Looks incredible, fair play, the article mentions it will be worth 7.3bn to the UK economy annually, not sure about that tbh think its a bit of a hoodwink towards the government contributing to costs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgprplz94yo
Sunderland are opposed to the naming rights on the new Stadium for plagiarism. Apparently they can't call it the Stadium of 5 hit e. Might scupper the deal.
Is it a stadium or global destination? Putting my cynicism to one side - and trying to be neutral - I think what they are proposing is impressive and utilising Norman Foster is a good move. However, the design looks like something from the middle east dumped in a Northern town with generic town planning surroundings. Thankfully, I'm not a United supporter or resident of Manchester.
It's not just a ground. I get why investors may be interested tbh. 17k new homes for a start. Does it indicate the cost of the entire project.
No upgrade done to OT in 19 years, and very little maintenance due to 'being £1bn in debt. But £2bn to replace it is viable? But yes, I get that there will be wider investment and a total area regeneration, which might never have materialised if they had simply upgraded OT.
It looks like a circus tent, which is quite fitting given the clowns in red costumes that will be running around in it assuming that is Jim Reaper can cobble together the pennies to pay for it.
Let's not forget. City's stadium didn't cost em a penny to build. Sports England and Manchester Council paid for that. A 250 Yr lease agreement, not 30. (Unlike another club) Rent. Fixed £3m rising with inflation. Per yr. Peanuts tbf.