Utd to develop OT into the‘Wembley of the North’

TBH I hated Spurs new stadium. Feels like they’ve just built an NFL ground where White Hart Lane used to be, and let them play “soccer” in it.

I can’t remember what Bernabeu felt like before, it’s 20 years since I was there, but it still feels like a football cathedral (ok, with a roof 🤣). I’ve no doubt at all that Old Trafford can be just like that, except in red rather than white.

TBH anything that undermines City’s dominance is fine with me. I absolutely hate the fact we now have a Bayern Munich situation in England.
I like Spurs new stadium better than Wembley tbh. Didn't have an "NFL Stadium feel" to it - although I've only been to one NFL stadium.

Agree with the City thing......but it's looking 5-10 years off and probably will rely on Pep wanting a crack at Serie A, or semi retirement at PSG.
 
It has to be better than Spurs.....and Everton.
Depends what you mean by “better” but I don’t think it needs all the pointless nonsense that Spurs’ stadium has, that they built for their American visitors. So it could be cheaper and feel like more of a football ground, and still be “better”.

It will still be way bigger than Everton’s and Spurs’ grounds. It doesn’t need USB charger ports everywhere to be “better”.
 
The Guardian ran with this article yesterday on the topic. United's ground is old a decreped and they need a nice shiny new one to bring them into the modern world.


Isn’t Old Trafford good enough as it is?

No. Old Trafford is 114 years old and tired with no notable modernisation since Malcolm Glazer bought the club in 2005. Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the incoming 25% owner, wishes to address this. One option is to build a new stadium on the land that surrounds the current one which, according to Ineos sources, could be billed as “the Wembley of the North”.

How would that work?

The idea would be to construct a bespoke state-of-the-art facility with a capacity of about 100,000 that would cost more than £3bn. Alongside this glittering new jewel in the club crown could be boutiques, restaurants, fast-food eateries, a multiscreen cinema, a club museum and copious other attractions that would make this a destination venue. Think the £2bn Tottenham Hotspur Stadium but even grander to ensure bragging rights befitting England’s record 20-times champions and Ratcliffe’s sense of ambition as United’s moderniser. Thus “the Wembley of the North”

‘Wembley of the North’: really?

Erm, kind of. Yes, because Old Trafford’s failure to be a venue for Euro 2028 points to its decrepit, fading condition as a relic from the 1990s so a reset is required. No, because, actually, it can already be billed as the de facto Wembley of the region. Why: because despite being decrepit, the 75,000-seat ground has a storied history dating from 1910 graced by Billy Meredith, George Best, the Sirs Matt Busby and Alex Ferguson, Eric Cantona, Cristiano Ronaldo, plus copious others. And it is comfortably England’s biggest football stadium besides Wembley.

Could government money go towards this?

Probably a no on this, certainly with regard to a sizeable chunk of the finance required. United could lobby the government for finance as part of its levelling up project and although there may be a few million pounds – possibly in tax breaks – for the project, the Guardian has been told by those with knowledge of the plans that because this is a private business initiative the money, in the main, will have to be sourced from this sector too.

How likely is the building of a new stadium there?

Call it 60-40 in favour. Ratcliffe’s arrival nudges up the likelihood because he has (so far) demonstrated he means business, embodied by the hiring of Omar Berrada from Manchester City to be the new chief executive. But there should be caution because even with the $300m he is injecting into the club later this year that raises Ratcliffe’s holding to 28%, the six Glazer siblings remain majority owners and their track record regarding Old Trafford is unimpressive. When Ratcliffe’s deal was announced on Christmas Eve it was said he would “provide an additional $300m intended to enable future investment into Old Trafford” but it could also be used for other purposes.

How long would the project take?

Six to eight years.


Where would United play during construction?


Good question. United sources have previously indicated it may not be possible to play at Old Trafford while a new stadium was being built. Across town there is a 53,000-seat stadium (soon to be 60,000) but could United really play at City’s Etihad Stadium? One answer is that once fans of each team became used to it, why not? The Milan clubs, for example, share San Siro, and United used City’s former ground, Maine Road, when Old Trafford was bombed during the second world war and in the 1950s for three European games because their stadium lacked floodlights. If the Etihad is a no-no then this presumably rules out Anfield for the same reason (Liverpool are even fiercer rivals) so maybe the new Everton stadium? Or, how about the Wembley of the South: Wembley. After all, according to the tired joke, the vast constituency of United’s fanbase are Londoners.

