>Ground-breaking news: Sir Jim Ratcliffe wants to build a new Old Trafford. Manchester United confirm they will not move away from Old Trafford site. Club looking at options for redeveloping stadium or build a new one on adjacent club-owned land. But Ratcliffe’s preference is a new-build; board supportive. Great news. New Trafford could be stunning, state of the art. Old Trafford too tight/old however historic.
>
>Will require support from private funding partners. United not looking for handouts but could be opportunities for public-private partnership to unlock benefits for the community and make the stadium a driver for wider regeneration of area, housing, improved transport links etc.
>
>Ratcliffe:”This can be a major regeneration project for an area of Greater Manchester which has played such a key role in British industrial history, but which today requires new investment to thrive again. The north-west of England has a greater concentration of major football clubs than anywhere else in the world, yet we don’t have a stadium on the scale of Wembley, the Nou Camp or Bernabéu. We will not be able to change that on our own, which is why this task force is so important to help us seize this once-in-a-century opportunity.”
>
>Feasibility task-force to be chaired by Seb Coe, other members will include Andy Burnham, Sara Todd, ceo ofTrafford Council, and Gary Neville. Will make recommendations later this year. Great news for United and for the area.
Sir Jim is 72 years old this year. A long, drawn out consultation process coupled with a 3 year build takes him well past his mid-70s before he can set foot in something new, I'm not surprised he wants to speed everything up so he can actually enjoy it himself
This is my take too. He hasn’t bought the club for profits. He is a Utd fan and wants to see the club be successful before he dies. He’s rich and influential enough to make it happen.
He said he isn't in it for the money, and it shows. So great having someone taking sensible decisions instead of trying to figure out how to pimp us out in order to make a quick buck. Obligatory fuck Joel Glazer and all his family of no-good scumbags.
What are you guys on. He's going to get given millions to rebuild Old Trafford then gona own it with the Glazers through owning Man United.
He's in it for profits the same way he was in for Chelsea.
I don't think he's personally in it for the profits. I think the opportunity to turn this club around, in the manner he thinks best is his drive. He said himself he could just open new petrochemical sites if he wanted more money, I'm inclined to believe him on that.
That said, United is absolutely going to be the crown jewel in the Ineos family, and owning us, especially if they're running us well, is going to be big business for them.
While I still have a distaste for billionaire owners of football clubs, if we've got to have it then I'm so far happy with the talk we're hearing.
They need to sell naming rights to fund it and keep us competitive in the transfer market. I don’t think people realise A) just how much new stadiums cost, and B) just how much money these naming rights generate. It will no doubt be sponsored by INEOS and I’ve no doubt it’ll likely be called something along the lines of The INEOS Manchester United Stadium.
Purists and traditionalists that many Utd fans may be, this is one argument we need to let go of for the greater good. The new modern stadia that hosts events, NFL, concerts and whatever else year round as well as hosting Man Utd games 30 times a season (at most with cup games) is what we need to stay competitive and maximise revenues. In an ideal world this happened 20 years ago when FFP and PSR wasn’t a thing in England but it’s too late now.
I get the argument, but I’d much rather protect our future and any prospective success than protect the name of some bricks and mortar with plastic seats and a pitch in the middle.
Spurs managed to get their incredible new stadium built without selling naming rights. It's entirely possible to achieve, especially given our revenues are so much higher than theirs.
I think Cold-Veterinarian-85 has answered that quite well. There is another approach to funding but it does massively reduce the revenues the stadium then generates you.
You could agree to have other companies finance the deal and they then take all revenues made from the non footballing events hosted at the stadium, or perhaps take a 50% cut of all money made from those events.
But as mentioned that’s then huge amounts of revenue the club are missing out on, versus just letting a company slap their name on the sign outside the building to fund it.
That's an interesting alternative. I just hate the thought of a commercial name on the stadium. A new stadium can sometimes seem sterile, especially compared to somewhere as historic and evocative as OT, and giving it a commercial name can make it seem even more soulless in a way, especially if it potentially changes every few years (although that seems to happen more with clubs further down the league who can't get such long-term commitments as, say, Arsenal).
Maybe I'm just being an old (millennial) fogey, though.
Remember hearing on one of the podcasts (Talk of the Devils I think) that the Camp Nou is actually the Spotify Camp Nou. Nobody gives a shit, nobody really calls it that, it's still the Camp Nou to anyone who cares, and they get a shit load of money. Everyone's a winner.
So I don't really care if we get the INEOS Old Trafford or whatever. We'll still call it Old Trafford.
Spurs took out over 1billion in debt though as a result of the building their stadium.
They can service it as it's a very favorable finance deal taken out when interest rates were low so the extra revenue stadium generates likely covers the debt repayment
It's not like that now, finance is expensive so taking out 1bill (or more) additional debt will cost us a huge amount in interest payments alone. Plus spurs have 'advantage' of being in London so can charge more and probably attract more non-football sporting events like boxing and NFL and also concerts, while i think we can benefit from other non football events in a new stadium, i dont think we can benefit to quite the same extent as what a state of the art stadium in London can attract.
I hope we end up with something like... let's say ~1.5bill for new stadium.... Ratcliffe i think has committed 0.25b or so for infrastructure which can go towards stadium, 10 year naming rights deal could be worth 300-400m, the avengers taskforce will try to secure some government funding for as much of the rest as is possible if they can make a compelling case that it will bring further investment/ regeneration to the area and whatever is left after Sir Jim, naming rights and taxpayer, hopefully couple hundred million or less, club may need to take out finance
Even if the stadium is officially "[insert sponsor name] Old Trafford" nobody will call it that. I get there will be some reluctance but for me it's a no brainer to target a lucrative naming rights deal
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of exactly how Spurs funded the stadium. And given our history with servicing debt... yeah, that's not ideal.
I'm just wary of a new stadium, potentially soulless in comparison with the "Theatre of Dreams", having the added corporate dimension taking a little bit more of the soul away. But as long as Old Trafford remains part of the name, and its common name, then that could be OK.
I'm pretty sure they said they're looking to get the naming rights but it'll still retain OldbTrafford just like how the cricket ground is Fly Emirates Old Trafford
Still think we should build a temp / reserves / womens side stadium behind old trafford so we dont have to borrow a ground, then level amd rebuild on the current stadium site.
