Season tickets sold out

[Im_Spartacus]

I think i've mentioned this before but a mate of mine in construction of this scale says that it would probably cost more to build a third tier than knock it down and start again

Depends if it was designed for future expansion. I had heard it's the same design as the emirates but without the third tier all the way round.

However, before we moved in I asked John Wardle at a City branch do if it could be expanded, as apparently the stadium of light was built that way, so they could cheaply increase the number of seats and he said no, and sort of laughed off the need to ever do it.

I think the plans spurs had, with a massive tier at one end would be the way we'd go, as it'd allow a hotel and conference venue to be built in. More seats and more revenue

I thought I saw on that massive thread on BM that has finally died, that it is possible to build a third and/or even 4th tier using some sort of cantilever style. IE the weight would not be supported by the existing structure but by by a new arrangement. Now I may be mis-remembering this a bit, but it was an engineer who was suggesting it. Unfortunately I am not, so I dont know how feasible this is.

I happen to be and I think I've explained this about hundred million times before.

The design of the ground is actually extremely clever in that the current stadia stands on it's own on the ground but so do the concourse towers. Meaning if we were to add extra tiers they could easily be supported by steelworks of concourse towers rather than existing ground. Visually you wouldn't notice any difference from "normal" expansions. It's not cheap and what would make it especially expensive would be demanding timescale to do most of the work during summer (essentially two and a half months).

What I THINK will happen though is what has been suggested above. I think they will build a massive expansion standing on it's connected to the current structure including hotel and/or casino and/or whatnot and on top of that structure there would be a new stand. There's numerous of reasons why this would make sense. A) it could be built independently without any need for tight time scale B) they are looking to improve the are anyway so it would be one massive project that would solve numerous of issues C) only one building permission from the council D) one main constructor and design team for whole project.

Now I'd like to think I know thing or two about big building sites. These things take years and years of development and design. Permissions and contractor selection take time as well. Now I seem to remember we have hired couple of architects already for the project and I think they are making sketches as we speak. I think numerous different options will be analysed at this stage and in the end owner and board will make the final call.

So which end would you see that being at? I know City Square won't have broken the bank, but any expansion behind the north stand would require the shop and City Square to disappear - although I always wondered if the current city square is a precursor to a big fuck off outdoor fans facility on the ground adjacent to West Stand/Alan Turing Way.

It has been suggested before that extending the south stand is a no go because of space - building say 50m back from the existing stand to get another 40 or so rows in which would add say 8000 seats, more fans = more space needed for turnstile queues, space that is already limited

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

A couple of years ago there was a piece in the evening news that basically showed them rebuild one side of the ground. It looked enormous and gave a capacity of about 60,000.

[ant london]

You are forgetting it was bult with a huge Sport England grant. Knocking it down would trigger repayment of that money.

Not necessarily Jon.....the whole reason the grant was advanced was by virtue of the fact that this was a facility for the games and maybe there was some kind of legacy provisions about providing community access to the facility etc.

If we were knocking the stadium down and building apartments then yes, I'm sure Sport England would invoke whatever clawback provisions might have been set out in the grant terms.

However, we are going to replace a football stadium with a bigger, better stadium. Sport England are in no different position to that they are in currently (esp if we replicate any access provisions and grandfather the clawback provisions into a new agreement where we promise that....if we knock down and build a Tesco and flats...we'll pay you back). I can't see that there would be any need to pay anything back as long as the dialogue with Sport England, the council etc was handled in the right manner which I'm sure it would be

[Socrates]

You are forgetting it was bult with a huge Sport England grant. Knocking it down would trigger repayment of that money.

Not necessarily Jon.....the whole reason the grant was advanced was by virtue of the fact that this was a facility for the games and maybe there was some kind of legacy provisions about providing community access to the facility etc.

If we were knocking the stadium down and building apartments then yes, I'm sure Sport England would invoke whatever clawback provisions might have been set out in the grant terms.

However, we are going to replace a football stadium with a bigger, better stadium. Sport England are in no different position to that they are in currently (esp if we replicate any access provisions and grandfather the clawback provisions into a new agreement where we promise that....if we knock down and build a Tesco and flats...we'll pay you back). I can't see that there would be any need to pay anything back as long as the dialogue with Sport England, the council etc was handled in the right manner which I'm sure it would be

The reason we cannot buy the ground is that the grant would have to be repaid. Sport England would take opportunity they could get to invoke repayment, it is that simple...

