It is undoubtedly the most horrendous option, let me get that out straight away.
But at a time where Sir Jim Ratcliffe is claiming Manchester United are in such financial straits that they’d be bankrupt by Christmas without his cost-cutting exercises across the board, then perhaps it is their best bet. Perhaps it is the only way.
As United wait for their new 100,000 seater, £2bn stadium to be built - “a stadium befitting of its stature” according to Ratcliffe as the “world’s favourite football club” - the Red Devils are going to need a new home.
[
When Man Utd hope new £2bn stadium will be ready - and the issue stopping it](https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/manutd-new-stadium-build-time-34837021)
[
Man Utd fans' response to new £2bn stadium plans speak volumes - 'I feel sick'](https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-utd-new-stadium-reaction-34837011)
Maybe, they hope, for five years, given plans to construct sections of the stadium off site and then transport it along the Manchester Ship Canal.
Maybe longer.
Sharing with Manchester City and going to the Etihad is, logistically, the common sense choice. But then, Ratcliffe and his cohorts will be looking at the financial minutiae. And frankly, they aren’t going to get anything like the best deal if they decide to move into blue territory. The upside of sharing for five-plus years will be City’s, not United’s.
Head over to Merseyside and share with Liverpool? No chance.
Take refuge at Everton’s new stadium? Unlikely.
So maybe they’ll be better served thinking outside of the box. And it doesn’t come much more outside the box than heading 196 miles south. To Wembley.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been looking at cutting costs and how to make United profitable
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has been looking at cutting costs and how to make United profitable
(
Image:
Visionhaus, Visionhaus/Getty Images)
New Manchester United stadium design
Manchester United have announced plans to build a new stadium ( Image: Foster + Partners)
Now the PR will be terrible. No two ways about it. And rightfully so. This is Wimbledon becoming MK Dons - albeit only briefly - only on a nuclear scale.
But in terms of what United need, what they can get, and the best possible deal financially, it’s their best play. And let's be honest, how much does Big Jim really care about his PR?
The FA have already allowed Spurs to use the stadium temporarily. There’s no real reason why they wouldn’t allow United. After all, they’ve got bills to pay themselves and Ratcliffe and co will get a better deal there than from their rivals.
And for United, they’d have no trouble packing it out for Premier League and European matches either. And taking a bigger chunk of a 90k attendance - not to mention the extra merchandise etc that they’ll sell - is better than a smaller piece of a 55k pie.
Manchester United have been told the new stadium 'looks like a circus tent'
(
Image:
Foster + Partners) Don't Miss
Certainly, it won’t go down well with season ticket holders. But nor did the price rises this year and they went ahead with those. They’ve shown a willingness to treat ‘legacy’ fans with disdain and there’s no doubt that such a move would see some walk away.
But at a time when some Premier League clubs, privately, aren’t that fussed about losing some of their longest-standing supporters, would that really fuss them? Especially given you can take that ticket, sell it nineteen times over at £150-a-pop (or more) to day-trippers and the like.
And that’s not to mention the greater corporate appeal that Wembley has.
As yet, the beginning of construction on ‘New Trafford’ doesn’t have a start date. On Tuesday morning, Ratcliffe fired a broadside at the Government, whose help he is demanding: “It depends how quickly the Government gets going with the regeneration programme. I think they want to get going quite quickly, they want to see progress in this term.”
CEO Omar Berrada was bullish about the financing, declaring: “It’s a very attractive investment opportunity so we’re quite confident we’ll find a way to finance the stadium.”
A Downing Street spokesman on Tuesday responded to say: “It’s only been announced today, so we are unsure as to the amount (of available Government cash) yet. I’m not aware of any government support that has been committed to the project.”
Asked whether taxpayers’ cash would be used, the reply was simple: “Not going to get ahead of discussions that haven’t happened.”
So we’re still some way away it seems, perhaps further than United would have you believe. But when it does start to kick on, until such a time as the stadium is ready for the team to actually go out and play matches, then United need to continue making as much money as possible.
They need to ensure as many United supporters - or consumers, whatever the word is these days among the corporate clan - continue to pay their money (preferably as much money as possible) and watch the side throughout their homelessness.
And unfortunately, the most horrendous option may well be what’s best for business.
And that, sickeningly for what it means, is Wembley.
Join our new MAN UTD WhatsApp communityand receive your daily dose of Manchester United content from Mirror Football. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
Sky Sports deal
Sky Sports launches discounted Premier League package £35 (was £43)