problematic for one thing. More importantly, though, the roof obscures much of the remainder of the stadium from the view of those sitting high up. It cuts them off from the experience of being in a stadium with 76,000 other people - which is a great shame.

Do you go to a stadium to watch the other supporters or do you go to watch what is happening on the pitch?

The advantage of owning the houses is to nullify any challenges to planning permission, which given the proximity a new massive stand would be to their back gardens would probably succeed. However the existing plans for rebuilding of the south stand do not require any alterations to the houses or their gardens.

The railway line is not an engineering stumbling block. The problem is the fact that the land the line is on, and the land that would need to be built on, are privately owned and cannot be sold.

I beleive there are 2 separate architectural plans. One is the rebuilding of the south stand to mirror the sorth (stage 1 being the rebuilding of the corners). The second plan is for the south stand to mirror the ends. This would not require any work to be done to the railway line, but it would need the station to either be moved, or integrated into the design.

Other plans that have been mentioned but not seriously considered is extending the existing south stand with executive boxes.

The main issue with it is cost. Since the Glazer takeover, United cannot retain the cash reserves with which they funded the previous expansions. It is expected however that should England win the right to host the 2014 World Cup, they would be inclined to assist with the redevelopment.

Old Trafford will be finished eventually, but it comes down to cost rather than engineering/planning difficulties.


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/306975571_ce0e41949d.jpg?v=0
present day south stand

I would hope any large scale development of the south stand would be carried out with a view to a full external reworking of the stadium's exterior, similar in nature to Barcelona's plans for the Camp Nou. For all the exposure Man U and Old Trafford receive the most recognisable aspect of the stadium itself is probably the illuminted type face. Recent additions have been bland in the extreme.

There would surely be no better opportunity to unify United's disparate 'cattle sheds' and reinforce the club's United's brand, recognition and appeal through a comprehensive external rework, hand-in-hand with the expansion of the south stand.

http://rickoshea.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/barcelona-new-camp-nou.jpg?w=470&h=348
proposed reworking of Camp Nou

Do you go to a stadium to watch the other supporters or do you go to watch what is happening on the pitch?

A bit of both, really.

If all I was interested in was watching the game, then I would stay at home and watch it on television where, in most respects, I would get a better view.

Being a part of a massive crowd; seeing the seething mass of people; soaking up the atmosphere; feeling the current of electricity buzzing through the crowd at every thrust of the game - that's just as big a part of being there as the game itself. It's what makes going to a professional football match an event - as opposed to just another football match in your local park.

If you are effectively isolated from three quarters of the stadium (as you are in the upper tier of the north stand at Old Trafford), you feel detached. You lose that thrill of being a part of something shared. It's incredibly frustrating and a wholly unsatisfactory live football experience - however good the actual game.

thats one opinion.

Yes. Of course it's an opinion. What else would it be?

Are you telling me that you like to feel detached from the remainder of the stadium? Don't worry....there's no right or wrong answer. I'm only asking for an opinion. ;)

I only said that because you speak as if its theory/fact.

A downsloping roof increases wind and rain protection, it also aids in noise containment. These are facts which are incorporated into a stadium design, rather than the need to see the entire stadium.

When looking towards the field close to the top of Emirates, it really is an amazing visual and view. Thats an opinion.

I only said that because you speak as if its theory/fact.

A downsloping roof increases wind and rain protection, it also aids in noise containment. These are facts which are incorporated into a stadium design, rather than the need to see the entire stadium.

When looking towards the field close to the top of Emirates, it really is an amazing visual and view. Thats an opinion.

Great view of the pitch, certainly. No view whatsoever of a good third of the stadium.

Great view of the pitch, certainly. No view whatsoever of a good third of the stadium.

I like the fact that you see the pitch, and half of the stadium. Personally, its like nothing I've ever seen before, and the atmosphere due to the noise retention is quite amazing too.

