Since February, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been the minority shareholder of Manchester United; however, he and his INEOS associates have been eager to transform the club.
They have appointed a new CEO, technical director, and sporting director and redone the training ground.
However, the most radical and significant stage is imminent: the final demolition of Old Trafford and the construction of a new stadium with a capacity of 100,000.
The club's historic headquarters will be demolished, and witnessing such a bold move that defies tradition will be heartbreaking.
The expenditure to the club will be approximately £2 billion ($2.5 billion). It is the correct course of action, however, and it is imperative that United advance into the future rather than remain rooted in the past, relying on its past successes and trafficking in nostalgia.
Ratcliffe and the club should be financing the endeavor, not the British taxpayer, regardless of its ambitious nature.
Ratcliffe has spoken frequently about the necessity of redeveloping Old Trafford, and a task force was established to ascertain the optimal course of action less than one month after he officially acquired a 27 percent stake in the club.
The optimal course of action, as determined by the group, chaired by Sebastian Coe, the organizer of the London 2012 Olympics, and includes Gary Neville and Andy Burnham, Manchester's mayor, is constructing a new stadium. This is due to numerous valid reasons.
At present, Old Trafford is, at best, a large but dilapidated stadium that is vastly inferior to the contemporary arenas of its competitors Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool, and Tottenham.
This is in addition to the futuristic Santiago Bernabeu, Bayern Munich's Allianz Arena, and the proposed new Camp Nou.
The scoreboards are small and cannot be seen from a significant portion of the ground. Additionally, there are no large displays, and acoustic issues persist.
The narrow concourses result in lengthy lines before kickoff and during halftime, and the selection of food and beverages is severely restricted.
Each mouthful of pie poses a risk of burning the mouth, and the club's food hygiene is rated one star out of five because guests were served raw chicken at an event last year.
Assuming the worst, it is a stadium that is no longer functional. There are significant issues with overcrowding before and after matches, frequently resulting in supporters feeling unsafe due to the sheer number of pillars.
After settling into their seats, there is minimal legroom, which results in individuals of average height scraping their knees against the back of the seat in front of them.
The infamous leaky roof also resulted in the dressing room being inundated, leaving supporters completely drenched during the game against Arsenal last season.
Last season, the chant "Old Trafford is falling down" was heard at nearly every match, and away supporters from Manchester City to Bournemouth delighted in the stories about the stadium's decline.
The stadium necessitates minimal reconstruction, which would incur an estimated cost of £1.1bn ($1.4bn), nearly half the cost of constructing a new stadium.
Building around an extant railway line is one of the numerous logistical challenges that that option presents.
Certain sections of Old Trafford have remained unchanged since the stadium's construction in 1909 and even endured bombings during the Second World War.
In addition, stadium insiders think that numerous materials on the ground are approaching their limitations.
"The building is approaching the end of its natural lifespan; the cabling and electricity supplies are almost at their sell-by dates." Chris Lee, the chief executive of the architectural firm Populous, which
United has engaged to supervise the stadium project and disclosed to The Telegraph last year that the interiors are exceedingly confined and challenging in certain areas. "Updating is essential to preserve the club's status and ensure the facility remains operational."
.webp)
Additionally, the stadium's capacity would be significantly diminished during the construction process, resulting in the club losing revenue on matchdays and depriving many supporters of the opportunity to see the team for an extended period.
The construction of the new stadium adjacent to Old Trafford on land that the club already possesses would enable United to continue playing in front of 73,000 supporters at each game until the new stadium is erected.
There will be no constraints on the sort of structure that the club can construct with a new stadium, and there is potential to expand its size.
A new stadium could accommodate up to 100,000 spectators, while the utmost capacity of a redeveloped Old Trafford would be 90,000. This is precisely what is required to satisfy the current demand for tickets.
Compared to any other football team globally, United has a membership base of over 330,000 paid-up members. Additionally, more than 120,000 individuals are waiting for season tickets.
Manchester City has revitalized the city's eastern region, and the potential to redevelop the local area of Trafford is the ultimate justification for constructing a new stadium. And this is the point at which it is imperative to establish unambiguous boundaries.
United is seeking to establish a public-private partnership with the local council and the British government to reduce the financial burden of the new project by utilizing taxpayer funds. This can't occur.
This endeavor has been the subject of Ratcliffe's efforts to garner political backing. According to the Athletic, Sir Keir Starmer, the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was amenable to discussions with Ratcliffe regarding the establishment of a public-private partnership with United about the new stadium during his visit to Old Trafford in May for the Arsenal game.
Additionally, Ratcliffe has been advocating for government assistance through the media, expressing his aspiration for Old Trafford to become the "Wembley of the North."
"There's a very good case, in my view, for having a stadium of the North, which would serve the northern part of the country in that football arena," he stated to Sky News in May. North West has achieved ten Champions League titles. London has achieved two victories.
"However, it is necessary for all attendees from the North to travel to London to witness a significant football match." There should be one in the North as well.
While Wembley received public funding during its redevelopment in the 2000s, there is no justification for United to receive public funding for a comparable project in the north.
Since English football already has a home, it is unnecessary to construct an additional one at public expense. Moreover, even if there is a persuasive argument for the existence of a northern football home, why should United be the one to capitalize on it?
0 Comments