[ant london]

I don't agree and I don't think you're closely enough (remotely) to the matter to be able to offer that definitive a view I'm afraid

[Ted Hughes]

Imo, the expansion is most likely to be done as part of the development around the ground. We surely can't build that, then start taking the roof off the ground; it wouldn't make sense ?

I don't know how far they want to go with the development nearby but it's not impossible to imagine the structure of the ground becoming part of it if they think it's worth doing.

I would imagine that the way to do it would be: try to build the waiting list to a genuine 15/20,000 then expand the ground & sell season tickets to all of them. Hence 56,000 season ticket holders, 15,000 or so seats available to members. Instantly you would have crowd averages similar to rags.

This is why we need to keep bringing in one or two top players for the next year or two imo, even if it upsets Platini. Once we get those fans in, we've cracked it.

How have we cracked it?

Even at 50 quid a time, 20,000 extra fans x 19 only equates 180,000 extra visitors paying a total of £9m of additional matchday revenue over the season. It's just not worth the investment that would be needed to accommodate those extra 20,000 whichever way you look at it.

The only possible way would be if it were 20,000 hospitality seats at say 100quid a time, then it starts to make sense at 18m a year........except that even with the season tickets sold out, i guarantee there will be gaping voids of unsold corporate seats this year again - that market is going to need to drag the corporates away from old traffford where they have had a presence for the last 20 years, as we will be in direct competition with the rags for that type of business, and i expect we would have to win the league several times before we got a sniff of denting uniteds dominance in that area.

Errm, I never mentioned Utd apart from attendance mate.

[Ted Hughes]

I think i've mentioned this before but a mate of mine in construction of this scale says that it would probably cost more to build a third tier than knock it down and start again

Depends if it was designed for future expansion. I had heard it's the same design as the emirates but without the third tier all the way round.

However, before we moved in I asked John Wardle at a City branch do if it could be expanded, as apparently the stadium of light was built that way, so they could cheaply increase the number of seats and he said no, and sort of laughed off the need to ever do it.

I think the plans spurs had, with a massive tier at one end would be the way we'd go, as it'd allow a hotel and conference venue to be built in. More seats and more revenue

I thought I saw on that massive thread on BM that has finally died, that it is possible to build a third and/or even 4th tier using some sort of cantilever style. IE the weight would not be supported by the existing structure but by by a new arrangement. Now I may be mis-remembering this a bit, but it was an engineer who was suggesting it. Unfortunately I am not, so I dont know how feasible this is.

I happen to be and I think I've explained this about hundred million times before.

The design of the ground is actually extremely clever in that the current stadia stands on it's own on the ground but so do the concourse towers. Meaning if we were to add extra tiers they could easily be supported by steelworks of concourse towers rather than existing ground. Visually you wouldn't notice any difference from "normal" expansions. It's not cheap and what would make it especially expensive would be demanding timescale to do most of the work during summer (essentially two and a half months).

What I THINK will happen though is what has been suggested above. I think they will build a massive expansion standing on it's connected to the current structure including hotel and/or casino and/or whatnot and on top of that structure there would be a new stand. There's numerous of reasons why this would make sense. A) it could be built independently without any need for tight time scale B) they are looking to improve the are anyway so it would be one massive project that would solve numerous of issues C) only one building permission from the council D) one main constructor and design team for whole project.

Now I'd like to think I know thing or two about big building sites. These things take years and years of development and design. Permissions and contractor selection take time as well. Now I seem to remember we have hired couple of architects already for the project and I think they are making sketches as we speak. I think numerous different options will be analysed at this stage and in the end owner and board will make the final call.

So which end would you see that being at? I know City Square won't have broken the bank, but any expansion behind the north stand would require the shop and City Square to disappear - although I always wondered if the current city square is a precursor to a big fuck off outdoor fans facility on the ground adjacent to West Stand/Alan Turing Way.

It has been suggested before that extending the south stand is a no go because of space - building say 50m back from the existing stand to get another 40 or so rows in which would add say 8000 seats, more fans = more space needed for turnstile queues, space that is already limited

You are thinking very small time here.

Nothing is a 'no go' unless we decide it. All the surrounding area is potential redevelopment land including the athletics stadium. We are in this area bigtime.

[lets all have a disco]

At the end of the day it only cost

£112 million (initial athletics stadium)
£22 million (conversion for football)
£20 million (fitting out football stadium) We paid this i believe.

So in real terms it didnt cost that much we could quite easily pay some or all of it back and buy it outright spend another 150 million to rebuild.

