Strong rumours on various City message boards that COMS will be extended to 60,000.

Apparently various stewards who post on these board were briefed that all concerts at COMS hand been knocked back and Surveyors had been to the stadium.

Quite a bit of banter about this on the message boards at the moment. The general concensus is that the stadium should be expanded regardless of our current average. (44,000) If and when other top players arrive and we start winning some trophies, we 'should' be able to fill a 60,000 seater stadium.

The stadium 'can' be expanded to 60,000 by adding a third tier at each end. (see renders below) I could be wrong, but I suspect MCC and the new owners of City will form a partnership to develop the Super Casino site, Sports City and COMS. Don't forget the Metrolink will stop next to the stadium as well, so making the journey for many fans a lot easier.

City's new owners don't mess about. They're estimated to be worth either one trillion dollars or pounds. Can't remember. Apparently the players will now use a private plane to get to UEFA Cup matches, instead of using a bucket and spade flight. I'm sure the new owners are looking longterm and can see crowds of 60,000 filling COMS, if and when these other top players arrive and we start winning trophies. Bring it on I say.

Or it could be a load of bolloxs? You know what forums are like. (Cough!)

It was part of our pre match brief we have to be at coms two and a half hours before the start of each game, we each go to our own stand where the stand manager then gives his little speech.

For example part of last Saturdays was that the game for security was classed as I category C which was High Risk this was based on police info picked up from the police, forums and the like. There were 16 Stoke stewards who would be situated at all away entrances checking membership cards which they all needed to match up with their ticket to ensure entry. That way any trouble in ground easy to trace hence game passed off quieter than expected. We were also told to expect a crowd of around 44000. We were told we could go ahead and book our summer hols as the new owners had turned down 7 concerts (OASIS and Take That) as they had had the surveyors in that week as they were GOING TO extend the stadium to 3 tiered all the way around the ground. We were also told of our warning alert messages as we had new stewards starting that day (wont go into them but if you ever went to Maine Road and heard "message for Mr Banks" that was part of the security message then used. We were also warned not to go in on our own if any trouble - this related to trouble at the Liverpool game. We were remionded that we are not allowed to use our mobiles in view of the public!

There that was the main gist of it, now as I said before I am only telling you what we were told and if you want clarification, ask ANY steward at the next game against FC Twente and they will confirm what I said.

I will continue to post what I feel you may wish to hear!

Sunday. (Trigger) :lol:

For those who don't know I am a steward at City, and our brief in today included there will be no concerts during the next close season as the surveyors have been in this week and COMS is to be made 3 tiered all the way around.

http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=91258

Today. (Scottyboi) Following on from Triggers post and the first quote above.

My boss at work is a high up steward does all the shit in the exec suite .... they will be putting the 3rd tier all the way around and instead of having the bell end as the reception/front entrance they are moving it to the east stand.

http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=91459&start=0


http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/7841/manchester20city20newsltm5.jpg

http://198.64.133.101/jc/crunch_temp/CGItemp26342122522817791.110.18.78-orig.jpeg

That'll be the best looking stadium in the country if that happens! I don't trust forum banter and forumer's PhotoShopping though... Best to wait for an official press release.

jrb there worth about £250 Billion now.

jrb there worth about £250 Billion now.

Andy. Considering BP have just increased their profits by 148%, I don't they/we have to worry too much. I'm glad to see you didn't do the obvious. Now that was a refreshing change. Thank you. :)

But they've already sold season tickets for next year (a club I know near Hudds has bought a pair for raffles and whatnot, they usually get Leeds ones but City's are cheaper and you can sell it on when you can't use it!). Surely they'd need to close parts of the ground to do this?

Unless it could all be done in the close season, which I guess it could if you're minted

But they've already sold season tickets for next year (a club I know near Hudds has bought a pair for raffles and whatnot, they usually get Leeds ones but City's are cheaper and you can sell it on when you can't use it!). Surely they'd need to close parts of the ground to do this?

Unless it could all be done in the close season, which I guess it could if you're minted

It certainly won't be started this season. If the rumours are true(?), it will be a few years before it happens. An agreement has to be discussed and signed with Sport England and MCC first, unless the new owners buy the stadium outright. I'm sure MCC won't want that to happen, especially if the capacity is going to be increased.

But the rumours are based on it happening this summer? And do you really have a "Bell End?"

I'm sure they're looking into it regardless, but I wouldn't have thought they could do anything until the end of the 09-10 season at the earliest

Andy. Considering BP have just increased their profits by 148%, I don't they/we have to worry too much. I'm glad to see you didn't do the obvious. Now that was a refreshing change. Thank you. :)

148% figure was taken when oil prices were at their height between July($147) and September($100+). If you'd get your calculator out you'd see that won't be the case for the next 3 months. The price at the pumps has dropped by 20 pence in afew weeks and its still dropping hence less money for Dubai but its still alot. Worth no way near $1 Trillion through. Lost like £240+ Billion in months!

148% figure was taken when oil prices were at their height between July($147) and September($100+). If you'd get your calculator out you'd see that won't be the case for the next 3 months. The price at the pumps has dropped by 20 pence in afew weeks and its still dropping hence less money for Dubai but its still alot. Worth no way near $1 Trillion through. Lost like £240+ Billion in months!

Andy. The assets aren't purely oil based. Don't be silly. City's owners will never run out of money in our lifetime. I honestly don't see why your harping on about a few billion dollars. :lol: Haven't OPEC just agreed a cut in oil production. Petrol prices will probably go up again in the not too distant future.

Andy. The assets aren't purely oil based. Don't be silly. City's owners will never run out of money in our lifetime. I honestly don't see why your harping on about a few billion dollars. :lol: Haven't OPEC just agreed a cut in oil production. Petrol prices will probably go up again in the not too distant future.
The $1 Trillion figure is taken from oil reserves. You don't even know about your own owners.

Andy, stop being tarty.

None of us really know about our owners. We can only go on what is printed in the press.

You seem to be a pubclicity gimp, so let's go with that. Our owners have managed to buy a large stake holding in a major British bank, with masses of change to spare. What have your lot done?

I don't actually care about any of this bullshit, but you obviously do.

Given that all the oil companies, including our lot, have this month reported substantial gains, what is your argument about?

Aye, much as enjoy reading Roman has lost $20billion is share dealings he still has $b's in cash so not really worth talking about.

Mike Ashley looses £500m, leaving £500m and £300m in shares left over is hardly going to matter.

It's the new Ross & Brand culture of talking about these excesses which should worry. Old money had/has class, these new rich are classless w*****s who I pity. I pity them (not that Ross & Brand, Roman and Mike care) because they have infinite wealth and cannot buy themselves any pride or comfort.

Sparticus/Kirk Douglas said everything you need to know about his Roman rulers.

C'mon on January, I am awaiting the gazumping of Chelsea with real relish!

But the rumours are based on it happening this summer? And do you really have a "Bell End?"

I'm sure they're looking into it regardless, but I wouldn't have thought they could do anything until the end of the 09-10 season at the earliest

It maybe possible to do alot of the building work outside the stadium as with the new corners at old trafford.

MAN CITY THINK BIG

Plans to make Eastlands 65,000-seat stadium


MANCHESTER CITY are ready to take a major step towards becoming a world superpower by raising their stadium capacity to 65,000.

The project to make Eastlands the second biggest ground in the Premier League could be completed by the 2011-12 season. The stadium currently holds just under 48,000. Old Trafford seats 76,000.

A source said: “There have been rumours floating around the construction industry for a few months that City are looking at how to expand the ground.

“The owners are looking into it but there are a few obstacles to get through before they can get any work started.”

The club’s Arab owners believe building another tier on the stands behind both goals plus some minor adjustments could give them the capacity they want to further their dream of making City a top European power.

But any plans would need the agreement of Manchester Council, which owns the ground.

Long-term City could buy Eastlands outright but owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan would be happy to finance the extra building work in the short term if the council gives the go-ahead.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/207618/MAN-CITY-THINK-BIG-Plans-to-make-Eastlands-65000-seat-stadium.html


(posted by robert23262 in the world forums)

But the rumours are based on it happening this summer? And do you really have a "Bell End?"


Colin Bell is widely regarded as Manchester City's greatest ever player.

But I think the naming of this stand was put to an online internet vote where overwhelmingly colin Bells name won.

This was because fans and non-fans alike were desperate to see a 'bell end'.

Whilst it would be great to see it expanded, City are not exactly filling the present stadium at the moment.

No way could Man City get attendances of 60-65000 consistantly in my opinion. Im not just saying that, I think its true. There's no demand to justify it.

They havent sold their stadium out for years bar the odd one or two big games and empty blue seats have become common place on MOTD. Even since the takeover you would imagine that it would be packed out instantly week after week, but it hasnt been.

Lets say they do manage to sell it out if all the worlds best players arrive and they win everything, the good times wont last forever then you are looking at 25,000 empty seats per game in the future.

No way could Man City get attendances of 60-65000 consistantly in my opinion. Im not just saying that, I think its true. There's no demand to justify it.

They havent sold their stadium out for years bar the odd one or two big games and empty blue seats have become common place on MOTD. Even since the takeover you would imagine that it would be packed out instantly week after week, but it hasnt been.

Lets say they do manage to sell it out if all the worlds best players arrive and they win everything, the good times wont last forever then you are looking at 25,000 empty seats per game in the future.