What would happen to Old Trafford?

It may be downsized to become the women’s and academy stadium. Or somehow reconfigured to be the site of the museum.

Any alternatives?

Yes. A revamp of Old Trafford. However, the train track adjacent to it means limitations.
 
I like Spurs new stadium better than Wembley tbh. Didn't have an "NFL Stadium feel" to it - although I've only been to one NFL stadium.

Agree with the City thing......but it's looking 5-10 years off and probably will rely on Pep wanting a crack at Serie A, or semi retirement at PSG.
Oh I hate Wembley as well.

I’d been to the Levi stadium only months before I visited Spurs’ new ground. Felt identical.

As unpopular as this may be, Anfield is still my favourite “away” ground.
 
To build a 80? 85k? all seater, all singing all dancing stadium will be about £1bn, easy.

It has to be better than Spurs.....and Everton.

I honestly think the only way they could do it would be to move the stadium into the West car parks.

Jigging about with a main rail line - ooooooffffff. Night works only that, possibly building over the top so there is in effect a rail tunnel under the New OT. Adds a LOT of expense.
They are talking of £3bn to build it.
 
I fear for the big northern clubs in the long term.

When the super league inevitably comes their international geographical location will make it difficult to compete for the top players and in this country the London clubs will become the elite football centre for this country.

It is already happening to some extent and has been for a while.

Money has ruined the sport unfortunately.
How is it already happening? Man City, Liverpool and Man Utd remain a bigger draw to overseas players than pretty much all the London clubs, perhaps bar Chelsea, but they are a waning force.

Even if there is a Super League someday (I very much doubt it and have been saying so for 20+ years), I don't see why the North West would be any less attractive to players than it is now.
 
Depends what you mean by “better” but I don’t think it needs all the pointless nonsense that Spurs’ stadium has, that they built for their American visitors. So it could be cheaper and feel like more of a football ground, and still be “better”.

It will still be way bigger than Everton’s and Spurs’ grounds. It doesn’t need USB charger ports everywhere to be “better”.
It just the way of the world with sports stadiums. The big teams have to have - at that short money in time - the best stadium. Owners with big egos. Big dog p*ssing competition. American football is probably the worst for it, but any new Man U stadium will be scrutinized to the nth degree on aesthetics, functionality, sustainability.....so they need to get it bang on.

The actual structure of a stadium is pretty standard - concrete and steel - but it will be the finishing bits that will make or break it.

Expect an enormous corporate area for all the rich plastic fans too ........

Worked on the New Anfield Stadium for a year - would have been fantastic for a few years and probably would be being adapted/expanded less than 20 yes later.
 
I had the pleasure of watching a game at the Dallas Cowboys stadium and I immediately thought that it was a wonder of the world. It is just incredible. I was in awe of the place.
Realistically, Man Utd should be having a stadium that is up there with the best of them. We all know that they are in the same class as Barca, Real and Bayern Munich but their ground is not.
I think Spurs' stadium has shook a few people up on just what is possible.
 
Money being discussed to demolish OT and rebuild like Spurs did, is mental but i think they need to do it.
For me they're still one of if not the biggest club in the world and they should have the best stadium. They should have a big 80k stadium, a huge arena with all the mod cons that modern football clubs have the swanky bars, conference centres, hotel on site etc and a hub where they're bringing in silly amounts of money at each home game - it was said on Talksport yesterday Spurs bring in around 800k just on food at each home game.
they have 74k stadium now, though it's built on old foundations so probably needs to be flattened & started again if they are to 'monetarise' it to maximum £r$€ extraction potential from their customers ;-)
 
It just the way of the world with sports stadiums. The big teams have to have - at that short money in time - the best stadium. Owners with big egos. Big dog p*ssing competition. American football is probably the worst for it, but any new Man U stadium will be scrutinized to the nth degree on aesthetics, functionality, sustainability.....so they need to get it bang on.

