Would it be missed?

Fbloke's ears will be burning...

-- Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:30 pm --



I'll cross 'em, you nod em in.

thanks pal, will give it a go.

Maybe I didn't make it clear in my post, but it is relevant because those who were responsible at MCC at the time (and we're talking about late 90s, shortly before City signed the deal) were adamant that it was the same plan by that time but a larger scale (to hold 80k), not an entirely different design. There was an earlier design, but by 98-99 they claimed it was the same.

My point really is one that I think we agree on, and that is that the stadium eventually built was built as a near 50k stadium when complete, not a near 50k stadium that could be enlarged.

Whatever the facts about the stadium planned in 1998-99 before City signed the deal, the truth now is that the stadium became a fixed build that could only be enlarged in the same manner as traditional stadia like OT - i.e. major construction work. This is different to a stadium like Southampton's St Mary's that was built as it is today but with plans for capacity increase to 50k if the club wants to extend. Southampton's plans were, like the plans for the Commonwealth Games stadium becoming a football ground, there from the start.

As I said, I'd go for a new stadium built for 60k now with plans in place to extend to around 80k. I'd build it on North Car Park, and I'd start now.

How can it be economically viable to build a brand new stadium just to obtain an extra 12,000 seats? Or an extra 32,000 seats for which there is no proven demand?

Arsenal and others, including NUFC & MUFC, have seen what ambition can do. LFC, Spurs and even Southampton (with their longer term plans) have aims to increase capacity by significant amounts.

When City moved from Maine Road a lot of fans were disappointed that the new stadium capacity was less than 50k and many believed that 60k should have been built then.

In 1923 City moved to a 80k plus stadium and showed ambition that made City a giant. They could have sat back and said "Well we average around 30k now and have a stadium that at a push holds 40k but perhaps this is our limit? We only averaged 31k when we came second the other year, so where's the demand?" Within a year the Club broke Manchester's attendance record and the following decade set national records for support (in the depression).

Prior to capacity restrictions and increases elsewhere in the last decade or so, City's average support has been bigger over the last 4 decades (and more) than Arsenal, Newcastle, and majority of other clubs.

If a new stadium was designed in the right way it would also bring significantly new opportunities to raise income via hospitality, conferences and so on. So much has changed for City in the last decade that I believe a significant increase in capacity is the right way forward to ensure we can all get to games - how many of us will be priced out if the stadium capacity means sell outs every week, year after year?

How City achieve a greater capacity is clearly something the club is looking at/has looked at. It's the right way forward, but whether that's a new stadium (unlikely) or increase in Etihad who knows? I'm sure they'll work out the best solution.

Build it, they will come.

I think we'd all go for a new stadium if we had the option and like Gary say 60K with plans to extend to 80K would be ideal

from info PB posted probably well over a year back we can assume that several options have been looked at expansion, new build on north car park and a super big new build on what is now the training complex site.

given all the training facilities have been approved and will be going up in the next couple of years the 100K stadium isn't going to happen and for various reason including the deal associated with the council in terms of fixed payments and a 250 year lease indicate that we'll be getting an extension NOT a new build.

The questions I have is now much land do we now own and were is it in relation to the stadium?

If we did decided to build new I'm sure there would some amazing plans to convert COMS in to part of the all year round leisure destination but one thing is sure it would have pay it's own rent to the council and then some. It would also have to be something that would convince the council and any other key stakeholder to let us do it

Massive Aquarium + Sale Sharks?

I dont see us building a new stadium, though some of us dream of it the stadium is on the prime site and I believe it will stay there. There is always a way, it may cost a lot of money but there are ways and means of getting things done.

The roof for example could be altered by adding new supports around the ground and eventually the old ones could be removed, thus seperating the 'ring' that currently holds it all together into seperate pieces. The only problem is way may have reduced capacity for a season while work is done, but if we add a new tier to one end you should still be able to have at least the lower tier open.

The other point is atmosphere, we've just about got the atmosphere going at the Etihad, its taken us a long time to get back anywhere near to the old Maine Road atmosphere. Do we really want to go through that again?