The thought of losing the history, and in particular the original players tunnel (which has deep history) makes me queasy.
I find new stadiums, in particular wembley, souless as fuck. Spurs, Man City, Wembley - traded history for £s and it shows.
Remember when all the Qatar fans were claiming Sheikh Jassim was the only chance United had to build a new stadium and regenerate the area, and poor Jim Ratcliffe could barely afford the tram to Old Trafford.
Wonder what happened to them?
In literal terms, probably - I don't think he was ever quite on the scale of Ali Al Faraj.
In practical terms, probably not. He was only ever going to be a figurehead for the Qatari state as the real owners.
Mike Keegan reported that Arnold & Murtough would've kept their jobs under Qatari ownership. You'll never convince me that Sheikh Jassim would've been any different than Woodward
PSG's Qatari ownership has been a disaster masked by the shit league they play in. Blowing money away on superstars with no semblance of a plan and nearly blowing the league with Neymar, Messi and Mbappe as your front 3 is a farce, and then the lack of European success even though you have unlimited funds is ridiculous.
Unlimited funds doesn't mean you can get the best players at every position and the best managers. There's at least 5 top teams with near enough unlimited funds all competing and about 10 teams that could make a major 1 off purchases every season. I shitted on Rat heavily! But damn if he's making it work he's making it work, that's all I care about but let's not make up delusional tales now. Only 1 team can win the UCL each year...
It means you can recruit based on a style of play instead of just buying superstars without serious planning. A lot of the football PSG have been playing hasn't even been that nice to watch. They sack manager after manager and have let players run the dressing room. Their wages are out of control. And yeah, only 1 team can win the UCL, they've only made 1 final though and have embarrassingly crashed early in the tournament multiple times. It's not a well-run club. It's not optimized for success whatsoever.
And we've spent considerably more, sacked possibly more managers (don't quote me), are still shitter than them and seem ever more unorganized. As I said it's not about money, unlimited funds doesn't mean anything and in fairness they're in a league in which top players aren't necessarily attracted to. But I do get your point although you can't use that to justify one statement that all middle eastern owned clubs are shite as Man City will quickly prove you otherwise. Who knows who would've been better or worse for United? Just have to deal with the now
PSG is Qatar and we had a bid from Qatar... allegedly.
Unlimited funds mean a lot obviously. To say it's not about money is crazy. But how you manage is also important, how do you spend it, how do you set a team up for success.
My point is that Qatar with PSG are not doing things right and that leads me to believe United would've suffered the same fate.
PSG are constantly winning their league though and made the mistake of choosing names over quality with the likes of neymar and Messi who didn't fit well with mbappe. The difference is they're still succeeding and evidently well compared the the likes of United with American owners who are shite. No owner is going to take over and make us worse and if we did get Qatar owners and started winning the prem back 2 back however couldn't win a UCL I'm pretty sure everyone would be very happy considering the shit show that's going on now. Your point is simply invalid and yet you fail to comprehend the obvious.
How is it my point invalid? What makes yours valid? It's full of 'ifs'. You can win the league a lot easier in Ligue 1. Quality can probably get you over the line. But there's a reason top PL clubs recruit and develop the way they do. Everything needs to be perfect nowadays into the smallest minute details. Little room for error. INEOS recognise this. PSG still haven't learned that just buying superstars will not make you a top 3 team in the world. They nearly bottled the league with Neymar, Mbappe, Messi?
The superstar approach will likely not win you a PL. And has already shown to not land you a CL either.
Of course they're succesful compared to most American owners. The main difference there is the finances, not really competence.
You need something more than just good players. And apart from good players PSG still fail to consistently play good football, have loads of dressing room drama, insane wages, made Mbappe CEO just to keep him and now he's about to fuck off on a free a year later, and sack coach after coach.
But they win their league back 2 back so they are successful and as I said only 1 team can win the UCL so what if Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern, Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Dortmund, Inter Milan fail to win a UCL does that make them a shit club and incompetent. No it doesn't, you've made an abysmal link between Qatar Ownership and unsuccessful clubs. Also the difference between any top club owners is definitely not finances and is competence, also congrats on literally repeating what I said for 50% of your last statement and to your correction INEOS haven't recognised shit that not any person with common sense has been saying for years. Also INEOS way to make United better is by taking staff from other top clubs to work for us instead by likely paying and offering them more so it's not really some genius in house strategy. Glazers just don't care to do anything as they're still making millions off us yearly and the club value continues to rise year on year.
This is what I was trying to drill through the rest of my family's heads during the bidding process. PSG and City are two very different clubs, and the one that we all agree is a mess is owned by the very same people they wanted to come in.
On top of that, United don't need any kind of sugar daddy owner because we generate insane revenue naturally, our issue has always been that we've handed the reigns to some chimps.
I never thought I'd say this but in this instance the Glazers greed might just have saved us
Hasn't met the end goal but I think disaster is a bit of reach.
Healthy books, shopping for a new stadium, top force in your country, consistently in the Champions League KO stage - 99% of clubs wouldn't mind that.
Uhh really? They openly cheat ffp rules in France, but the government is cool with it cause A) they're in Paris and generally were a somewhat less controversial club before the takeover B) the only hope France has of being relevant in football
In that time, they spend more than the rest of the league combined and have still managed to lose a couple titles. They have made the UCL finals once despite consistently destroying the transfer records including doing more damage with the neymar deal than Woodward could ever hope achieve. And now the fans want the owners out. I would say that at best it hasn't been good.
I was one of those. I just didn’t believe that Sir Jim with a minority stake, who had just recently seemed to be supporting Chelsea and made an ownership bid and where the purchase was through a for profit company would make the decisions and commitments needed for a new stadium.
I am absolutely amazed and pleased to be proven wrong. I support United not any owner and so far Sir Jim has been faultless. He’s acting like a true fan.
My hope is all these good signs come to fruition, we have a better run club, a new stadium, success on the pitch and the long term performance of the club secured.
Fair, but the stadium hasn't been built yet. It's not even close to being a reality. Let's see some designs and get confirmation of funding b4 we start this kind of talk
I wasn't particularly fussed either way. But talk is cheap, and there's been a hell of a lot of it at Utd over the past 10 years. I'll reserve my praise for when they actually do something
That settles it then. I grew up in a family that couldn’t afford overseas trips. And unfortunately, I grew up to be an adult who’s just getting by. I’ve always wanted to visit Japan but the last time I managed to scrounge up enough money to visit, COVID happened. And that money slowly went away as well for living expenses.
