Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2018 pt. 2

Mitch Connor

To me the issues thrown by moving stadium are:

1. Relocation - not an issue, moving a few hundred yards.
2. Moving to non-purpose built stadiums - should not be an issue.
3. Funds for the football team restricted by stadium finances issues - this one is possible though United do make huge surplus per year so might be mitigated against.
4. Losing the vocal/intimidating atmosphere - I don't think OT is that close a stadium and I don't think it has been intimidating or hugely vocal in years.

spiralism

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Madrid and Bilbao don't seem to be having an issue with their move.
Bayern are doing pretty well at the Alianz Arena.

West Ham has been a disaster cause it is a disaster of a stadium.
What is the disaster City have suffered for moving from Maine Road?
You are expecting Spur's move to be a disaster?

I just don't see the problem.

Design a quality stadium. Be respectful of history. Could be 100k seater with bigger and better corporate facilities- match day revenue would go through the roof.

Bayern it's not a fair comparison though, the Olympic stadium wasn't suitable for football, same as any Olympic stadium. They needed a purpose built ground. City were given that stadium and were nobodies when they got it. They struggle to fill their one now. Jury is out on Spurs but these things go wrong more often than not. The only one that i can recall as being a resounding success so far is the new San Mames.

Imo knocking OT would be akin to taking the proverbial sledgehammer to the Bernabeu or the Westfalenstadion. Absolute heresy.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

While I agree with the gist of your post both Inter and AC Milan have put forward proposals to build new stadiums and leave the San Siro in recent years. Better examples would be Barcas and Reals imminent redevelopments of the Camp Nou and the Bernabeu.

Eh, probably right. Might not have used the best example. At the same time they used those proposals to angle for a refurb and got it. God forbid they'd ever leave there.

OT is on that level of iconic though along with Camp Nou, the Bernabeu and the Westfalenstadion. All of those have been renovated and there's not a fear of them going anywhere. Sometimes you have to look past the numbers in the balance sheet

54and56

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Talk today about United looking at increasing OT to 90,000 but would have to move out of OT while it was being done. Can't see it happening if that is the case. The money lost while away from OT, I think the RoI would be too long for the Glazers to be interested in it.

I don't think United would play at the CoM stadium, Anfield an obvious no go. Reebok?

Wembley is the obvious choice, it would be closer to more "home" fans than any other stadium in the country

Trigger

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Wembley is the obvious choice, it would be closer to more "home" fans than any other stadium in the country

Cantona's Collars

I wonder if United could do like Spurs and the way they are building the new stadium literally out of White Hart Lane. It's an impressive project and it's still on the same patch of land.

pjohnson

Jaysus

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/6033020/manchester-united-sergio-romero-dominos-pizza/

The Sun is actually writing an article about Romero going to Domino's. Clearly they had left the clickbait generator off.

Mitch Connor

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

I wonder if United could do like Spurs and the way they are building the new stadium literally out of White Hart Lane. It's an impressive project and it's still on the same patch of land.

Why would they though?

They wouldn't be able to use OT when doing it.
It would still be a new stadium.

May as well build in the land beside OT that they already own - so you are only a few hundred yards away. Could still play at OT while the new stadium is being built.

They could redevelop the OT site as hotel/apartment and making money back that way too.

jayo26

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

I wonder if United could do like Spurs and the way they are building the new stadium literally out of White Hart Lane. It's an impressive project and it's still on the same patch of land.

Was just going to reply to Mitch if the desire was there United could build the stadium on near the same patch of land as old Trafford.

It's all the one they own the car parks around it.

Personally myself I'd hate it I love old Trafford and love the feel of the place and style of the building yes it might be old in comparison to other stadia but I do t think any other stadium could make me feel the way I do when I'm walking up to old Trafford.

I'd love for them to find a way to build over the tracks.

bangkok

pjohnson wrote: »

Jaysus

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/6033020/manchester-united-sergio-romero-dominos-pizza/

The Sun is actually writing an article about Romero going to Domino's. Clearly they had left the clickbait generator off.