[Ted Hughes]

At the end of the day it only cost

£112 million (initial athletics stadium)
£22 million (conversion for football)
£20 million (fitting out football stadium) We paid this i believe.

So in real terms it didnt cost that much we could quite easily pay some or all of it back and buy it outright spend another 150 million to rebuild.

I think Sport England will be more of a partner than an enemy in the coming years, but I doubt we will want or need to build a new stadium anyway.

[Alex Sapphire]

I don't agree and I don't think you're closely enough (remotely) to the matter to be able to offer that definitive a view I'm afraid

although Sport England stumped up 77 mill for the stadium build and conversion and they are insisting the MCC put all our 4 mill annual rent back into sport. They do hold the cards don't they?

[Im_Spartacus]

At the end of the day it only cost

£112 million (initial athletics stadium)
£22 million (conversion for football)
£20 million (fitting out football stadium) We paid this i believe.

So in real terms it didnt cost that much we could quite easily pay some or all of it back and buy it outright spend another 150 million to rebuild.

I think Sport England will be more of a partner than an enemy in the coming years, but I doubt we will want or need to build a new stadium anyway.

Blueprint for cost effectiveness should be something like the Millenium Stadium. Have heard nothing but good comments from people who have been, and it was built for peanuts - £121m proving what a total mess Wembley was at £800m, and the Emirates at £400m (although the Emirates may have involved cost of land purchase).

Looking at the diversity of events the Millenium stadium hosts, i'm amazed no British club has chosen to include a retractable roof - and you can guarantee this would make any new ground in the north of England THE premier outdoor concert venue.

I suppose in the scheme of what has been sunk into the club already, £120m on a whopping great big purpose built arena is not that much.

[Im_Spartacus]

Imo, the expansion is most likely to be done as part of the development around the ground. We surely can't build that, then start taking the roof off the ground; it wouldn't make sense ?

I don't know how far they want to go with the development nearby but it's not impossible to imagine the structure of the ground becoming part of it if they think it's worth doing.

I would imagine that the way to do it would be: try to build the waiting list to a genuine 15/20,000 then expand the ground & sell season tickets to all of them. Hence 56,000 season ticket holders, 15,000 or so seats available to members. Instantly you would have crowd averages similar to rags.

This is why we need to keep bringing in one or two top players for the next year or two imo, even if it upsets Platini. Once we get those fans in, we've cracked it.

How have we cracked it?

Even at 50 quid a time, 20,000 extra fans x 19 only equates 180,000 extra visitors paying a total of £9m of additional matchday revenue over the season. It's just not worth the investment that would be needed to accommodate those extra 20,000 whichever way you look at it.

The only possible way would be if it were 20,000 hospitality seats at say 100quid a time, then it starts to make sense at 18m a year........except that even with the season tickets sold out, i guarantee there will be gaping voids of unsold corporate seats this year again - that market is going to need to drag the corporates away from old traffford where they have had a presence for the last 20 years, as we will be in direct competition with the rags for that type of business, and i expect we would have to win the league several times before we got a sniff of denting uniteds dominance in that area.

Errm, I never mentioned Utd apart from attendance mate.

I don't get your point - my post was asking how we would have "cracked it" with such a marginal increase in revenue per year.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Imo, the expansion is most likely to be done as part of the development around the ground. We surely can't build that, then start taking the roof off the ground; it wouldn't make sense ?

I don't know how far they want to go with the development nearby but it's not impossible to imagine the structure of the ground becoming part of it if they think it's worth doing.

I would imagine that the way to do it would be: try to build the waiting list to a genuine 15/20,000 then expand the ground & sell season tickets to all of them. Hence 56,000 season ticket holders, 15,000 or so seats available to members. Instantly you would have crowd averages similar to rags.

This is why we need to keep bringing in one or two top players for the next year or two imo, even if it upsets Platini. Once we get those fans in, we've cracked it.

How have we cracked it?

Even at 50 quid a time, 20,000 extra fans x 19 only equates 180,000 extra visitors paying a total of £9m of additional matchday revenue over the season. It's just not worth the investment that would be needed to accommodate those extra 20,000 whichever way you look at it.

The only possible way would be if it were 20,000 hospitality seats at say 100quid a time, then it starts to make sense at 18m a year........except that even with the season tickets sold out, i guarantee there will be gaping voids of unsold corporate seats this year again - that market is going to need to drag the corporates away from old traffford where they have had a presence for the last 20 years, as we will be in direct competition with the rags for that type of business, and i expect we would have to win the league several times before we got a sniff of denting uniteds dominance in that area.

