Harry who?! Watkins makes England case as Kane watches on

How it feels to beat Lionel Messi

Why Man Utd & Liverpool both want Argentine teen Soler

Top 25 African players of the 21st century - ranked

Vini's nightmare goes on as Brazil drop more WCQ points

Mendes responds to Ronaldo criticism of Portugal players

Raphinha surprises wonderkid Yamal with £10k gold iPhone

Real Madrid midfielder announces shock retirement in emotional letter

Rodri admits he wouldn't have even chosen Vinicius Jr. as Ballon d'Or runner-up

‘Can't think long term’ – Ronaldo admits he may not reach 1,000 goals

Endrick set to be offered 'escape route' out of Real Madrid

'Please leave him alone!' - Deschamps sends out Mbappe plea

'Football's biggest waste' - Adriano admits he's 'drinking to oblivion'

Manchester City

Manchester United

Liverpool

Arsenal

Chelsea

Other

Sir Jim Ratcliffe has only officially been the minority shareholder of Manchester United since February, but he and his INEOS partners have been in a real hurry to re-shape the club. They have appointed a new CEO, sporting director and technical director and revamped the training ground.The most radical and significant step, however, is about to follow: the eventual demolition of Old Trafford and<a href="https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/man-utd-planning-2-billion-build-new-100-000-seater-stadium-instead-redeveloping-old-trafford-inspiration-sofi-stadium-nfl-los-angeles/blte0ec7de50f1defdb" target="_blank"> the building of a brand new, 100,000-capacity stadium in its place.</a>It is a bold move that breaks with tradition, and it will be gut-wrenching to see the club’s historic home razed to the ground. It will also cost the club dear, to the tune of around £2 billion ($2.5bn). It is the right move, though, and it is essential to ensure United move into the future and do not stay stuck in the past, living off former glories and trading in nostalgia.<script type="application/json" data-placement="fcplayer-semantic">{"type":"fcplayer-semantic","data":{"embedCode":"//cdn.fcp.codes/embed-code-template/embed-code-template.js#SEMANTIC_5704afb8-c10b-4ba5-9cb4-d7fb6098ef90"}}</script>Yet one thing should be clear: however ambitious the project is, Ratcliffe and the club should be the ones financing it, not the British taxpayer.

Man Utd are right to want a new 100,000-capacity Old Trafford - but Sir Jim Ratcliffe & Co. - not UK taxpayers - must stump up the cash for 'Wembley of the North'

Premier League

Ipswich

Ratcliffe has talked a lot about the need to redevelop Old Trafford, and less than a month after officially completing his purchase of a 27 percent stake in the club, a task force was set up to determine the best course of action.The group, chaired by London 2012 Olympics organiser Sebastian Coe and whose other members include Gary Neville as well as Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, have concluded that the building of a brand new stadium is the best course of action. There are many good reasons why.First of all, Old Trafford right now is, at best, <a href="https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/man-utd-need-world-class-stadium-compete-old-trafford-symbol-decline/blt1a18398ce7fd87a8" target="_blank">a large but faded stadium</a> that pales in comparison to the modern arenas of rivals Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham, not to mention the futuristic Santiago Bernabeu, Bayern Munich’s Allianz Arena and the proposed new Camp Nou. It has tiny scoreboards, which cannot be seen from large sections of the ground, no big screens and problems with acoustics.The concourses are cramped, leading to long queues before kick-off and at half-time, and the selection of food and drinks is severely limited. Anyone who tries a pie risks burning their mouth with each bite, and <a href="https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/man-utd-punished-club-food-hygiene-rating-raw-chicken-old-trafford-corporate-event/bltcc0445ddc6002f14" target="_blank">the club’s food hygiene is rated at one star out of five</a> after guests were served raw chicken at an event last year.

Lagging behind

At worst, it is a stadium that is no longer fit for purpose. There are big problems of overcrowding before and after matches due to the sheer amount of pillars, leaving fans often feeling unsafe. Once in your seat, there is hardly any legroom, meaning adults of above-average height tend to scrape their knees on the back of the seat in front of them.Then there is <a href="https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/old-trafford-flooded-video-impact-of-downpour-manchester-united-fans-watch-water-gush-through-stadium/bltd0c77bb5f0ce88ac" target="_blank">the infamous leaky roof,</a> which left supporters utterly drenched during last season’s game against Arsenal and which led to the dressing room being flooded. Last season, away fans from Manchester City to Bournemouth revelled in the stories about the stadium’s decay, and the chant “Old Trafford is falling down” was heard at practically every match.At the very least the stadium needs rebuilding, which would cost around £1.1bn ($1.4bn), almost half the amount of building a brand new ground. That option presents many logistical challenges, including building around an existing railway line.Some parts of Old Trafford remain the same as they were when the stadium was first built in 1909, even surviving being bombed during the Second World War. And stadium insiders believe that many materials in the ground are reaching the end of their tether.“The building is reaching the end of its natural life – the cabling, the electricity supplies, everything is nearing its sell by date. And the interiors are very cramped and difficult in places," Chris Lee, chief executive of the architectural firm Populous which United have hired to oversee the stadium project, told The Telegraph last year. “I would say updating is crucial not just to maintain the club’s position, but just to keep the place functional.”