Again, an opinion.

http://www.freewebs.com/tims92/Manchester%20United/Old%20Trafford%2012.jpg

I understand that's not from the back either, so it does cut off part of the view of the action as well (any high ball in the upper half of the pitch will probably go out of sight).

http://www.freewebs.com/tims92/Manchester%20United/Old%20Trafford%2012.jpg

I understand that's not from the back either, so it does cut off part of the view of the action as well (any high ball in the upper half of the pitch will probably go out of sight).

Thank you.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I hate it. And, as you say, that isn't even from the very top of the upper tier. From the back, I imagine that you can only see the other fans in the north upper tier and a small number of fans in the north corners of the the east and west lower tiers. Maybe the first two or three rows of the south stand as well.

In other words, you are cut off from all but about 10-15,000 fans in the entire 76,000 capacity stadium. And if the south stand is eventually redeveloped and the capacity at OT is expanded to ninety odd thousand, it will mean that, at best, only 1 in 6 of the crowd will be visible to those near the top of the north upper. Consequently, there must inevitably be a sense of detachment. There is simply no way that you can experience the full atmosphere of the occasion.

I cannot understand why anyone would think that that is a good thing.

I don't see a reason for it to be cheaper to build stadium roofs sloping towards to ground anyway... it must be to do with the acoustics. OT would look stunning with a cantilever roof (aka St. James Park).

Great view of the pitch, certainly. No view whatsoever of a good third of the stadium.

Totally agree. Why anyone would design or enjoy a stadium where you are detached from the rest of the supporters is beyond me. Watching a football match in the flesh is all about the experience of sharing it with others. Which is why we have atmosphere and chanting. Otherwise it would be dull and like observing a film. As Jim said we might as well be at home watching tv. TBH this last photo (I was aware of OT's problem regarding the sloping roof, but had no idea it was this extreme) goes some way to explaining OT's lack of atmosphere; I presumed it was affected by a large proportion of prawn sandwich munchers and tourists but clearly this contributes..

The reason for the downwards sloping roof was in 1996 to ensure the roof blended in with the much smaller stands al around the other 3 sides. That was stated at the time as one reason, another reason was an upwards sloping roof like the other roofs then at O.T. allow a lot of rain in. I dont agree about the lack of athmosphere at all. its purely a myth, grounds like Anfield, Villa park, Molineaux are like grave yards for most of a match. It is better to be able to se all the stands as well as the pitch but thats what happesn when you try to rebuild a ground to fit in more supporters. Dont forget if O.T. was converted back to all standing it could hold nearly 200,000 standing. Maybe in about 30 years all the roofs will be replaced by a sliding or inflatable roof?

http://www.freewebs.com/tims92/Manchester%20United/Old%20Trafford%2012.jpg

I understand that's not from the back either, so it does cut off part of the view of the action as well (any high ball in the upper half of the pitch will probably go out of sight).

Luckily United dont simply blast the ball forward they deliberately keep it on the ground so more United fans can se all of the action even if they are high up in the quadrants?

Doesn't the inward sloping roof also present a problem for rainwater disposal? I'm sure I've read it somewhere, although that maybe if all four stands roofs are level and sloping in? :dunno:

The reason for the downwards sloping roof was in 1996 to ensure the roof blended in with the much smaller stands al around the other 3 sides. That was stated at the time as one reason, another reason was an upwards sloping roof like the other roofs then at O.T. allow a lot of rain in. I dont agree about the lack of athmosphere at all. its purely a myth, grounds like Anfield, Villa park, Molineaux are like grave yards for most of a match. It is better to be able to se all the stands as well as the pitch but thats what happesn when you try to rebuild a ground to fit in more supporters. Dont forget if O.T. was converted back to all standing it could hold nearly 200,000 standing. Maybe in about 30 years all the roofs will be replaced by a sliding or inflatable roof?

Yes, I know that. But I still think that it was a short sighted decision.

I far prefer Newcastle's solution. The most recently redeveloped part of St James Park towers over the remainder but it works fine. The stands are unbalanced, certainly, but the roof is excellent. And it doesn't obscure any part of the stadium from view.

I dont agree about the lack of athmosphere at all. its purely a myth, grounds like Anfield, Villa park, Molineaux are like grave yards for most of a match.

Molineux's a bloody noisy graveyard then.