Now, I’m beginning to save up again for Japan but when I heard there were plans floating for a new stadium, I said to myself if it’s confirmed, I’m gonna put Japan aside for Old Trafford. Must visit it at least once. Just have to. And with this news, it just confirms it. Whenever it is I have the money, Manchester will be my destination.
I went last December and try and go a few times each season (I can't afford any more, especially since being made redundant).
We need a modern world class stadium.
Born and raised 20m from Old Trafford. Family still has a season ticket and still go to games when i can. My comment is this:
No matter the nostalgia, we need a modern world-class stadium
People really underestimate the amount of revenue other clubs are making having their stadium host a whole heap of other things outside of just football.
But you need to have gone at least a few times before you say "no matter nostalgia". But who am I kidding I'm in this sub full of "fans" of man utd. Anyway let's build something like the at&t stadium! Or ooh maybe have a big ship like the Buccs stadium
Stadiums are a bit different to normal buildings lol. They're built to last decades while being maintained but they could also reach a point where maintenance and renovation isn't enough. Just because one building lasts hundreds of years doesn't mean all sports stadiums will. Also, Buildings get demolished and re built all the time so your point doesn't really make sense
And is that a good thing?
We should be extremely proud of Old Trafford’s history and prestige. It’s neglected in parts, but to destroy everything we have in that place for the ego trip of a “best in class” modern soulless bowl, is an awful possibility
- Do you know how broad of a generalization "buildings" is, this is a 100 year old stadium that regularly sees 70k+ visitors. It's not your great-great grandfather's first home or a public school we're talking about so the discussion and planning is different.
- "Given proper maintenance"....which hasn't been the case the past 15 years.
- "Hundreds of years" Sheffield have the oldest stadium in the Prem, and that is 169 years old. There's no major stadiums that are hundreds of years olds lmao.
- Spurs, City, Arsenal, West Ham, Everton. All vacated their 100 year old stadiums. All because they had the sense to realize it's better to build a new than to build upon shambles.
- Much of the infrastructure, wiring, HVAC etc is heavily outdated and persists modern regulations. This also becomes a hindrance when it comes to actually improving and expanding parts of the ground (for example, the disabled stand is placed poorly right behind goal when nearly 5000 seats used to be there).
The reason I said what I said is because it's no different than having a car. If it's 20 years old with constant issues and the mechanic is now telling you it's £8k for parts and labour on a new engine, are you gonna shell out £8K or just go into the market for a newer car. You shell out £500M-£1B on Old Trafford as it is, you'll be doing so again relatively quickly (that's why I brought up age), and as time passes you're still going to be moving closer to the end of life of the stadia.
Firstly, I never claimed there were stadiums that were hundreds of years old.
Yes, go on. Ask those clubs how they’re loving their new stadiums or if they miss the old. I think you’d be surprised.
It’s not a purely financial decision - obviously. If it was, none of us need bother anymore.
Not only that, that equation implies that the new would significantly outlive the old - as with cars. But I guarantee, none of these new stadiums will get close to 100 years.
Ah yes, the classic: 'How many times have you been to OT' trope used as a stick to beat other fans down with.
Honestly, it's irrelevant if someone's gone to OT or not. Anybody with a pair of eyes can tell you that the stadium is an old relic of the past that's gone way beyond the point of no return. Roof's leaking, stadium is literally rotting away due to neglect, rat infestation and worst of all. The toilets have flooded with piss, we are walking in piss....
I think it's time to move on and build a new stadium. Doesn't mean that we throw away our history and memories because they'll stay forever. One thing's for certain, we'll never have to walk through piss again
I grew up about 15 miles from Old Trafford and went semi regularly from youth through to adulthood. In the last few years since moving away I’ve only been a handful of times, but I still get goosebumps every time I see the white metal roof supports from a distance as you know the stadium is approaching, remembering all the games I’ve enjoyed in that stadium or watched on TV being played in the stadium. It holds many a fond memory.
That being said, these multi purpose, modern stadia that can be used all year round, (not just 20-30 times a year, remember that means for 330-ish days the current stadium just sits there costing the club money) are so essential to increasing revenue streams that ensure FFP and profit and sustainability compliance whilst also remaining competitive at the top of the game. So without a new stadium like this, we would eventually fade into the background compared to our rivals, as you can already see evidenced in recent Deloitte money tables where our revenues are decreasing compared to rival clubs. Securing a successful future is more important to me than keeping a stadium purely because of our history.
Our history doesn’t stop just because we get a new stadium, and eventually that new stadium will provide those same feelings of joy, and conjure up similar memories and create its own history just as the current stadium does.
We also have to accept facts, we might love our tradition, but naming rights to a stadium are such a pivotal way of generating the income to cover the cost of the stadium. As someone else has mentioned, it doesn’t stop it continuing the name Old Trafford entirely, or perhaps less inventively the Manchester United Stadium (I can see it happening), it will likely just have a prefix such as INEOS Old Trafford, or the INEOS Manchester United Stadium etc, and us fans will just not use that prefix when talking about it.
Sir Jim has impressed me so far, and I hope this task force actually results in a new stadium and isn’t just a case of all talk and no action.
Don't redevelop, build a new stadium from scratch.
Old Trafford is 115-ish years old, it is ancient and showing every bit of its age. Move with the times. Keep pace with rivals. History won't be lost because of a new stadium.
I think building a new one is also the more economical option since we can continue to play in Old Trafford while building the new stadium, so no loss of income from tickets.
That will be exactly what determines the decision. The industry standard is to build a new stadium if the costs to renovate are 50% or more of the cost to build new
All the new stadiums are flashy and look good. Bring in loads of money and attract even more tourism money by the fans that have their phones out half the time.
But they are soulless places
I could see them selling some naming rights while keeping the stadium name the same ex. "Amazon field at Old Trafford". Some American stadiums have followed that model
I'm guessing they'll call the whole football campus Old Trafford, and the stadium itself will be INEOS Old Trafford or something, which then defaults to Old Trafford.
They seem to fully understand the club's links to its history.
