North Stand Construction Discussion

bluesince76 said:
Totally agree.

Last time was different - the country was just out of a World War, it would have been odd in those circumstances to leave them without a ground, as the bomb could just have result have destroyed Maine Rd.

This time, they've allowed their stadium to deteriorate, have made no attempt to buy the land required to improve it and have used the profits to buy shite players and pay off old managers.

I don't like letting them in OUR stadium for the derby and we won't need their money if we're paying our players League One wages, so it's a no from me.
Click to expand...

Thought they took Neville to court over building his hotel near OT?
 
jrb said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'll keep it as civil as possible... They can fuck right off.
To be absolutely honest, I would expect any proper rag supporter to think exactly the same.

They can use Salford City.
 
I would happily let the rags use our ground. £10m a match, plus we keep all income from bars, hospitality, car parking, etc. They obviously pay for the police, stewards, bar staff, cleaners - everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.