Stadium Expansion..

[Grob]

If you build it, they will come.

Exactly.

We can always paper crowds for games if nescessary. School kids, charitys etc.

But still, anything over 35k the council get a cut of. We need to buy this stadium, add a tier, and sell the naming rights to Microsoft/Apple/Walmart

[BlueMoonAwoken]

If you build it, they will come.

Exactly.

We can always paper crowds for games if nescessary. School kids, charitys etc.

But still, anything over 35k the council get a cut of. We need to buy this stadium, add a tier, and sell the naming rights to Microsoft/Apple/Walmart

The whole world is against us.

[Socrates]

If you build it, they will come.

Exactly.

We can always paper crowds for games if nescessary. School kids, charitys etc.

But still, anything over 35k the council get a cut of. We need to buy this stadium, add a tier, and sell the naming rights to Microsoft/Apple/Walmart

we don't actually know that with the council, I suspect it is only a cut of attendances from the capacity of Maine Road to the capacity of the original development of Eastlands. If we develop further then we may well keep all the balance. We can't buy the stadium, just not an option I'm afraid because of the Sport England funding element.

[Murph]

The rags were only getting 30 odd thousand for a lot of games in the years before they became successful, and sometimes less than 30,000. Don't believe the fairy-tale that they have always had the support to sell out game after game, the crowds they get now is down to success on the pitch, nothing else. I don't see why we can't increase our average attendance markedly with a bit of success, and as Socs has pointed out it's not about selling out every game, it's about maximising revenue now that Platini has got his plans through.

Was the 30 odd thousand in the period when they were rebuilding the swamp mate? I recall that since Munich 58, they've near enough always had a full capacity, allbeit with a large attendance of folk from a long way from Mancland.

Like I said, it's a fairy-tale, don't believe the hype Burt mate.

Check out this site mate http://www.manchester-united-fans-site.com/manchester-united-past-results.html

Look at their attendance's in the years mid 80's onwards leading up to winning the prem 92/93, I think you might be surprised.

[Ted Hughes]

If you build it, they will come.

Exactly.

We can always paper crowds for games if nescessary. School kids, charitys etc.

But still, anything over 35k the council get a cut of. We need to buy this stadium, add a tier, and sell the naming rights to Microsoft/Apple/Walmart

The whole world is against us.

I don't think we have to buy the stadium. I'm pretty sure that the council will be agreeable to a deal. In fact I recon they'd probably do 2 laps of Eastlands naked wearing 'I love David Cameron' hats if it was required to keep the possible Abu Dhabi investment coming. Their current deal is up to 47,000 odd anyway. That doesn't automatically mean they get the same deal above that figure. It would have to be negotiated & we'll just say no.

[Blue Since 76]

when Manchester was after the olympics and was planning a stadium where the trafford centre is, the talk was of it becoming a c90,000 seater football stadium afterwards. This was pre-premier league and I remember my rag uncle saying there was no point, as they'd never fill it. That was when they couldn't fill 45,000 capacity. Thank god edwards agreed with him, or they could have had a huge stadium for years, at little cost.

Regarding plans for Eastlands, that would make it the second biggest club ground in England. Do the owners sound like people who'd say second is good enough? Just a thought.

[ronk]

when Manchester was after the olympics and was planning a stadium where the trafford centre is, the talk was of it becoming a c90,000 seater football stadium afterwards. This was pre-premier league and I remember my rag uncle saying there was no point, as they'd never fill it. That was when they couldn't fill 45,000 capacity. Thank god edwards agreed with him, or they could have had a huge stadium for years, at little cost.

Regarding plans for Eastlands, that would make it the second biggest club ground in England. Do the owners sound like people who'd say second is good enough? Just a thought.

Is the biggest club ground in England the best club ground in England? It would be a mistake to build the biggest club stadium in England just for the sake of bragging rights. Expansion is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[john68]

For the record,
89-90...rags...39,077 (13th)
90-91... " ...43,218 (6th)
91-92... " ...44,984 (2nd)
92-93... " ...35,152 (1st)
93-94... " ...44,244 (1st)
94-95... " ...43,681 (2nd)
95-96... " ...41,700 (1st)
96-97... " ...55,081 (1st)
97-98... " ...55,168 (2nd)
98-99... " ...55,188 (1st)
99-00... " ...58,017 (1st)
00-01... " ...67,544 (1st)
01-02... " ...67,586 (3rd)
02-03... " ...67,630 (1st)
03-04... " ...67,641 (3rd)
04-05... " ...67,871 (3rd)
05-06... " ...68,765 (2nd)
06-07... " ...75,826 (1st)

I think we can learn much from the above rags figures as they cover the relevant periods of changes that were significant in modern football, the rags fortunes, the increased capacity of the swamp and the influence that Sky and other broacasters had in promoting the Premier League as a global brand.
It becomes obvious that in that period, the old order of a club representing its local community changed into a club becoming a marketted brand where the local ties were diminished and ther market opened globally. The effect of that allowed the rags to massively increase their profile (based on their success) and attendances increased quite dramatically too.