If they start 'winning' everything in sight then of course they'll sell out. Look at how Man U's attendances have skyrocketed since they've been able to buy success

Man U are 'success merchants'. They buy and sell 'success'. The vast majority of their fans come from a pool of people who have affiliated themselves with the club because of their dominance

People like that simply want some success in their life. The easiest way to achieve that is by allying yourself with the most successful football club. So these losers who have no real affinity with Man U help to fund Man U's ongoing 'success' and can bask in the reflected glory

If Man City invest enough money to make themselves dominant then there's no reason why they, like Man U, couldn't become the de facto club for that type of fan to support

If Man City win a couple of titles on the bounce then they'll definitely benefit from the kind of 'fan' that makes up the majority of Man U's fanbase. People like that just want to support the club who wins most

^^^^ Still, I think they are being extremely optimistic to think that they will get 65k week in week out.

If they start 'winning' everything in sight then of course they'll sell out. Look at how Man U's attendances have skyrocketed since they've been able to buy success

Man U are 'success merchants'. They buy and sell 'success'. The vast majority of their fans come from a pool of people who have affiliated themselves with the club because of their dominance

People like that simply want some success in their life. The easiest way to achieve that is by allying yourself with the most successful football club. So these losers who have no real affinity with Man U help to fund Man U's ongoing 'success' and can bask in the reflected glory

If Man City invest enough money to make themselves dominant then there's no reason why they, like Man U, couldn't become the de facto club for that type of fan to support

If Man City win a couple of titles on the bounce then they'll definitely benefit from the kind of 'fan' that makes up the majority of Man U's fanbase. People like that just want to support the club who wins most

I have no idea what United have to do with this but Chelsea spent all that money but they still can't sell out every game and there ground is only 40,000ish. Same thing would happen with City. The thing with United is success or no success they'd still sell more tickets than anyone else. United have had the highest attendances year on year since 1972 I think. bar 2 seasons because of construction work. During the 1970s and 1980s they were miles away from were they are now. Also this 'they have no local support' is frankly bollocks.

I have no idea what United have to do with this but Chelsea spent all that money but they still can't sell out every game and there ground is only 40,000ish. Same thing would happen with City. The thing with United is success or no success they'd still sell more tickets than anyone else. United have had the highest attendances year on year since 1972 I think. bar 2 seasons because of construction work. During the 1970s and 1980s they were miles away from were they are now. Also this 'they have no local support' is frankly bollocks.

Chelsea are 99% sold out this season, that's more than Man U. I understand they've had a few unofficial boycotts for lesser European games because of the prices, but they're consistently sold out in the league

If Man City 'win' a few titles, they'll easily attract 20k or so new fans. It's what the modern football fan is all about

I bring up Man U because your fan base has doubled since the Premier League began and money became king. They're simply the most appropriate template for clubs getting bigger on the back of success. The explosion in Man U's attendances since '92 is down to one thing, the trophies they've bought/won

Man U had just one sell out game in 91-92, when Old Trafford held 47k. you led the league most of the season. Cut to 2009 and you're selling out 76k week-in week-out.

I never said you had no local support, but Manchester's a relatively small place and Knights Frank (I think) calculated that Man U have over 3 million fans in England. You can't put a pint in a half-pint-pot

Man U's fans are overwhelmingly attracted to the club because they can buy into the lifestyle of success, there's no other affinity. If Man City can offer something similar, why couldn't they attract the same type of fan in the same type of numbers? It's just business

I have no idea what United have to do with this but Chelsea spent all that money but they still can't sell out every game and there ground is only 40,000ish. Same thing would happen with City. The thing with United is success or no success they'd still sell more tickets than anyone else. United have had the highest attendances year on year since 1972 I think. bar 2 seasons because of construction work. During the 1970s and 1980s they were miles away from were they are now. Also this 'they have no local support' is frankly bollocks.

Would it Andy? I think not. In the first season at COMS almost every home match was sold out. The novelty soon wore off though. However, considering we've won nothing much for 33 years and we're apparently in the constant shadow of the biggest football club in the universe, the fact that we're still pulling an avergae of 44,000 at home speaks volumes. I'm 100% sure once we win that first trophy and perhaps others, those 4000 missing fans and another 5-10,000 happy clappers(from OT and FC) will come to Manchester's one and only football club via Istanbul.

Cough! So you've always pulled massive crowds have you? There's lies and there's damned lies.

1986-87 11th Div1 Old Tr-21 853,137 54,103 Liverpool 31,686 Wimbledon 40,625 1st
1987-88 2nd Div1 Old Tr-20 784,331 48,087 Tottenham 28,040 Wimbledon 39,216 2nd
1988-89 11th Div1 Old Tr-19 693,257 46,377 QPR 23,368 Wimbledon 36,847 2nd
1989-90 13th Div1 Old Tr-19 742,475 47,245 Arsenal 29,281 Wimbledon 39,077 1st

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

Chelsea are 99% sold out this season, that's more than Man U. I understand they've had a few unofficial boycotts for lesser European games because of the prices, but they're consistently sold out in the league

If Man City 'win' a few titles, they'll easily attract 20k or so new fans. It's what the modern football fan is all about

I bring up Man U because your fan base has doubled since the Premier League began and money became king. They're simply the most appropriate template for clubs getting bigger on the back of success. The explosion in Man U's attendances since '92 is down to one thing, the trophies they've bought/won

Man U had just one sell out game in 91-92, when Old Trafford held 47k. you led the league most of the season. Cut to 2009 and you're selling out 76k week-in week-out.

I never said you had no local support, but Manchester's a relatively small place and Knights Frank (I think) calculated that Man U have over 3 million fans in England. You can't put a pint in a half-pint-pot

Man U's fans are overwhelmingly attracted to the club because they can buy into the lifestyle of success, there's no other affinity. If Man City can offer something similar, why couldn't they attract the same type of fan in the same type of numbers? It's just business
Its alot more than just business because they had a huge support anyway. That did not turn up over night.

btw 1991/1992 season United were still nearly selling 10,000 tickets on average more than anyone else.

United can sell 75,000 tickets against Aalborg BK and Chelsea can't sell out any of their Champions League Games. They only got 38k for Juve! If it had been at OT, they'd could have sold more than double that. Its a different kettle of fish. United, Arsenal and Liverpool are in a different league to everyone. City, Chelsea and anyone else who want to buy success will never get the same support. If City win the League for 10 years on the run, they will still not have the same level of support as the 3 biggest clubs.

Would it Andy? I think not. In the first season at COMS almost every home match was sold out. The novelty soon wore off though. However, considering we've won nothing much for 33 years and we're apparently in the constant shadow of the biggest football club in the universe, the fact that we're still pulling an avergae of 44,000 at home speaks volumes. I'm 100% sure once we win that first trophy and perhaps others, those 4000 missing fans and another 5-10,000 happy clappers(from OT and FC) will come to Manchester's one and only football club via Istanbul.

Cough! So you've always pulled massive crowds have you? There's lies and there's damned lies.

1986-87 11th Div1 Old Tr-21 853,137 54,103 Liverpool 31,686 Wimbledon 40,625 1st
1987-88 2nd Div1 Old Tr-20 784,331 48,087 Tottenham 28,040 Wimbledon 39,216 2nd
1988-89 11th Div1 Old Tr-19 693,257 46,377 QPR 23,368 Wimbledon 36,847 2nd
1989-90 13th Div1 Old Tr-19 742,475 47,245 Arsenal 29,281 Wimbledon 39,077 1st

http://www.red11.org/mufc/stats/attendances.htm
47 years. Highest Attendances out of everyone of them on average in 41 of them and 6 where they came 2nd. 1st and 2nd highest attendances every year since 1964! What lies?

Its alot more than just business because they had a huge support anyway. That did not turn up over night.

No. About half of it did though. Probably more. No way did you have 3million+ English fans in '92. You didn't even have enough fans to justify a 47k seater stadium, let alone 76k

btw 1991/1992 season United were still nearly selling 10,000 tickets on average more than anyone else.

True. But you were also top of the league all season and had the biggest ground. The point I was making was that in '92, prior to your dominance, a 47k ground was too big for you for all but one game, Forest on Easter Monday

United can sell 75,000 tickets against Aalborg BK and Chelsea can't sell out any of their Champions League Games. They only got 38k for Juve! If it had been at OT, they'd could have sold more than double that. Its a different kettle of fish. United, Arsenal and Liverpool are in a different league to everyone. City, Chelsea and anyone else who want to buy success will never get the same support. If City win the League for 10 years on the run, they will still not have the same level of support as the 3 biggest clubs.

Chelsea haven't been buying all the trophies and players for 16 years though! Given the same length of economic dominance there's absolutely no reason why they, like you, couldn't double their fanbase. Same with City, Villa, Wycombe, whoever. People follow success, it's a business model which has served Man U well, there's no reason the same model wouldn't work anywhere else

Nobody's saying Man U aren't the best supported team in the country. Just that the extent to which you're the best supported club is down to 16 years of unrivalled economic dominance

47 years. Highest Attendances out of everyone of them on average in 41 of them and 6 where they came 2nd. 1st and 2nd highest attendances every year since 1964! What lies?

There's two reason's why United have got the highest attendances down the years. One was the aftermath of Munich Air Disaster and the other has been the continued success on the pitch. However, I remember United's crowds dipping alarmingly when things weren't going too well for Bacon face in the 80's, and I have no doubt when Whiskey Nose finally hangs up his stopwatch, United's dominance will come to a swift end. Let's see what happens to the crowds at United when the trohpies head in the other direction to COMS. :)

...Let's see what happens to the crowds at United when the trohpies head in the other direction to COMS. :)

They'll be looking skywards for those flying pigs. :)

Gotta laugh at you two's pop at Uniteds 'glory hunters', just about every club has them (with the possible exception of citeh!). When crowds were down in the 70's and 80's we were the best supported club even then. Now most attendances are up, where are your digs at Liverpool, Arsenal and even Leeds for their increased support and therefore 'Nigel' brigade?