Falling down

Redeveloping the stadium would also mean severely reducing its capacity while building works go on, depriving the club of matchday revenue and meaning many match-going fans would be unable to see the team for several years. Building the new stadium next to Old Trafford, on land which the club already owns, would allow United to keep playing in front of 73,000 supporters at each game until the new stadium is built.A brand new stadium means there will be no restrictions on what type of structure the club can build and there is scope to make it even bigger. The maximum capacity of a redeveloped Old Trafford would be 90,000, but a new stadium could hold up to 100,000. And that is what is needed to meet current demand for tickets. United have more than 330,000 paid-up members, more than any football team in the world, while there are over 120,000 people on the waiting list for season tickets.The final argument for building a new stadium is the scope to redevelop the local area of Trafford, in the manner that Manchester City have revitalised the eastern part of the city. And that is where clear lines need to be drawn.United want to establish a public-private partnership with the local council and even the British government, looking to the taxpayer to ease the burden of paying for the new project. And that cannot be allowed to happen.

Huge ticket demand

Ratcliffe has been trying to drum up political support for this endeavour. New UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer visited Old Trafford in May for the game against Arsenal and, according to The Athletic, he was open to conversations with Ratcliffe around building a public-private partnership with United around the new stadium. Ratcliffe has also been campaigning for government aid via the media, talking of his ambition for Old Trafford to become a “Wembley of the North”"There's a very good case, in my view, for having a stadium of the North, which would serve the northern part of the country in that arena of football," he told Sky News in May. "If you look at the number of Champions League the North West has won, it's 10. London has won two."And yet everybody from the North has to get down to London to watch a big football match. And there should be one in the North, in my view.”Wembley benefitted from public money when it was redeveloped in the 2000s, but there is no reason why United should get from public money for a similar project in the north. English football has one home already, it does not need another at public expense. And even if there is a case to have a northern home for football, why should United be the ones to benefit from it?

Club must pay

United is a private company, trading on the New York Stock Exchange and headquartered in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes. It was projected to make a Premier League-record revenue of up to £680m ($873m) for last season. It does not need public help.Nor does Ratcliffe. The INEOS chief is the fourth-richest person in Britain according to the 2024 Sunday Times Rich List, with a fortune worth an estimated £23.5bn ($30bn). He could finance the project alone with just eight percent of his wealth.And there is a rich irony of him wanting support from the UK government since he is a British tax exile, <a href="https://www.goal.com/en-gb/news/sir-jim-ratcliffe-net-worth-wealth-business-interests-man-utd/blt2fb92b16afa9cafb" target="_blank">paying no tax in his home country since moving to Monaco</a>. It has been estimated that changing his fiscal residence saved him £4bn ($5bn)double the amount it would cost to build the new stadium.

Tax exile

And what of the Glazers, <a href="https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/revealed-how-much-glazer-family-made-man-utd-sir-jim-ratcliffe-takeover-completed/blta9069accf9f920c0" target="_blank">who pocketed £1.25bn ($1.6bn) from selling the 27% stake to Ratcliffe</a> and still own almost three quarters of the club? The American family, who are worth an estimated £3.6 billion ($4.6bn) according to Forbes, have taken £1.1 billion ($1.6bn) out of the club since buying it in a hugely controversial leveraged buyout in 2005. They have invested next to nothing in the stadium, which received its last upgrade in 2006, though that had been planned and financed before their arrival.Manchester mayor Burnham has stressed the need for the stadium to be financed privately, but <a href="https://www.goal.com/en-gb/lists/man-utd-public-money-old-trafford-rebuild-mayor-greater-manchester-london-olympics-project/blteb0346167d81e169" target="_blank">advocated for public help</a> for other facilities such as transport. Improved transport links, while serving the local area, would ultimately further drive up the value of the land, again benefitting United first and foremost.United have invested far too little in their infrastructure in the last two decades and the fact they are prepared to finally prioritise the stadium is good news. But they must compensate for their previous neglect by paying for it, not handing the bill to the public.

Glazers must chip in

Man Utd are right to want a new 100,000-capacity Old Trafford - but Sir Jim Ratcliffe & Co. - not UK taxpayers - must stump up the cash for 'Wembley of the North' | Goal.com

Manchester United&apos;s plans to construct a world-class, 100,000-seater stadium should be celebrated - as long as the public does not end up footing the bill

Man Utd are right to want a new 100,000-capacity Old Trafford - but Sir Jim Ratcliffe &amp; Co. - not UK taxpayers - must stump up the cash for &apos;Wembley of the North&apos;