United this week unveiled eye-catching plans for a new £2bn stadium next to Old Trafford, and can look across town to City for what can be achieved.
Comments
Sport
The huge trident spires and unconventional cover over Manchester United's potential new stadium have gained headlines worldwide this week.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe unveiled initial plans for a new 100,000-seater stadium next to Old Trafford to replace their historic home and regenerate the industrial area around the current ground. Questions remain over cost, funding, and whether the ambitious designs can actually be achieved - however they have certainly caught the attention.
Article continues below
More practically, the task now for United is to work out just how to go about making these dreams a reality. They could do worse than looking over the Mancunian Way to the Etihad Campus.
City's Etihad Stadium was not built for football but was cleverly redesigned following the 2002 Commonwealth Games to become a designated football ground. Additions to the South Stand in 2014 and currently to the North Stand will keep the stadium modern.
If United spend £2billion on their new Old Trafford, the cost of the Etihad was a fraction of that. Costing around £110m to build as a smaller athletics stadium, it was then given a new lower tier and transformed into the bowl we are now familiar with for around £43m (albeit with a capacity of under half of United's planned 100,000-seats).
It's also worth noting that City themselves did not pay for the initial build, only the conversion to a football ground - and United won't get public money to build their new home, it seems, whereas City inherited a stadium that was already built for another purpose.
But City have not stood still, either. They renegotiated the terms of their lease of the stadium, paying an annual rent to Manchester Council, and added around 9,000 seats to the South Stand in 2014. An extra 6,000 seats to the opposite end is under construction and planned to open in 2026 at a cost of £300m.
Those plans include a huge hotel, fan zone, club shop, museum and hospitality areas, with the club calling the stadium and surrounding areas the 'entertainment district'. That is because the Co-op Live arena opened last year at a cost of over £400m (£100m more than initial plans), with City owners the City Football Group co-owners of that project.
When the North Stand is completed, the Eastlands area will be able to attract almost 85,000 music and sport fans at any time, close to the United plans for their mega-stadium.
And City didn't stop there. Their impressive City Football Academy across the road from the Etihad opened 10 years ago at a cost of £200m, and they are adding a new £10m facility to that training ground for their Women's team. That facility was built to be future-proof, able to cope with the demands of a club as big as they are today, even if they didn't need all that space or those facilities at the time.
The Etihad Campus has gone from wasteland to a sporting and entertainment hub in a little over 20 years, and City have put as much investment into the area and community as they have on the pitch and stadium. Add the cost of the Etihad, its expansions, the impressive training ground and huge new arena, and the little corner of East Manchester has seen over £1bn spent on it.
United can learn a lesson from that, especially concerning plans for a huge new neighbourhood around their new stadium. Get it right, and both of Manchester's world-class clubs can say they have improved the areas around them.
But City can attest that doing so takes time and a lot of money. It has taken decades for the Etihad Campus to look like it does now and the Co-op Live debacle is an example of how quickly costs can spiral and delays can take hold.
If United want their stadium built in five years, and are yet to secure funding, their rivals may caution against those kind of timelines. Even if the end goal can transform far more than just a football ground.