United can sell 75,000 tickets against Aalborg BK and Chelsea can't sell out any of their Champions League Games. They only got 38k for Juve! If it had been at OT, they'd could have sold more than double that. Its a different kettle of fish. United, Arsenal and Liverpool are in a different league to everyone. City, Chelsea and anyone else who want to buy success will never get the same support. If City win the League for 10 years on the run, they will still not have the same level of support as the 3 biggest clubs.

erm that was a sell out for chelsea they lose about 2-3,000 seats because of UEFA rules, same for Arsenal until they moved to the emirates.

Your crowd vs Aalborg was 74,382, 2,000 below capacity, for the same reason as chelsea.

I do agree the big three have more fans, but Tottenham with success can make it a big four, and chelsea are far larger than man city, they have always been so, i'd rank city 9th below the likes of villa, everton and newcastle.

Manchester united have been the biggest club in this country from about 1966 before then their crowds fluctuated with success as there fanbase wasn't really swelled by hordes. Also before then i reckon it probably went Arsenal from 30s to the early 50s then no one really (maybe Tottenham for the early 60s) from then until manchester united took over in the mid 60s.

I do agree they were just maybe a head above liverpool, now they are on a different planet. and liverpool along with Arsenal are probably on a different planet from the pack. I can't see it changing.

This doesn't mean city or chelsea can't increase their fanbases significantly through success

Capacity: 47,726

Average attendances:
2008-09: 42,929 (so far)
2007–08: 42,077
2006–07: 39,997
2005–06: 42,856
2004–05: 45,192
2003–04: 46,384

Capacity: 47,726

Average attendances:
2008-09: 46,231 (so far)
2007–08: 42,077
2006–07: 39,997
2005–06: 42,856
2004–05: 45,192
2003–04: 46,384

thats a lie, i have seen plenty of empty seats there this season.

their real average is

42,929

that's a premier league average according to the bbc. source: here (http://www.gourmondo.de/pimgs/500/5000111001007.1.jpg).

that's a premier league average according to the bbc. source: here (http://www.gourmondo.de/pimgs/500/5000111001007.1.jpg).

Why lie??

1. that is not a BBC source
2. it doesn't work

scroll to bottom: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/club_stats/default.stm

and now YOU are my bitch.

^^those figures don't add up

PREMIER LEAGUE GATES
Total 601,006
Average 46,231
Highest 47,331 Man C 1-3 Chelsea 13 Sep
Lowest 36,635 Man C 3-0 West Ham 24 Aug

they have played 14 home league games

601,006/14 = 42 929

BBC do make mistakes too you know!! They forgot they had played an extra game!

Now YOU are my bitch!

i have amended my figures and sent a strongly-worded email to the bbc.

I do agree the big three have more fans, but Tottenham with success can make it a big four, and chelsea are far larger than man city, they have always been so, i'd rank city 9th below the likes of villa, everton and newcastle.

Your funny! When did you take up comedy?

I remember when Chelsea used to keep there fans in at the Bridge with an electric fence because the crowds used to be that low that Bates didn't want them getting any lower. Up until that dodgy Russian geezer came along and the special one, the only thing famous about Chelsea was the Kings Road and Men's bottoms.

Capacity: 47,726

Average attendances:
2008-09: 42,929 (so far)
2007–08: 42,077
2006–07: 39,997
2005–06: 42,856
2004–05: 45,192
2003–04: 46,384

That 39,997 was under Pearce. Without doubt the worst football I have ever witnessed as a City fan. We went from January to May without winning a game at home or was it scoring a goal? probably both. I'm surprised we even got that crowd.

Your funny! When did you take up comedy?

I remember when Chelsea used to keep there fans in at the Bridge with an electric fence because the crowds used to be that low that Bates didn't want them getting any lower. Up until that dodgy Russian geezer came along and the special one, the only thing famous about Chelsea was the Kings Road and Men's bottoms.

haha deluded

The only times when the two clubs have had any sort of parity is this decade and the 1960s.

between 1946 and 1967 MAnchester city didn't average above chelsea once. Thats despite chelsea being relegated. In 1967/68 man city won the league and from then until chelsea's crisis in 1973 chelsea got bigger crowds.

chelsea spent much of the 70s and 80s in financial crisis and in the 2nd tier. Manchester city nearly won the league. Man city did average more most of the time, but they were an established top flight club who only began to wobble in the 80s but always bounced straight back.

You can't compare the 90s as chelsea were a division or 2 higher from most of it. and got higher crowds

This decade City only get bigger crowds now that their stadium holds more.

Chelsea are bigger than city, don't kid yourself, city are small fry on the landscape, i'd even go as far as saying West ham united are bigger than city. They have legions of fans!

You may have a lot of fans in manchester and stockport, but more people live in my part of london than those places combined!

haha deluded

The only times when the two clubs have had any sort of parity is this decade and the 1960s.

between 1946 and 1967 MAnchester city didn't average above chelsea once. Thats despite chelsea being relegated. In 1967/68 man city won the league and from then until chelsea's crisis in 1973 chelsea got bigger crowds.

chelsea spent much of the 70s and 80s in financial crisis and in the 2nd tier. Manchester city nearly won the league. Man city did average more most of the time, but they were an established top flight club who only began to wobble in the 80s but always bounced straight back.

You can't compare the 90s as chelsea were a division or 2 higher from most of it. and got higher crowds

This decade City only get bigger crowds now that their stadium holds more.

Chelsea are bigger than city, don't kid yourself, city are small fry on the landscape, i'd even go as far as saying West ham united are bigger than city. They have legions of fans!

You may have a lot of fans in manchester and stockport, but more people live in my part of london than those places combined!

I think your the deluded one.

The only reason your getting bigger crowds is because of Abramovich and his money and your recent success. Put yourselfs in our boots and you'd still be pulling 30-35 max, not the 40 plus that we're pulling. Fact!

Don't forget, we're also in the shadow of the biggest club in the universe. You on the other hand have the mighty Fulham to attract those happy clapping Sloane Ranger's(Jesus!) from Chelsea and Kensington, not to mention the rest of West London.

Chelsea were nothing until Abramovich came along. You still would be nothing without him. Harding did a decent job, but it wasn't until you were bought by Abramovich and Mourinho took charge that you became well known.(not famous) Without those two, you would be on a par with Everton, Newcastle, Villa and City. Nothing more, nothing less.

Looking at your team, you'd better starting winning some trophies soon, otherwise your team will be pensioned off soon.

PS. Just noticed the Arse line. That's about right. Now Arsenal are a famous team with trophies and history. I'll give you that.

as an independent observer who's been to maine road, COMS and stamford bridge i can say with absolute authority that city are a proper club with generally knowledgable and decent-minded football supporters, and chelsea are a joke with damon albarn fanboys waving plastic flags: oi oi!!!! etc.

COMS will look class with this extension. if the 2018 bid can only have one stadium in manchester it should be a redeveloped COMS without a doubt. modern, plenty of space outside, and it does't look like a a dog's dinner, like old trafford does (see: "quads" and "sloping roof").

Check this site for. att.
http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/prematt.htm

http://www.tonykempster.co.uk/gridsindex.htm

10 years time FC United will have to extend their ground ,as the fan base will increase when we move to our own home in m40 .in 2011/12

I think your the deluded one.

The only reason your getting bigger crowds is because of Abramovich and his money and your recent success. Put yourselfs in our boots and you'd still be pulling 30-35 max, not the 40 plus that we're pulling. Fact!

Don't forget, we're also in the shadow of the biggest club in the universe. You on the other hand have the mighty Fulham to attract those happy clapping Sloane Ranger's(Jesus!) from Chelsea and Kensington, not to mention the rest of West London.

Chelsea were nothing until Abramovich came along. You still would be nothing without him. Harding did a decent job, but it wasn't until you were bought by Abramovich and Mourinho took charge that you became well known.(not famous) Without those two, you would be on a par with Everton, Newcastle, Villa and City. Nothing more, nothing less.

Looking at your team, you'd better starting winning some trophies soon, otherwise your team will be pensioned off soon.

PS. Just noticed the Arse line. That's about right. Now Arsenal are a famous team with trophies and history. I'll give you that.

Im sorry JRB but u are kinda deluded here..

im no Chelsea supporter but Chelsea were a top 4 team before Abramovich came along, they were playing in the Champions League without him. AND they were winning trophies before he came, much more then i can say for Man City.


BTW COM would look awesome if it is extended.

I think your the deluded one.

The only reason your getting bigger crowds is because of Abramovich and his money and your recent success. Put yourselfs in our boots and you'd still be pulling 30-35 max, not the 40 plus that we're pulling. Fact!

Don't forget, we're also in the shadow of the biggest club in the universe. You on the other hand have the mighty Fulham to attract those happy clapping Sloane Ranger's(Jesus!) from Chelsea and Kensington, not to mention the rest of West London.

Chelsea were nothing until Abramovich came along. You still would be nothing without him. Harding did a decent job, but it wasn't until you were bought by Abramovich and Mourinho took charge that you became well known.(not famous) Without those two, you would be on a par with Everton, Newcastle, Villa and City. Nothing more, nothing less.

Looking at your team, you'd better starting winning some trophies soon, otherwise your team will be pensioned off soon.

PS. Just noticed the Arse line. That's about right. Now Arsenal are a famous team with trophies and history. I'll give you that.

Stop saying you, seriously!!!

I have no love for chelsea but i know they are bigger than man city, always have been. Just look in the history books, in the glory years of football chelsea got bigger crowds! the only time man city outdrew chelsea is in the 70s and 80s when chelsea were in crisis. and now because they have a larger stadium which was literally given to them.

