Andy Burnham | Manchester Mayor

Citi-leaks said:
Well that image tells you all you need to know about this deal. Everything inside the red line is owned by Glazers/Ineos. And everything inside the yellow line is owned by Freightliner. In the regeneration proposals, both plots of land are completely redeveloped into new homes. Literally all of the current car parking space has gone.

If the government purchase that land off Freightliner, they will make their money back from the developers who want to build apartments on it. Although, Freightliner might just sell the land off privately for a tidy profit themselves. Which is more likely.

And, if the Glazers/Ineos sell all of this land to developers, they will also make a serious amount of cash. It's at least 100 acres, with planning permission already agreed. And the transport network signed off by the chancellor. It could even possibly fund the new stadium. Put it this way, they aint giving all of that away for free.


View attachment 149904
Click to expand...
The Glazers might make more money just winding up the club and selling off the land for housing. Or move the club to Milton Keynes.
 
Citi-leaks said:
"We're not building a generic stadium."

*points at lego model of Wembley with an umbrella over it*
Click to expand...
Would the circus tent be made of the same material that got ripped off the millennium dome in high winds two years ago?
 
jrb said:
The Glazer's are skint.
Scruffy Jim is skint.
Neville is skint.
United is skint.
The Government is skint.
And they want the tax payer to pay £200mil-£300mill to move freight terminal trains to St Helen's.
And then use more tax payers money to buy the Trafford freight terminal land, remediate it, and prepare it for the stadium construction.
Click to expand...
But, but, but think of the Wembley of the North!!
 
Citi-leaks said:
Well that image tells you all you need to know about this deal. Everything inside the red line is owned by Glazers/Ineos. And everything inside the yellow line is owned by Freightliner. In the regeneration proposals, both plots of land are completely redeveloped into new homes. Literally all of the current car parking space has gone.

If the government purchase that land off Freightliner, they will make their money back from the developers who want to build apartments on it. Although, Freightliner might just sell the land off privately for a tidy profit themselves. Which is more likely.

And, if the Glazers/Ineos sell all of this land to developers, they will also make a serious amount of cash. It's at least 100 acres, with planning permission already agreed. And the transport network signed off by the chancellor. It could even possibly fund the new stadium. Put it this way, they aint giving all of that away for free.


View attachment 149904
Click to expand...
Your lines suggest the rags own a fair chunk of the freight terminal. Wasn't aware of that.
 
All the residential towers in the city centre over a certain height have red warning lights on the top of them.

 
Citi-leaks said:
Reading through many of the comments on here, it seems that people are getting confused with the redevelopment of Old Trafford the area, and Old Trafford the stadium.

The government are not putting a penny into the building of a new stadium. They are putting in the transport infrastructure to serve 4000 new homes.

Freightliner, the owners of the freight terminal, have been in negotiations to move to a purpose built terminal in St Helens since 2022. With the backing of Manchester and Liverpool City Councils.

The proposed move, which has been confirmed by Freightliner, could offer significant benefits to the modern rail freight and logistics sectors. Not least, the new site, at Parkside East, would, at a stroke, radically reduce the pressure on key infrastructure in Manchester.

It may well relieve the chronic congestion in the notorious ‘Castlefield Corridor’, a two-track section through a heavily urbanised part of central Manchester. The tracks are frequently overloaded with a mixture of freight and passenger traffic.

Purpose built and freeport location​

Speaking to a regional media source, Freightliner confirmed that it had taken an interest in land at Parkside East, with a view to establishing new intermodal facilities there. Freightliner, one of the UK’s largest rail freight operators, is reportedly operating its Old Trafford base at full capacity, moving up to twenty trains a day.

The new site at Parkside East would allow Freightliner to handle many more services. The site’s strategic location, nearby the expanding Liverpool docks, and within a designated freeport, makes the transfer an attractive proposition. Negations could well be centred on the ‘transfer fee’ paid by the football club.

For the logistics sector, the potential relocation offers improved efficiency in goods movement. Parkside East, where Freightliner reportedly is planning over 230,000 square metres of rail terminal space, is well-placed to accommodate future growth in freight volumes, for both domestic and international trade.

