Possible new stadium - some interesting information

[Gordyola]

The only way COMS could get above 60,000 is if it was rebuilt one stand at a time, starting with the North, before moving onto the East with the large amount of land behind it.

If another tier was placed on the North and South you could probably get it to 60,000 but then you have no room for anymore seats because the Colin Bell and East stands are completely unreworkable. That's why I'm thinking the redevelopment will have to be major.

The roof can be removed section by section and a third tier put under it as and when each section is removed. Not to mention the pitch could be lowered another few rows if they really wanted it to be. As shown in another thread the ends could be removed and rebuilt if needed too. All this in turn could provide us with a lot more seating. Just my theory any way.

Sorry but the roof cannot be removed section by section as it is a mono-structure with the primary structure being a cable-net system that runs pre-tensioned all the way around the roof. Removing a section will compromise the whole roof, during the games before the North Stand was built the cable-net was in place

 

[not my fault!]

The roof can be removed section by section and a third tier put under it as and when each section is removed. Not to mention the pitch could be lowered another few rows if they really wanted it to be. As shown in another thread the ends could be removed and rebuilt if needed too. All this in turn could provide us with a lot more seating. Just my theory any way.

Sorry but the roof cannot be removed section by section as it is a mono-structure with the primary structure being a cable-net system that runs pre-tensioned all the way around the roof. Removing a section will compromise the whole roof, during the games before the North Stand was built the cable-net was in place

So keep the cable net and develop that way... Where there is a will there is a way believe me. And I'm willing to bet we wont be building a new stadium, I would bet my life on it. The brief is "more than old trafford" and I believe if thats what they want from COMS then they will get it one way or another. But what I orignialy said (many pages back) was we could remove the whole roof and then develop, we had the Kippax without a roof for ages so no reason we cant play without one again and I believe this is the owners plan.

 

[Gordyola]

Sorry but the roof cannot be removed section by section as it is a mono-structure with the primary structure being a cable-net system that runs pre-tensioned all the way around the roof. Removing a section will compromise the whole roof, during the games before the North Stand was built the cable-net was in place

So keep the cable net and develop that way... Where there is a will there is a way believe me. And I'm willing to bet we wont be building a new stadium, I would bet my life on it. The brief is "more than old trafford" and I believe if thats what they want from COMS then they will get it one way or another. But what I orignialy said (many pages back) was we could remove the whole roof and then develop, we had the Kippax without a roof for ages so no reason we cant play without one again and I believe this is the owners plan.

The problem with keeping the cable-net is that the cladding needs to be shaped to form part of the structure, looking at other examples of this type of structure and you will see that the curved form of CoMS is typical. I wondered if the cladding could be removed and the cable net incorporated within the structure of an additional tier at the North Stand but then I realised that the shape of the roof was part of its integrity so I dismissed this idea I also doubted as to how the ground anchors of the roof could be incorporated into the new structure. I'm a mechanical engineer and not a civil engineer or an architect my interest in construction is only that.

I believe a new roof is the only way,but this would likely to mean a closure of the stadium as I can't see the roof being removed in a close season due the complexity of removing it and keeping the current building intact If you remember the demolition of the Kippax was more than a close season and the temporary seating was the part without the roof we had of course the Jean Kelly stands Thinking about the new roof design would it be cable-net or a traditional cantilever with hugh support beams? I guess like the Emirates I can't see health and safety allowing, what will become a hugh building site and maintain the use as a stadium hand in hand I would expect we would have to move for a complete season at least. Would also doubt that the current structure has been designed to accommodate the additional weight of a roof like The Emirate!

IMHO it would be easier to build new nan maybe this is what the owner has been told hence the information you had originally and the info that has come to light of late

 

[fbloke]

Dont forget also that there is a specific requirement to have 'the majority' of seats covered under EPL rules.

I have posted this before and yet people seem happy to simply ignore a rule of membership of the league.

No roof no place in the EPL its as simple as that.

