Manchester United intend to build a 100,000-capacity new stadium rather than redevelop their existing Old Trafford home.
United announced the ambitious plans on Tuesday, with London-based architecture firm Fosters + Partners selected to lead the project.
The new-build will be situated on land surrounding Old Trafford, as part of a wider regeneration of the Trafford Wharfside area. The club said in a press release that the new stadium and regeneration project have the potential to deliver an additional £7.3billion ($9.7bn) to the local economy, create 92,000 job opportunities and build more than 17,000 new homes, as well as drive an additional 1.8 million visitors annually.
The Old Trafford regeneration task force, which was set up to review options for the stadium and regeneration project, held a final meeting on Friday before being stood down.
Digital renders of what the new stadium and surrounding area could look like were unveiled by Foster + Partners on Tuesday. These included a three-pronged stadium canopy inspired by the Red Devils trident on the club’s badge. The conceptual images and scaled models will now provide “a masterplan for more detailed feasibility, consultation, design and planning work as the project enters a new phase”, the club said.
While it was determined that the capacity of a redeveloped Old Trafford could be as high as 87,000, it was found that a new build could accommodate as many as 100,000 supporters.
A survey of United supporters last year identified that 52 per cent of fans asked were in favour of building a new stadium from scratch, while 31 per cent preferred redevelopment.
“Today marks the start of an incredibly exciting journey to the delivery of what will be the world’s greatest football stadium, at the centre of a regenerated Old Trafford,” Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the club’s co-owner, said in the release.
“Our current stadium has served us brilliantly for the past 115 years, but it has fallen behind the best arenas in world sport. By building next to the existing site, we will be able to preserve the essence of Old Trafford, while creating a truly state-of-the-art stadium that transforms the fan experience only footsteps from our historic home,” Ratcliffe said.
“Just as important is the opportunity for a new stadium to be the catalyst for social and economic renewal of the Old Trafford area, creating jobs and investment not just during the construction phase but on a lasting basis when the stadium district is complete. The government has identified infrastructure investment as a strategic priority, particularly in the north of England, and we are proud to be supporting that mission with this project of national, as well as local, significance.”
Ratcliffe expects “a five-year project rather than a 10 year” with the planned “modular build” — where structures are built elsewhere and shipped in — designed to significantly cut down the build time.
(Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
The task force delivered its options report looking into the benefits of both a new build and a redeveloped stadium earlier this year.
The report concluded that while both options will “deliver transformative benefits for the club as well as Trafford and beyond”, those benefits would be “amplified under the new build option”.
“Our long-term objective as a club is to have the world’s best football team playing in the world’s best stadium,” chief executive Omar Berrada said. “We are grateful for the feasibility work done by the Old Trafford Regeneration Task Force exploring options for the future of Old Trafford.
“We have carefully considered its findings, together with the views of thousands of fans and local residents and concluded that a new stadium is the right way forward for Manchester United and our surrounding community. We will now embark on further consultation to ensure that fans and residents continue to be heard as we move towards final decisions.”
(Michael Regan/Getty Images)
Sir Alex Ferguson, the club’s legendary former manager and winner of 13 Premier League titles, said: “Manchester United should always strive for the best in everything it does, on and off the pitch, and that includes the stadium we play in. Old Trafford holds so many special memories for me personally, but we must be brave and seize this opportunity to build a new home, fit for the future, where new history can be made.”
Funding remains a significant question mark, with the cost of a newly-built stadium estimated at more than £2bn. As reported by The Athletic in June, United would consider selling the naming rights to their new home to help pay for the project.
“As a PLC we can’t speculate too much about the funding,” Berrada said in a briefing with reporters in London following Tuesday’s announcement. “What I will say is as a centrepiece it is a very attractive investment opportunity. We are very confident we will find a way to finance the stadium.”
Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST) welcomed the plans but raised concerns and the need for consultation with fans as the project takes shape.
“The announcement of plans to build a brand new stadium adjacent to Old Trafford is clearly very big news for United fans. Everyone wants the biggest and the best for our club and the visuals look both stunning and exciting. But against the backdrop of uncertainty around next year’s ticket prices, continuing poor performance on the field, speculation around sales of key young players, and the recent financial results, the news probably does beg more questions than it gives clear answers,” a MUST spokesperson said.