Luckily United dont simply blast the ball forward they deliberately keep it on the ground so more United fans can se all of the action even if they are high up in the quadrants?

That's not from the quadrants. Usually, two teams are playing though. I'd hate to watch Bolton, Blackburn or Stoke play at the best of times, but if you can't even see their long balls...

Molineux's a bloody noisy graveyard then.

Watched a match on ITV from Molineaux a couple of months ago and it was as quiet as New Years Day for most of the match.

Doesn't the inward sloping roof also present a problem for rainwater disposal? I'm sure I've read it somewhere, although that maybe if all four stands roofs are level and sloping in? :dunno:

Not really, they simply pump the water upwards and back, there was some clever calculations to be worked at the Quadrants I think to stop water running down too fast and overwhelming the drainage systems. They probably have some baffles installed up on the roof to stop a suden flood rolling down too fast.

The view problems Jim mentioned and simple ease of construction is why I think its unlike you'll see the north end of the ground mirrored on the south. If Man Utd expand again they maybe pushing the limates of demand for alot of games so you surely want as few seats with a poor view as possible? wrapping the two ends around for a two teir structure on the south side would potentially give you a 90K+ capacity and far fewer seats with poor views.

The old idea of OT as one of the few preplanned regulary shaped grounds in the country isnt really as important now in the days of endless bland bowls IMHO.

Watched a match on ITV from Molineaux a couple of months ago and it was as quiet as New Years Day for most of the match.

It certainly wasn't quiet when I was there in August. Then again, they did win 4-1 which might have had something to do with it.

Watched a match on ITV from Molineaux a couple of months ago and it was as quiet as New Years Day for most of the match.

It's all relative and you can't really tell from TV. A lot of it depends where they put the microphones and which way they face etc. Old Trafford has it's ups and downs, crowd can be a bit fickle, especially when the game is a dead rubber, but it can also be absolutely deafening. Crowd noise doesn't travel well, the design of a stadium can help but watching games on TV can't ever compare to being in the middle of the crowd.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article2411603.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/5276996/Manchester-United-set-to-make-Old-Trafford-bigger-than-Wembley.html

I'm going to the England v Argentina match on 6 June and am sitting in the upper West Stand - I'll finally be able to make my own mind up about the bodged quadrants and atmosphere-stifling roof...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/5276996/Manchester-United-set-to-make-Old-Trafford-bigger-than-Wembley.html

so an extra 19,000 seats = quadrants (4,000 each) x 2 = 8,000 + second tier on the south stand = 11,000 (probably knock the entire south stand down and build it from scratch, two-tiered). no third tier like the north stand (not a bad thing - shite views).

i wonder if they'll retain the naff sloaping roof on this new development?

no roof:
http://www.modelfootballstadiums.com/images/cms/PB180356.jpg

http://www.modelfootballstadiums.com/images/cms/PB180358.jpg


roof:
http://www.modelfootballstadiums.com/images/cms/P5030513.jpg

raises the issue: when utd go through an inevitable decline they're gonna be left with tens of thousands of empty seats.

I'm going to the England v Argentina match on 6 June and am sitting in the upper West Stand - I'll finally be able to make my own mind up about the bodged quadrants and atmosphere-stifling roof...

didn't know that was happening - same night england will be playing a WCQ as well, and i'll be back. in there!

To me it just means another 20,000 deaf voices but instead of working I've been looking at satellite images and thinking about other developments. This hasn't been noticed till now and one of the main problems everyone talks about is do United own the houses on the otherside of the tracks. I reckon they do and this supports it.

Anyway heres one from 2000.....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/oldtrafford2000.jpg
11 houses.

Heres one from before the new quads where built 2000-2004...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/oldtrafford2004.jpg
10 houses.

Heres one from 2006-2009.....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v404/andysimo123/oldtrafford2007-1.jpg
9 houses.

There could infact be more missing(not been down and checked) but you can clearly see the new entrance to the new upper tiers forming.

Good pics...does seem everything is in place for a planning app....there were stories knocking around years ago that they did test drilling under the current south stand to test the waters for the foundations....

any chance we can just cantilever a monster 2nd deck over the existing south stand and not demolish like the north stand?

