{"id":40841,"date":"2025-09-03T12:39:09","date_gmt":"2025-09-03T12:39:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/40841\/"},"modified":"2025-09-03T12:39:09","modified_gmt":"2025-09-03T12:39:09","slug":"man-uniteds-new-stadium-latest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/40841\/","title":{"rendered":"Man United’s new stadium latest"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

It might seem far-fetched as things stand, but Sir Jim Ratcliffe sees delivering a new stadium as central to carving out a place for himself on Manchester United\u2019s Mount Rushmore.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The great men of Man United<\/a> history \u2013 Matt Busby, Bobby Charlton and Alex Ferguson \u2013 have all established their legend on the touchlines or the pitch, but Ratcliffe\u2019s vision is more commercially focused. On paper, at least. <\/p>\n

But in reality, the two domains are inseparable. The revenues generated by the 100,000-seater stadium that the Ineos<\/a> CEO intends to build will simply make sporting success completely inexcusable.<\/p>\n

\"ChartMan United stadium capacity and matchday income<\/p>\n

Credit: Adam Williams\/United in Focus\/GRV Media<\/p>\n

If Sir Jim Ratcliffe<\/a> can navigate the political and financial headwinds, United could earn up to \u00a3250m in annual matchday income<\/a> alone, twice what they are likely to earn in 2025-26. Factor in commercial and broadcast money and the club will be aiming for \u00a31bn in revenue as a baseline.<\/p>\n

However, even with glossy concept art released and the local authorities onside, there is a long way to go until Old Trafford<\/a> 2.0 becomes a reality.<\/p>\n

The Glazers<\/a> are unlikely to provide funding and Ratcliffe is already deeply exposed to his investment in M16. <\/p>\n

\"ManchesterPhoto by Ash Donelon\/Manchester United via Getty Images<\/p>\n

The club is in over \u00a3700m of debt<\/a> and is approaching a refinancing juncture after which repayments on almost \u00a3550m of that figure are likely to soar.<\/p>\n

Borrowing more money looks like the only realistic route, but that will require making a bulletproof business case for the stadium to lenders.<\/p>\n

Man United can capitalise on \u2018very good relationship\u2019 with lenders to finance new stadium<\/p>\n

Debt has a branding problem.<\/p>\n

In most cases, debt is a ticket towards growth, an investment in the future of a business. But the problem with Man United\u2019s debt is that \u2013 unlike the Glazers \u2013 they got nothing in return for it.<\/p>\n

\"ChartManchester United gross debt 2024-25<\/p>\n

Credit: Adam Williams\/United in Focus\/GRV Media<\/p>\n

With a new stadium likely to cost \u00a32bn or more, interest payments are going to be a huge drain on cash in an industry where revenue fluctuates with success on the pitch.<\/p>\n

The club paid almost \u00a340m in interest in the last published financial year and, even with a 20-30-year repayment schedule, adding ten figures to their debt pile is going to strain their ability to keep up.<\/p>\n

But speaking exclusively to United in Focus<\/strong>, Liverpool University football finance<\/a> lecturer and Price of Football podcast host Kieran Maguire explains that United\u2019s core financials mean that taking on more debt is feasible if the club can demonstrate the viability of the project.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a lender, you have to look at a return on investment,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n

\u201cMan United have a very good relationship with their lenders, who have been significant beneficiaries from the Glazer takeover.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey can certainly take on significant further debt because EBITDA [earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation] is at \u00a3180m, which exceeded their initial estimates despite a poor Premier League season, though they did have additional matchday income from getting to the final of the Europa League. <\/p>\n

\"ChartMan United EBITDA chart<\/p>\n

Credit: Adam Williams\/United in Focus\/GRV Media<\/p>\n

\u201cSupplementing that, one benefit they have is that players don\u2019t get bonuses for participation in the Europa League. It was a successful year, financially.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wimbledon-style debentures could secure millions in revenue upfront<\/p>\n

As much as 20 per cent of United\u2019s new stadium could be given over to the corporate and hospitality sector. In some earlier formulations of the plan, it could have gone as high as 40 per cent.<\/p>\n

This is de rigueur in modern stadium design. Some clubs now earn as much money from their \u2018premium\u2019 offering as they do the rest of the ground.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more, clubs can cash in ahead of time via the debentures market. Institutions like the Wimbledon tennis tournament sell five-year debentures for over \u00a3100,000 per go, giving the holder the right to buy a seat on Centre Court. Barcelona recently also raised \u00a386m through debentures sales to fund their revamp of the Nou Camp.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey have done their sums and realise that they can write their own cheques as far as personal seat licences go,\u201d said Maguire, explaining how United could go down a similar route.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey can sell those prior to the stadium being built, or at least at the start of the construction process, because people want to secure their seats. That can help find some of the funding from that source. <\/p>\n

\u201cIf you go to the corporate sector and say to your potential box users, you can get a 10 or 20-year licence which guarantees you the right to renew at a set price, people will be falling over themselves.<\/p>\n

\u201cRatcliffe says they are one of the biggest brands on the planet, and there is something in that. You can have a tiered approach to ticketing too.<\/p>\n

\"ManchesterPhoto by Eric Alonso\/Getty Images<\/p>\n

\u201cOn a personal seat license, you pay an upfront fee and then you still get the money on a season-by-season basis when people renew.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn theory, you can sell your season ticket to somebody else, but you have got to buy it in the first place.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s the way forward. I think United will be in prime position to use this as a significant contributor to construction costs.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a37bn economic impact study<\/p>\n

One hurdle United need to clear before they can break ground on the proposed new site next to Old Trafford is an adjacent railyard that will first need to be bought and cleared.<\/p>\n

In a recent development, Freightliner, the company that owns the terminal, reportedly value the land at \u00a3400m, while United believe it is worth no more than \u00a350m. Other estimates have placed the potential cost of the deal at \u00a31bn.<\/p>\n

United have the support of Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, who has suggested he could force a compulsory purchase order. As far as Burnham is concerned, the benefits to the local economy would justify that measure.<\/p>\n

\"APhoto by Michael Regan \u2013 UEFA\/UEFA via Getty Images<\/p>\n

However, Maguire is sceptical about some of the research that has pegged the potential benefits of the stadium at over \u00a37bn annually.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe business case is that in 10 years time, \u2018New Trafford\u2019 could be a lightning rod for a very significant tourist attraction to Manchester. It will be offering plenty of leisure facilities as well as a football space,\u201d he told United in Focus<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a society, we are moving away from the consumption of products towards the consumption of experiences. Having a stadium that has hotels, retail, housing\u2026 that is being thrown into the equation. So there is something of a case for public money. <\/p>\n

\u201cMy reservation is that, when these things are marketed, the benefits for revenue are overstated and the costs are understated. <\/p>\n

\u201cI recently read a research paper on mega events and their effect on the economy, and the only one that has made a positive impact this century was the World Cup in Germany in 2006. And that was because the infrastructure and stadiums were already there. Most World Cups have been a disaster financially.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"It might seem far-fetched as things stand, but Sir Jim Ratcliffe sees delivering a new stadium as central…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":40842,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[73],"tags":[79,18,2644,19,23298,17,23071],"class_list":{"0":"post-40841","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-eire","10":"tag-finances","11":"tag-ie","12":"tag-ineos","13":"tag-ireland","14":"tag-sir-jim-ratcliffe"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40841\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}