City are now at a similar place that the rags were in the early 90s and all the same factors that assisted the rags are still in place for us to take advantage of. The Premier League is now globally established and we have the resources to become successful.
Success will bring with it a far bigger increase in global support than ever before and that will bring in the paying fans to matches.

Just a thought to be examined.

[john68]

Add to the above that the rags fell lucky with the timing of their rise. Their main rivals, Liverpool failed, leaving only Arsenal (initially) as major rivals. The rule changes to the structure and finance of the CL, added to the increased exposure of Sky globally, made their job easier.
City can now gain from all of that. Three of the established top 4 are struggling financially, Liverpool having re-establishing their football credentials, seem to be failing again and the rags, as well as being burdened with crippling debt, have to renew their aging squad without the rasources to do so. City are in a very good position, as were the rags, to take full advantage. We can also gain from the UeFA CL changes, in that we seem to have got through the door of the new finance rules which when slammed shut will make it difficult for other clubs to rise as we have.

All we have to do is to win the League this season, the CL next season, whilst picking up a few other pots as we go...and as they say...Bob's yer uncle!!!...Easy peasy.

[Abu Dhabi]

All we have to do is to win the League this season, the CL next season..

pfft thats it? come on then!

fair post btw

[Blue Since 76]

when Manchester was after the olympics and was planning a stadium where the trafford centre is, the talk was of it becoming a c90,000 seater football stadium afterwards. This was pre-premier league and I remember my rag uncle saying there was no point, as they'd never fill it. That was when they couldn't fill 45,000 capacity. Thank god edwards agreed with him, or they could have had a huge stadium for years, at little cost.

Regarding plans for Eastlands, that would make it the second biggest club ground in England. Do the owners sound like people who'd say second is good enough? Just a thought.

Is the biggest club ground in England the best club ground in England? It would be a mistake to build the biggest club stadium in England just for the sake of bragging rights. Expansion is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Stats will only show the biggest. Doesn't mean it can't be best as well, though. The difference between 75,000 and 77,000 would be peanuts relatively and I just don't see them accepting second. Once it's there, it's for Cook to worry about how to fill it, hopefully aided by the best football team in Europe

[Abu Dhabi]

Utd will have to cut the capacity by 10k if they wanted to meet the FIFA requirements for the world cup.

[ashton287]

If you build it, they will come.

Exactly.

We can always paper crowds for games if nescessary. School kids, charitys etc.

But still, anything over 35k the council get a cut of. We need to buy this stadium, add a tier, and sell the naming rights to Microsoft/Apple/Walmart

Get some free wifi with one of these two, 3g signal on o2 is fucking wank.

[Abu Dhabi]

If you build it, they will come.

Exactly.

We can always paper crowds for games if nescessary. School kids, charitys etc.

But still, anything over 35k the council get a cut of. We need to buy this stadium, add a tier, and sell the naming rights to Microsoft/Apple/Walmart

Get some free wifi with one of these two, 3g signal on o2 is fucking wank.

Welcome to the Apple of Manchester lmao

[john68]

It is worth noting that City identified quite early on after the takeover that their job to develop the City profile had been made easier by the rags and othe major global clubs. It was the likes of Madrid, Barca and English clubs that did the hard work, assisted by the higher profile that the likes of Sky gave them, that helped to break the bigger global markets. That infrastructure is now well in place and the club have stated that they know they can use it to our benefit.

For those who doubt that City can attract larger crowds of 70,00 plus, we have a historic record of doing so. Though our average gates may not show it, there were a number of games in the 30s and 40s where City attracted over 70,000 to maine Road and even over 80,000.

A look at the rags attendances at Maine Road just post WW2 show they too attracted gates of over 70,000. It should be noted that at that time, the vast majority of those huge attendances would have been City fans taking the opportunity to watch 1st Division football while City had been relegated.

75,000 at CoMS is a feasable proposition for the future as long as the "CITY PROJECT" doesn't become derailed.

[brite blu sky]

It is worth noting that City identified quite early on after the takeover that their job to develop the City profile had been made easier by the rags and othe major global clubs. It was the likes of Madrid, Barca and English clubs that did the hard work, assisted by the higher profile that the likes of Sky gave them, that helped to break the bigger global markets. That infrastructure is now well in place and the club have stated that they know they can use it to our benefit.

For those who doubt that City can attract larger crowds of 70,00 plus, we have a historic record of doing so. Though our average gates may not show it, there were a number of games in the 30s and 40s where City attracted over 70,000 to maine Road and even over 80,000.