Would think it unlikely utd would loose 10,000 seats even temporarily?

That would be awesome.

As for people moaning about the roof....well the south stand would need to take the drainage from north, east and west as it does now...unless they get some amazing pump system....the south stand roof will probably be another shape and not match the rest?

^^Good find. Here is the Street View, so Summer 2008 (at least it was for London)
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=manchester&sll=51.521602,-0.096838&sspn=0.003098,0.027466&gl=uk&ie=UTF8&ll=53.461839,-2.290134&spn=0.001482,0.013733&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=53.461802,-2.29032&panoid=2YyJGEza8GJp_w0s1qzo7g&cbp=12,313.96142282432805,,0,0.7109375

Mint.

Good pics...does seem everything is in place for a planning app....there were stories knocking around years ago that they did test drilling under the current south stand to test the waters for the foundations....

any chance we can just cantilever a monster 2nd deck over the existing south stand and not demolish like the north stand?

Would think it unlikely utd would loose 10,000 seats even temporarily?

That would be awesome.

As for people moaning about the roof....well the south stand would need to take the drainage from north, east and west as it does now...unless they get some amazing pump system....the south stand roof will probably be another shape and not match the rest?

10,000 seats lost for one season, would be returned the season after with 10,000 extra seats. The new stand would probably have better corporate boxes and hopitality that would bring in a similar amount of cash again.
I'm not a united fan, but I hope they get on with this, I drive past everyday and the south stand is complete shit compared to the other stands from the outside.

To me it just means another 20,000 deaf voices but instead of working I've been looking at satellite images and thinking about other developments. This hasn't been noticed till now and one of the main problems everyone talks about is do United own the houses on the otherside of the tracks. I reckon they do

This seems to suggest that they do (from MEN):



MANCHESTER United plans to grow its property portfolio - if it finds the right sites at the right price.

The club, which already owns several warehouses and the 26-acre Manchester International Freight Terminal, says it is looking to build up its commercial property portfolio. Eventually it has 'sports-related' development in mind.

Last year, Manchester United bought a lease on the Freight Terminal, paying a sum thought to be close to £11m. It was reported at the time that the purchase was to enable the club to control security along its perimeter, rather than for redevelopment.

The Freight Terminal is just yards from its Old Trafford ground. Last year its property portfolio was estimated to be worth £300m.

The club's commercial property portfolio earns around £1.5m a year in rents.

Group property manager George Johnstone said: "It is impossible to say exactly what will happen because it depends on opportunities becoming available, and we will be driven by opportunities.

"This is not an investment portfolio. Properties have been acquired at different times for strategic reasons looking into the future.

"We have no specific plans for these sites at the moment but our owners feel it is prudent to prepare for the future when they might be needed for sports-related development.

"In the meantime we are running the land and buildings as any property company might manage them.

Strategic plan

"Some people might think that Manchester United is just dabbling in property, but it's all part of a strategic plan for the stadium.

"Look at the changes there have been at Old Trafford over the last 10 years. We'd like to think there will be more changes. It is not our intention to stand still."

The club is not looking to buy properties beyond the Trafford Park and Old Trafford area, close to the stadium.

I hope that this does happen, it will be truly impressive, and bigger than any stadium in London :cheers:

This seems to suggest that they do (from MEN):



I hope that this does happen, it will be truly impressive, and bigger than any stadium in London :cheers:

I wonder if theyll expand Wembley to keep it as the largest stadium in the UK?:)

On a purely pedantic note, Wembley would still be the biggest, Old Trafford would just have more seats :D

I wonder if theyll expand Wembley to keep it as the largest stadium in the UK?:)

If they expanded it, you'd end up sitting 30 miles north of Reading.

If they expanded it, you'd end up sitting 30 miles north of Reading.

Didnt i read somewhere that Wembley's capacity could rise to 120,000 by simply reducing the size of the seating and space between the rows, down to the normal sizes seen at club grounds..?

How the feck can they do all this expansion if the club is so indebted??