And yet you shared the article... that clickbait is working for them alright

jayo26

bangkok wrote: »

And yet you shared the article... that clickbait is working for them alright

Jaysus you have often shared worse links to 90 minutes.

Will I Am Not

Hi you big shower of ****, I’m a new poster here and I’m better than all you dumbass f*cks....
Why won’t you like me

brinty

pjohnson wrote: »

Jaysus

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/6033020/manchester-united-sergio-romero-dominos-pizza/

The Sun is actually writing an article about Romero going to Domino's. Clearly they had left the clickbait generator off.

Agh FFS i'm not having that....
does the lad not know our official take away pizza supplier is Apache....
woody will be getting an earful about this from the chiefs at Apache...

brinty

jayo26 wrote: »

Jaysus you have often shared worse links to 90 minutes.

Links to cosmo don't count mate... unless he shared links to our ladies... but he knows better

Cookiemunster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Why would they though?

They wouldn't be able to use OT when doing it.
It would still be a new stadium.

May as well build in the land beside OT that they already own - so you are only a few hundred yards away. Could still play at OT while the new stadium is being built.

They could redevelop the OT site as hotel/apartment and making money back that way too.

What Spurs originally planned to do is what Bilbao did. Bilbao built 3/4 of their new stadium which matched the capacity of the old San Mames, while keeping the old stadium open. Then opened the partly finished stadium, demolished the old one and built the last stand on the site of the old ground. They didn't move anywhere while construction was ongoing and the site was much tighter than OT.



I'm pretty sure Benfica did similar when redeveloping the Estadio da Luz for Euro 2004.

Building next door in the parking lot is pretty much what a lot the NFL teams have done.

jayo26

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Hi you big shower of ****, I’m a new poster here and I’m better than all you dumbass f*cks....
Why won’t you like me

You not joining the clique get out

brinty

Cookiemunster wrote: »

What Spurs originally planned to do is what Bilbao did. Bilbao built 3/4 of their new stadium which matched the capacity of the old San Mames, while keeping the old stadium open. Then opened the partly finished stadium, demolished the old one and built the last stand on the site of the old ground. They didn't move anywhere while construction was ongoing and the site was much tighter than OT.



I'm pretty sure Benfica did similar when redeveloping the Estadio da Luz for Euro 2004.

Building next door in the parking lot is pretty much what a lot the NFL teams have done.

Yea if we rotate the stadium 90 degree's we could really build a huge stadium in the car park and it would also mean not having to cross over the tram line behind the bobby charlton/ K stand.

BTW a lot of NFL teams don't build on the existing site of their stadia.. the general rules is a team will demand a new stadium be built/upgraded for them. If not then teams will move to another part of the city who will build them what they want. For example the cowboys were based at the old cotton bowl, in 1970 they moved to Irving to a state of the art stadium.. in the early 00's it was showing its age and the city of Irving wouldn't upgrade the facility or build a new one. So the cowboys tender it to other parts of Dallas and Arlington agreed to what the cowboys wanted. They now have a new $1.5bn stadium the envy of the other NFL teams. In 25 years they'll be bypassed and demand another new stadium and if Arlington won't do it another city within the Dallas metroplex will..

Will I Am Not

jayo26 wrote: »

You not joining the clique get out

Let me in you ballbag!!!

Trigger

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Let me in you ballbag!!!

It’s a no Will club.

Mitch Connor

Cookiemunster wrote: »

What Spurs originally planned to do is what Bilbao did. Bilbao built 3/4 of their new stadium which matched the capacity of the old San Mames, while keeping the old stadium open. Then opened the partly finished stadium, demolished the old one and built the last stand on the site of the old ground. They didn't move anywhere while construction was ongoing and the site was much tighter than OT.

Part of the reason that was done though is that the space was tighter.

United don't have that problem. They own huge amounts of land around the stadium.

