New Trafford
- Thread starter uscool
- Start date
However bad it gets Leicester is always there to say "hold my beer".
New Man Utd stadium: 11 key questions including cost, location, Old Trafford plus photos
BBC Sport looks at some of the key questions surrounding Manchester United's proposed new stadium.
www.bbc.co.uk
"Ratcliffe told the Overlap podcast, external that no public money will be used to build the stadium, but the project will not be possible without wider regeneration funded by the government."
you should have put the rest of the quote - he's talking about the government regenerating the wider south manchester area. selective quoting just makes it look like you've an agenda.New Man Utd stadium: 11 key questions including cost, location, Old Trafford plus photos
BBC Sport looks at some of the key questions surrounding Manchester United's proposed new stadium.
"Ratcliffe told the Overlap podcast, external that no public money will be used to build the stadium, but the project will not be possible without wider regeneration funded by the government."
He said that the stadium build wouldn't go ahead without government funding a wider generation. ie - government funding is a prerequisite of a stadium build. To regenerate the surroundings to anywhere near what the concept art looks like would require billions upon billions of public funding.
yup, but that doesn't mean that he was expecting the government to fund the stadium build. you said he was expecting the government to fund the building of the stadium - that is not the case. utd have said they will arrange the financing for the stadium but will only do so if the government commit to regenerate the surrounding area.
that is different to your original claim.
I actually said “the plan” is a pipe dream cos the government won’t fund it.
At least they shouldn't. There are no fans of other clubs that want to contribute to regenerating an area for Man Utd to put a poxy big circus tent in thank you very much.
Last edited:
no, what you said was.
so your claim is that the plan is to build a stadium and have the government pay for it. that is not correct.
and this is just a weird take. the regeneration of the area will benefit more than just manchester united fans.
The object of the previous sentence there is "the plan...", which the stadium is only part of but that plan involves a load of government funding. Anyway, you're splitting hairs.
And it's not a weird take at all, the vast majority of people who would be in favour of this "plan" would be Man U fans wanting a new stadium. It's a weird take to think that is deserving of public funding.
Which other stadiums built by clubs have had billions spent on regenerating the local area to make them viable?
Last edited:
I think what United are doing is quite sensible - they’re saying to the government, look we’ll build this new stadium but we need commitment from yourselves to drive regeneration of the surrounding area before we commit to the stadium.
I know it’s not exactly the same but I think the ideas behind it are similar but take a look at the below - it’s all about calls for regenerating the areas in and around Anfield and Everton. Perhaps Everton should have had a commitment from the government too as part of their plans - would certainly have made sense imo.
Regenerating the areas around football clubs, no matter who they are, can only be a good thing not only for the clubs involved and the locals living there - you’re making the areas around Anfield, Everton, OT etc more enticing to potential visitors for one.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,757
- Location
- Surrey
Claims that we're building the stadium with public money, posts an article that states we're using no public money to build the stadium. It would be a lot quicker to just admit you were wrong mate.New Man Utd stadium: 11 key questions including cost, location, Old Trafford plus photos
BBC Sport looks at some of the key questions surrounding Manchester United's proposed new stadium.
"Ratcliffe told the Overlap podcast, external that no public money will be used to build the stadium, but the project will not be possible without wider regeneration funded by the government."
Oh yeah, it's sensible, but football clubs and local council funding are different worlds. In that article eg, it mentions a £5m investment into a market. It's buttons. Liverpool and Everton have been talking to Liverpool Council for decades about regeneration around the stadiums, in Liverpool's case the corrupt council actually spent money making sure the Kop stand couldn't be improved. Evertonian ex-Mayor Joe Anderson is now in prison. Everton moved and their new stadium development directly led to Liverpool City losing it's UNESCO world heritage status.
Last edited:
Whatever.
oh i agree, trying to get councils/government onboard with regeneration schemes is nigh on impossible - which is why i think it makes good sense that Brexit Jim gets some sort of commitment from the government regarding regeneration of the surrounding area before pushing ahead with the stadium plans. its not that they want the government to pay for the stadium, which is what your initial post seemed to suggest but that they want a commitment on the other 'bits' they can't do anything about.
i remember reading around the time the everton stadium was being talking about and there were some calling for similar type commitments from the government of the day regarding the regeneration of that whole area or specific parts of it - can't remember the exact details. now i'll admit my footy fan head thought the same as you back then - sod off getting my tax pennies to make goodison a nicer area, but the more rational side of agreed that it actually makes sense because while it's primarily the relevant football club benefitting there's just so more benefit all round from regenerating these areas.
The thing is, especially in this case, even a cursory look at the artist impressions of the plan shows that the "bits" that aren't the stadium would require more funding than the £2bln projected cost of stadium stadium itself.
Last edited:
And that’s for the government and Jim’s lot to sort out between them and kind of irrelevant to the original point - I only made the post because yourself and likely others seemed to be saying/thinking that they wanted the government to pay for the stadium when that is not the case at all - at least from what info seems to be out there.
And yeah, like I said, it's either pipe dream cos it's not gonna happen, OR tax payers money is going to be used in a way it's never been before, essentially paying billions to make a football clubs new multi-billion pound stadium viable.
I'm not against government funding to regenerate an area, I am against it to regenerate a failing football club that's owned by foreign billionaires.
That's the issue, regenerate what exactly ? The stadiums, always going to be at the arse end of an industrial estate, bound between a canal and a railway line. What do they want the council to pay for ? 5-star hotels and Michelin star restaurants or parks to serve the warehouse workers on their lunch break ?