How very sad

[YES Blade]

Crumbling, really?

I didn't say the stand was crumbling. All you want is a seat fancying the pitch apparently and the rest doesn't matter?

 

[YES Blade]

I went on the Bllt last week for the boxing for the first time in probably 30 years ,it really is the worst part of the ground.

I was in there as well, it's definitely better than the Kop.

Please could you explain to me why you think it's worse than the Kop?

 

[Tyler Durden]

I didn't say the stand was crumbling. All you want is a seat fancying the pitch apparently and the rest doesn't matter?

I've no problem with the rest of the ground. As I've been saying, it's amongst the best in the country and the only criticism I've seen has come from this one forum.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Ideally I'd clear the site and build a proper stand with the concourse under the stand.

Ideally, yes, but here's the reason why it will never happen. The kop is built on a rubble heap. In those days folk weren't too fussy what they dumped and you can bet that the rubble consists of asbestos, tar and other niceties left over from the industrial revolution, Victorian industry and left overs from two world wars. This would be classed as hazardous waste today and re-use would be prohibited. Landfill would be the only option.

Now, my (very rough and simple) maths estimates that around 12,000 cubic metres of the stuff exists under the kop. (80m wide x 10m high at the back x 30m depth. Add to this approximately another 5,000 cubic metres on the hill at the back of the kop and we have 17,000 cubic metres or 34,000 tonnes of the stuff. Landfill tax is currently around £86 per tonne for hazardous waste so the grand total would be nearly £3m in landfill tax alone. Add to this the demolition of the existing structure, excavation and haulage costs for the rubble and the clean up costs of the cleared site, you're looking at another £2m.

So that's £5m before you even start plus another £10-15m for a new state of the art grandstand. Even though the stand would be bigger, so would the spacing between the seats, so we would end up with a new stand with a capacity about the same as we have now but £20m worse off.

Or we can spend £2-3m on an extra 3,000 seats on a kop extension. What do you think?

P.S. Those figures outlined above are within +/-10% and for this once I do know what I'm talking about as this kind of stuff used to be my day job. I promise to talk the usual rubbish for my future posts.

 

[sitwell]

I was in there as well, it's definitely better than the Kop.

Please could you explain to me why you think it's worse than the Kop?

Too low down for me ,I like to see the pattern of play ,you just wont get it from that angle.

 

[JohnDenver]

Ideally, yes, but here's the reason why it will never happen. The kop is built on a rubble heap. In those days folk weren't too fussy what they dumped and you can bet that the rubble consists of asbestos, tar and other niceties left over from the industrial revolution, Victorian industry and left overs from two world wars. This would be classed as hazardous waste today and re-use would be prohibited. Landfill would be the only option.

Now, my (very rough and simple) maths estimates that around 12,000 cubic metres of the stuff exists under the kop. (80m wide x 10m high at the back x 30m depth. Add to this approximately another 5,000 cubic metres on the hill at the back of the kop and we have 17,000 cubic metres or 34,000 tonnes of the stuff. Landfill tax is currently around £86 per tonne for hazardous waste so the grand total would be nearly £3m in landfill tax alone. Add to this the demolition of the existing structure, excavation and haulage costs for the rubble and the clean up costs of the cleared site, you're looking at another £2m.

So that's £5m before you even start plus another £10-15m for a new state of the art grandstand. Even though the stand would be bigger, so would the spacing between the seats, so we would end up with a new stand with a capacity about the same as we have now but £20m worse off.

Or we can spend £2-3m on an extra 3,000 seats on a kop extension. What do you think?

P.S. Those figures outlined above are within +/-10% and for this once I do know what I'm talking about as this kind of stuff used to be my day job. I promise to talk the usual rubbish for my future posts.

Cost me £2k in skips to excavate my back garden. Don't do it Kev!

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Ideally, yes, but here's the reason why it will never happen. The kop is built on a rubble heap. In those days folk weren't too fussy what they dumped and you can bet that the rubble consists of asbestos, tar and other niceties left over from the industrial revolution, Victorian industry and left overs from two world wars. This would be classed as hazardous waste today and re-use would be prohibited. Landfill would be the only option.

Now, my (very rough and simple) maths estimates that around 12,000 cubic metres of the stuff exists under the kop. (80m wide x 10m high at the back x 30m depth. Add to this approximately another 5,000 cubic metres on the hill at the back of the kop and we have 17,000 cubic metres or 34,000 tonnes of the stuff. Landfill tax is currently around £86 per tonne for hazardous waste so the grand total would be nearly £3m in landfill tax alone. Add to this the demolition of the existing structure, excavation and haulage costs for the rubble and the clean up costs of the cleared site, you're looking at another £2m.

So that's £5m before you even start plus another £10-15m for a new state of the art grandstand. Even though the stand would be bigger, so would the spacing between the seats, so we would end up with a new stand with a capacity about the same as we have now but £20m worse off.

Or we can spend £2-3m on an extra 3,000 seats on a kop extension. What do you think?

P.S. Those figures outlined above are within +/-10% and for this once I do know what I'm talking about as this kind of stuff used to be my day job. I promise to talk the usual rubbish for my future posts.

£20M?

Get the next Brian Deane signed.

 

[YES Blade]

Too low down for me ,I like to see the pattern of play ,you just wont get it from that angle.

But it's exactly the same if you sit at the front of the Kop? To me it was no worse view than from low down on the Kop but you had no posts and a covered concourse, so therefore better, not great by modern standards but definitely better than the Kop.