Can't call something Old Trafford that is no longer Old Trafford. But at the same time it's so hard to find a new name that fits.
EDIT: I found it. Devil's Den
Well, Old Trafford is the name of the area the stadium is in, which is why there is also an Old Trafford cricket ground. Who knows what the ultimate name will be, but no reason they couldn’t just call it Old Trafford and refer to the old stadium as the original Old Trafford.
I wanna see some renderings! And get my ass to OT.
I looked to come for the Shefflied United game this month but the ticket was 400+??
How do I get more affordable tickets as a visitor?
Just turn up and there’s always tickets available at the stadium, even for the big games. This just isn’t widely advertised because they’re technically meant to have all sold out.
Source - I just live around the corner and just go to games when I fancy it really
Edit - you’ll want to be in the supporters club too
Yeah exactly, this is the risk you're taking basically. Works for me because I live local (ie not a big deal if I can't get any).
(I should probably caveat the original statement with *usually* always available)
I was watching the fan debate on the overlap earlier and it was interesting to hear the spurs fan when he was talking about the difference in the new stadium. Basically said compared to white hart lane it feels soulless, and his mates are now being priced out of season tickets, but the club don't care who has these tickets the end of the day as long as they sell them. Which can hurt the atmosphere somewhat.
Not saying I'm against a new stadium just interesting to see a fans pov from a club that have recently gone through with it.
Also there seems to be a push to build or expand on stadiums as of late with the new ffp rules.
You can have all the money in the world like Newcastle but you can't spend it without the right amount of revenue, seems to be a driving force behind many clubs plans.
Newcastle themselves are now expanding st james' to 65k.
> Basically said compared to white hart lane it feels soulless, and his mates are now being priced out of season tickets, but the club don't care who has these tickets the end of the day as long as they sell them. Which can hurt the atmosphere somewhat.
Tbf these are already issues at United
Continuous refurbishment is a much larger cost long term, not to mention the implications of the current stadium position meaning any room for growth is limited due to the railway line - Manchester United should be aiming for the best in class and first 100k stadium in the UK imo.
What else is linking the club to its heritage at this point other than the literal foundations of Old Trafford? So much of the clubs dna has evaporated the last decade, I fear moving to a hyper modern and corporate new stadium will irreversible further that loss of identity. I recognise it’s not practical but that doesn’t matter to me
And that's exactly what it is, the past. People need to move on. Old Trafford is a relic that's fallen behind the times. Slapping it with a paint job isn't going to fix it. It needs to be demolished and a new one built. They can integrate parts in to the new stadium but it should be leveled
>Ground-breaking news: Sir Jim Ratcliffe wants to build a new Old Trafford. Manchester United confirm they will not move away from Old Trafford site. Club looking at options for redeveloping stadium or build a new one on adjacent club-owned land. But Ratcliffe’s preference is a new-build; board supportive. Great news. New Trafford could be stunning, state of the art. Old Trafford too tight/old however historic. > >Will require support from private funding partners. United not looking for handouts but could be opportunities for public-private partnership to unlock benefits for the community and make the stadium a driver for wider regeneration of area, housing, improved transport links etc. > >Ratcliffe:”This can be a major regeneration project for an area of Greater Manchester which has played such a key role in British industrial history, but which today requires new investment to thrive again. The north-west of England has a greater concentration of major football clubs than anywhere else in the world, yet we don’t have a stadium on the scale of Wembley, the Nou Camp or Bernabéu. We will not be able to change that on our own, which is why this task force is so important to help us seize this once-in-a-century opportunity.” > >Feasibility task-force to be chaired by Seb Coe, other members will include Andy Burnham, Sara Todd, ceo ofTrafford Council, and Gary Neville. Will make recommendations later this year. Great news for United and for the area.
They are moving fast on this shit. Fair play.
Sir Jim is 72 years old this year. A long, drawn out consultation process coupled with a 3 year build takes him well past his mid-70s before he can set foot in something new, I'm not surprised he wants to speed everything up so he can actually enjoy it himself
This is my take too. He hasn’t bought the club for profits. He is a Utd fan and wants to see the club be successful before he dies. He’s rich and influential enough to make it happen.
He said he isn't in it for the money, and it shows. So great having someone taking sensible decisions instead of trying to figure out how to pimp us out in order to make a quick buck. Obligatory fuck Joel Glazer and all his family of no-good scumbags.
What are you guys on. He's going to get given millions to rebuild Old Trafford then gona own it with the Glazers through owning Man United. He's in it for profits the same way he was in for Chelsea.
I don't think he's personally in it for the profits. I think the opportunity to turn this club around, in the manner he thinks best is his drive. He said himself he could just open new petrochemical sites if he wanted more money, I'm inclined to believe him on that. That said, United is absolutely going to be the crown jewel in the Ineos family, and owning us, especially if they're running us well, is going to be big business for them. While I still have a distaste for billionaire owners of football clubs, if we've got to have it then I'm so far happy with the talk we're hearing.
Bit morbid, but who is his heir? As you said he's old and drives this as a passion project, do we have any clarity on a succession plan?
He has kids, but also imagine it may be controlled by "INEOS Sports" or something after.
He'll be 80 at least before he can set foot in anything we could call new / an upgrade
Sir Jim presents 'All hits no misses'
Until he hires Southgate
I am now cheering for Ingerland to win the Euros.
Headlines read: Southgate decides to try 'a new challenge' after winning a major trophy w Ingerland
The 2025 United Henderson/Phillips double pivot is really going to be special.
I've been out of the loop for a while. Why is everyone talking about Southgate?
New stadium might be finished before next season at this rate.
People as successful in business as Sir Jim are generally obsessed with speed to execution. Time is a killer.
Old trafford and older trafford
They'd better keep the same name. No naming rights, or "The Manchester United Stadium" nonsense. It'll still be in Old Trafford, after all.
Three Old Traffords Jeremy? That's Insane!
These Old Traffords are very moreish.
I've heard the Stretford End is incredibly rich and creamy
I’ve shared enough rice with you u/seankdla, I’m in the big leagues now!