The relocation would also open up capacity on the Liverpool-Manchester rail line, currently constrained by freight traffic, allowing for expanded passenger services and easing congestion through Warrington, a choke point on the West Coast Main Line, Europe’s busiest mixed traffic railway.
Click to expand...
You sound like a rag spokesperson

4 trains a day between 7:00 and 19:00 the rest are outside of these times
 
Citi-leaks said:
Not necessarily championing all of it, but as I work in the property industry, I can see a lot of money flowing out to lots of folk. The wider Trafford re-generation is building 17,000 new homes and that will keep a lot of trades people busy for the next decade. This is good for the area.

It is pretty much unheard of that the government announce the largest re-development project in Europe, right on our doorstep. Yes, it involves them getting a new ground out of it, but these things literally never happen in my lifetime. Unless you live in London. It's basically going to be a new city, bolted on to Manchester.

It is obvious to me that the government are using the stadium to sell it to the masses, and that will inevitably stick in the throat of rival fans, but there is also a hell of a lot of good stuff being pushed through, when you turn over the next page and read about it.

From the plans that I have seen, they only need a corner of the freight terminal land for the stadium, and TFGM want to convert the terminal into a new passenger train station on the Warrington - Manchester line.

View attachment 149894
Click to expand...
There is no shortage of work in construction more shortage of labour

A “new City” 17k homes is not a City more a village
It’s not bolted on to Manchester” it’s Trafford

“Largest redevelopment project in Europe” your reading the propaganda

It’s obvious to me that Burnham is selling the move of the freight terminal to the masses to help the rags get a new stadium they can’t afford

The pans you have seen them please share them
 
Last edited:
Citi-leaks said:
Well that image tells you all you need to know about this deal. Everything inside the red line is owned by Glazers/Ineos. And everything inside the yellow line is owned by Freightliner. In the regeneration proposals, both plots of land are completely redeveloped into new homes. Literally all of the current car parking space has gone.

If the government purchase that land off Freightliner, they will make their money back from the developers who want to build apartments on it. Although, Freightliner might just sell the land off privately for a tidy profit themselves. Which is more likely.

And, if the Glazers/Ineos sell all of this land to developers, they will also make a serious amount of cash. It's at least 100 acres, with planning permission already agreed. And the transport network signed off by the chancellor. It could even possibly fund the new stadium. Put it this way, they aint giving all of that away for free.


View attachment 149904
Click to expand...
If it’s to raise the money you suggest then it would be £135,294 on each home assuming 17k homes You are Brent Di Cesare -and I claim my prize
 
United only need a corner of the freight terminal land if United agree to demolish Old Trafford first and play elsewhere whilst a new stadium is built on the current Old Trafford stadium land. United and won't do that.They want all the freight terminal land for their plans.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
This is the fundamental question for me. Can they only build this new stadium if the Freightliner terminal is moved or do they already own the land they're planning to build on?

I get the impression that the move of the terminal is a necessary precursor for the stadium build. If that's the case then the £300m is clearly a contribution to the construction of a new stadium, however it's dressed up. If it's so important to move the terminal for reasons not associated with a new stadium then why wasn't it done years ago?
Click to expand...
They need the freight terminal land so NOT can be built then OT knocked down later Burnham is claim the move of the terminal is essential to fee up space on the rail network at Piccadilly station though lines but as I, and others, have posted this amounts to 3 trains day each way between 7:00 and 19:00
CitiLeaks the rag spokesman says otherwise
 
jrb said:
It's also worth noting that City themselves did not pay for the initial build, only the conversion to a football ground - and United won't get public money to build their new home, it seems, whereas City inherited a stadium that was already built for another purpose.

But City have not stood still, either. They renegotiated the terms of their lease of the stadium, paying an annual rent to Manchester Council, and added around 9,000 seats to the South Stand in 2014. An extra 6,000 seats to the opposite end is under construction and planned to open in 2026 at a cost of £300m.

Those plans include a huge hotel, fan zone, club shop, museum and hospitality areas, with the club calling the stadium and surrounding areas the 'entertainment district'. That is because the Co-op Live arena opened last year at a cost of over £400m (£100m more than initial plans), with City owners the City Football Group co-owners of that project.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Man City's own £1bn stadium is Man Utd blueprint for Old Trafford masterplan

United this week unveiled eye-catching plans for a new £2bn stadium next to Old Trafford, and can look across town to City for what can be achieved.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Click to expand...
City paid for the fitting out of the CoMS not converting it was always designed to be a football stadium not “inherited a stadium for different use, City made that a fundamental part of the deal Aarup created a brilliant plan to part finish for games use then continue the build post the games, as you know
 
jrb said:
All the residential towers in the city centre over a certain height have red warning lights on the top of them.