 

[YES Blade]

Ideally, yes, but here's the reason why it will never happen. The kop is built on a rubble heap. In those days folk weren't too fussy what they dumped and you can bet that the rubble consists of asbestos, tar and other niceties left over from the industrial revolution, Victorian industry and left overs from two world wars. This would be classed as hazardous waste today and re-use would be prohibited. Landfill would be the only option.

Now, my (very rough and simple) maths estimates that around 12,000 cubic metres of the stuff exists under the kop. (80m wide x 10m high at the back x 30m depth. Add to this approximately another 5,000 cubic metres on the hill at the back of the kop and we have 17,000 cubic metres or 34,000 tonnes of the stuff. Landfill tax is currently around £86 per tonne for hazardous waste so the grand total would be nearly £3m in landfill tax alone. Add to this the demolition of the existing structure, excavation and haulage costs for the rubble and the clean up costs of the cleared site, you're looking at another £2m.

So that's £5m before you even start plus another £10-15m for a new state of the art grandstand. Even though the stand would be bigger, so would the spacing between the seats, so we would end up with a new stand with a capacity about the same as we have now but £20m worse off.

Or we can spend £2-3m on an extra 3,000 seats on a kop extension. What do you think?

P.S. Those figures outlined above are within +/-10% and for this once I do know what I'm talking about as this kind of stuff used to be my day job. I promise to talk the usual rubbish for my future posts.

I know what you're saying and there is no way anything will happen in our current situation either way.

If we establish ourselves in the Premier League or get a mega rich owner £20m will be peanuts.

To put it into context Zlatan earned £19m at Man U this season, this is the football world we live in these days.

 

[snootyfenooty]

I know what you're saying and there is no way anything will happen in our current situation either way.

If we establish ourselves in the Premier League or get a mega rich owner £20m will be peanuts.

To put it into context Zlatan earned £19m at Man U this season, this is the football world we live in these days.

Agreed, peanuts it may in premier league terms be but irrespective of this, no-ones going to blow £20m to finish up with a stand that's no improvement on the original in terms of capacity. As long as it meets current safety requirements, Plan B is the only viable option.

 

[FATTYFOULKE]

I've no problem with the rest of the ground. As I've been saying, it's amongst the best in the country and the only criticism I've seen has come from this one forum.

Ideally, yes, but here's the reason why it will never happen. The kop is built on a rubble heap. In those days folk weren't too fussy what they dumped and you can bet that the rubble consists of asbestos, tar and other niceties left over from the industrial revolution, Victorian industry and left overs from two world wars. This would be classed as hazardous waste today and re-use would be prohibited. Landfill would be the only option.

Now, my (very rough and simple) maths estimates that around 12,000 cubic metres of the stuff exists under the kop. (80m wide x 10m high at the back x 30m depth. Add to this approximately another 5,000 cubic metres on the hill at the back of the kop and we have 17,000 cubic metres or 34,000 tonnes of the stuff. Landfill tax is currently around £86 per tonne for hazardous waste so the grand total would be nearly £3m in landfill tax alone. Add to this the demolition of the existing structure, excavation and haulage costs for the rubble and the clean up costs of the cleared site, you're looking at another £2m.

So that's £5m before you even start plus another £10-15m for a new state of the art grandstand. Even though the stand would be bigger, so would the spacing between the seats, so we would end up with a new stand with a capacity about the same as we have now but £20m worse off.

Or we can spend £2-3m on an extra 3,000 seats on a kop extension. What do you think?

P.S. Those figures outlined above are within +/-10% and for this once I do know what I'm talking about as this kind of stuff used to be my day job. I promise to talk the usual rubbish for my future posts.

Didn't United cost the buliding of the extension to the stand including new covered concourse at £17m? It wasn't just the seating but facilities etc underneath which would mean the removal of the nasty stuff you mention.

That would tie in roughly to what your saying. So it seems United know what's involved cost wise and have taken it all into account.

Don't underestimate McCabe when it comes to property development. He has the money and when it comes to United the ambition. If he wants it, it will be done.

 

[Keen Blade]

I think the only one of the modern built stadiums that I like is the millennium, with the stands right up to pitch so generates a good atmosphere , just didn't like our last performance in it !
I think the problem when teams move into new grounds and the lack of atmosphere is that groups and areas of the ground where the fans a more vocal become split up so you don't end up with a Kop etc.

Millennium gave me the shittiest view I've ever had in a footy stadium - bottom tier , no rake , so far back into darkness that match was watched on overhead TV screens , daylight robbery. No decent stadium would provide such a shit experience. And it wasn't our abject defeat to Wolves , it was Newcastle v Man Utd in an FA Semi.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Didn't United cost the buliding of the extension to the stand including new covered concourse at £17m? It wasn't just the seating but facilities etc underneath which would mean the removal of the nasty stuff you mention.

That would tie in roughly to what your saying. So it seems United know what's involved cost wise and have taken it all into account.

Don't underestimate McCabe when it comes to property development. He has the money and when it comes to United the ambition. If he wants it, it will be done.

I can't see McCabe wanting to remove the rubble then leave the exisiting kop as it is. For one, the rubble is holding it up, it would collapse if you tried to excavate underneath it, in which case it would make more sense to demolish it and start again. The extension wouldn't cost too much but the photo's showed masses of fancy glass cladding (plus the obligatory office block) which would cost a bomb. It all depends how flush he's feeling I suppose.