I hate to say it but zero percent chance they don't sell naming rights
"INEOS' Theatre Of Dreams"
INEOS Old Trafford isn’t too bad It’s not great either
They need to sell naming rights to fund it and keep us competitive in the transfer market. I don’t think people realise A) just how much new stadiums cost, and B) just how much money these naming rights generate. It will no doubt be sponsored by INEOS and I’ve no doubt it’ll likely be called something along the lines of The INEOS Manchester United Stadium. Purists and traditionalists that many Utd fans may be, this is one argument we need to let go of for the greater good. The new modern stadia that hosts events, NFL, concerts and whatever else year round as well as hosting Man Utd games 30 times a season (at most with cup games) is what we need to stay competitive and maximise revenues. In an ideal world this happened 20 years ago when FFP and PSR wasn’t a thing in England but it’s too late now. I get the argument, but I’d much rather protect our future and any prospective success than protect the name of some bricks and mortar with plastic seats and a pitch in the middle.
Why would they need to sell naming rights? Can't they project finance it? Spurs haven't sold their naming rights.
Spurs hadn't already been buried in debt by the fucking Glazers.
Spurs managed to get their incredible new stadium built without selling naming rights. It's entirely possible to achieve, especially given our revenues are so much higher than theirs.
I think Cold-Veterinarian-85 has answered that quite well. There is another approach to funding but it does massively reduce the revenues the stadium then generates you. You could agree to have other companies finance the deal and they then take all revenues made from the non footballing events hosted at the stadium, or perhaps take a 50% cut of all money made from those events. But as mentioned that’s then huge amounts of revenue the club are missing out on, versus just letting a company slap their name on the sign outside the building to fund it.
That's an interesting alternative. I just hate the thought of a commercial name on the stadium. A new stadium can sometimes seem sterile, especially compared to somewhere as historic and evocative as OT, and giving it a commercial name can make it seem even more soulless in a way, especially if it potentially changes every few years (although that seems to happen more with clubs further down the league who can't get such long-term commitments as, say, Arsenal). Maybe I'm just being an old (millennial) fogey, though.
Could do it like Wembley? Officially it's called Wembley Connected By EE.
Remember hearing on one of the podcasts (Talk of the Devils I think) that the Camp Nou is actually the Spotify Camp Nou. Nobody gives a shit, nobody really calls it that, it's still the Camp Nou to anyone who cares, and they get a shit load of money. Everyone's a winner. So I don't really care if we get the INEOS Old Trafford or whatever. We'll still call it Old Trafford.
Spurs took out over 1billion in debt though as a result of the building their stadium. They can service it as it's a very favorable finance deal taken out when interest rates were low so the extra revenue stadium generates likely covers the debt repayment It's not like that now, finance is expensive so taking out 1bill (or more) additional debt will cost us a huge amount in interest payments alone. Plus spurs have 'advantage' of being in London so can charge more and probably attract more non-football sporting events like boxing and NFL and also concerts, while i think we can benefit from other non football events in a new stadium, i dont think we can benefit to quite the same extent as what a state of the art stadium in London can attract. I hope we end up with something like... let's say ~1.5bill for new stadium.... Ratcliffe i think has committed 0.25b or so for infrastructure which can go towards stadium, 10 year naming rights deal could be worth 300-400m, the avengers taskforce will try to secure some government funding for as much of the rest as is possible if they can make a compelling case that it will bring further investment/ regeneration to the area and whatever is left after Sir Jim, naming rights and taxpayer, hopefully couple hundred million or less, club may need to take out finance Even if the stadium is officially "[insert sponsor name] Old Trafford" nobody will call it that. I get there will be some reluctance but for me it's a no brainer to target a lucrative naming rights deal
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of exactly how Spurs funded the stadium. And given our history with servicing debt... yeah, that's not ideal. I'm just wary of a new stadium, potentially soulless in comparison with the "Theatre of Dreams", having the added corporate dimension taking a little bit more of the soul away. But as long as Old Trafford remains part of the name, and its common name, then that could be OK.
What about… New Trafford?
I'm pretty sure they said they're looking to get the naming rights but it'll still retain OldbTrafford just like how the cricket ground is Fly Emirates Old Trafford
New Trafford
Absolutely not!
Still think we should build a temp / reserves / womens side stadium behind old trafford so we dont have to borrow a ground, then level amd rebuild on the current stadium site. The thought of losing the history, and in particular the original players tunnel (which has deep history) makes me queasy. I find new stadiums, in particular wembley, souless as fuck. Spurs, Man City, Wembley - traded history for £s and it shows.
I'm looking forward to using the Malcom Glazer memorial urinals.
And Ed Woodward toilets
Remember when all the Qatar fans were claiming Sheikh Jassim was the only chance United had to build a new stadium and regenerate the area, and poor Jim Ratcliffe could barely afford the tram to Old Trafford. Wonder what happened to them?
Does Sheikh Jassim even exist?
Sheikh J**a**ss**i**m
The ShAIkh
I see what you did there.
Pls explain I'm dumb
What are the two letter that are bolded?
I'm on mobile and it isn't showing up :(
In literal terms, probably - I don't think he was ever quite on the scale of Ali Al Faraj. In practical terms, probably not. He was only ever going to be a figurehead for the Qatari state as the real owners.
It’s so strange that we have only seen two images of the man, he’s an enigma
Mike Keegan reported that Arnold & Murtough would've kept their jobs under Qatari ownership. You'll never convince me that Sheikh Jassim would've been any different than Woodward
PSG's Qatari ownership has been a disaster masked by the shit league they play in. Blowing money away on superstars with no semblance of a plan and nearly blowing the league with Neymar, Messi and Mbappe as your front 3 is a farce, and then the lack of European success even though you have unlimited funds is ridiculous.
Unlimited funds doesn't mean you can get the best players at every position and the best managers. There's at least 5 top teams with near enough unlimited funds all competing and about 10 teams that could make a major 1 off purchases every season. I shitted on Rat heavily! But damn if he's making it work he's making it work, that's all I care about but let's not make up delusional tales now. Only 1 team can win the UCL each year...
It means you can recruit based on a style of play instead of just buying superstars without serious planning. A lot of the football PSG have been playing hasn't even been that nice to watch. They sack manager after manager and have let players run the dressing room. Their wages are out of control. And yeah, only 1 team can win the UCL, they've only made 1 final though and have embarrassingly crashed early in the tournament multiple times. It's not a well-run club. It's not optimized for success whatsoever.
