This thread has turned into living proof that you can't please all the people, all the time. Over the past 8/9 years, the Sheik has changed most of our lives and improved that pocket of Manchester immeasurably - yet we still have people whinging that our 55k seater stadium isn't as good as something that hasn't even been built yet!! YCNMIU.
Things to consider when discussing stadiums:
- Anything brand new will be referred to as being 'soulless'.
- Anything symmetrical will be seen as lacking 'character'.
- Are state if the art facilities worth paying premium prices?
- Older stadiums usually have terrible facilities in comparison (seat room, toilets, concourse space).
- They usually aren't symmetrical which makes them less appealing on the eyes.
- Transport can be poor if the stadium is expanded (because the infrastructure wasn't built to accommodate the extra 20k people).
If you asked everyone to mention what makes a good stadium, you'd get answers along the following lines:
Atmosphere,
History,
Aesthetics and look,
Transport,
Facilities,
Area around the ground.
Some people prefer tiered stands (Bernie), others would like giant stands (Dortmund). Some people would go for the history and what they've grown up watching on tele (Anfield) and others would like something that's more personal to themselves (Maine road).
The club will never please everyone, so they need to set clear objectives of what they want to do, if it's creating a better atmosphere, then they need to study what improves it and so on.