 

[Gordyola]

Dont forget also that there is a specific requirement to have 'the majority' of seats covered under EPL rules.

I have posted this before and yet people seem happy to simply ignore a rule of membership of the league.

No roof no place in the EPL its as simple as that.

Maybe but a bigger problem would be getting a license to hold events in a building site

 

[fbloke]

Dont forget also that there is a specific requirement to have 'the majority' of seats covered under EPL rules.

I have posted this before and yet people seem happy to simply ignore a rule of membership of the league.

No roof no place in the EPL its as simple as that.

Maybe but a bigger problem would be getting a license to hold events in a building site

I would also suggest that a timeframe of over 18 months would be minimum as well which means, more than likely the loss of the stadium over 2 seasons.

And those being the first 2 in the CL, a big no no.

 

[Bilboblue]

Is anyone else thinking this is the reason behind the delay in announcing s/t prices for next season?
Just a thought.

 

[fbloke]

Is anyone else thinking this is the reason behind the delay in announcing s/t prices for next season?
Just a thought.

I also feel that there will be a better deal in the offing for us as well.

 

[HelloCity]

Some people here seem to act like City will be the first ever side to redevelop a stadium.

Over the past decade United have had the North Stand redeveloped and unroofed mid season, the Stretford end redeveloped and unroofed mid season and the stand opposite that redeveloped and unroofed mid season. Not forgetting that we played without a roof on the Kippax (in a 'building site' lol) from August until around March when it became all seater.

The talk of us not playing on a 'building site' and having to close the ground is so basic and stupid that I sometimes wonder if my opening sentence is actually factual. Anyone who thinks we won't play without a roof for a few months because we will be thrown out of the league, is quite frankly a bit weird.

Also when City redevelop, the roof for the rest of the stadium will obviously be supported by temporary support structures.

 

[Bilboblue]

sorry fbloke, meant to say, maybe this why they haven't announced about s/t's yet, as, if they are going to start building, they might have to shift quite a few people around if we will be short of seats.

 

[Anonymous]

Some people here seem to act like City will be the first ever side to redevelop a stadium.

Over the past decade United have had the North Stand redeveloped and unroofed mid season, the Stretford end redeveloped and unroofed mid season and the stand opposite that redeveloped and unroofed mid season. Not forgetting that we played without a roof on the Kippax (in a 'building site' lol) from August until around March when it became all seater.

The talk of us not playing on a 'building site' and having to close the ground is so basic and stupid that I sometimes wonder if my opening sentence is actually factual. Anyone who thinks we won't play without a roof for a few months because we will be thrown out of the league, is quite frankly a bit weird.

Also when City redevelop, the roof for the rest of the stadium will obviously be supported by temporary support structures.

This! It's 2010 not 1910.

 

[fbloke]

We are also talking about the de-roofing of a modern stadium for the first time in the modern game when the rules and entry requirements strictly forbid it.

To simply say we can do as we please as a club is arrogant beyond belief.

I would suggest people stop thinking that because we are a wealthy club we don't abide by rules.

 

[Anonymous]

We are also talking about the de-roofing of a modern stadium for the first time in the modern game when the rules and entry requirements strictly forbid it.

To simply say we can do as we please as a club is arrogant beyond belief.

I would suggest people stop thinking that because we are a wealthy club we don't abide by rules.

I don't think no one is suggesting anything like that. If the roof needs dismantling to extend and premier league rules state all grounds need a roof then there will be ways around it.

 

[HelloCity]

We are also talking about the de-roofing of a modern stadium for the first time in the modern game when the rules and entry requirements strictly forbid it.

To simply say we can do as we please as a club is arrogant beyond belief.

I would suggest people stop thinking that because we are a wealthy club we don't abide by rules.

God, you're boring.

 

[mancmackem]

Can't we just throw a tarpaulin up? ;-)

Or look at this...construct it and have a small gap between this and the turnstiles.

MM - The new Handy Andy!

