think that’s harsh
It would cost vastly more than building a new stadium. The roof would have to be replaced completely. I am not sure if that can be accomplished given the fact that the roof is cable stayed.No need for a new stadium. Expand the footprint of the present one and incorporate fanzone, new concourses and facilities and a new roof (retractable). I’m no expert but I guess it’s doable and for less cost than a new stadium. Also needs better transport links to expanded Campus.
Did you not read his entire post? He does answer that question.Who could we get as tenants for the old stadium as it would be if we built a second stadium ?
Rochdale ? Oldham ? Bury ? Sale ? Salford ? A basket ball team ? American Football ?
One of the original ideas mooted was to mirror the South stand at the North end with the cable running under the lip of the roof. The East & West stands could then be extended back by a few rows (possibly a new narrow tier from memory) and the roof replaced, removing the cable stays entirely. Possibly this was all intended to be done at the same time as the North stand.It would cost vastly more than building a new stadium. The roof would have to be replaced completely. I am not sure if that can be accomplished given the fact that the roof is cable stayed.
It would take the best part of a year to complete such changes. Where the hell would the club play in the meantime? Old Trafford? Wembley? Both Arsenal and Spurs has to use Wembley although only for Champions League matches for the former.
Two options apart from a new Stadium remain:
1. Go for small incremental changes to the existing stadium such as adding a new third tier in the North Stand as the first step. But no nonsense about creating a single tier in the North as that would require closure for a long time.
2. Do nothing and control demand by raising prices. That is what Chelsea have been doing for the past 20 years plus.
The number of daft proposals that have appeared on here never cease to amaze me.
Well our owners paid to get the fans to turn up in the CL final but unfortunately the team didn't.we could do that anyway but other team you'd guarantee would cry foul
Plans have already been drawn up several years back for the Etihad to be upgraded. 1. Extended South Stand. 2. Extended North Stand. 3. Remove the Cornets of both the South and North Stand (Both designed to be removed) and create extra seating in all four corners and replace roof and flow in line to both East and Wes Stand 4. Raise both the the East and West Stand by increasing both with additional 3000 seats. 5. Replace and fit complete new roof. 6. Replace and redesign the cladding on the outside of stadium to create more concourse space. The plans were posted on this link with time scale of about 10/15 years .Think capacity was around 72k when completed. You can take time scale as an estimate depending on continued success and extra demand. Covid will have had a minor effect as well but as far as I'm aware the idea will be to start the North Stand once the Co-op arena is finished due to the extra requirements of removing both the City Store and City Sq for the redevelopment.One of the original ideas mooted was to mirror the South stand at the North end with the cable running under the lip of the roof. The East & West stands could then be extended back by a few rows (possibly a new narrow tier from memory) and the roof replaced, removing the cable stays entirely. Possibly this was all intended to be done at the same time as the North stand.
Agreed that it sounds horribly expensive & complicated.
I can only see two options at the moment myself, expand the North stand as a mirror of the South stand or build a brand new stadium on the North carpark and demolish the Etihad and use the land for hotels or whatever.
It's a question of whether our owners thought spending money on a new stadium would provide a return on the investment required to make it happen (as, say, Everton's owners do). If they did, I think the financing could and would be arranged in such a way that it doesn't become a millstone for the club.
Reliable sources in and around the club did say back in 2009 that ADUG's original inclination was to build a new stadium after the takeover and they looked at various sites in the vicinity of the current stadium. The eventual tentative plan was for a venue with a capacity in the range of 75K to 80K to be built on the north carpark.
As noted above, it fell through because Sport England wouldn't sanction the demolition of a stadium that had been so recently built. When we moved to CoMS (as it then was), David Bernstein said that the lease does contain an option for City to buy the stadium. In the meantime, the Council receives the rent we pay and uses that money to pay for the upkeep of the other facilities at Sportcity, such as the tennis centre, the Regional Athletics Arena, and so on.
If we bought the stadium with a view to building a new one, the money would go to Sport England. Had that happened already, the Council might well at some point have had to close the other adjacent venues, as happened a while back in Sheffield with their stadium and aquatics centre from the 1991 World Student Games. There'd also have been some more general reputational damage, which I'm sure they were wary of back in Abu Dhabi, given the stick we'd have probably got for knocking down such a new area built with public money.
The passage of time does IMO potentially mitigate these issues to a significant degree. First, the takeover happened only six years after the stadium opened for the Commonwealth Games, whereas by the end of next season it will be 20 years since that first event. That's a substantial difference in terms of the benefit the public have had from Sport England's initial investment in the stadium, so that body's view of things might be different now. So might the wider public's, while the media hostility we've attracted right until the present might also mean the club is less bothered about the PR aspect anyway.
Moreover, City and the Council now have a joint venture company that owns and will develop land around the stadium, which wasn't the case back in 2008. If a deal is done so that the ownership of the land where the stadium currently is passes to the JV development company with a view to being redeveloped for commercial purposes, it could be possible to structure a deal whereby the Council doesn't lose out financially.
I suppose there's also a possibility that we could even build a new stadium and sublet the existing one. The only viable tenant I could see is Sale Sharks, supplemented by whatever representative rugby and football matches it can still attract plus concerts. I don't see this as likely as it's too big for Sale and you wouldn't want a competitor next door to the new venue bidding for similar other events. I also think there would be a better return from building new commercial facilities where the stadium currently is. Still, I suppose you never know.
Frankly, I doubt that a new stadium will happen and am in the 'believe it when I see it' camp whenever these rumblings start. But even though I do love the Etihad, I've always wished we could play in a new facility built by ADUG, because I reckon they'd make it special. While bored during my working day, I'll try to devise reasons to just about keep the small sliver of hope alive in my own mind.
I dont think they will ever do it. Cost would be astronomical and by the time they did it the stadium would be 30/40 years old. Would hopefully make more sense to build a new one.I think they’ll do the North Stand in the 2020’s but it will be a very long time before they do the sides. They’ll hopefully give the stadium a refreshed exterior after the North Stand is done. Based on comments on here though it sounds like the east and west roofs might need redoing as well before too long.