North Stand Construction Discussion
- Thread starter awest
- Start date
I've managed to find my pictures from 2014 of the largest South stand expansion crane being erected. 1 of 3 cranes used. 10 years ago! :-) ! feel old now. :-(
The crane is a CTL 1600. The crane was one of the largest cranes in Europe at the time. It had just been manufactured. It was transported from Italy. It was the first time the crane had ever been used in Europe. The availability of a CTL 1600 crane, the largest crane of its type in the country, significantly influenced the lifting methodology as it permitted much larger lifts, speeded up construction and reduced the need for working at height splicing components. https://www.selectplanthire.com/product-catalogue/ctl1600-66/
Luckily I was in the right place at the right time and took pictures of the Italian crane erectors erecting the crane. I got talking to one of the Italian crane erectors and he told me about the crane. Scroll down the page and go to post 426. There are loads of pictures of the crane being ercted.
5 random pictures
City of Manchester Stadium/Etihad Stadium | 48,000 Seats...
www.skyscrapercity.com
August 2015. Compare it to how it looks now, those of you who stand in SSL1.
Click on the link below for more South stand pictures, including pictures of the ticker tape welcome with flags and banners hanging from SSL3. It looked f*cking brilliant.! :-)
City of Manchester Stadium/Etihad Stadium | 48,000 Seats...
www.skyscrapercity.com
Last edited:
dosnt appear to be a base for a tower , also need a pad for the mobile crane erecting the tower
yes I can see the base, that small piece will be lifted off then the tower erected on the pins
Slightly off topic.
There’s a thread on SSC-MCR titled Manchester United (Old Trafford) | Framework.
Most if not all of the posters posting on the thread are United fans. (some of them are getting a bit giddy about the idea of a new stadium)
It’s mainly about Old Trafford, the stadium, and whether is should be redeveloped or whether it should be demolished and a new stadium built close by. (now Ratcliffe has bought 1/4 of United from the Glazers)
Recently the conversation has gone on to City allowing United to use/share the Etihad whilst a new stadium is built on the current Old Trafford site or close to the Old Trafford site/footprint.
A redeveloped 62,000 capacity Etihad, including a hotel, 3000 capacity fanzone, etc, and what it will have to offer United and their fans is a very tempting proposition for United and something they would be interested in, if they could ‘agree a deal with City’, MCC, and Sports England to use the Etihad stadium for 2-3 seasons whilst a new stadium is built.
Would City be interested in letting United share and use the Etihad knowing the additional rental and match day revenue it would generate for City could run into £100’s millions over 2-3 seasons.
There is a valid argument a new stadium will never be built because the Glazers and Ratcliffe will not fund it, instead they would rather redevelop Old Trafford piecemeal.
Trying to put my blue allegiances aside, and the fact that I used to post on SSC-MCR, I would be totally against the idea for various reasons.
What are your views on the matter?( try and keep it civil ;-) )
The last 2 posts on the thread atm.
It’s A Muffin (post)
City lent them their stadium before and United repaid them by allowing a banner mocking City's lack of success. I doubt the Etihad is an option unless it's extremely lucrative and Everton is probably too far.
Issac Newell (reply)
I think City will be leaned on by the Premier League, the Police and the council. Authorities may look less favourably with regards to concerts etc. if City refuse, which they won't as they will be compensated. In the days when City last lent Utd Maine Rd, fans generally followed both teams.
There’s a thread on SSC-MCR titled Manchester United (Old Trafford) | Framework.
Most if not all of the posters posting on the thread are United fans. (some of them are getting a bit giddy about the idea of a new stadium)
It’s mainly about Old Trafford, the stadium, and whether is should be redeveloped or whether it should be demolished and a new stadium built close by. (now Ratcliffe has bought 1/4 of United from the Glazers)
Recently the conversation has gone on to City allowing United to use/share the Etihad whilst a new stadium is built on the current Old Trafford site or close to the Old Trafford site/footprint.
A redeveloped 62,000 capacity Etihad, including a hotel, 3000 capacity fanzone, etc, and what it will have to offer United and their fans is a very tempting proposition for United and something they would be interested in, if they could ‘agree a deal with City’, MCC, and Sports England to use the Etihad stadium for 2-3 seasons whilst a new stadium is built.
Would City be interested in letting United share and use the Etihad knowing the additional rental and match day revenue it would generate for City could run into £100’s millions over 2-3 seasons.
There is a valid argument a new stadium will never be built because the Glazers and Ratcliffe will not fund it, instead they would rather redevelop Old Trafford piecemeal.
Trying to put my blue allegiances aside, and the fact that I used to post on SSC-MCR, I would be totally against the idea for various reasons.
What are your views on the matter?( try and keep it civil ;-) )
The last 2 posts on the thread atm.
It’s A Muffin (post)
City lent them their stadium before and United repaid them by allowing a banner mocking City's lack of success. I doubt the Etihad is an option unless it's extremely lucrative and Everton is probably too far.
Issac Newell (reply)
I think City will be leaned on by the Premier League, the Police and the council. Authorities may look less favourably with regards to concerts etc. if City refuse, which they won't as they will be compensated. In the days when City last lent Utd Maine Rd, fans generally followed both teams.
Last edited:
BlueMoonRisin’
Well-Known Member
Peter Marron would turn in his grave.
tailspin747
Well-Known Member
Agreed. If United can shoehorn a pitch into the Old Trafford cricket ground and use that at a vastly reduced a capacity whilst a new stadium is built, that‘s a better option. (for all City fans) But wouldn’t that impact on LCCC’s pitch and playing season? Wembley, known as the Etihad of the South, is another option.
But as Issac implies, the pressure from from MCC, Trafford Council, Andy Burnham, read his recent comments, https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/andy-burnham-discussions-manchester-united-28550497 for an option to use the Etihad stadium for 2-3 seasons whilst United build a new stadium could eventually force City’s hand?
To add. All hypothetical of course. But a possibility, if the Glazers and Ratcliffe decided to fund and build a new stadium for United.
Last edited:
Burnham has no powers in this area in reality, it is just political pressure like complaining to an MP over a local council.
I think it is all complete bollocks due to current stadium footprint not being big enough to add any seats, they would actually lose them if they built to decent size standards. Therefore knocking down and rebuilding the current one isn't likely. They won't want to relocate but that is the far more sensible option.
Neither side's fans would want it, and you will get all sorts of vandalism, plus even more arena clashes.
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Can’t they temporarily use Wembley like Spurs did or like Celtic who used Hampden park?