The actual structure of a stadium is pretty standard - concrete and steel - but it will be the finishing bits that will make or break it.

Expect an enormous corporate area for all the rich plastic fans too ........

Worked on the New Anfield Stadium for a year - would have been fantastic for a few years and probably would be being adapted/expanded less than 20 yes later.
As I say tho, didn’t get that vibe from Real Madrid’s revamped stadium. Just felt like an upgrade rather than a total rebuild. I’m no architect but if that could be done at OT I’d say it’s way more favourable than what Spurs did, for all sorts of reasons.
 
I think Spurs' stadium has shook a few people up on just what is possible.
Spending billions of pounds on a vanity project and still winning nothing and not competing for the title?

If anything, I think it should be a good example of what not to do.

Man United never had the best stadium in the world, even when they dominated, and neither do City now. They just need something that is big and fit for purpose, but still has all the history and charm that few other clubs can boast.
 
Spending billions of pounds on a vanity project and still winning nothing and not competing for the title?

If anything, I think it should be a good example of what not to do.

Man United never had the best stadium in the world, even when they dominated, and neither do City now. They just need something that is big and fit for purpose, but still has all the history and charm that few other clubs can boast.
Spurs ground is also an NFL stadium too. If London gets it's own NFL franchise team then they will be based at Spurs ground.
 
Talk of a new stadium next to current stadium and used the current OT for youth and womens team (reducing the size as well). Maybe hoping to create a complex like City have
 
Spending billions of pounds on a vanity project and still winning nothing and not competing for the title?

If anything, I think it should be a good example of what not to do.

Man United never had the best stadium in the world, even when they dominated, and neither do City now. They just need something that is big and fit for purpose, but still has all the history and charm that few other clubs can boast.
It is a matter of time before Utd are in contention for titles again and things look bright on the playing fields in their U18 Division. I wonder how many of them originate from or within 50 miles of Manchester though?

I also like this stat in that article and I wonder how many other teams could state the same: - United have named an academy graduate in every match squad for more than 86 years. It is a proud record and, thanks to the achievements of their under‑18s and the promise shown in younger age groups too, it looks in no danger of ending any time soon.
 
Spurs ground is also an NFL stadium too. If London gets it's own NFL franchise team then they will be based at Spurs ground.
I know. If I was a Spurs fan I’d have rather they built a football ground or revamped the old one, saved a bit of money, and used the surplus to compete for trophies.

But yes, it was all with one eye on the NFL.
 
It is a matter of time before Utd are in contention for titles again and things look bright on the playing fields in their U18 Division.

I also like this stat in that article and I wonder how many other teams could state the same: - United have named an academy graduate in every match squad for more than 86 years. It is a proud record and, thanks to the achievements of their under‑18s and the promise shown in younger age groups too, it looks in no danger of ending any time soon.
They need to stop signing tosspots that poison their talented youth.

I think there'll be a big overhaul at United over the next 2 years. Now Radcliffe has apparent control of the football side of things, I think they could be a bit more ruthless and get rid of the bad apples. Brailsford is a winner and puts winning before loyalty. He has no affinity to players like Rashford. If they aren't giving the manager 100%, they will be gone.
 
How is it already happening? Man City, Liverpool and Man Utd remain a bigger draw to overseas players than pretty much all the London clubs, perhaps bar Chelsea, but they are a waning force.

.... I wondered about this, and looked at 72/73 finishing table ...

Top 6? - 2 northern, 2 London, 2 other.

Current top 6? - 3 northern (north west), 2 London, 1 other.

I would guess that many of the intervening 50 years have similar ratios.

Like you, I can't see the North Western clubs losing their drawing power. I watch a lot of the season while in Brazil. It is really noticeable how the TV interest there (and presumably TV money) has shifted from Spain/Italy to England in the past 10 years. Partly explains the motivation for Real etc to have a European league. But for the time being, with this global interest in the Premier League they, and the leading clubs as now, will retain their drawing power.
 
Back
Top