A look at the rags attendances at Maine Road just post WW2 show they too attracted gates of over 70,000. It should be noted that at that time, the vast majority of those huge attendances would have been City fans taking the opportunity to watch 1st Division football while City had been relegated.

75,000 at CoMS is a feasable proposition for the future as long as the "CITY PROJECT" doesn't become derailed.

As i posted earlier and you also kind of flippantly posted.. when we start to win a whole bunch of dormant Manc City 'fans' will start coming out of the woodwork. I think we will all be surprised just how much Manchester will get behind City when we start to return the promise..

[john68]

Again, just for the record, City are not new to gates of over 70,000. Considering our present capacity at 47,000+ and the fact that from the early 60s Maine Road was limited down, 1st to 65,0009ish) then even lower, we will never really know the true pulling power of City in the more successful years of the 60s and 70s. There were quite a number of occasions when the "sold out" signs were posted at maine Road.
For those reasons, a cursory look at the record shows all 70,000 gates predating 1957 and we had the loss of football for WW2 in the 1940s.
1924...76,166...FA Cup(4)...v...Cardiff City
1934...84,569...FA Cup(5)...v...Stoke City
1935...79,491...Div One.....v...Arsenal
1937...74,918...Div One.....v...Arsenal
1938...71,937...FA Cup(4)...v...Bury
1947...78,000...Div One.....v...the rags
1948...71,960...Div One.....v...the rags
1956...70,640...FA Cup(5)...v...Liverpool
1956...76,128...FA Cup(6)...v...Everton
1957...70,483...Div One.....v...the rags

There were far too many occasions when City topped our present capacity to post here. It seems to show that historically we have always had the potential to attract huge crowds whenever we have had some measure of success. To me, it seems only good planning and logic to increase the capacity at CoMS. I would be tempted to go 80,000 and then work towards attracting them in.

When City moved to maine Road in 1923, it was always the aim of the club to gradually increase the capacity of the ground towards 100,000. To quote Gary James, "To make Make Road into the Hampden Park of England." It seems our earlier owners had vision too. So none of this is new, more a case of City getting back on track after some years of screwing up.

[ENIAM NAM]

We have certainly pulled in those sorts of crowds in the past, but I think 'back in them days' a lot of "football" fans would watch City one week, and the Utd the next. That would not happen nowadays.

Having said that, success will almost certainly extend the fan base and I think an extension is an obvious thing to do to increase revenue.

[john68]

We have certainly pulled in those sorts of crowds in the past, but I think 'back in them days' a lot of "football" fans would watch City one week, and the Utd the next. That would not happen nowadays.

Having said that, success will almost certainly extend the fan base and I think an extension is an obvious thing to do to increase revenue.

There is no evidence that shows that fans watched both City and the rags each week, except for the period directly after the war, especially whilst the rags were our tenants. Comparative gates in other decades would seem to show most stayed with their own club.
There were special factors that caused fans to watch both teams during the early 40s, the the thirst to watch football after being denied during the war and the fact that City had been relegated, giving City fans a chance to see Div 1 football as well as watch the Bklues.
It must be remembered that pre war, City were the big club with the bigger crowds. The rags added very little to our gates, whilst we added massively to theirs.

[Ted Hughes]

We have certainly pulled in those sorts of crowds in the past, but I think 'back in them days' a lot of "football" fans would watch City one week, and the Utd the next. That would not happen nowadays.

Having said that, success will almost certainly extend the fan base and I think an extension is an obvious thing to do to increase revenue.

There is no evidence that shows that fans watched both City and the rags each week, except for the period directly after the war, especially whilst the rags were our tenants. Comparative gates in other decades would seem to show most stayed with their own club.
There were special factors that caused fans to watch both teams during the early 40s, the the thirst to watch football after being denied during the war and the fact that City had been relegated, giving City fans a chance to see Div 1 football as well as watch the Bklues.
It must be remembered that pre war, City were the big club with the bigger crowds. The rags added very little to our gates, whilst we added massively to theirs.

I've actually got tickets for City games for Norwegian rags & Liverpool fans in recent seasons (I know, I'm sorry) & they came genuinely looking forward to watching City, not to take the piss. The Liverpool fans amongst them have been to OT several times to watch the rags, along with thousands of other Norwegian non Utd fans; they just enjoy football. They thoruoghly enjoyed it at City & every last one of them will try to catch a City game if they can when they're over here to watch their own teams, that's guaranteed. One of the lads who came had no team. Now he supports City. If we can do that with people from abroad who support others we can certainly do it with Mancunians who don't go to games & lapsed City fans, before we even take into account Britain & the World.

Success will bring enormous crowds to City. It may take 10 years or more to get it up to a 70k average but for one off big games it could happen in a few seasons & if we win the league, 55k+ average is easily achievable imo.