How the feck can they do all this expansion if the club is so indebted??

Take on more debt, sign some more sponsorship deals. They've just signed a £10 sponsorship deal with an Indian phone company which could be worth £100 over 5 years. They have the same sort of thing with a Saudi phone company and another one with an indonesian company. Afew more of those in certain places and a new shirt sponsor wouldn't do it any harm but we'll likely have to wait until the start of the 2010 season to see who that is.

They've just signed a £10 sponsorship deal with an Indian phone company which could be worth £100 over 5 years.
:eek: I never realised football was such big business!!!

There's a recession on, remember. :lol:

:eek: I never realised football was such big business!!!

I didn't think it was that big until I started reading some of the new figures coming out. Its using the club as a huge media outlet for basically selling highlights and other crap on mobile phones. Its scary to think, that's only India on its on with one phone company and one football club.

Take on more debt, sign some more sponsorship deals. They've just signed a £10 sponsorship deal with an Indian phone company which could be worth £100 over 5 years. They have the same sort of thing with a Saudi phone company and another one with an indonesian company. Afew more of those in certain places and a new shirt sponsor wouldn't do it any harm but we'll likely have to wait until the start of the 2010 season to see who that is.

Well, at least they've got Owen Hargreaves' lunch allowance covered for tomorrow then..

How the feck can they do all this expansion if the club is so indebted??

Its not indebted through the running of the football club.
If the expansion itself makes good business, it doesnt really matter how much existing debt there is.

Well, at least they've got Owen Hargreaves' lunch allowance covered for tomorrow then..

I'm sure Owen Hargreaves spends more than a tenner on his lunch...

Ok then, they've got the boot man's luch allowance covered for tomorrow..;)

There's not much difference in being £600m in debt v £700m in the grand scheme of things....

Love this thread. haven't heard news of expansions for a long long time. Bad times.

Love this thread. haven't heard news of expansions for a long long time. Bad times.

LOL yeah - poor lambs. :ohno:

http://img2.imageshack.us/img2/3951/diapoe677971c91a273b325.jpg (http://img2.imageshack.us/i/diapoe677971c91a273b325.jpg/)
staduim of bolivia

http://www.taringa.net/posts/deportes/3557720/estadio-nuevo-de-bolivia.html

Can someone ban him because he's been spamming this entire site!

He chose a very poor looking stadium to spam everywhere.

Not a Man U fan but I do love OT. My only disappointment is that when the three tier stand was built that the roof sloped down the way and that this continued at the two ends. I think if OT had a roof similar to say, the San Siro that it would be the best ground in the world.

Not a Man U fan but I do love OT. My only disappointment is that when the three tier stand was built that the roof sloped down the way and that this continued at the two ends. I think if OT had a roof similar to say, the San Siro that it would be the best ground in the world.

In some ways it was the right design:
- The sloping roof allows more breeze & natural light (even occasional sunshine!) onto the pitch. In contrast the Millennium in Cardiff has horizontal roofs which cast huge shodows onto the playing area. They've glazed part of the Stretford End roof to let more light in. All this is important as occasional it rains (!) and the pitch might not dry out.

- Given the amount of rainfall Manchester gets, the sloped roof acts as a kind of umbrella, with rain unable to get blown in to the upper tiers.

Howver, I do like St James Park with its fully glazed roof.

I agree with beardy man. The roof of gloom is horrible. And if they ever do finish the ground it won't look like a 96,000 seat theater of dreams. It will have all the charm and drama of the multi storey car park of a provincial building society headquarters on an East Midlands business park on a mild, drizzly February day, during a bus strike and a bout of flu. I would love to think they would rip it off and start again, something like St James Park but I can't see it happening. Reckon they should have just started from scratch 15 years ago, but his has been said. Reckon it might still be a good idea considering the problems they're going to have with the next expansion, and the cost of it. Reckon they could build a pretty decent 100,000 seat ground in time for 2018, for £250m.

Reckon they could build a pretty decent 100,000 seat ground in time for 2018, for £250m.

No chance. Man Utd require luxury executive suites, restaurants and premium facilities in abundance to reflect their status as one of Europes leading clubs.
Would be more like £450-£550m for a classy venue of that size.