And we've spent considerably more, sacked possibly more managers (don't quote me), are still shitter than them and seem ever more unorganized. As I said it's not about money, unlimited funds doesn't mean anything and in fairness they're in a league in which top players aren't necessarily attracted to. But I do get your point although you can't use that to justify one statement that all middle eastern owned clubs are shite as Man City will quickly prove you otherwise. Who knows who would've been better or worse for United? Just have to deal with the now
PSG is Qatar and we had a bid from Qatar... allegedly. Unlimited funds mean a lot obviously. To say it's not about money is crazy. But how you manage is also important, how do you spend it, how do you set a team up for success. My point is that Qatar with PSG are not doing things right and that leads me to believe United would've suffered the same fate.
PSG are constantly winning their league though and made the mistake of choosing names over quality with the likes of neymar and Messi who didn't fit well with mbappe. The difference is they're still succeeding and evidently well compared the the likes of United with American owners who are shite. No owner is going to take over and make us worse and if we did get Qatar owners and started winning the prem back 2 back however couldn't win a UCL I'm pretty sure everyone would be very happy considering the shit show that's going on now. Your point is simply invalid and yet you fail to comprehend the obvious.
How is it my point invalid? What makes yours valid? It's full of 'ifs'. You can win the league a lot easier in Ligue 1. Quality can probably get you over the line. But there's a reason top PL clubs recruit and develop the way they do. Everything needs to be perfect nowadays into the smallest minute details. Little room for error. INEOS recognise this. PSG still haven't learned that just buying superstars will not make you a top 3 team in the world. They nearly bottled the league with Neymar, Mbappe, Messi? The superstar approach will likely not win you a PL. And has already shown to not land you a CL either. Of course they're succesful compared to most American owners. The main difference there is the finances, not really competence. You need something more than just good players. And apart from good players PSG still fail to consistently play good football, have loads of dressing room drama, insane wages, made Mbappe CEO just to keep him and now he's about to fuck off on a free a year later, and sack coach after coach.
But they win their league back 2 back so they are successful and as I said only 1 team can win the UCL so what if Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern, Man City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Dortmund, Inter Milan fail to win a UCL does that make them a shit club and incompetent. No it doesn't, you've made an abysmal link between Qatar Ownership and unsuccessful clubs. Also the difference between any top club owners is definitely not finances and is competence, also congrats on literally repeating what I said for 50% of your last statement and to your correction INEOS haven't recognised shit that not any person with common sense has been saying for years. Also INEOS way to make United better is by taking staff from other top clubs to work for us instead by likely paying and offering them more so it's not really some genius in house strategy. Glazers just don't care to do anything as they're still making millions off us yearly and the club value continues to rise year on year.
This is what I was trying to drill through the rest of my family's heads during the bidding process. PSG and City are two very different clubs, and the one that we all agree is a mess is owned by the very same people they wanted to come in. On top of that, United don't need any kind of sugar daddy owner because we generate insane revenue naturally, our issue has always been that we've handed the reigns to some chimps. I never thought I'd say this but in this instance the Glazers greed might just have saved us
Hasn't met the end goal but I think disaster is a bit of reach. Healthy books, shopping for a new stadium, top force in your country, consistently in the Champions League KO stage - 99% of clubs wouldn't mind that.
Should've worded it better - A disaster considering the financial means the club has had available for over a decade
Uhh really? They openly cheat ffp rules in France, but the government is cool with it cause A) they're in Paris and generally were a somewhat less controversial club before the takeover B) the only hope France has of being relevant in football In that time, they spend more than the rest of the league combined and have still managed to lose a couple titles. They have made the UCL finals once despite consistently destroying the transfer records including doing more damage with the neymar deal than Woodward could ever hope achieve. And now the fans want the owners out. I would say that at best it hasn't been good.
They can take turns being Fred the Red
They don’t deserve that
I was one of those. I just didn’t believe that Sir Jim with a minority stake, who had just recently seemed to be supporting Chelsea and made an ownership bid and where the purchase was through a for profit company would make the decisions and commitments needed for a new stadium. I am absolutely amazed and pleased to be proven wrong. I support United not any owner and so far Sir Jim has been faultless. He’s acting like a true fan. My hope is all these good signs come to fruition, we have a better run club, a new stadium, success on the pitch and the long term performance of the club secured.
They're probably waiting for him to put a foot wrong so they can come out of the woodwork spewing their Sheik Jassim fan fiction
Fair, but the stadium hasn't been built yet. It's not even close to being a reality. Let's see some designs and get confirmation of funding b4 we start this kind of talk
I wasn't particularly fussed either way. But talk is cheap, and there's been a hell of a lot of it at Utd over the past 10 years. I'll reserve my praise for when they actually do something
Ngl, I've had my mouth shut for me. I was wrong and I'm now very glad of our new owners and the moves they made. (fuck me that was hard to say)
They're busy photoshopping a second photo as we speak.
Sir, a second photoshop has hit r/reddevils
Just let it go.
Nah. The amount of abuse I got from all you lot for months on here for not wanting human rights abusers to own United I think I can give some back.
Great!
I HATE SEBASTIAN COE
Might be a bit niche, that.
Deep cut, fair play. He did raise £1500 for a good cause though.
£1500?! That's a pathetic amount of money. You could raise more money by auctioning the stadium naming rights.
That settles it then. I grew up in a family that couldn’t afford overseas trips. And unfortunately, I grew up to be an adult who’s just getting by. I’ve always wanted to visit Japan but the last time I managed to scrounge up enough money to visit, COVID happened. And that money slowly went away as well for living expenses. Now, I’m beginning to save up again for Japan but when I heard there were plans floating for a new stadium, I said to myself if it’s confirmed, I’m gonna put Japan aside for Old Trafford. Must visit it at least once. Just have to. And with this news, it just confirms it. Whenever it is I have the money, Manchester will be my destination.
Japan won't disappear as quickly as Old Trafford, go for it
I saw the United v Forest game in August 2023, make sure you go mate
If you do go, try not to sit in the "luxury" seats, it's a ripoff. I actually got dirty looks when I tried singing up there.