Click to expand...

Nonsense as long as there are warning lights on top of the spikes then there won’t be a problem no aircraft on route to or from MAP fly anywhere near that low, the warning light are for aircraft flying in the uncontrolled zone under visual flight rules mainly helicopters

Obstacles not in the vicinity of aerodromes​

  • For obstacles that are not in the vicinity of a licensed aerodrome, Article 222 of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016 (as amended) requires that lighting only becomes legally mandated for structures of a height of 150 metres (m) / 492.1 feet (ft) Above Ground Level or more. This legislation requires that:
    • Medium intensity (typically 2000 candela), steady (as opposed to flashing) red lights be mounted as close as possible to the top of the structure and at intermediate levels spaced so far as practicable equally between the top lights and ground level at intervals not exceeding 52 m.
    • The lighting must be displayed at night and arranged so as to be visible from all directions.
  • The above legislation includes provision for the CAA to specify additional lights for particular structures and issue permissions for variance from the requirements in certain cases.
 
Gordyola said:
Nonsense as long as there are warning lights on top of the spikes then there won’t be a problem no aircraft on route to or from MAP fly anywhere near that low, the warning light are for aircraft flying in the uncontrolled zone under visual flight rules mainly helicopters

Obstacles not in the vicinity of aerodromes​

  • For obstacles that are not in the vicinity of a licensed aerodrome, Article 222 of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016 (as amended) requires that lighting only becomes legally mandated for structures of a height of 150 metres (m) / 492.1 feet (ft) Above Ground Level or more. This legislation requires that:
    • Medium intensity (typically 2000 candela), steady (as opposed to flashing) red lights be mounted as close as possible to the top of the structure and at intermediate levels spaced so far as practicable equally between the top lights and ground level at intervals not exceeding 52 m.
    • The lighting must be displayed at night and arranged so as to be visible from all directions.
  • The above legislation includes provision for the CAA to specify additional lights for particular structures and issue permissions for variance from the requirements in certain cases.
Click to expand...
No there won't be a problem.

I don't see any red aircraft warning lights on the 3 poles in the night CGI, just 3 pole points.

Norman Foster would have known about that. He and United didn't include that in the PR CGI presentation.

IMG_1334.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Gordyola said:
They need the freight terminal land so NOT can be built then OT knocked down later Burnham is claim the move of the terminal is essential to fee up space on the rail network at Piccadilly station though lines but as I, and others, have posted this amounts to 3 trains day each way between 7:00 and 19:00
CitiLeaks the rag spokesman says otherwise
Click to expand...
The point is that they need the freight terminal land. As long as United pay top dollar for it and pay for their giant tent then there is no issue. I suspect that a deal gets done that they get it for f.uck all. Needs a close watch on it.
 
The sea pig

main-qimg-904b7ed7f0f06bfa13695e0d50ec8edd.webp
 
Gordyola said:
They need the freight terminal land so NOT can be built then OT knocked down later Burnham is claim the move of the terminal is essential to fee up space on the rail network at Piccadilly station though lines but as I, and others, have posted this amounts to 3 trains day each way between 7:00 and 19:00
CitiLeaks the rag spokesman says otherwise
Click to expand...
I read it in this article

And the proposed freight terminal land was purchased in 2023. Which pre-dates INEOS
 
Dannyblue52 said:
The point is that they need the freight terminal land. As long as United pay top dollar for it and pay for their giant tent then there is no issue. I suspect that a deal gets done that they get it for f.uck all. Needs a close watch on it.
Click to expand...
100%.

If the rags buy and pay full, unsubsidised, market value for any acquisition, AND contribute to infrastructure assets, 106 agreements, profit shares ,'overages' etc.....AND pay for the entire stadium construction so be it.

Full public accountability & transparency....NO obfuscation.

The stadium construction is estimated to take FIVE YEARS from from first spade in the ground to completion & cost £2 BILLION £2.

£2 BILLION will be closer to £3 BILLION......and if it EVER happens most on here will be very oyld men !!

A stunt by a **** !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top