Agree with the roof though. Looks like some industrial factory, and is so heavy and depressing looking.

You're probably right. Though in reality I'm sure they could make it cost a billion. Would be a budget Lidl stadium for £250m, although Fedex Field is about comparable in size and cost.

This article suggests that there will not be any expansion for the foreseeable future. I guess that we'll have to wait and see.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/7264371/Manchester-Uniteds-Old-Trafford-home-may-have-reached-its-capacity-after-100-years.html[/URL]

I doubt they'll be any expansion soon as the costs would be far larger than any previous redevelopments, probably costing at least £150m. Getting more debt would just add more short-term costs, meaning that any financial rewards would be quite a few years down the line. Since the Glazers don't give a shit about the long term status of the club there is little incentive for them to do this.

That article though is wrong on a few things. First, OT doesn't stand alone as a 7 day a week cash cow. The Emirates and Wembley make more on match days than OT and even Anfield and SB, despite their limited capacity, bring in decent revenues. Second, I don't think OT has reached it's optimal capacity. There were still waiting lists when it first expanded to 76,000. What's happened is the Glazers have choked off demand by rising prices as much as they can get away with. Unfortunately, if you're only in it for short term financial gain than that makes sense. Prices at OT are higher than at other super grounds (anything over 70,000); compare the cheapest tickets at the San Siro, or Camp Nou. If tickets were as low as £12 the club could probably fill close to 100,000 every home game. Finally, I'm pretty sure the club own most of the property behind the railway line. A number of houses have even been demolished. Man Utd, therefore, obviously believe they can expand behind the line; they just can't afford it.

^^ the cheap tickets at the san siro and nou camp are in awful places though, hence why the san siro always looks empty when it isn't. It's still pretty expensive at Barcelona though...

If I were united I'd push for a return of terracing they could add 15-20,000 by just converting seats to standing places appeasing lots of fans, providing cheap tickets and creating atmosphere all in one fell swoop.

Only problem is that the government won't have it with regards to standing!

Yeah, but have you seen the view from the top of the third tier at the North stand? What makes it even worse is the roof that slopes down. Awful.

I think (not 100% sure) that if you're a barca member and it is a category ‘d’ match (or whatever) you can get tickets as low as €14 or something, so basically about 11-12 quid. But yeah, not quite as cheap as Italy or Germany (man, I should have saw a game when I was in Barcelona, not just do the damn club tour!)

I think the Guardian said that they won't increase basic tickets any more than inflation (because they've killed demand and have probably reached optimal point) but are going to start with more 'package' shit, like meals and tours with you match ticket and all (and thus reduce the number of cheap tickets). It's like a theme park! I don't think they'll get much out of that though. Can't even sell their most expensive luxury seats (neither can the Yankees, so).

I see you’re chatting with your mate Chris again!

Yeah, but have you seen the view from the top of the third tier at the North stand? What makes it even worse is the roof that slopes down. Awful.

I think this picture is taken from that stand, I got it from the main old trafford thread in the world forums...

http://www.freewebs.com/tims92/Manchester%20United/Old%20Trafford%2012.jpg

Yeah it's ridiculous (although the view is that bad), my whole argument with terracing is it allows more people to fit in a stadium on a smaller footprint bringing people closer to the action and making the atmosphere more intimate even if there are 70,000 people there. Can you amagine what the atmosphere was like at maine road with 80,000 people in it, considering it barely held 35,000 all seated. Of course that's an extreme example but that's my point.

Hopefully then they can get rid of the north stand didilly tier

I think (not 100% sure) that if you're a barca member and it is a category ‘d’ match (or whatever) you can get tickets as low as €14 or something, so basically about 11-12 quid. But yeah, not quite as cheap as Italy or Germany (man, I should have saw a game when I was in Barcelona, not just do the damn club tour!)

As low as €15 in category D up in the gods (and right behind the goal on the former terrace which obviously has poor views) with a membership, but the membership is €150 a season.