 

[dw7]

We are also talking about the de-roofing of a modern stadium for the first time in the modern game when the rules and entry requirements strictly forbid it.

To simply say we can do as we please as a club is arrogant beyond belief.

I would suggest people stop thinking that because we are a wealthy club we don't abide by rules.

God, you're boring.

why cause he proved you wrong

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I think an extension was the original plan but since then a number of factors have come into play that make it less likely, including the Financial Fair Play regulations and the fact, that I've stated before, that we would lose a large part of the ground for 2 seasons. The clincher is that ADUG have become less enchanted with CoMS as time has gone on, for some of the reasons outlined below.

A new stadium may cost £400m but, with more and better corporate facilities, would bring in an extra £1.5-2m per match so could pay for itself in about 10 seasons. An extension involving 10 or 12,000 seats might cost £200m but would only bring in about £300k per game tops.

There's also the problem that the normal catering outlets are totally inadequate and require major upgrading (mainly they need to be made deeper).
The extension to the West Stand at the swamp was done with minimum disruption, which would not be the case at CoMS.

 

[Pigeonho]

I think an extension was the original plan but since then a number of factors have come into play that make it less likely, including the Financial Fair Play regulations and the fact, that I've stated before, that we would lose a large part of the ground for 2 seasons. The clincher is that ADUG have become less enchanted with CoMS as time has gone on, for some of the reasons outlined below.

A new stadium may cost £400m but, with more and better corporate facilities, would bring in an extra £1.5-2m per match so could pay for itself in about 10 seasons. An extension involving 10 or 12,000 seats might cost £200m but would only bring in about £300k per game tops.

There's also the problem that the normal catering outlets are totally inadequate and require major upgrading (mainly they need to be made deeper).
The extension to the West Stand at the swamp was done with minimum disruption, which would not be the case at CoMS.

This last part.

Whoever designed that concourse hadn't eaten their Weetabix that morning. Alot of people have said redesigning the COMS is the way to go, primarily because its started to feel like home. No matter the quality of players we have, EVERY team ever to move stadium takes a season or 2 to get used to their new home, and we don't have that luxury, given the investment and progress desired. A redesigning of COMS could happen and we may have to share with united for a season, pay them a bit of cash and then rip the place apart on our final 'home' game! Be interesting to see how this develops, if at all. Personally I think we'll struggle to fill anything more than 60k just yet, even if we start having success.

 

[Ticket For Schalke]

We are also talking about the de-roofing of a modern stadium for the first time in the modern game when the rules and entry requirements strictly forbid it.

To simply say we can do as we please as a club is arrogant beyond belief.

I would suggest people stop thinking that because we are a wealthy club we don't abide by rules.

Fbloke you no i enjoy reading your posts on this thread, but i must pull you up on this, Stuttgart have already started redevelopment on there ground which was built for the 2006 WC. there seems to be no problems on their part.

http://www.voicesinfootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151

 

[fbloke]

We are also talking about the de-roofing of a modern stadium for the first time in the modern game when the rules and entry requirements strictly forbid it.

To simply say we can do as we please as a club is arrogant beyond belief.

I would suggest people stop thinking that because we are a wealthy club we don't abide by rules.

Fbloke you no i enjoy reading your posts on this thread, but i must pull you up on this, Stuttgart have already started redevelopment on there ground which was built for the 2006 WC. there seems to be no problems on their part.

http://www.voicesinfootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=151

Every engineering challenge can be overcome we know that.

What people seemed to be doing is ignoring the non-engineering aspect of the changes.

There seems to be general consensus now that the roof is an all or nothing situation, either all off or all on. That means all off of course, which means both the PL and UEFA would have to allow it for entry into their competitions.

I am not saying that wont happen or that MCFC haven't started the process for it to happen but I see no reason why we should just ignore these requirements.

If, and its a big if, the roof goes then there is no reason why the spirals don't either because the need for them is gone once a stand is closed.

A tad more realism is needed though.