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.