Etihad Stadium increase??

[Metal Biker]

They will expand the stadium eventually IMO as demand requires.

It's important to remember the stadium was not designed with expansion in mind. It was never considered we would need a bigger stadium or to be able to afford to expand it. Due to the design of the stadium and the roof in particular it's not going to be cheap to expand capacity.

Considering the revenue extra seats would generate and the relative cost of extending the stadium the financials are shaky. but it's obviously not about profit and return on investment for city. We wouldn't be spending 100 million plus on a training complex if it was.

I have a feeling if they do expand the stadium they will want more than 60, 000 seats. That's not much of an uplift in capacity or enough for us to compete with the biggest European sides.

I thought that it was designed so that it could be increased to 85,000 as a temptation to United to accept tenancy after the Games finished but they refused to leave the Swamp.

This is something i read once, so not sure how true it is, but i think it was a piece by Gary James.

 

[RandomJ]

We'll never fill 60k a week, sorry we just won't so pointless to extend.

 

[scowy68]

The only way we'd ever need an increase of capacity to 60 000,is probably after a sustained period of success,like 10-15 years.That's when the day trippers,tourists,and glory hunters would make up the numbers.

I think our owners will be more concerned with expanding the club in other area's over the next few years.

 

[Project]

Why not include the first few home Carling Cup games (up to say, the quarter finals) on the season ticket? You could increase the season ticket price by £30-50 and wouldn't really lose much money.

As for expansion, we should take it one step at a time, if logistically possible. First increase the South Stand with an extra tier to take us to 51,000 or so. Then in another years time if we are still selling out do the North to take us to 55,000. No real need to jump immediately to 60,000 if we aren't yet big enough for it.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Not really followed the "Vegas" thread for a while however imo the stadium expansion will tie in with whatever is built with regards the 365 days a year tourist attraction.

Once we have huge numbers of people coming to our site regardless of the football then these will be the daytrippers that will justify having an increased capacity.

When the attraction is announced and an opening date is set then I am sure the stadium expansion will tie in quite nicely.

 

[blueinsa]

Ticket office struggles to sell the tickets we have now in a competent way.....god help us all if they ever have to shift more ;-).

On a serious note and as a few have already said, we are years away from a decision to increase or even build afresh imo.

The owners will want to see the sold out signs up on a consistent basis for a good few years before going through with expansion plans.

 

[Gary James]

I thought that it was designed so that it could be increased to 85,000 as a temptation to United to accept tenancy after the Games finished but they refused to leave the Swamp.

This is something i read once, so not sure how true it is, but i think it was a piece by Gary James.

Not quite... the story about Utd being offered (and encouraged to move to) the stadium is true. This was before the plans were finalised though, so the 80k capacity offered to them was scaled down.

The story was referred to by Simon Mullock in the Mirror (link) and after a thread was created by someone else I explained with the comment below. Hope this helps.

On a personal level my view is expand the stadium now (don't wait... if we wait ticket prices will have to go up as demand increases and some of us won't be able to afford to buy our tickets). With our current capacity we will be priced out if capacity does not increase.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Manchester-United-planned-a-shock-switch-from-Old-Trafford-to-Eastlands-now-occupied-by-rivals-City-article644147.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Ma ... 44147.html</a>

I got a message from someone telling me about the article in the Mirror, so was pretty pleased they did something on the book. Last week we sent out all the review copies to national papers, magazines and so on...

The story of the stadium....

For me this is just one of hundreds of stories uncovered or rediscovered within the book. It's not, in my eyes, the best or most significant, but it does show that football in Manchester is not as straight forward as people assume. This story may prove more significant in future years (had City been stuck at Maine Rd I suggest Thaksin would not have been interested in the club, never mind Sheikh Mansour! Also, United's financial issues may not have been so great had they chosen to move). Time will tell, but to me this could be as significant in the future as some of the others such as the Bribe scandal in 1905-07; the Manchester Central story etc.

The article couldn't cover the full story, but the quotes contained within it are all directly from my book and an interview I performed in late 2008. I gained a lot from that interview and really appreciated the time given by Graham Stringer and the material he gave. To me it showed real ambition for the City Council to be planning an 80,000 stadium in the mid-90s and, as a football historian, it's fairly obvious that the only viable tenants of an 80k stadium at that time would have been Utd. Don't forget City were heading towards Div 2 (third tier) and to suggest they could have a 80,000 stadium at that time would have brought widespread criticism and probably no backing from the Govt & other authorities.

The situation has changed dramatically since then (as it had done between the 1930s when City were the side breaking all the attendance records with a League record crowd of 79k+ and the 84,569 & Utd were heading towards possible oblivion and the 90s). Personally, I think City could build towards a 80,000 capacity in stages over the next decade or so and, with the right conditions, the fan base will grow (again the book does show how Utd attendances have grown with sustained success since their average of 36k in 1988-89 when the capacity was 56k).

With so much debate about London Olympic Stadium tenants and so on; I think Stringer & Co should be applauded for what they actually planned and what they delivered. All of these negotiations took place before the stadium build was finalised - and so when the agreement was ultimately reached and signed following City's promotion in 1999 the plans could be finalised.

Manchester can be proud of what was delivered for the Games and the legacy that was left. City can be proud of how they are now taking that legacy and building on it.

What I do find funny about the reaction in some areas is that when the MEN gave part of the story the other week some of the comments on their site claimed that the story was totally fabricated and that it was not true. Now that the Mirror have lifted some of the actual quotes, those adding comments are suggesting it's a very old story!

If you don't believe me, pick up the book at Waterstones and have a flick through. I also think most Mancunians will be surprised by some of the material (one of the most recent is connected with the Tevez 'welcome' and Utd banner).

Each book takes long time to write (and I am currently working on 4 separate books; one of which may not appear for a few years because of the depth of research needed - I started researching specifically for "Manchester A Football History" in the 90s and book of this significance do take time).

Thanks,

Gary

 

[john@staustell]

We'll never fill 60k a week, sorry we just won't so pointless to extend.

That's a silly comment mate for several reasons:

1) Utd could not fill 46,000 pre-1992 except against us and Liverpool - what they got was success and marketing
2) Clearly we dont have to fill it every week right now, but we are losing revenue every home game, with home sell-outs. If we get that against the likes of Wigan and Swansea (Monday night) then 60,000 may be OK for the very big games already
3) The owners have stated they want to make us the biggest club in the world, end of story. It will happen, but not with 48,000 capacity.
4) Dont ask me why, but new/expanded stadia ALWAYS get new fans.

The question is whether they will do it in a staged manner - round off the north and south stands so you get 3 levels all round, then move onto a third tier in a few years - or whether one big job will be announced.

From the lack of movement on this now it would seem they are building up a real demand, so that when a massive increase comes, it wont appear so odd to the media etc.

This sort of thing requires forward vision, not looking at out attendances now but in 2, 3, 5, 10 years. Cup games a a red herring as some of the big European teams (inc Chelsea) get crap cup attandance.

It's a shame in a way we cant house all our fans already. But in another way,
it's GREAT!!!

 

[lyonfish]

I'm not sure where but I remember reading that the Etihad is woefully short of corporate accomodation. I think that this is where most of any future expansion is likely to be, if that's the case then it's irrelavent wether we sell out or not, expansion is going to be driven by wether we sell out of corporate seating.

 

[Danamy]

The last i heard the stadium expansion was imminent so i would expect some sort of news on it soon.