Although it would be cheaper to buy tickets as a non member, although I'd assume they are hard to come by

From the main forum
http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/socis/avantatges/gaudeix_espectacle/camp_nou/abonament_lliga.html

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/entrades/preus_entrades/futbol/entrades.html

I think the Guardian said that they won't increase basic tickets any more than inflation (because they've killed demand and have probably reached optimal point) but are going to start with more 'package' shit, like meals and tours with you match ticket and all (and thus reduce the number of cheap tickets). It's like a theme park! I don't think they'll get much out of that though. Can't even sell their most expensive luxury seats (neither can the Yankees, so).

It's a joke

I see you’re chatting with your mate Chris again!

Don't lol

The distance isn't bad really, but that damn roof would just piss me right off. You know what stadium had a much closer (and better) view than I thought it would? The Maracana. It's actually not that far away from the pitch, TV makes it look further. Much closer than the old Wembley (both instances I was close to the corner. Wembley was miles away; I could barely see the opposite goal).

I think outside of the big matches getting tickets isn't that difficult. Barca average, i think, well below their 98,000 capacity (interestingly, it's gone down despite their successes iirc). Loads of dudes and outlets sell tickets around the city, but I was told they overcharge compared to official prices. Cunts.

^^ In my post I meant isn't not is, but yeah that roof is a joke it makes it look like you're watching a match on a pirate DVD...

I remember seeing the highlights of Flamengo's title winning game last year and the maracana was far more on top of the pitch than I expected, for example the corners are very close. The question for you though is the tread of the Maracana small because modern stadiums tend to give you ridiculous leg room where as the Maracana is old fashioned and the capacity is set to drop if I remember rightly...

Barca's average is 100% down to Spanish TV pracitices, I think they are on target for there best average this millenium (over 80,000) atm. But that's a joke given the size of their fanbase. The problem in Spain and everywhere really is that watching on telly is so cheap and easy, I can imagine if all premier league games were on TV most teams would take massive hits even if they lowered prices.

btw have you noticed David Conn seems to have vanished? I'm expecting something big if/when he returns!

Yeah, they virtually touch the corner flag. The stands are quite shallow though, and not steep like most European tiers. The Maracana doesn't have proper seats like we do, they have exactly the same bench type seats you get in Italy with no back. Most people where I was were standing and moving around (so it didn't feel packed in), i wasn't with the ultras because tickets in their section cost more. What surprised me was there was a decent away following. Between 1,000-1,250 I'd say. And it was Cruzeiro from Belo Horizonte, hardly down the road!

Yeah Conn has gone, but he was writing a lot in a short space. Prob either doing something on Portsmouth or Man Utd's potential buyout (being local).

I need to deal with a clown named Flynnie on that Colts blog, who didn't get my point. Think I'll leave it till tomorrow.

Hello,
I have just wondered:)
I've got 2 questions:
First: Is it possible to bulid South Stand bigger than North ?
Second: Is it possible to bulid 3rd tier in East and West Stands? Both for about 6000.

Plus the corners, and capacity could be 20k bigger. - 115 000:)

^^ Of course it's possible but it's a hell of a lot of money!

Hello,
I have just wondered:)
I've got 2 questions:
First: Is it possible to bulid South Stand bigger than North ?
Second: Is it possible to bulid 3rd tier in East and West Stands? Both for about 6000.

Plus the corners, and capacity could be 20k bigger. - 115 000:)

I they did East & West stands and corners to match the North Stand 3rd tier...that would be about another c10 seats.

If they did the South Stand to 2 teirs & Corners that would be 10,000+6,000+6,000=26,000 more

If they did the south stand & corners to 3 tiers then we would be adding c10,000 to that

so

I reckon 2 tiers would 75,000 + 26,000= 101,000
3 tiers would be= 120,000

I kid you not. the North Stand is perhaps the largest stand in Europe? 26,000 just goal line to goal line (I remember the planning app). Adding corners adds another 6,000 (half a corner on each end)= 32,000.

Would be awesome and perhaps if England get the World Cup we will defo see a double decked south stand + corners for 90,000+

If Old Trafford had 120k.. so 25k more then in "95k" plan...