London is bigger than manchester and liverpool combined. An averaged sized club in London has more fans than a big club in manchester. Hence why chelsea are bigger.

and i notice you ignored the west ham line

have you ever been to west london?? it's hardly posh, in fact it's very working class Acton, shepherd's bush, brentford, hounslow, hammersmith, north kensington, paddington etc etc.

Man City have a higher average attendance than Chelsea since 1990, about 1,000 per game

Not bad considering they've had no success and a few seasons in the lower leagues whilst Chelsea have enjoyed all this pseudo-success

Man City have a higher average attendance than Chelsea since 1990, about 1,000 per game

Not bad considering they've had no success and a few seasons in the lower leagues whilst Chelsea have enjoyed all this pseudo-success

erm what

between 1990-96 man city were better than chelsea

between 1996-2003 chelsea had higher crowds than man city partly because they were in a higher a division for most of the time

since man city have gone to COM stadium they have had higher crowds, because they play in a bigger stadium don't make stuff up!

erm what

between 1990-96 man city were better than chelsea

between 1996-2003 chelsea had high crowds than man city

since man city have gone to COM stadium they have had higher crowds don't make stuff up!

But since 1990 Man City average about 1000 more per game than Chelsea

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pJVUK-vBD7el8Z154RA0ccA&hl=en

Man C average 32.5k
Chelsea average 31.4k

People can say Chelsea are the bigger club or whatever, but looking at it empirically, Man City are better supported

There's two reason's why United have got the highest attendances down the years. One was the aftermath of Munich Air Disaster

Ah! That old chestnut.

Let's pretend the Munich air disaster never happened.

Manchester United would have probably have gone on to win the League a number of times and, let's be mean, a couple of European cups.

So by your logic, as glory hunters follow successful teams, then United’s gates would have been much, much larger, needing at least an 80,000 capacity at OT.

The exact opposite of what you're implying.

and the other has been the continued success on the pitch.

Between 1969 and 1989 United won a total of THREE trophies, and yet still had the best support in the Country!

For every year between WWII and the Munich disaster Manchester United had the highest average attendance.

But since 1990 Man City average about 1000 more per game than Chelsea

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pJVUK-vBD7el8Z154RA0ccA&hl=en

Man C average 32.5k
Chelsea average 31.4k

People can say Chelsea are the bigger club or whatever, but looking at it empirically, Man City are better supported

Man city can average more than chelsea, what about that don't you understand??

A fat pint glass can hold more than a wine glass.

cumalitive stats like that, are rubbish also.

How can u compare a season when the average attendance was 20,000 to one when it was 35,000. What was a goo average in 1991. wouldn't be in 2008.

What is clear is that im chelsea had the same capacity as man city, they would average more and you know it

For every year between WWII and the Munich disaster Manchester United had the highest average attendance.

Thats the biggest lie i have ever heard

Division 1 from 1946/7 to munich (rank in the attendance chart)

1947 Newcastle 49379 Manchester united (3rd) 43945
1948 Newcastle 56283 Manchetser united (3rd) 54890
1949 Newcastle 53839 Manchester uniteed (2nd) 48808
1950 Tottenham 54111 Manchester united (7th) 43282
1951 Tottenham 55509 Manchester united (9th) 39008
1952 Tottenham 51134 Manchester united (4th) 42916
1953 Arsenal 49191 Manchester united (9th) 37571
1954 Arsenal 50278 Manchester united (9th) 35458
1955 Chelsea 48260 Manchester united (8th) 35960
1956 Everton 42768 Manchester United (3rd) 42034

THen you win a few leagues and you are top all of a sudden. you didn't average in the top 2 once before the busby babes, or above arsenal once.
1957

Man city can average more than chelsea, what about that don't you understand??

A fat pint glass can hold more than a wine glass.

cumalitive stats like that, are rubbish also.

How can u compare a season when the average attendance was 20,000 to one when it was 35,000. What was a goo average in 1991. wouldn't be in 2008.

What is clear is that im chelsea had the same capacity as man city, they would average more and you know it

Chelsea weren't hampered by a small ground when they were getting 18,000 average in the early to mid 90's. Equally, how many more people would have gone along to watch Man City if they'd had a larger ground before they got given the CoMS?

The only reason Chelsea are anywhere near the top 10 average attendances since '90 (and they're only 10th) is because of the last few seasons of sell outs on the back of the pseudo-success you've enjoyed

The fact remains that thousands more people have been along to watch Man City in the last 20 years than have been along to see Chelsea.

Ah! That old chestnut.

Let's pretend the Munich air disaster never happened.

Manchester United would have probably have gone on to win the League a number of times and, let's be mean, a couple of European cups.

So by your logic, as glory hunters follow successful teams, then United’s gates would have been much, much larger, needing at least an 80,000 capacity at OT.

The exact opposite of what you're implying.

I think what is implied is that Manchester united got a lot of national recognition and sympathy because of that. A lot of people supported them. This was before the age of glory hunting. Many people supported their local clubs hence why on average London clubs were better supported back then.

I think the busby babes may have been slightly overrated, don't get me wrong they were obviously good, but when people die young we tend to really ramp things up and say they were better than they were. People seriously think they would've beat the dominant Real Madrid team??

Between 1969 and 1989 United won a total of THREE trophies, and yet still had the best support in the Country!

Swelled massively by support from around the country, the type that probably couldn't decide on the day to turn up, they had to plan it.

Where as most other clubs were entirely local. Your local fanbase was probably smaller than that of Arsenal or Tottenham, and on a par with manchester city, if not a little bigger.

Chelsea weren't hampered by a small ground when they were getting 18,000 average in the early to mid 90's. Equally, how many more people would have gone along to watch Man City if they'd had a larger ground before they got given the CoMS?

The only reason Chelsea are anywhere near the top 10 average attendances since '90 (and they're only 10th) is because of the last few seasons of sell outs on the back of the pseudo-success you've enjoyed

The fact remains that thousands more people have been along to watch Man City in the last 20 years than have been along to see Chelsea.

erm chelsea outsold man city from about the mid 90s til they moved to COM stadium. If they both played in the same capacity, chelsea would've out sold man city regardless of abromovich as they were before.

in the early 90s man city finished above chelsea every season not just above but top 5. Chelsea were bottom half. They played in a terrible stadium that needed redevloping

You can skew your stats which ever way you want but you need the facts first!!

erm chelsea outsold man city from about the mid 90s til they moved to COM stadium. If they both played in the same capacity, chelsea would've out sold man city regardless of abromovich as they were before.

in the early 90s man city finished above chelsea every season not just above but top 5. Chelsea were bottom half. They played in a terrible stadium that needed redevloping

You can skew your stats which ever way you want but you need the facts first!!

That's right. Chelsea finally started outselling Man City once Man City got relegated and you started hovering around the top 5. Man City were restricted at this point too, due to redevelopment and probably could have sold more tickets than Chelsea

You have to compare like for like really. Take 1994. Chelsea finished 14th and nearly managed an average gate of 20k. Man City finished 16th and averaged nearly 27k. No excuses re: ground size or redevelopment

Good job Chelsea got Abramovic or Man City would average a LOT more than Chelsea in recent history, instead of just a thousand

Bigbossman. I'll get back to you at some point re Chelsea. (Remember, city were pulling
30k in the old second division)

Back to topic.

Question and answer session.

http://i40.tinypic.com/b8r4wl.jpg

Cook, Hughes, Dunne and Danny Wilson.

Couple of interesting points I've picked out. Click on the link to read some others. Bit of rambling, but it is a forum after all.

Super Casino site and Sports City. Spring/Summer announcement already reported in the press. Sounds interesting and promising.

No plans to buy ground but plans to develop surrounding area

Relocating the away fans so the City fans can have the whole South Stand to themselves and merging the two singing sections currently seperated by the away fans.

Danny wilson answered it mainly saying it is something they are aware of due to emails to the club and online protests and they are looking at the security aspects along with the policing and hopefully they are going to be able to relocate they away fans. Dunnie also chipped in saying when the ground is buzzing it gives all the players a lift and he would be in favour of 'bringing back our Kippax' if "Danny Wilson can sort it" .... so fingers crossed mate !

http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=111832&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Relocating the away fans so the City fans can have the whole South Stand to themselves and merging the two singing sections currently seperated by the away fans.


Is it not a coincidence that the 'singing' sections are flanking the away fans, as is typically the case at new grounds? I would not be surprised that after this move, the 'singing' sections follow the away fans thus rendering the move pointless. :lol::lol:

Is it not a coincidence that the 'singing' sections are flanking the away fans, as is typically the case at new grounds? I would not be surprised that after this move, the 'singing' sections follow the away fans thus rendering the move pointless. :lol::lol:

The point is to create one end of the stadium full of city fans who want to sing. Like to the Kop, Stretford End, etc, instead of two blocks either side of the away fans. Basically the fans 'want' a whole end(South stand) where they can all get together and sing together. It's good to know the club have took this onboard and are trying to make it happen. :)

Unlike the Murphy,s jon!
Unlike the Murphy,s.:ohno:

P.s Munich? Even by your low standards that is piss poor!?
Please do not slip down that slope of Munich jb!?
And before someone retorts with " Ye just like the plane did "
Sort ya head out Mr.B!!!!
I used to idolise you! But no more.......:ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno::ohno:

So! London is bigger than Manchester and Liverpool combined?
Is it really?????
As the Flanders would say "Okerlee Dokerlee"

For every year between WWII and the Munich disaster Manchester United had the highest average attendance.

That's not true.