“If they are able to produce a new stadium as stunning as the plans suggest without harming the atmosphere, without hiking ticket prices and without harming investment elsewhere, then this could be very exciting. But until the questions are answered, our optimism about plans to make Old Trafford the biggest and the best again will be restrained by caution about what the consequences for fans might be.”
‘The major question is how this will be paid for’
Analysis by Manchester United correspondent Laurie Whitwell
This outcome was trailed as soon as Ratcliffe walked through the doors at Old Trafford. Last July in Los Angeles, senior United figures talked about the possibility of a new stadium reaching 100,000 capacity and Ratcliffe’s desire was clear then.
There is certainly appeal among the fanbase for a ‘New Trafford’ — especially with the urban regeneration plan alongside — but the view is not unanimous and many people will be sad that a ground holding so many memories is being left behind.
That being said, Ferguson’s support of the project, having been cut as an ambassador, is notable given he created so many of those moments etched in the club’s consciousness.
The major question is how the build will be paid for: acquiring more debt, via sponsorship, or through cash injected by INEOS? Ticket price rises would seem inevitable in this scenario, but extreme care has to be taken not to price out fans.
(Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
The actual design of the stadium is crucial also. Old Trafford, for all its faults, has character and history. Many clubs have struggled when moving to new stadiums. Can some of the architecture be retained?
Ratcliffe hails Real Madrid’s Bernabeu and Barcelona’s Camp Nou, but both those grounds have been renovated on their original sites.
Lord Norman Foster, founder of Foster + Partners, said: “It all starts with the fans’ experience, bringing them closer than ever to the pitch and acoustically cultivating a huge roar. The stadium is contained by a vast umbrella, harvesting energy and rainwater, and sheltering a new public plaza that is twice the size of Trafalgar Square.”
Keeping supporters close to the pitch feels essential to sustain that connection to the action.
But the renders put out by United are a dramatic shift from the current stadium and will be hugely divisive. The tent on top of the ground strikes as an odd juxtaposition amid the landscape and what came before.
A naming-rights deal and more debt?
Analysis by senior football news reporter Matt Slater
“Naming-rights deals are like free money for clubs, and those who do not have them are simply leaving money on the table,” Michael Weaver, an expert on sponsorship deals who heads up the valuation advisory team at Kroll’s London office, told The Athletic. “You only have to look at the United States, where almost every stadium is named after a sponsor, to see that.
“If Manchester United sold the naming rights to Old Trafford, our analysis suggests they would earn about £15m a year but you could double that for a new stadium. A naming-rights deal for, let’s say, 10 years, would cover a significant chunk of the construction costs and enable them to borrow money for the rest at a better interest rate. I don’t understand why they would not do a naming-rights deal.”
Who or what would fit at United’s new home? Would anyone even use the new name?
These questions are harder to answer and United fans are divided — but Arsenal fans have got used to the Emirates and Manchester City fans seem to have no problem with calling their home the Etihad.
(Manchester United/Foster + Partners)
“INEOS might be a more palatable sponsor than someone else as Manchester United are already actively associated with INEOS and it would suggest that Ratcliffe’s company is fully committed and in it for the long haul,” suggests Weaver.
“Our research suggests that British fans are no longer as opposed to naming-rights deals as they were. Fans are becoming more financially literate with their clubs and they know what it takes to compete on the pitch, particularly if you are up against rivals backed by sovereign wealth funds. You have to squeeze out all of the juice.”
So, a naming-rights deal will help but what about the rest?
“It is going to be very expensive,” says Tim Williams, who was United’s group financial controller for five years until 2015. “I’m sure it will have to be funded by a mix of equity and debt. There will be no shortage of global banks and private-equity firms that want to lend United money but it will be interesting to see how much they borrow and where that debt sits.
“Debt is a very loaded term at United but it is normally better to put any stadium debt on the club’s books or a club subsidiary. Separating club and stadium rarely works in the long term.”
(Top photo: Manchester United/Foster + Partners)