If Old Trafford would be full in 10 matches in the premier league, 5 matches in CL, and in rest of the matches.. 110k..

I think that extra expand give more then 20mln pound per year.

Hej, but back on the earh :)

Today: capacity of Old Trafford is: 76,212

North Stand:
2nd tier: 8,250 = 34 rows
3rd tier: 5,000 = 19 rows

Upper North East Quadrant: 4,000 = 33 rows
Upper North West Quadrant: 4,000 = 33 rows

So.. 76,2+8,25+5+4+4 = 97,450.. Why 96? or 95?

So close to the magical 100,000.. or 106k (Camp nou soon)

The largest stand in the UK is at Celtic Park in Glasgow, 27,000 seated 2 tier structure, although surely one of the Wembley stands will have taken over?

I don not understand the great attraction to th one hundred thousand seat capacity, surely it is better to have te capacity slightly to small in order to create a demand for difficult to obtain tickets. Idf tickets are too easy to obtain then people will tend to pick and choose what games they go to and there tends to be reduced crowds see Camp Nou Barcelona.
Executiveboxes contain the key to gaining moremoney from supporters, rather than thousands of extra normal seats, Arsenal is the best example, there two tiers of exec boxes generate nearly as much money per game as the whole of their old Highbury stadium.

The largest stand in the UK is at Celtic Park in Glasgow, 27,000 seated 2 tier structure, although surely one of the Wembley stands will have taken over?



As I stated the North Stand at OT is 26,500 goal-line to goal line.

Adding half the corners=

26,500+4,000+4,000= 34,500

Much, much larger than any other UK club ground..as a completed bowl...c95,000

Hej, but back on the earh :)

Today: capacity of Old Trafford is: 76,212

North Stand:
2nd tier: 8,250 = 34 rows
3rd tier: 5,000 = 19 rows

Upper North East Quadrant: 4,000 = 33 rows
Upper North West Quadrant: 4,000 = 33 rows

So.. 76,2+8,25+5+4+4 = 97,450.. Why 96? or 95?

So close to the magical 100,000.. or 106k (Camp nou soon)

A rebuilt South Stand wouldn't be a mirror as it contains at least half the tunnel, and the directors box. There would also be more space given to executive seating.

Been a number of years but it seems United have been buying up more land. Most likely reasons currently are for warehouse rents or car parking.

Manchester United buys Segro assets

Segro has sold two industrial assets and a parcel of land from its Trafford Park portfolio to Manchester United for £8.2m.

The deal includes a one acre parcel of land opposite the stadium; 3 Warfside, a 177,000 sq ft shed leased to logistics company AKW Group; and Canalside, an industrial estate comprising seven units totalling 58,700 sq ft.

Trafford Park became part of Segro’s UK portfolio following its acquisition of Brixton in 2009. It includes 17 assets, covering 1.9 million sq ft of industrial space.

David Bridges, national markets business director at Segro, said: “The sale has been beneficial to both parties – for Segro the disposal of these relatively small individual units allows us to concentrate on retained assets at Trafford Park, whilst giving Manchester United greater access to more property and land around its stadium.”

CBRE advised Segro and DTZ advised Manchester United.

http://www.propertyweek.com/news/manchester-united-buys-segro-assets/5025915.article

Been a number of years but it seems United have been buying up more land. Most likely reasons currently are for warehouse rents or car parking.

Could be, saw the article in the MEN...not likely to be any communication from United but the landbank is huge as is the float money.

Somethings afoot.

Wouldn't surprise me if they wanted to build a small reserve team / youth team stadium on site to remove the need to play these games elsewhere. The surface of the pitch at any reserve stadium would be kept to a higher stadard too.

with all these new stadium proposals form epl teams wonder whether utd will decide to expand to continue to have a big gap

If the Glazer gang hadn't took over Man Utd, would this have happened or at maybe been in the planning stages by now?

Barcelona are rumoured to be expanding to 104,000? They only average 70,000 attendance and have some uber cheap tickets.

What could Man U achieve if tickets were priced like German and Spanish teams? Surely they'd pass 100,000 average attendance?