Thats the biggest lie i have ever heard

Division 1 from 1946/7 to munich (rank in the attendance chart)

1947 Newcastle 49379 Manchester united (3rd) 43945
1948 Newcastle 56283 Manchetser united (3rd) 54890
1949 Newcastle 53839 Manchester uniteed (2nd) 48808
1950 Tottenham 54111 Manchester united (7th) 43282
1951 Tottenham 55509 Manchester united (9th) 39008
1952 Tottenham 51134 Manchester united (4th) 42916
1953 Arsenal 49191 Manchester united (9th) 37571
1954 Arsenal 50278 Manchester united (9th) 35458
1955 Chelsea 48260 Manchester united (8th) 35960
1956 Everton 42768 Manchester United (3rd) 42034

THen you win a few leagues and you are top all of a sudden. you didn't average in the top 2 once before the busby babes, or above arsenal once.
1957

Can't argue with the attendances you posted.

But as Munich happened towards the end of the 1957/58 season, I've posted the two attendance figures you convienently omitted.

1956/57 Manchester United 45481 Arsenal (3rd) 41093
1957/58 Manchester United 46073 Arsenal (3rd) 39835

So! London is bigger than Manchester and Liverpool combined?
Is it really?????
As the Flanders would say "Okerlee Dokerlee"

And still no team there has ever won the European Cup.As much as I hate money ruining the game and I'll hate what City may become their fans are fantastic and for them,the ones who've stuck by them all of those years,success is deserved.Chelsea are no marks with plazzy fans.

What was the attendance last night?

Can't argue with the attendances you posted.

But as Munich happened towards the end of the 1957/58 season, I've posted the two attendance figures you convienently omitted.

1956/57 Manchester United 45481 Arsenal (3rd) 41093
1957/58 Manchester United 46073 Arsenal (3rd) 39835

Not conveniently, i said up until the babes

[/quote]THen you win a few leagues and you are top all of a sudden. you didn't average in the top 2 once before the busby babes, or above arsenal once.[/quote]

So! London is bigger than Manchester and Liverpool combined?
Is it really?????
As the Flanders would say "Okerlee Dokerlee"

well the population of the manchester-liverpool conurbation is around 7 million

whereas the population of the Greater London urban area is over 8 million

so yes

What was the attendance last night?

24,000.

well the population of the manchester-liverpool conurbation is around 7 million
whereas the population of the Greater London urban area is over 8 million

so yes

You're having a laugh arent you? try slicing that figure in half.

And still no team there has ever won the European Cup.As much as I hate money ruining the game and I'll hate what City may become their fans are fantastic and for them,the ones who've stuck by them all of those years,success is deserved.Chelsea are no marks with plazzy fans.

When will people learn that the European cup is a knock out competition based on tradition. It is the same in essence as the FA cup hence anyone can win.

Hence why in 1982 Aston Villa mid table in England won it, despite the holders and eventual champions of England Liverpool being involved.

It proves nothing, we only entered the tournament trice before wenger. Once we lost to Ajax the winners, and the second time it was our first season back in Europe. Tottenham made the semis in their only season and Chelsea were banned from taking part by the football league. IF it had started when London clubs dominated who knows... but it didn't.

You're having a laugh arent you? try slicing that figure in half.

yeah abit exaggerated with the figure more like 5 million, remember you add in parts of lancashire, cheshire and derbyshire to make a metro

yeah abit exaggerated with the figure more like 5 million

Still think you are too high.

Still think you are too high.

It's the EU figure, i'll try and find it

It's the EU figure, i'll try and find it

Im just going off the top of my head but Greater Manchester is what 2.5m? and the Merseyside area (including the Wirral) is about 1.2 million so thats 3.7million people.

IF it had started when London clubs dominated who knows... but it didn't.

It started in 1955,that's plenty of time to win it but no London club ever has,that's shameful.

Im just going off the top of my head but Greater Manchester is what 2.5m? and the Merseyside area (including the Wirral) is about 1.2 million so thats 3.7million people.

like i said it's not just that though is it. IT includes west lancs and north cheshire etc etc

How about something along the lines of the original config of the Sydney Olympic stadium??

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/12/12/sydneyolympicstadium1_wideweb__470x314,0.jpg

Obviously they would need to add a roof either end plus the stands would not go quite as far back, but it is not all that different to CoMS in its overall design.

Firstly.

Another example of the Club and the owners involving the fans. Which I did say would happen and has happened.

Wow! I don't often say that, but the club is really involving the fans on some serious ideas regarding the future of the club itself and the stadium.

Things are moving very quickly with the club and the fans. Taken from Blue Moon.


For those who don't know what the "Give Eastlands It's Kippax" is about here is the original thread

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96290&hilit=kippax

It got about 1500 signatures of support for it which was fantastic considering it was only put on the forums. I sent that to the club who were impressed with it and promised they would look into it.

I got a response back in April saying they were still looking into it but nothing could be done for this season as it was too late.

I then sent an e-mail after the Celtic game wondering if they noticed the majority of the Celtic support and if they were impressed with it (the noise, colour and atmosphere, not the minority of Celtic supporters who have been discussed at length here) as that is what it would look like with us blues in there if it went ahead.

Last week i got a reply saying Danny Wilson (the Head of Supporter Experience), Vicky Kloss (the Head of Communications), Garry Cook and our Chairman also witnessed the scenes and they acted as a very useful pre-cursor to new discussions on the idea. Therefore they are planning a meeting in the first week of September to start canvassing opinion OFFICIALLY and carefully and methodically gauging support or objection for it.

There are those who don't agree with it and think that the structure should stay as it is with the away fans in half of the south stand and that is fair enough there will be objections to it and they have a right to object to it if they think everything is fine, but i also know there are lots of people who do want the whole of the south stand to be full of blues singing as one voice and to give Eastlands something it misses that Maine Road had, a designated end where the heart of the atmosphere comes from.

So all those who want Eastlands to have it's very own Kippax if you could put your reasons on here why it is needed and why you agree with it, i can then collate it all, get my mate who is a designer to put it in a brochure and present it to the club at the meeting so those who agree with it can all have their say in the matter.

Those who don't agree with it, you could also put on here why you don't think it should change, it would be good to hear both sides.

p.s I’m not in charge of this, it isn't my cause and i shouldn't get any praise (or abuse) for it, all i have done is given us City fans an avenue to have their say, it took a minute to set up. Those who have got it to this stage are the 900 or so people who signed it on that "petition" and the 800 or so who were on Facebook. As i said at the beginning in December, i felt a change was needed, so did hundreds of others and if nothing could be done then at least we could say we tried instead of just moaning about it.

This meeting is a huge step for those that want it, you need to make your voices heard and clearly and you need to fight for it if you really believe in it and convince the club it is the right idea as there will be those who rightfully in their mind who will oppose it.

This is your chance so fire away!!

Secondly.

The article below is from this weeks Guardian. The last we heard about the proposal to increase the capacity at COMS was at a supporters meeting earlier this year, where Cook stated that the club had no current plans to increase the capacity of the stadium.

Well, an interesting post has appeared on Mancityfans.net. Is it true?

The Guardian article.

Manchester City's grand plan for Eastlands and its surrounds• Discussions begin over expanding stadium to 60,000 capacity

Manchester City have begun talks about expanding their stadium to a 60,000 capacity as part of their multimillion-pound attempt to be recognised as one of the most powerful clubs in Europe.

Although the plans are only at a very early stage, there have been discussions at boardroom level about whether the City of Manchester Stadium, with its 48,000 capacity, is big enough for what the owners are planning.

The club are expecting a sharp increase in the average gate this season and believe that will continue to be the case while the Abu Dhabi United Group is outspending every other club in England in a bid to turn City into European Cup winners.

City's first home game of the season, against Wolves on Saturday, has not sold out(almost sold out now) but the club are confident that if Mark Hughes's team are challenging for a top-four spot the stadium will be full, or close to full, for every league game.

The long-term plan is that City will have a new training ground next to the existing stadium, as well as developing large areas of adjacent lands to create a sports village. However, the club still have to raise the idea with Manchester city council, which will have the ultimate say as owners of the stadium.

From Mancityfans.net.

This has been mentioned before and i can confirm that City have put out the tender to architects to design our ground to become a 60,000 capacity stadium. My friend works for one of the architects that has tendered. All it involves is re-designing the North & South Ends. Remember, The Emirates used the plans for Citys ground as a template for their stadium so use that as your base as to how Eastlands will look in 3 or 4 years.

The long-term plan is that City will have a new training ground next to the existing stadium, as well as developing large areas of adjacent lands to create a sports village. However, the club still have to raise the idea with Manchester city council, which will have the ultimate say as owners of the stadium

What I posted on the Super Casiono thread on the 18th of July.

The interesting bit. Manchester City FC/ADUG have their own idea's of what they think should be and what they want around COMS and the surrounding area. Obviously MCC have their own idea's as to what they want to see on the Super Casino site and Sports City site. Discussion's continue. One would assume there is a difference of opinion? That's me just guessing. I'm usually wrong.

How the COMS 'could look' with a 3rd tier added on to each end.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8827/thirdtier.png

For the stadium to look like that behind each goal would require the whole roof to be lifted. There is no room under the present roof to fit another tier behind the goal.

A possibility would be to flatten the roof out making it look more like the Allianz Arena.

It would be great if City could get an 'end' or a Kippax. The stadium is great but lacks a focal point for rabid youth and middle aged footy loons to concentrate the partisan support.

For the stadium to look like that behind each goal would require the whole roof to be lifted. There is no room under the present roof to fit another tier behind the goal.

A possibility would be to flatten the roof out making it look more like the Allianz Arena.