Errm, I never mentioned Utd apart from attendance mate.

I don't get your point - my post was asking how we would have "cracked it" with such a marginal increase in revenue per year.

380,000 at £40 - £50 a pop gives an increase of around 15-19m a season.
£1Million a match, which is pretty much what Arsenal hoped to realise as their ambition when building The Emirates. It's not to be sniffed at.

[Yffi_88]

Will our guys really take the 'on-a-budget' 120 million option? I doubt it.

More a 400 million(+) beauty to go with the rest of the billions they're pouring in.

In all honesty though, I think the stadium was one of the attractions to the buyers and like Ted, I think we'll stay put.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Will our guys really take the 'on-a-budget' 120 million option? I doubt it.

More a 400 million(+) beauty to go with the rest of the billions they're pouring in.

In all honesty though, I think the stadium was one of the attractions to the buyers and like Ted, I think we'll stay put.

If FFP succeeds, and it is felt the size of the stadium restricts us in our quest to be the best, then I'm sure something will be done.

[Dameerto]

A bit gutted that I won't be able to buy a SC for my wife and daughter. I didn't expect to locate them near me in East Level 1, but to have no chance of a SC is disappointing. That said, it's a sign of where we are. I have been advised that they 'may' be able to get Blue SCs to have a chance of getting to some games.

We need a bigger stadium, end of.

Get on the waiting list asap if you're not already on it - the capacity WILL go up sooner rather than later. I would bet my mortgage on them expanding the current stadium rather than building a new one - otherwise there would have been little point renogotiating new terms with the council AND planning the campus around it.

[Socrates]

I don't agree and I don't think you're closely enough (remotely) to the matter to be able to offer that definitive a view I'm afraid

although Sport England stumped up 77 mill for the stadium build and conversion and they are insisting the MCC put all our 4 mill annual rent back into sport. They do hold the cards don't they?

It's also a public body with a duty to claw back money spent if it possibly can as well a desperate need for cash thanks to the cost of the Olympics. Make no mistake, we break the terms of the grant they will invoke the pay back clause.

[Im_Spartacus]

Will our guys really take the 'on-a-budget' 120 million option? I doubt it.

More a 400 million(+) beauty to go with the rest of the billions they're pouring in.

In all honesty though, I think the stadium was one of the attractions to the buyers and like Ted, I think we'll stay put.

Just highlighting what a well managed project should cost vs the likes of Wembley.

You have to remember that behind all of this the investors in the club are still a business and will want a return on capital deployed from investment in the stadium. Whilst they may well be flambuoyant, it would be odd for them to spend £500m when £150m would give a perfectly adequate outcome. At the end of the day the Millenium Stadium is by no means bargain basement - when you go inside a stadium you will always see the same bare concrete walls, with bars bookies and food outlets - which is why I struggle to understand how projects like Wembley cost twice as much as the Emirates, which in turn cost 3 times more than the Millenium Stadium.

If you built something like the Millenium I reckon every City fan would be chuffed to bits with the outcome, and if they wanted to be flambuoyant, they can spunk a bit of cash on tarting the outside up to become a true landmark/global icon in the way something like the Allianz Arena will turn out to be, without building silly unnecessary arches and shit.

[Dameerto]

The Sheikh is a businessman, but he is also using the club as his flagship vehicle. IF he went for a new stadium (which I don't think he will do) then it would be state of the art with no expense spared. (Just look at the F1 track he had a hand in building).

[john68]

Jon,
I think you are forgetting what Sport City actually is, the ethos behind the development of the area and the reasons why Sport England invested in the project. The stadium is only a small part of what was initially envisaged.
Sport City was initially built to facilitate the games but it was always planned that the area would be further developed to become a very much larger sports/leisure dedicated area. Since the games, a BMX stadium has been built and there were attempts to relocate Lancashire Cricket Club, to build an Ice rink and the cancelled super casino. There are huge swathes of empty land around the old gas works at the back of Sports City just for such development.

Neither Sport England nor the MCC have the funds to invest further and have been actively trying to find partners to continue the area's development. Under normal circumstances, Sport England would love to claw that money back but they also want development and the ADUG are the only active partners they have.

An expanded stadium with a few add ons (hotel/conference/leisure) facilities would make Sport England very happy bunnies indeed Mate. It would help them fulfill the original dream.