North Stand Construction Discussion

A bit dated. But a question. Thanks

Enlarged the picture to show what the question is about.

What are the brown steel sections around and under the roof cable supports?

Are they being used to support the roof cable supports when they eventually get dismantled?

Or are they just different coloured steel sections of the stand for no reason?

Chris Billington - Linkedin

Manchester City`s new hotel taking shape - aerial photo from 1500 feet from 360photosurvey.com`s full size aircraft during our flight operation on 23rd April 2024.

View attachment 116606

View attachment 116607

My guess is, the secondary steel elements are coated in a basic red oxide coating, which is a robust finish to stop rusting. The primary elements have a grey fireproof on top of the red. Some contractors take a view and coat the lot in the grey, some try get any saving they can and if it means some elements that dont need fire proofed to the same extent end up different. Both can still be painted over aestheticslly if/when needed, that's just the primer 'performance' coating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrb
I hope never to see a wrap. Just me. The extensions and increases, sure if they can do them.

Given so many are unconvinced they can fill an additional 8000 seats, I think it is premature.
What is it you don’t like about them? We could have a nice one like Real Madrid or Barca or look like a big spaceship!
 
My guess is, the secondary steel elements are coated in a basic red oxide coating, which is a robust finish to stop rusting. The primary elements have a grey fireproof on top of the red. Some contractors take a view and coat the lot in the grey, some try get any saving they can and if it means some elements that dont need fire proofed to the same extent end up different. Both can still be painted over aestheticslly if/when needed, that's just the primer 'performance' coating.

Thanks. :-)
 
Separately, why on earth have 1894 ran a poll on whether to sign an NDA on a specific topic? I don't get why they wouldn't want to know what the proposal is that they'll be able to (presumably) report on at some later time.

I'm just clearing this up from an 1894 perspective.

It's most likely much ado about nothing. I imagine certain commercial discussions will occur, which the club (understandably) wants to keep out of the public realm.

We represent a few thousand members. The poll was sent to members only (rather than the wider fanbase). We asked a series of questions to gain feedback ahead of the meeting that could be useful in certain discussions.

We were a little unsure about signing the NDA, as we had never been asked to do so before.

In an extreme scenario where we strongly disagreed with the club's actions (reiterating the point that this is entirely speculative), we would not be able to discuss this openly. For example, we might publicly state that we're against moving from block 115 to the North Stand, but we cannot explain why.

Our members wanted us around the table regardless, so we'll be there. The Twitter post was to confirm the majority decision.
 
What is it you don’t like about them? We could have a nice one like Real Madrid or Barca or look like a big spaceship!

I just don't think all stadiums need to look like blobs. I quite like the look of ours. The spirals and towers are iconic, the structure is relatively unique, I like that being on show. The south and now north extensions have diluted that a little tiny bit, but not with a meaningful overall loss of that look. A wrap would makes it look like any other blob imo, and while it was well cool 20 odd years ago it feels done to death now.
 
It's how they get it done without closing the stands for a period of time, perhaps even a season. I'm not sure they'd make the move to relocate for a year as Real, Barca and Spurs did. Maybe it's something they'll do if the logistics work, but I would imagine we're a long way off them pressing the button on that and it will depend how far behind other European teams we are when it comes to revenues.
There is no viable alternative stadium that we could move to for a year.

Madrid benefited from the COVID season and played in their academy stadium behind closed doors.

Barca have an Olympic stadium down the road owned by the council.

Spurs had Wembley.

The only feasible venue for us is Old Trafford, but politically that would never happen.

I think the club could expand the CB Stand and East Stand, but there would have to be a hell of a business case for it with the disruption it would cause and the costs involved.
 
I'm just clearing this up from an 1894 perspective.

It's most likely much ado about nothing. I imagine certain commercial discussions will occur, which the club (understandably) wants to keep out of the public realm.

We represent a few thousand members. The poll was sent to members only (rather than the wider fanbase). We asked a series of questions to gain feedback ahead of the meeting that could be useful in certain discussions.

We were a little unsure about signing the NDA, as we had never been asked to do so before.

In an extreme scenario where we strongly disagreed with the club's actions (reiterating the point that this is entirely speculative), we would not be able to discuss this openly. For example, we might publicly state that we're against moving from block 115 to the North Stand, but we cannot explain why.

Our members wanted us around the table regardless, so we'll be there. The Twitter post was to confirm the majority decision.

The polling of members and saying so on twitter, I can see why that would have made sense and was ultimately the fair thing to do amongst the group.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it is worth pointing out. I did find the way the rest of the tweet was worded quite jarring, and I didn't really like it. It reads like it starts from a position of distrust, and like you are almost in conflict with the club rather than working with them on this. Particularly labouring the part about not having been listened to and not being on board like the consultation stated. And if it IS the report as part of the planning app, then the two are not really the same thing. I held off making that point on here because I didn't want to look like I am moaning about the work 1894 do which I would say I generally admire. But while you are engaging on it, it is my own view and possibly worth pointing out a take you may not have considered, in case it may read the same to others. Or the club itself.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.