They could build a full new stadium beside OT, not having to close OT at any point or only partly open the new stadium while it is finished.

At the end of the day it is still a new stadium, so I don't understand why you would go to the hassle of building it partly where the old stadium was, when there is no space concern forcing you to.

jayo26

astradave wrote: »

It’s a no Will club.

Good job he is not a will

Will I Am Not

astradave wrote: »

It’s a no Will club.

So I’m in?

Mitch Connor

This is the land United owned back in 2011 or 2012. They bought a chunk more relatively recently I believe too.



PLENTY of room to build a new stadium right beside the existing one, without impacting the operations of the existing one til they day 'Chevrolet @ New OT'

I just don't see why you would go to the bother of trying to build over the current stadium.

Will I Am Not

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Hi you big shower of ****, I’m a new poster here and I’m better than all you dumbass f*cks....
Why won’t you like me

paulbok

Mitch Connor wrote: »

This is the land United owned back in 2011 or 2012. They bought a chunk more relatively recently I believe too.



PLENTY of room to build a new stadium right beside the existing one, without impacting the operations of the existing one til they day 'Chevrolet @ New OT'

I just don't see why you would go to the bother of trying to build over the current stadium.

Don't they own the strip of houses across the railway as well? Was talk in the papers a few months ago that new building techniques made spanning the railway for a new stand feasible.

Trigger

jayo26 wrote: »

Good job he is not a will

*Thatsthejoke.gif*

jayo26

astradave wrote: »

*Thatsthejoke.gif*

upload images free

Trigger

Mitch Connor wrote: »

This is the land United owned back in 2011 or 2012. They bought a chunk more relatively recently I believe too.



PLENTY of room to build a new stadium right beside the existing one, without impacting the operations of the existing one til they day 'Chevrolet @ New OT'

I just don't see why you would go to the bother of trying to build over the current stadium.

Especially when the stadium is in the smallest plot of land, could easily have a 100k+ stadium about 200 metres to the left there

Lord TSC

Oh wow, didn't realise United owned so much land round OT.

Trigger

Lord TSC wrote: »

Oh wow, didn't realise United owned so much land round OT.

That’s 2011 according to Mitch’s post and I’m certain they have bought up more since then.

brinty

astradave wrote: »

That’s 2011 according to Mitch’s post and I’m certain they have bought up more since then.

Think this is more up to date per RedCafe

Mitch Connor

Lord TSC wrote: »

Oh wow, didn't realise United owned so much land round OT.

Exactly - it is why I don't think a stadium move would not be a big deal.

Don't need to build over OT (so easier build/opening) and don't need to relocate to a different area of the region.

Cantona's Collars

jayo26 wrote: »

You not joining the clique get out

He was in the clique before we even had one.
Nobody puts Will I Amn't in the corner.

Cantona's Collars

paulbok wrote: »

Don't they own the strip of houses across the railway as well? Was talk in the papers a few months ago that new building techniques made spanning the railway for a new stand feasible.

At least they didn't do like Liverpool,buy a certain few houses and allow the place to go into dereliction making the place virtually uninhabitable for remaining residents and effectively forcing them to sell up and move. A cnuntish move on every level.

S.M.B.

We lost that tiny patch of land to the north east of OT sometime during the past few years? Devastating news!

yabadabado

Jaysus United could build about 4 stadiums on that plot of land. I presume the plan was/is exactly what Mitch has being saying. Build a new stadium right next door and continue to play at OT all though construction.

As much as OT is iconic and people love it, it needs work and the best option probably is a new stadium. I reckon more clubs would do the same if they had the land available to them. Renovation is a costly and very messy way to go unless it's necessary.

jayo26

yabadabado wrote: »

Jaysus United could build about 4 stadiums on that plot of land. I presume the plan was/is exactly what Mitch has being saying. Build a new stadium right next door and continue to play at OT all though construction.

