BTH said:1.618034 said:I despair at times... I really do.
IT"S NOT ALL ABOUT OUT-DOING MANCHESTER EFFING UNITED!
Some people really are more obsessed about that lot than they are about their own club...
Ah, but it is! Just got back from a break so have not read all of this thread or the other related mega-thread. Therefore, apols in advance if required.
However, my understanding from someone who genuinely is ITK is that a feasibility plan has been undertaken and one end (I'm afraid I've forgotten which one now!) will be enlarged by 14,000 (potentially starting as early as next March) to bring the ground up to 62,000. And then, before long, the opposite end will be upped by the same capacity to match, taking the ground capacity up to 76,000 precisely because that is the capacity of The Swamp and the powers-that-be want to match that, at least in the short term.
The plan thereafter would be to add on another tier to take the capacity to 90,000 as they hope to see City competing at the same level as Real Madrid. A 90,000 capacity would eclipse the Bernabeu's by almost 10,000 and The Swamp's by considerably more.
Although it seems unlikely now with the rags' precarious financial situation, and the nearby railway line has always appeared to preclude it happening anyway, there have long been rumours of an increase to 80,000+ capacity at The Swamp. Assuming the rags could fund it and their architects could find a way to pull it off, I have no doubt that Trafford Council would meekly rubber stamp such a move anyway, regardless of traffic congestion etc.
Plan B, of course, is that we build a new ground, but that is unlikely, although not on economic grounds.
*singingtheblues* said:Soulboy said:We clearly have differences.
I want to watch a successful City team in one of the best stadiums in the world... whereas you want to watch who is sitting next to you in the stadium or the pub and judging them as to whether or not they deserve to support the same team as you!
If you want the club to be supported only by those who were there in the dark old days... we would have a crowd of 34,000 with most of them dead within the next ten years!
Haha, not quite, but I think you get my point.
And I accept yours, but I still have my qualms about a significant increase in capacity, and those who it'll bring with it.
1.618034 said:BTH said:Ah, but it is! Just got back from a break so have not read all of this thread or the other related mega-thread. Therefore, apols in advance if required.
However, my understanding from someone who genuinely is ITK is that a feasibility plan has been undertaken and one end (I'm afraid I've forgotten which one now!) will be enlarged by 14,000 (potentially starting as early as next March) to bring the ground up to 62,000. And then, before long, the opposite end will be upped by the same capacity to match, taking the ground capacity up to 76,000 precisely because that is the capacity of The Swamp and the powers-that-be want to match that, at least in the short term.
The plan thereafter would be to add on another tier to take the capacity to 90,000 as they hope to see City competing at the same level as Real Madrid. A 90,000 capacity would eclipse the Bernabeu's by almost 10,000 and The Swamp's by considerably more.
Although it seems unlikely now with the rags' precarious financial situation, and the nearby railway line has always appeared to preclude it happening anyway, there have long been rumours of an increase to 80,000+ capacity at The Swamp. Assuming the rags could fund it and their architects could find a way to pull it off, I have no doubt that Trafford Council would meekly rubber stamp such a move anyway, regardless of traffic congestion etc.
Plan B, of course, is that we build a new ground, but that is unlikely, although not on economic grounds.
Interesting. My small rant was aimed at the, what I see as, small-minded notion that all we need to do is out-do MUFC... What I think we need to do is be the biggest/best that we can be regardless of our out of town neighbours... Yes they're a benchmark but it's not just about us and them... There's a whole continent/world to compete with... But they're not a bad place to start I suppose.
Exciting times indeed!
BTH said:1.618034 said:Interesting. My small rant was aimed at the, what I see as, small-minded notion that all we need to do is out-do MUFC... What I think we need to do is be the biggest/best that we can be regardless of our out of town neighbours... Yes they're a benchmark but it's not just about us and them... There's a whole continent/world to compete with... But they're not a bad place to start I suppose.
Exciting times indeed!