There is Issac. It was part of the original plans that the capacity could be increased at either end of the stadium. The end roof sections can be removed and replaced and the capacity can be increased. I have read a few posts on various forums regarding this matter. Trust me as a wannabe, never to be architect, it can be done.

It would be great if City could get an 'end' or a Kippax. The stadium is great but lacks a focal point for rabid youth and middle aged footy loons to concentrate the partisan support.

Toady. Spot on that man.

Here. I've used the KOP as an example. http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=136288&start=0

There is Issac. It was part of the original plans that the capacity could be increased at either end of the stadium. The end roof sections can be removed and replaced and the capacity can be increased. I have read a few posts on various forums regarding this matter. Trust me as a wannabe, never to be architect, it can be done.

I've just tried it on coral draw, yes you can leave the main stand roof alone. However the end roof would have to be higher and also wider as they would be going back three rather than two tiers.

As I said the effect would be a flatter or less pronounced curve on the roof

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/IsaacNewell/coms.jpg

The raised roof behind the goal will have to be redesigned to connect with the existing roof.

I've just tried it on coral draw, yes you can leave the main stand roof alone. However the end roof would have to be higher and also wider as they would be going back three rather than two tiers.

As I said the effect would be a flatter or less pronounced curve on the roof

Look at the 3 grey sections of ground to the left of the south stand. Then look at the corner of the roof. You can just make out a joint of some kind. Hence both ends not having cables to keep the roof up. Just guessing like.


http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/stadiums/cityofmanchesterstadiumaa01450c.jpg

not with you yet

not with you yet

Hold on in there brother. :lol:

City's first home game of the season, against Wolves on Saturday, has not sold out(almost sold out now) but the club are confident that if Mark Hughes's team are challenging for a top-four spot the stadium will be full, or close to full, for every league game.

You should use square brackets when you add your own words to a quotation!

Man City fans have to be the jammiest in the country. A stadium paid for mainly by the rest of the country, Arabs buying them a place in the top 4, cheap-as-chips tickets

Hold on in there brother. :lol:

Is there space inside the ground for a third tier to go back under the present roof or will a third tier behind the goal take up space behind the existing stadium, requiring a deeper roof ?

Interesting article in todays MEN. Seems MCFC and MCC are indeed in talks about various proposals regarding the future use of the Sports City site.

The rumour on the City forums was that the training complex at Carrington would be closed and relocated to a site in East Manchester. Apparently the land had/has been bought and was either 1 or 2 miles from the stadium.(obviously not true now)

It seems the new training facilites will actually be built within the proposed Sports City site next to the stadium. Hmmm. I'm sure this has caused abit of consternation at MCC. They probably didn't envisage a large section of the Sports City site to be turned in to a training complex for Manchester City. Hardly fits in with their plan for one of the biggest leisure destinations in Europe. Probably explains why the negotiations have taken so long.

I could be wrong, but I suspect there were one or two words exchanged between ADUG and MCC regarding the future use of the land(Sports City) surrounding the stadium.

Gald to read that increasing the capacity of the stadium in the future has been discussed, as well as naming rights for the stadium. Some may not like the thought of renaming the stadium. It currently has 6 names, The City Of Manchester Stadium, COMS, Eastlands, Middle Eastlands and the Council House. :poke: :nuts: But anything that brings extra revenue into the club, has to be looked at.(remebmer what Michel Platini said?)

If any further proof was needed that Sheikh Mansour is here to stay for the longterm, it's below. :cheers:

City consider all change at Eastlands
September 24, 2009

SHEIKH Mansour has completed his 100 per cent buy-out of Manchester City... and now the focus is on the multi-million pound re-development of Eastlands.

M.E.N. Sport has established that hush-hush talks between the club's top brass and the town hall stadium lease holders are at an advanced stage.

The extensive talks have covered such topics as increasing the 47,000 capacity of the ground and the naming rights of the City of Manchester Stadium.

They are considered as being of low priority for the immediate future but top of the agenda is the prospect of re-developing land close to the stadium as a huge state-of-the-art club training facility that with the club's wealth would be the best such facility in the Premier League.

A switch of training facilities to East Manchester would put a huge question mark over City's recently upgraded Carrington complex – bought 10 years ago under Joe Royle's regime for £500,000 from the University of Manchester – and the Platt Lane training centre in Moss Side.

The town hall are determined that the community will benefit from the prospect of City's huge expansion of Sportcity with one idea being the provision of artificial pitches for public use.

City owner Sheikh Mansour and his Abu Dhabi United Group for Development and Investment now own the entire club after gaining control of the final 10 per cent from disgraced former Thailand Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

“As a result of the transaction, Manchester City is now 100% owned by his highness Sheikh Mansour,” said a club statement.

The Sheikh has already invested huge sums in the club, sanctioning a British record £32.5m capture of Robinho on the day of his buy-out and spending in excess of £120m on new players this summer.

Why have a training complex that forces the players to drive into Manchester in rush hour.

I wouldn't believe that to be honest, impractical at best.

Why have a training complex that forces the players to drive into Manchester in rush hour.

I wouldn't believe that to be honest, impractical at best.

That did cross my mind.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/8563839.stm

Manchester City Football Club is at the centre of plans, believed to be worth £1bn, to redevelop a 200-acre site around its Eastlands home.

The scheme will transform one of the poorest areas of the city and create hundreds of jobs.

The club is believed to be planning a training complex on unused land near the stadium as part of the scheme.

It will look into the viability of extending the stadium's current 48,000 capacity as part of the redevelopment...

I would be interested to know how they are going to get 12,000 seats behind the goal. That's the equivalent of one of Old Trafford's second tier "ends" plus two corners. With bigger seats.

It will look into the viability of extending the stadium's current 48,000 capacity as part of the redevelopment...

What's the point when they struggle to fill what they've got now?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/IsaacNewell/coms.jpg

The raised roof behind the goal will have to be redesigned to connect with the existing roof.

If the 3rd tier at the ends was built in the same curved style as the sides then the roof would likely linkup nicely.

Hallo and City Street. :) Well.

Links below renders/drawings.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/hallo2.jpg?t=1268508907

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/halo.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/hallo3.jpg?t=1268508792

Installation of illuminated halo feature to City store http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/MCCList1.aspx?092548/FO/2010/N2

Creation of "Fan Zone" for Sportcity events and football matches in the form of a Market Place to be called "City Street" to include various stalls and 3 metre high wind break [url]http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/MCCList1.aspx?092547/FO/2010/N2[/url

Are there plans for a trophy room or is that still on hold?

Hallo and City Street. :) Well.

Links below renders/drawings.


Installation of illuminated halo feature to City store http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/MCCList1.aspx?092548/FO/2010/N2

Creation of "Fan Zone" for Sportcity events and football matches in the form of a Market Place to be called "City Street" to include various stalls and 3 metre high wind break [url]http://www.publicaccess.manchester.gov.uk/associateddocs/MCCList1.aspx?092547/FO/2010/N2[/url

Sorry jrb, could you sum that up. Is that just to do with stuff outside the ground, or has there been progress in increasing capacity? Thanks

Are there plans for a trophy room or is that still on hold?

It's currently being crafted. Made from gold and encrusted with diamonds apparently. Only the best will do for Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. :colgate:

Then you won't be able to tell if there are any trophies there or not.

Ingenious

Sorry jrb, could you sum that up. Is that just to do with stuff outside the ground, or has there been progress in increasing capacity? Thanks

I have it on very good authority that fesibility studies have taken place or are taking place to increase the capcity of COMS. The plan is to create a KOP styled stand at the North end of the stadium, infront of Joe Mercer Way.

As far as I know this increased capacity/redeveloped stand won't be built until either City sell out more on a regular basis or if England gets the 2018 World Cup Finals. Whichever is the sooner.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if ADUG/CITY went for it and tied the stadium cpapcity increase into the construction of the leisure destination. Obviously that would make sense due to the increased visitor numbers the leisure destination would attract.

From reading the different articles on the proposals planned for the area around the stadium, the time span for completion is 2015. RL has stated that the proposals won't be done piecemeal. Whether that includes all 3 proposals(leisure destination, training complex, increased capacity at COMS) is anyones guess.

Concluding. I have no doubt the capcity of COMS will be increased. It's not if, but when. 60,000 seems to be the figure being banded about ATM.

A few interesting posts from Bluemoon regarding the Increased capcity. Obviously I have no way of knowing if what is posted is the truth.

Bellwhaft.

My source at T&T tells me Arup are currently modelling and evaluating the feasibility of a 14k capacity increase at the north end of the stadium only.

That 14K figure has been debated on the forum. Adding that figure to the current capacity figure of 6K would increase the North Stand capacity to 20K. That would be a huge stand. Hence some posters questioning that figure. Some have suggested that 14K figure could include the current figure of 6K, which makes more sense. But that wouldn't take the capacity up to 60K is that was correct. As a comparison, the KOP holds just under 13K.(I think)

Bellwhaft.

know it sounds a bit crazy and I'm with you; in your minds eye you'd expect a balanced expansion at both ends of the ground, evening up the roof line, three tiers all round. However that's not what I'm being told. It's apparently the north end only and something to do with encroachment on Ashton New Road. I'm guessing it will involve demolishing the current north stand and re-building, possibly with some encroachment on the existing east/west stands. This is all early stages/ feasibility studies etc.

Another drawing from the planning application.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2aakhg9.jpg

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

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

Rivals off the pitch now too, will they be able to sell more than 50,000 tickets though.

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

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

Rivals off the pitch now too, will they be able to sell more than 50,000 tickets though.

80,000? thats just daft!

I think Man City would struggle to sell 55,000 - 60,000 never mind 80,000

On a side note though, I thought it was a great stadium when I went.

80,000? thats just daft!