As much as OT is iconic and people love it, it needs work and the best option probably is a new stadium. I reckon more clubs would do the same if they had the land available to them. Renovation is a costly and very messy way to go unless it's necessary.

Most of old Trafford isn't that old yes it needs work but it's not run down like some reports say.

Cantona's Collars

The S*n saying that United were scouting Alfie Mawson last week.

The Mirror claim Jose has told Woodward the names of the 3 players he wants to sign in the Summer.

yabadabado

jayo26 wrote: »

Most of old Trafford isn't that old yes it needs work but it's not run down like some reports say.

I agree it's not run down but do you keep renovating or go for a full new stadium. A new stadium with better facilities and increased capacity probably more profitable in the long run.

StringerBell

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

He was in the clique before we even had one.
Nobody puts Will I Amn't in the corner.

The clique has always been here, always will be here, guiding the threads every movement with a hidden hand.

#deepstate

Unicrons Dad

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Hi you big shower of ****, I’m a new poster here and I’m better than all you dumbass f*cks....
Why won’t you like me

Speaking of ****, I wonder how many you had today when you came back and saw all those likes for your post

pjohnson

Unicrons Dad wrote: »

Speaking of ****, I wonder how many you had today when you came back and saw all those likes for your post

You are a sociable chap anyway.

Trigger

Liam McPoyle

Unicrons Dad wrote: »

Speaking of ****, I wonder how many you had today when you came back and saw all those likes for your post

11 thanks is hardly worth a single hand shady tbh.

Sure I got more than that for a Tobias Funke gif.

And my pudding remained safely tucked up.

There is no clique in here. There are people that have been posting for a long time together so obviously there would be some "in" jokes and what not, that's the same on every forum on the net.

We may not always agree with eachother but for the most part it's fairly respectful. If your intentions are genuine then i believe you will see that and will fit in fine.

jayo26

Business Cat wrote: »

11 thanks is hardly worth a single hand shady tbh.

Sure I got more than that for a Tobias Funke gif.

And my pudding remained safely tucked up.

There is no clique in here. There are people that have been posting for a long time together so obviously there would be some "in" jokes and what not, that's the same on every forum on the net.

We may not always agree with eachother but for the most part it's fairly respectful. If your intentions are genuine then i believe you will see that and will fit in fine.

There is a clique it's just you haven't been told about it yet

Trigger

Business Cat wrote: »

11 thanks is hardly worth a single hand shady tbh.

Sure I got more than that for a Tobias Funke gif.

And my pudding remained safely tucked up.

There is no clique in here. There are people that have been posting for a long time together so obviously there would be some "in" jokes and what not, that's the same on every forum on the net.

We may not always agree with eachother but for the most part it's fairly respectful. If your intentions are genuine then i believe you will see that and will fit in fine.

I still remember when I got post of the day for some weird gif on here..

Oh how I yearn for the thanks..

Unicrons Dad

Business Cat wrote: »

11 thanks is hardly worth a single hand shady tbh.

Sure I got more than that for a Tobias Funke gif.

And my pudding remained safely tucked up.

There is no clique in here. There are people that have been posting for a long time together so obviously there would be some "in" jokes and what not, that's the same on every forum on the net.

We may not always agree with eachother but for the most part it's fairly respectful. If your intentions are genuine then i believe you will see that and will fit in fine.

Any movement yet?

Liam McPoyle

Unicrons Dad wrote: »

Any movement yet?

Right back at ya sailor!

Liam McPoyle

jayo26 wrote: »

There is a clique it's just you haven't been told about it yet

Btw, Business Cat don't need no cliques.

Business Cat IS the clique.

:cool:

jayo26

Business Cat wrote: »

Btw, Business Cat don't need no cliques.

Business Cat IS the clique.

:cool:

Bollox I had that line planned all day haha

Trigger

Business Cat wrote: »

Btw, Business Cat don't need no cliques.

Business Cat IS the clique.

:cool:

I can’t wait till tomorrow, any spoilers?