Oddly enough the benchmark was set almost 2,000 years ago with the Colosseum in Rome, which could seat 50,000. Why our ground was built to hold 48,000 when an additional ring of seating would probably have brought capacity up to the magical number I really don't know. I'm sure there's a sound architectural reason, but it's incomprehensible to the layman.
alera said:People need to tune into reality fm.
Europe wide the only UK clubs that are truely classed as "Big" in terms of fanbase, facilities AND EARNING POTENTIAL are he rags and Arsenal CURRENTLY.
Chelsea are not a big club fanbase and facility wise surely everyone can see that ? Never have been. Historically they run 4th in the big clubs in the capital, catchment and support wise.
Success yes recently but they have never had a large support or catchment area. Up until the russian taking over the had won exactly the same number of trophies as city with almost an identical spread, they were never as well supported this is not in doubt.
Liverpool are a big club, historically and still internationally but Liverpool has simply shocking demographics as a city. This is why they have struggled to get a wealthy owner to take them on.
Liverpool was built to house 1 million people - 100 years ago.
THere are 600,000 living there now. They dont sell out their season tickets with a 40,000 seater stadium despite some success over the last 20 years (champions league being the big one).
The really big european clubs, the Barcas, Ac Milan, Inter Milan, Real Madrid, Bayern Muninich Etc have large stadiums, fan bases and the facilities to match - in terms of capacity at least anyway.
The question is what do you want to be ?
A Chelsea sort of club that spends the money and has success but never really steps up a level. Never really a big club, never was never will be in anything other than recent success.
Somehow I get the impression that the people that have bought our club dont think as small as some of our fans. I am not saying we are anything like as big as the rags, real, barca and we probably never will be. But if you are going to spend £1 billion in financial commitments before you have spent anything really on infrastructure you have to at least accept there are bigger plans and efforts in the works to change things int he long terms.
Support wise we are already 5th biggest in the league currently where else is there for us to go than to look at the likes of Arsenal and the the rags ?
JoeMercer'sWay said:BTH said:Oddly enough the benchmark was set almost 2,000 years ago with the Colosseum in Rome, which could seat 50,000. Why our ground was built to hold 48,000 when an additional ring of seating would probably have brought capacity up to the magical number I really don't know. I'm sure there's a sound architectural reason, but it's incomprehensible to the layman.
because it's the council's.
*singingtheblues* said:Let's be completely realistic here.
Can't we just be a successful club in our own right?
I've always been proud of the fact that we've had (as far as I'm concerned) a much more loyal, universally admired fanbase.
Could we fill a ground with a capacity of 70,000 after ten years of success?
Maybe.
Would we still be City?
Certainly not.
We'd be unrecognisable, and not due to actually being a successful side, but we'd have sold out.
We'd have become everything we used to mock The Scum for, everything we used to despise, we wouldn't be the club I fell in love with.
And I reiterate, that wouldn't be due to us being successful, I want a trip to Wembley more than any of us.
Quality over quantity.
It'll be interesting to see how the club handle any potential success; will we be valued as the people who propped up this club through years of shite, fans who attended regardless of results?
Or will we be overlooked, priced-out, and forgotten once there are thousands and thousands of more people calling themselves City 'fans', who conveniently are able to afford the clubs 'matchday experience'?
Some clubs choose to exploit their fans once they become successful, I'd like to think we're better than that.
We should be proud of being Manchester City F.C.
The Fat el Hombre said:I hope they change the south stand to be just like the end in Dortmund (can't remember the name of it). I think all the talk about not wanting to expand the stadium is a bit sad, though I hope we do it 1 step at a time as a 70+k stadium right now would be too big
leewill31 said:*singingtheblues* said:Haha, not quite, but I think you get my point.
And I accept yours, but I still have my qualms about a significant increase in capacity, and those who it'll bring with it.
did you feel the same way moving from Maine road to the CoMS and the extra 14 thousand fans that it brought with it?