I think Man City would struggle to sell 55,000 - 60,000 never mind 80,000

On a side note though, I thought it was a great stadium when I went.

Who would have thought Chelsea would sell out every game (well you know mostly!)

Big city Manchester.
Plenty of room for two clubs.

Not sure on the corporate side but certainly fan wise City could sell a fair few, given the right pricing and product on pitch.

Hell, if Ronaldo/Ribery/Torres join I may support them.

With a Sheffield locator, be careful, you could be great source of new fans for the club. ;)

I'll stick with United for now and the next 50 or so years

Who would have thought Chelsea would sell out every game (well you know mostly!)

Big city Manchester.
Plenty of room for two clubs.

Not sure on the corporate side but certainly fan wise City could sell a fair few, given the right pricing and product on pitch.

Hell, if Ronaldo/Ribery/Torres join I may support them.

With a Sheffield locator, be careful, you could be great source of new fans for the club. ;)

I'll stick with United for now and the next 50 or so years

Not really sure what you mean but, I went to the COMS to watch my team Sheffield Wednesday vs Man City in the FA Cup.

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

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

Rivals off the pitch now too, will they be able to sell more than 50,000 tickets though.

If Man City win the odd title and compete in the CL then an 80,000 seater is feasible....only if the fans can get there and back easily. This means rapid-transit, which Manchester does not have. Man U have a station next to the stadium, hut it is slow diesel and cannot hope to shift half the stadium in an hour. Manchester needs a light-rail metro, not trams. The city should be aiming for this and looking to Land Value Tax to raised the funds for the infrastructure.

Liverpool FC are having a high throughput rapid-transit Merseyrail station for their stadium. This will give connection allover Merseyside and beyond and to mainline stations.

From, Consultation Core Strategy Revised Preferred Options Report
Published on 29 January 2010 15:22:19 GMT

3. Infrastructure

Bootle Branch line - potential reopening to passengers including new stations at Anfield, Tuebrook and Edge Lane.

Space at each of the potential new station sites should be safeguarded and protected.

Enhancement to the signalling headways on the Bootle branch

To provide an opportunity to improve access to this part of Liverpool, in particular to New Anfield Stadium for Liverpool Football Club.
A regular passenger service scheme must incorporate enhancement to the signalling headways on the Bootle branch in order to support future growth of freight from the Port as well as the passenger aspiration.

This will ensure there will always be high attendances, when when the team is not doing well - that is when they need the income to get the team up again.

Liverpool city council are suggesting sites to Everton FC for their new stadium on rapid-transit Merseyrail lines.

Get them in and out in comfort and fast and they will turn up. Without rapid-transit rail you are relying on the team being at the top all the time to get high gates.

I think you are dismissing man-kinds love affair with the car here.

With match tickets costing £40, I can vouch for football being more and more a rich man's sport. Most fans will arrive by car.

Granted, with better public transport, more options are open. But, there is no way your new `average Joe' fan, who can afford a £40 ticket, will be arriving by train/tram/bus.

Lord knows the percentage...but I would imagine well over 80% arrive by car at OT?

I think you are dismissing man-kinds love affair with the car here.

You ares dismissing footy fans love of footy.

80,000 arrive by car? Where will they park them all? They will be sitting in the cars for evermore and miss the game. Around Everton & Liverpool FC it is difficult to park as residence bays are setup. The idea is to have park & ride at various points around Merseyside using rapid-transit rail to get to the stadium.

Few go to Wembley by car. They park elsewhere and Tube it in.

You are missing the point. If they have rapid-transit rail to the door with high throughputs, the gates are guaranteed to be high at all times, even if the team is relegated - and that is when they need the income. Om freezing, wet February night the average fan is not likely to turn up for a mid-table Championship game if he has use the car and walk for miles after parking. If he can go top the local station and be taken right to the stadium and have nice bar & cafe facilities inside the stadium then he will most probably turn up. Give the fast comfortable access and the facilities and they will turn up.

Prepare for maximum income in the bad times and it will easy in the good.

Pricing? The market dictates that.

You are missing the point. If they have rapid-transit rail to the door with high throughputs, the gates are guaranteed to be high at all times, even if the team is relegated - and that is when they need the income.

I guess you are right...but I can think of few world stadiums with really high density transport direct to the stadium...if it worked that well...United would have done it years ago.

San Siro has loads of tram tracks in the concourse areas around the stadium...but I don't think it has really helped their attendances ever really get above the 50-65,000 average.

Not saying don't build it and use park n ride just saying not sure if Joe fan would use it much...local boys would though...which is a good enough reason...let the day trippers sit in the jams!

Would be nice to see OT stop/Trafford Bar/ Quays with match day only multiple sidings and a fleet of 4 carriage trams whisking tens of thousands away...just I don't see the plans...maybe the oil money will sort that out.

May encourage the new fan to attend, which not being flippant, is what City need to drag the attendances to a good, 60,000 base?

I guess you are right...but I can think of few world stadiums with really high density transport direct to the stadium...if it worked that well...United would have done it years ago.


Munich Olympic stadium, Rotterdam, Wembley, Emirates (5 stations around it) etc.

Manchester does not have a rapid-transit rail network. Those trams can't shift 50,000 in hour. The city needs a metro like Liverpool's. Although that station next to OT could be better used if it was electrified and made 4 platforms with the throughput. But, it is limited to where it can take people.

In Liverpool and London's case they both have metro systems, so not using them to run right to stadia is very foolish. Liverpool city did not insist that LFC's new stadium had rapid-transit despite a suitable line that can have passengers close by.They said if the capacity is above 60,000 then they need it. A very stupid thing to do. It is there so use it - all benefit.

You also have the nuisance value of stadia. The residents are rarely taken into account. Get the fans on trains and into and out fast. Lords are considering having a station under a new stand, so the fans go nowhere near residents and directly into the ground. The one ticket does the Tube fare as well. Hull City had this in the old ground as one stand went directly onto a station platform.

The Emirates is a success because it is very easy to get to by rail. Highbury had the capacity of Goodison Park and the doubters said it would be too big. Now they realise it is too small. The rail access makes the stadium.

If Man City want to get to 80,000, the city I'm sure will want improved transport provision and that can only be done in Manchester's case by fleets of trams on segregated lines - not being stuck in traffic jams.

City.

Taken today.

Excavation work has now finished on the first site and the trenches have been filled in.

Excavation work is now on-going on the main Super Casino site. I was told the work should be finished be the end of April, but the asphalt under the tarmac is like concrete(which they didn't expect), so there's a possibility that the work won't be finished until after the end of April.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture093.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture095.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture100-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture102.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture103.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture097.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture096.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture101.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture099.jpg

Eye level.

This picture gives an indication of how big the Super Casino site really is. I was at the far end, near the car park gate. The construction workers weren't even near the other end of the site. Just try and imagine that land and beyond filled by(1 building?) the proposed leisure destination.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture093.jpg

This?

From Bluemoon.

How COMS 'could' look with a third tier added. Note the flat roof. Boo!

http://i798.photobucket.com/albums/yy267/davidoatesphoto/comsextendedsmall.jpg

Posted on Bluemoon today.

Remember this?

Coleridge

Patience, my good man! You just enjoy Christmas with the family.

As far as I'm aware, the announcement is on track for January. I'll know a little more after the Newcastle match and will pass on my amateurish interpretation of what the experts say. Festive greetings to one and all. CTID.

That little more has now been posted on BM. Once again, I leave it up to you to decide.

Just to add. Fourth tier? Think City will add a continuas 3rd tier all around the stadium first, and then look at adding a 4th tier later. Which in my honest opinion won't be necessary. But they probably think different, if it's true?

coleridge wrote:

Festive greetings, my fellow citizens. Salaam to the brothers and sisters. Happy New Year to one and all.

As promised, I have some apparent confirmation of figures and may have more info in a couple of days.

16 pitches on the site over the road. One climate and altitude controlled. FA very interested to collaborative, especially with DB now running the shop properly, all being well.

Also, 16k indoor [I think] all-seater mini-stadium for the EDS and 'friends'. Bye, Bye Carrington and Platt Lane [sigh]. As a simple South Manchester lad, I beg the club to please keep the Community projects going. Much appreciated work for some very under-privileged kids. Ta.

As previously mentioned, tunnel and walkway over into COMS and surrounds.

Most signifcantly for many, an 85k seater. No rebuild. the third tear to be rounded and then, and this surprised me, a fourth tier.

JRB seems on the money with the hotel et al., and so I'll leave that there.

BTW many lifelong blues are working on this £1 billion project, using some of the professional and trade teams that built COMS in the first place. Hence, IMHO, more intelligent continuity and investment in local knowledge and companies.

Your Royal Highness, I send my salaams to your noble family and salute you for the honour of the patronage that you bestow upon our beloved club. God is Great.

What a year 2011 is going to be for us! CTID

Also.

The Fixer

His he actually involved in the "build" or just hearing this stuff on the grapevine??

coleridge

A very well connected engineer told me in all seriousness, my friend.

coleridge

My friend, with all due respect, I am not going to engage in a game of Yes or No.

Briefly, he is not directly involved but has worked with all the top architects in town for years and still does. I learnt yesterday that a good mutual friend is one of the senior project managers as he was when COMS was built. I'd trust the engineer with my life asif he was my brother. That's more than enough info for you, sir. Just enjoy the good times to come.

By me. Today.

Got some pictures of the site today.(God! Those security guards are on the ball :lol:) I'll upload them tomorrow.

Tons of heavy machinery still on site. About a quarter, perhaps a third of the Super Casino site has now been remediated. The ground/soil is nice and flat, and is exactly how the site manager said it would be when he described the work involved to me a few months back.

