Manchester United Thread 25/26 - Teamtalk/Transfers/Gossip Mod Note in OP 26.09.24

Headshot

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123256854#Comment_123256854

He wont last 3 games before he's gone again

What an awful transfer

SteM

Straight in with the negativity. Why bother?

PARlance

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123253421#Comment_123253421

Just listening to below from yesterday. While they may not be seeking government funding for the stadium itself, I take it that there will be no stadium without government backing for Ineos' regeneration project.

Ratcliffe's quote from 6:20 mins into this:

"IF the government really gets behind this regeneration scheme, then we (together with architect...) will build an iconic football stadium"

So they're no looking for funding for the stadium directly, but building that stadium is dependent on backing of the regeneration project.

Now the UK government have said that a regeneration project for Manchester is in their plans but I think it's a very bold and risky move from Ineos to be publicly backing the UK government into a corner in terms of funding Ineos' vision.

https://youtu.be/9xYgyZU4jIU?si=9go4DSm1euzygw6T

FourFourRED

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123256862#Comment_123256862

He might. He picked up a hamstring injury v City and it has taken a while to recover. They are being cautious with him.

Amorim is a fan of him and said it was just bad luck. Knowing Amorim’s brutal honesty, he probably wouldn’t have said that if he doesn’t believe it. He could have a role to play in the later Europa games if we can make it that far. We badly need bodies and hopefully he can stay fit.

GolfPar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123256896#Comment_123256896

He would be a great option to have in one of those 10 roles if he can stay fit.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123256880#Comment_123256880

Why that is the case is something I don;'t quite understand.

The united part of this is building ht estadium which will cost X. THey say they can/will cover that. No governemt help needed.
What is it they are looking for the government to do, and what are the actual costs of doing that?

I know a simple and obvious element is moving the train station - they are lookiing for hte government to pay for that I believe.

I believe the moving of the frieght yard is also being looked at similarly. I think United would have to buy the land but are they looknig/needing the government to help with the relocation costs that would fall on the fireght company? I have read that is the case.

But I don't think that is actually the heart of it.

If we look at the plans there are clearly massive amounts of mixed use buildings - the plan calls out like 17000 homes etc. FIrstly, I don't know how that breaks down between development on United owned land vs Public owned land - but clearly there is a large amount on United owned land. Are the looking for the Government to buy the land off United and build to the plan? Is it rezoning that is needed? Is it tax incentives or planning assistance that is needed - which wouldn't require an outlay from the govenment but would 'cost' them in tems of lesser tax receipets than they'd be 'due' on the same money otherwise. With those tax incentives and planning assitance then the development of the land becomes more attractive for investors, investors United will be looking at to come on board and help finance the project?

Is it that the 'just' need to the govenment to do the trainline stuff and then develop the publicly owned land? So that the development of the land United own becomes more attractive to investors in the greater project?

Is it that we can afford to build the stadium but need help developing the surrounds so that going to the stadium on non-match days is attactive, and revenue generating, so that the stadium project itself is viable?

Like I keep seeing it said the govenment need to get on board with the regeneration aspect but I don't know what that actually means.

PARlance

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123256937#Comment_123256937

I'm not sure the exact reasons (I imagine most of what you suggest falls into it) but I think it has been a little disingenuous of Ineos to be leading with "we don't need funding for the stadium itself" yet the building of that stadium won't go ahead without the government backing of the regeneration project.

While I know lobbying in part and parcel of these things, Ineos are doing that lobbying in a very public forum. They could be left with egg on their face if the UK government decide that the regeneration of Manchester will be their own project and not one that Ineos pressure them into.

For me, it seems the whole thing remains pie in the sky stuff until the UK government fully buy into Ineos' vision.

jayo44

I belive it's a mixture of everything they want from the government.

United can't build the new stadium without freight yard being moved, railway line/station being addressed.

United don't want to build the stadium on the middle of an empty industrial area.

United don't want to build the stadium without infrastructure around it.

If you look at the plans the walk up to the stadium thay people are comparing to Wembley way, that's going through the carpark opposite the megastore but there's a very different road layout around that area and ore bridges crossing the canal.

So I'm guessing the reason it's dependent on the government is for them to commit to and start the rezoning and planning for the regeneration of the surrounding area.

The council have already computed to it basically.

DrPhilG

It's not just Ineos lobbying the government, Andy Burnham is the Greater Manchester mayor and he has been involved since the beginning of the taskforce. The regeneration project may be a requirement to boost United's stadium plans, but it's also a major boost for the city and so everyone at Greater Manchester council will also be pushing for government support.

I also don't think Jim would be putting everything on a wing and a prayer without having had some discussions behind the scenes and having a fair idea how things are likely to shake out.

jayo44

Someone the BBC been talking reckons renaming rights on the new stadium be worth 50-60m alone. It's huge money over say 20 year period you can see where the financing can come from. It's not like Everton or spurs trying to generate money for their stadiums.

Seattle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123257230#Comment_123257230

They should look to do it with Old Trafford in the interim to raise some cash. Not sure why they haven't yet - there surely wouldn't be as big of a fan backlash over it compared to ticket price rises.