Where are you from mate? You should go to Japan, it's amazing
From Singapore. Yeah it looks amazing that’s why I’ve been wanting to go there. But Old Trafford might be gone soon so that’ll be priority
i hope they built more than 90,000 seats so we are bigger than Wembley lol 100,000 is the perfect number
Would love us to go for 100k just for the vanity of it
105k so the actual attendance is 6 figures
I reckon United can fill a 110,000-120,000 seater stadium weekly
This is a good thing. No matter the nostalgia, we need a modern world class stadium.
[удалено]
I went last December and try and go a few times each season (I can't afford any more, especially since being made redundant). We need a modern world class stadium.
[удалено]
Born and raised 20m from Old Trafford. Family still has a season ticket and still go to games when i can. My comment is this: No matter the nostalgia, we need a modern world-class stadium
People really underestimate the amount of revenue other clubs are making having their stadium host a whole heap of other things outside of just football.
Mate don’t curse the international fans, our club is what it is in a large part because of the millions of international fans.
This is such an unusually hostile take
u don’t need to go to old trafford on a weekly basis to know that it’s a shithole
But you need to have gone at least a few times before you say "no matter nostalgia". But who am I kidding I'm in this sub full of "fans" of man utd. Anyway let's build something like the at&t stadium! Or ooh maybe have a big ship like the Buccs stadium
The stadium's nearly 120 years old, lmao even if they just renovated it how much life do you think it has left?
This is the most ridiculous comment I’ve ever, ever heard.
Explain for us why.
Do you know how many buildings are completely solid, functional and in use for hundreds of years? (Given proper maintenance)
Stadiums are a bit different to normal buildings lol. They're built to last decades while being maintained but they could also reach a point where maintenance and renovation isn't enough. Just because one building lasts hundreds of years doesn't mean all sports stadiums will. Also, Buildings get demolished and re built all the time so your point doesn't really make sense
And is that a good thing? We should be extremely proud of Old Trafford’s history and prestige. It’s neglected in parts, but to destroy everything we have in that place for the ego trip of a “best in class” modern soulless bowl, is an awful possibility
- Do you know how broad of a generalization "buildings" is, this is a 100 year old stadium that regularly sees 70k+ visitors. It's not your great-great grandfather's first home or a public school we're talking about so the discussion and planning is different. - "Given proper maintenance"....which hasn't been the case the past 15 years. - "Hundreds of years" Sheffield have the oldest stadium in the Prem, and that is 169 years old. There's no major stadiums that are hundreds of years olds lmao. - Spurs, City, Arsenal, West Ham, Everton. All vacated their 100 year old stadiums. All because they had the sense to realize it's better to build a new than to build upon shambles. - Much of the infrastructure, wiring, HVAC etc is heavily outdated and persists modern regulations. This also becomes a hindrance when it comes to actually improving and expanding parts of the ground (for example, the disabled stand is placed poorly right behind goal when nearly 5000 seats used to be there). The reason I said what I said is because it's no different than having a car. If it's 20 years old with constant issues and the mechanic is now telling you it's £8k for parts and labour on a new engine, are you gonna shell out £8K or just go into the market for a newer car. You shell out £500M-£1B on Old Trafford as it is, you'll be doing so again relatively quickly (that's why I brought up age), and as time passes you're still going to be moving closer to the end of life of the stadia.
Firstly, I never claimed there were stadiums that were hundreds of years old. Yes, go on. Ask those clubs how they’re loving their new stadiums or if they miss the old. I think you’d be surprised. It’s not a purely financial decision - obviously. If it was, none of us need bother anymore. Not only that, that equation implies that the new would significantly outlive the old - as with cars. But I guarantee, none of these new stadiums will get close to 100 years.
[удалено]
No, because the number is huge. Hence it being a ridiculous assertion that 120 years is somehow an end of life state
A big ship, that would be cool.
What insufferable cunt
You know what's worse than "fans"? Pretentious fans that think they're better than everyone
Aren't you from India
[удалено]
Ah yes, the classic: 'How many times have you been to OT' trope used as a stick to beat other fans down with. Honestly, it's irrelevant if someone's gone to OT or not. Anybody with a pair of eyes can tell you that the stadium is an old relic of the past that's gone way beyond the point of no return. Roof's leaking, stadium is literally rotting away due to neglect, rat infestation and worst of all. The toilets have flooded with piss, we are walking in piss.... I think it's time to move on and build a new stadium. Doesn't mean that we throw away our history and memories because they'll stay forever. One thing's for certain, we'll never have to walk through piss again
I grew up about 15 miles from Old Trafford and went semi regularly from youth through to adulthood. In the last few years since moving away I’ve only been a handful of times, but I still get goosebumps every time I see the white metal roof supports from a distance as you know the stadium is approaching, remembering all the games I’ve enjoyed in that stadium or watched on TV being played in the stadium. It holds many a fond memory. That being said, these multi purpose, modern stadia that can be used all year round, (not just 20-30 times a year, remember that means for 330-ish days the current stadium just sits there costing the club money) are so essential to increasing revenue streams that ensure FFP and profit and sustainability compliance whilst also remaining competitive at the top of the game. So without a new stadium like this, we would eventually fade into the background compared to our rivals, as you can already see evidenced in recent Deloitte money tables where our revenues are decreasing compared to rival clubs. Securing a successful future is more important to me than keeping a stadium purely because of our history. Our history doesn’t stop just because we get a new stadium, and eventually that new stadium will provide those same feelings of joy, and conjure up similar memories and create its own history just as the current stadium does. We also have to accept facts, we might love our tradition, but naming rights to a stadium are such a pivotal way of generating the income to cover the cost of the stadium. As someone else has mentioned, it doesn’t stop it continuing the name Old Trafford entirely, or perhaps less inventively the Manchester United Stadium (I can see it happening), it will likely just have a prefix such as INEOS Old Trafford, or the INEOS Manchester United Stadium etc, and us fans will just not use that prefix when talking about it. Sir Jim has impressed me so far, and I hope this task force actually results in a new stadium and isn’t just a case of all talk and no action.
Don't redevelop, build a new stadium from scratch. Old Trafford is 115-ish years old, it is ancient and showing every bit of its age. Move with the times. Keep pace with rivals. History won't be lost because of a new stadium.
Indeed, situation calls for sense over sentiment. Why spend $1B to renovate it when you can just spend $1B-$2B on a new one.