Just out of interest, there are two mini piling rigs onsite. Similar to this.(ish)

http://www.pilingequipmentltd.co.uk/images/rig%20thumbnails/piling-equipment-brochure-18.jpg

There are also a few wooden T shaped markers(don't know what they're called) in the ground, at the far end of the Super Casino site, leading to the previous B Of The Bang site.

Across the the road on the Aniline site I saw a digger just behind the hoardings. Think it was Connells. Not 100% sure, as I just caught it driving past.

Full thread here. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=69598469#post69598469

Are City still hamstrung by having to share the stadium income with the City Of Manchester, or have City been able to buy the stadium yet?

Because if they haven't, that should be a priority for them, before they rebuild / add to it.

Though will be very interested to see it come to fruition if this talked of work comes to! May even be big enough for egos of arseholes like Tevez and Adebayor!

Are City still hamstrung by having to share the stadium income with the City Of Manchester, or have City been able to buy the stadium yet?

Because if they haven't, that should be a priority for them, before they rebuild / add to it.

Though will be very interested to see it come to fruition if this talked of work comes to! May even be big enough for egos of arseholes like Tevez and Adebayor!

City won't buy the stadium. A. It would cost City close on £100mill to buy. B. MCC (and Sport England) wouldn't relinquish the current or future rental agreement on it.

The plan, if true, is to increase the capacity of the stadium by X. Or by triple X if rumors are to be believed. From various reports City and MCC are renegotiating or have renegotiated the current rental agreement. It wouldn't surprise me if ADUG have drove a hard bargain, seeing as they are funding the redevelopment of COMS, the new training complex across the road, and the former Super Casino site and 'surrounding area'. Both parties need each other. However, I would surmise MCC need ADUG more, as there aren't any property developers in the current climate who can raise that kind of money to redevelop Sports City and the Surrounding area further.

As I've already stated. ADUG have bought the Aniline site acorss the road. (below) In total ADUG have bought up 100 acres(?) of land around Sports city. (you don't buy that amount of land without having serious plans and intentions of developing it) The land directly infront of the red shaded area has also been bought.

http://manchestercity.vitalfootball.co.uk/forum/photos/get-photo.asp?photoid=152

Further info on the rumored plans. http://www.manchestercity.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=191002

Agian, the rumor is an announcement in January. As with anything to do with this proposal, nothing concrete or specific has come out the public domain about it. With the amount of people involved in this proposal, that is pretty amazing.

You mention a figure of circa £100m to buy the stadium outright, surely in the long run, and considering their wealth, ADUG would find this a must buy investment? Surely, in trying to build a super club, you want absolute control over your home ground? Share some of the peripherals of the Sports City site, but I can't see the logic of not buying the stadium and losing a % of the income from it.

Look forward to what will hopefully be some exciting proposals in january though. Won't claim to be a City fan, but I am interested to see how they take on the challenge of building a truly powerful force, on and off the park.

You mention a figure of circa £100m to buy the stadium outright, surely in the long run, and considering their wealth, ADUG would find this a must buy investment? Surely, in trying to build a super club, you want absolute control over your home ground? Share some of the peripherals of the Sports City site, but I can't see the logic of not buying the stadium and losing a % of the income from it.

Look forward to what will hopefully be some exciting proposals in january though. Won't claim to be a City fan, but I am interested to see how they take on the challenge of building a truly powerful force, on and off the park.

City are tied into the current lease/rental agreement on the stadium. There is nothing they can do about it, apart from renegotiating it on an expanded stadium.

ADUG/City hold all the aces. Without their money the Super Casino site and surrounding area doesn't get redeveloped. Of course a compromise will have been reached to suit all parties.

Hopefully we won't have to wait much longer for the proposals to be made public.

There are also a few wooden T shaped markers(don't know what they're called) in the ground,...........


They are called profiles - used as quick and easy way to set out earthworks - set top levels at say 1m above formation level, then use another T-piece called a traveller with the length set at excavation depth plus 1m - then you simply sight from one board to another with the traveller in between and you can see easily when excavation has reached correct depth.

Simples..

They are called profiles - used as quick and easy way to set out earthworks - set top levels at say 1m above formation level, then use another T-piece called a traveller with the length set at excavation depth plus 1m - then you simply sight from one board to another with the traveller in between and you can see easily when excavation has reached correct depth.

Simples..

Ah. I see. Many thanks. Tallsmurf.

Previous concept? Or nothing to do with Man City? :dunno:

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/8505/capturegw.png

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/3228/capture1cb.png

http://www.afl-uk.com/ProjectDetail.aspx?projectID=75

Don't know. but one things for certain.

Its going to become massive. And Manchester is going to see probably the best sporting complex outside of Dubai and Olympic Cities.

Oh

And with lots of big buildings :nuts:

Previous concept? Or nothing to do with Man City? :dunno:

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/8505/capturegw.png

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/3228/capture1cb.png

http://www.afl-uk.com/ProjectDetail.aspx?projectID=75

We weren't sure either TBH.(City, Spurs, etc?)

In the end we went for 'we don't know'.

It has since been filled away as unresolved.

If you want anymore info on what might be planned, try these two threads below. Both are 'massive' though.

TBH nobody knows as ADUG/MCC/NEM have managed to keep everything secret so far. Still plenty of info about buying up land, remedeation, and the latest news and gossip. (this baby is going to run and run)

Skyscrapercity Super Casino thread. Scroll back. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=436685&page=136

Blue Moon Las Vegas thread. http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=164784&start=6180

Those plans are for Spurs and have just had a few things changed, you can tell by where the roads are, and the fact they don't include the athletics stadium next door.

Those plans are for Spurs and have just had a few things changed, you can tell by where the roads are, and the fact they don't include the athletics stadium next door.

Certainly isn't Spurs. In all my years following Spurs' various stadium plans, I've never seen any renders resembling this.

Besides, the road layout is all wrong. And the colour scheme is all wrong.

That render is in West London - the road in the top left corner is the A40, the road in the foreground is Wood Lane and the railway line on the right is the Hammersmith & City Line.

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/8505/capturegw.png

No idea who the proposal is/was for though - Chelsea?

I think the proposal was indeed for Chelsea. The work AFL Architects has already done for Chelsea:

• Training ground
• The youth academy building
• Interior of the West stand
• Interior of the East stand
• Interior of the training ground

That render is in West London - the road in the top left corner is the A40, the road in the foreground is Wood Lane and the railway line on the right is the Hammersmith & City Line.

http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/8505/capturegw.png

No idea who the proposal is/was for though - Chelsea?

If you're right about the location, then it's in QPR's manor. If the picture was only a little bit bigger, towards the bottom and left, the site of their Loftus Road stadium would hove into view. It's no more than 200 yards away.

Not happening.

Harry Brett – Baguley: Is the stadium going to be expanded?
DW: felt not necessary at present as not all games were sold out even with home games being sold in advance and with Cup scheme take up. Things could change in future but at present there are no plans.http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=79575438#post79575438

Not happening.

I would imagine the sell-outs will begin next year. City essentially were runners-up last year (goal difference with Chelsea).

I guess it would depend on ticket applications per game as to whether the expansion will be sooner or later. Not really a priority at the moment when the ground is bigger than all bar Newcastle & United & Arsenal anyway.

I would imagine the sell-outs will begin next year. City essentially were runners-up last year (goal difference with Chelsea).

I guess it would depend on ticket applications per game as to whether the expansion will be sooner or later. Not really a priority at the moment when the ground is bigger than all bar Newcastle & United & Arsenal anyway.

Cough.........Old Trafford.........cough.

Cough.........Old Trafford.........cough.

LOL!

I was speaking as a red so took that as a given!

LOL!

I was speaking as a red so took that as a given!

Actually, my bad....

Just realised I missed the "&" between "Newcastle" and "United" in your post! Oops.

The latest:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/8843970/Manchester-City-plan-for-bigger-stadium.html

With Manchester City winning the English League today, how long do you think it'll be before we hear news of expansion at the Etihad?

I hope when we do hear something, that it's a bold plan of at least 70k!

With the promise of future silverware and a good pricing structure, surely massive crowds can be achieved?!

With Manchester City winning the English League today, how long do you think it'll be before we hear news of expansion at the Etihad?

I hope when we do hear something, that it's a bold plan of at least 70k!

With the promise of future silverware and a good pricing structure, surely massive crowds can be achieved?!

I went on a tour of the Etihad a few weeks ago. The tour guide said plans were in place to add a third tier to each end (so it will look similar to the Emirates) making the capacity 62,000. No timescale was given, he only said to me 'It will happen, it's just a matter of when, not if'.

Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong, but I thought the terms of the lease with MCC were that any seats sold above that of the former capacity at Maine Road went to the council as rent! Surely expanding will just increase the rent value rather than the pockets of City!

Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong, but I thought the terms of the lease with MCC were that any seats sold above that of the former capacity at Maine Road went to the council as rent! Surely expanding will just increase the rent value rather than the pockets of City!

The original deal was that Manchester City Council would receive 50% of net gate receipts above 34,500 spectators and 60% of net gate receipts above 41,000 spectators. Press reports a couple of years ago suggested that MCC had received more than GBP 12 million in MCFC's first seven years as tenants. It was a condition of the original funding from Sport England that rent received by MCC be ringfenced to be used in providing other sports facilities. (It is also a condition of the lease that MCFC make the stadium available for community use on a certain number of days per annum).

The lease, however, has now been renegotiated. The rental payment is a flat rate GBP 3 million per annum. It seems a pretty safe bet that this is so that the club may redevelop the stadium and retain all revenues deriving from an increased capacity.