City to expand Etihad to 62,000?

[Prestwich_Blue]

Disappointed we're just doing the South Stand.

Wouldn't be the same if you weren't disapponted about something Marvin. ;-)

As others have said, it's more than possible that they will keep the plant ans machinery on for the North Stand extension if they fill the South Stand easily enough.

I still believe that they will fill the extra 6,000 seats very easily, as there is the waiting list, plus people will move from L2 in the Colin Bell and East Stands. The seats they will be the harder sell are the ones that are left by that latter group, which will be aimed at the premium end of the market.

 

[BlueAnorak]

I quote a City of Manchester councillor who works for the same company that I do: "For all the money that Manchester City are putting into East Manchester they can do what the hell they like." This guy is a Utd fan too. Bottom line is this - if City want to do something the council will get them the land (and by implication this applies even if the seller doesn't want to sell)!

 

[Ducado]

I quote a City of Manchester councillor who works for the same company that I do: "For all the money that Manchester City are putting into East Manchester they can do what the hell they like." This guy is a Utd fan too. Bottom line is this - if City want to do something the council will get them the land (and by implication this applies even if the seller doesn't want to sell)!

It's common sense really, whatever the national critics say, City are good for the local economy and the national economy, it's all good!

 

[CatMan]

The North Stand will have to follow immediately after the south as I suspect at least half those on the Seasoncard waiting list have asked for a seat within the £299-£449 bracket.

Now considering there will only be around 1250 (check the diagrams released if you disagree) tickets in that price band within the new South Stand ( Remember the £299 seats were those at the back third of the 2 outer blocks on each side, of which just over 1 block is away fans) where will City be able to offer these new fans seats?

Yes they could put them in other seats around the stadium in Levels 1&3, however this would only be for 1 season maximum as their following years renewal would then be at the normal price for where they are sat! In that case you could find someone sold the concept of £299 Seasoncards being asked to shell out £650-700 for the following seasons. Simply put, this just wouldn't work and those folk would do 1 season and then bugger off.

With that in mind, the only solution is to ensure that for the 16-17 season the North Stand is complete so that those £299 Seasoncards can be honoured long term for those who have agreed to buy them.

I am sure City realise this and believe this is the way forward. In short, anyone on the waiting list will be offered a cheap seat (if they requested) it for the 15-16 season (almost like the value gold, which will surely disappear) and then for the following year both ends will be complete.

 

[cleavers]

Disappointed we're just doing the South Stand.

Did you really think they would have 2 massive building sites going on at the same time ? Buggering about with access at both ends of the stadium ? That was never going to happen. The disruption would have been enormous, probably restricting access into the stadium at both ends.

They have planning permission for both ends, so they'll build both, get the south stand cleared up, then build the north stand as soon as they have finished. Planning permission will have time constraints, so if they leave it a long time they would probably have to re-apply.

Have a bit of patience.

 

[cibaman]

Disappointed we're just doing the South Stand.

Did you really think they would have 2 massive building sites going on at the same time ? Buggering about with access at both ends of the stadium ? That was never going to happen. The disruption would have been enormous, probably restricting access into the stadium at both ends.

They have planning permission for both ends, so they'll build both, get the south stand cleared up, then build the north stand as soon as they have finished. Planning permission will have time constraints, so if they leave it a long time they would probably have to re-apply.

Have a bit of patience.

I read that the planning permission lasts for 3 years. not sure if the North Stand would have to be completed by then or just started.

I suppose one issue is whether they would develop the South Stand exactly the same if they weren't developing the North Stand as they would if both ends were to be redeveloped. Does it affect decisions on the location of away fans, family stand, singing section etc?

 

[blueparrot]

Disappointed we're just doing the South Stand.

Did you really think they would have 2 massive building sites going on at the same time ? Buggering about with access at both ends of the stadium ? That was never going to happen. The disruption would have been enormous, probably restricting access into the stadium at both ends.

They have planning permission for both ends, so they'll build both, get the south stand cleared up, then build the north stand as soon as they have finished. Planning permission will have time constraints, so if they leave it a long time they would probably have to re-apply.

Have a bit of patience.

Put like that makes perfect sense, but to be fair it was the club that put the posiblity to doing both together in our heads.

 

[cleavers]

I read that the planning permission lasts for 3 years. not sure if the North Stand would have to be completed by then or just started.

I suppose one issue is whether they would develop the South Stand exactly the same if they weren't developing the North Stand as they would if both ends were to be redeveloped. Does it affect decisions on the location of away fans, family stand, singing section etc?

I would imagine it would be work started, I'm sure they know what they're doing, and its why I'm sure they never intended to have these two building projects running at the same time, because the disruption would be far too much, they also need to plan what's going to happen to the shop, and City square, because some things will have to move. I can't see why it would effect the location of away fans or anything else either.

 

[Vic]

Doing both ends at once was never a viable option imho, it would create no go areas around the stadium that were too large, and would cause too much disruption/congestion. So north was always going to be second, as there is other infrastructure that needs moving/removing. They'll do north as soon as south is finished I expect. Planning permission usually has time constraints, which if left too long would need to be re-applied for.

Only time constraint is to make a start within three years.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure if extending the planning permission, as required, will present too much of a problem tbh.