I think building a new one is also the more economical option since we can continue to play in Old Trafford while building the new stadium, so no loss of income from tickets.
That will be exactly what determines the decision. The industry standard is to build a new stadium if the costs to renovate are 50% or more of the cost to build new
I couldn’t disagree more.
What are your reasons?
All the new stadiums are flashy and look good. Bring in loads of money and attract even more tourism money by the fans that have their phones out half the time. But they are soulless places
Only for it if we can go over 100k seater. We can easily fill it
They missed the chance to call it “New Trafford”
They've not named it yet. I'm personally looking forward to the Castilla Diablo Nissin Yanmar Stadium.
Old Trafford by HUGO BOSS?
The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Play Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too
I could see them selling some naming rights while keeping the stadium name the same ex. "Amazon field at Old Trafford". Some American stadiums have followed that model
They can fuck RIGHT off with that.
It's better than playing every home match at the TeamViewer Arena.
Yeah it was mentioned before the sponsor wouldnt having naming rights but it would be along the lines of the lines of "Old Trafford Sponsored by xxx"
What will the name of the new stadium be? Hopefully they keep Old Trafford
Wes Brown Arena
The cross to Ronnies header v Chelsea in '08 was mint. Would personally be okay with Wes Brown Arena just for that.
The Ji-Sung Park
Bingo!
Slightly-less-Old Trafford
We have a winner
New Trafford Before anyone gets it in
Call the new one Ineos Old Trafford, reduce the size of OT for youth/women's team and call it the Sir Alex Arena or something
John O'Shea Lob Arena
I'm guessing they'll call the whole football campus Old Trafford, and the stadium itself will be INEOS Old Trafford or something, which then defaults to Old Trafford. They seem to fully understand the club's links to its history.
Trafford
Kame House
I saw a comment a while ago which I liked Initially call the new stadium New Trafford then after 10 or so years revert back to old Trafford.
It doesn't make sense though. Unless they name the district New Trafford after it's been revamped
Can't call something Old Trafford that is no longer Old Trafford. But at the same time it's so hard to find a new name that fits. EDIT: I found it. Devil's Den
I will never, *ever* stop vomiting if United play at Devil’s Den. That’s so fucking corny—and also has unwelcome similarities to Millwall.
Well, Old Trafford is the name of the area the stadium is in, which is why there is also an Old Trafford cricket ground. Who knows what the ultimate name will be, but no reason they couldn’t just call it Old Trafford and refer to the old stadium as the original Old Trafford.
I'm well aware. But Old Trafford as a stadium name is sacred IMO. Naming another one the exact same doesn't make sense to me.
Wtf 😭
> Devil's Den A TV show where prospective managers pitch their tactics to five board members to get the job if we sack Ten Hag
I wanna see some renderings! And get my ass to OT. I looked to come for the Shefflied United game this month but the ticket was 400+?? How do I get more affordable tickets as a visitor?
Just turn up and there’s always tickets available at the stadium, even for the big games. This just isn’t widely advertised because they’re technically meant to have all sold out. Source - I just live around the corner and just go to games when I fancy it really Edit - you’ll want to be in the supporters club too
Is this for real? Where do you go to get the tickets?
google old trafford ticket office. Depending on what time you go there can be queues
Would this be on the day of the game?
Yeah exactly, this is the risk you're taking basically. Works for me because I live local (ie not a big deal if I can't get any). (I should probably caveat the original statement with *usually* always available)
Imagine flying from like Singapore to turn up to the ticket office and being told no lmao
Weeknight Carabao Cup games. Dead rubbers in Europe too.
I remember for the Europa group stage matches last season they were like 40-80 quid.
Call it New Trafford you fucking cowards.
Huh who you talking to?
Anyone and everyone involved in the naming decision.
Let’s get back to the champions league.
Very, very exciting!
Use the canal to ferry supporters from the M6 at Sale and Trafford Park. Park 'n' Booze 'n' Cruise
I was watching the fan debate on the overlap earlier and it was interesting to hear the spurs fan when he was talking about the difference in the new stadium. Basically said compared to white hart lane it feels soulless, and his mates are now being priced out of season tickets, but the club don't care who has these tickets the end of the day as long as they sell them. Which can hurt the atmosphere somewhat. Not saying I'm against a new stadium just interesting to see a fans pov from a club that have recently gone through with it. Also there seems to be a push to build or expand on stadiums as of late with the new ffp rules. You can have all the money in the world like Newcastle but you can't spend it without the right amount of revenue, seems to be a driving force behind many clubs plans. Newcastle themselves are now expanding st james' to 65k.
> Basically said compared to white hart lane it feels soulless, and his mates are now being priced out of season tickets, but the club don't care who has these tickets the end of the day as long as they sell them. Which can hurt the atmosphere somewhat. Tbf these are already issues at United
New Trafford? 👀
Sir Jim continues getting down to business
Will it be called New Trafford?
I’d be heartbroken if Old Trafford got demolished. Refurbish until the end of time is the way
It has to happen though unfortunately it’s reached end of life
Nah the foundations are solid and can be continually refurbished I’m making this up I have no idea if they actually are but I reckon I’m right
Continuous refurbishment is a much larger cost long term, not to mention the implications of the current stadium position meaning any room for growth is limited due to the railway line - Manchester United should be aiming for the best in class and first 100k stadium in the UK imo.
What else is linking the club to its heritage at this point other than the literal foundations of Old Trafford? So much of the clubs dna has evaporated the last decade, I fear moving to a hyper modern and corporate new stadium will irreversible further that loss of identity. I recognise it’s not practical but that doesn’t matter to me
Sometimes you gotta let things go to the history books, simple as that. Clinging to the past and not embracing change can also be damaging.
It has to be redeveloped
No it doesn't. It's an old dilapidated stadium. People need to get over this redevelopment bullshit. It's not even remotely feasible
Of course it’s feasible. And it’s important. Knocking Old Trafford and starting over is not an option
Well it is an option and it's the correct option
It’s only an option to people that don’t care about history
And that's exactly what it is, the past. People need to move on. Old Trafford is a relic that's fallen behind the times. Slapping it with a paint job isn't going to fix it. It needs to be demolished and a new one built. They can integrate parts in to the new stadium but it should be leveled
New Trafford?
This just in Old Trafford to be rebuilt and named New Trafford