GolfPar

Ugarte also training today. No sign of Maguire or Yoro though.

PARlance

No sign of Maguire or Yoro at today's training according to a Simon Peach tweet.

That's us down to De Ligt, Lindelof, and Heaven for tomorrow? Huge game for Heaven if so.

Edit: Forgot Dorgu is available so Maz will likely go into the back 3 CBs.

FourFourRED

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123257283#Comment_123257283

I’d say Casemiro has a strong chance of keeping his place. He’s done well the last few games in fairness. Especially as Ugarte is only just back.

Mitch Connor

My preference would be Case and Ugarte. Bruno and Garnacho off zirkzee.

jayo44

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123257260#Comment_123257260

Agree I don't understand why not either.

Mitch Connor

I thought they could have had the conversation with the fans - naming vs ticket increase etc.

But when you get to the cold business of it - if you make that trade, you then can't increase ticket prices down the line without an even bigger backlast.

They are better off not presenting either options as trade offs to each other and just doing both.

Thought it seems clear we won't see the big price rises that were feared a couple of months ago; but we will see a 2-5% increase I would guess.

What happens with prices in the new stadium is anyones guess though. I expect we would see huge rises (in terms of revenue) from corporate hospitality seats ( ~15% of capacity) but i don't think that will massively insulate the 'normal' fans from significant enough rises.

The Big Easy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123256985#Comment_123256985

Andy Burnham's presence on the task force makes it far more than pie in the sky though. He's the Mayor of Manchester as already mentioned and before that was a high ranking Labour shadow secretary. He's a high profile Labour politician, so while this plan may not be official government policy, his involvement suggests that this is their defacto regeneration plan.

His mayoral candidacy was all about moving away from London centric politics and regenerating the North and Manchester in particular. It is also important Labour policy generally as their bedrock support is in the North of England.

I think this plan has a great chance of coming to fruition personally.

8-10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123257922#Comment_123257922

He's a good egg that guy. Did more than nearly any politician for the Hillsborough justice campaign despite being a massive Everton fan and was very nearly the Labour party leader instead of Jeremy Corbyn. Very proud of his North West roots.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123258103#Comment_123258103

I get what you are saying but the 'massive Everton fan' bit jars!

"Those heathen Evertonians!"

(not having a go or suggesting you think evertonians are heathens etc - i just found the manner of the wording amusing)

8-10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123258153#Comment_123258153

Nah sorry I didn't mean it like that, it's not hugely relevant, I just assume people think he must be a Liverpool fan given he's from the city and was so prominent on Hillsborough. He's respected for it regardless, I more meant that it's clear he went out of his way on that issue.

Seattle

Labour will definitely want to do it if it makes economic sense but unfortunately governments aren't always able to do things they want to.

They have major spending constraints right now and are expected to make a lot of cuts in the upcoming budget. It's also coming at a time when they're under massive pressure to increase defence spending.

Still, it might happen but the extent to which they'll help is highly uncertain.

y0ssar1an22

good money to be made selling stadium naming rights.

Atletico Madrid's deal with Riyadh Air for the naming rights of their stadium is reportedly worth between €250 million and €300 million over a nine-year period.

Barcelona's deal with Spotify for the naming rights of their stadium, now known as the "Spotify Camp Nou," is reportedly worth €280 million over a four-year period.

Ninthlife

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123258904#Comment_123258904

Which really begs the question why hasnt United explored this avenue.

Old Trafford is going to be there for another 5yrs or so why not get a 4yr deal

paulbok

With Old Trafford due to be demolished once the new stadium is built, is there any point not selling the naming rights to it until then?

The "Acme Old Trafford Stadium" at a minimum of 40m a year is surely a necessity with the state of our finances

Add in the rights for the training ground, which I reckon will happen once the ongoing upgrades are done, and there is an easy 50m if not 70m boost.

SteM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123258958#Comment_123258958

United had/have all sorts of commercial partners so I'd be shocked if no one there hadn't at least explored the idea.

DM_7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123258962#Comment_123258962

Would anyone want to pay a premium to sponsor what the club have said needs to be gotten rid of?

A new stadium would attract a larger premium, longer term deal and still carry the status as first/original stadium sponsor of Man Utd.

DrPhilG

Yeah and I don't mean this as a criticism of Ratcliffe, but he clearly doesn't give a hoot what people think of his actions. Cutting the free meals, raising ticket prices and indicating that they'll increase more next year, decommissioning Fergie etc.

Why face the wrath of the fans for all that but then stop at a decision that would make us £25m+ a year.

kerplun k

Rashford not playing bad for Villa. He had a decent 2nd half tonight, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out how he went from 30 goals in the 22/23 season, to not being able to buy a goal. Did he just drop the ball, show a lack of discipline, and over the course of 2 or 3 years his level declined, and there’s no getting back to that. Or has this always been his level.

Part of me thinks he could have hit the same level of consistency as Harry Kane if he had managed his discipline a bit better.

DrPhilG

3 assists in 7 games for Villa I think. Fingers crossed he bags a few goals and impresses by the summer. Him and Sancho both gone would do wonders not just for the budget but for the spirit in general I'm sure.