New Stadium

Howl said:

Yeah 60,000 is too low. Most of the big clubs will have stadiums with far more capacity than ours. We should aim for something like 75,000 similar to Allianz arena. If we have so many people coming to an old battered San Siro which has some tiers closed and nothing going on, we would definately pull big numbers in a new stadium.

Click to expand...

They took into account the past ten year average attendance, but failed to acknowledge the effect of attendance figures on a new stadium project worth 1.2 B.

Both projects look interesting but i would like to wait for municipality reaction before getting my hopes up.

Sokrates said:

In Germany Bayern, or in England Arsenal, criticize the stadiums because there's not much atmosphere.
What did they say about this 2 stadiums about the atmosphere? Any informations?

Click to expand...

Yeah I went to the Emirates the year it opened, and the atmosphere was shit. In the presentation they said both stadiums have seating closer to the stadium, but Populous' (the glass rectangle one) architect said that they worked with the best sound engineers and had the atmosphere and sound in mind when designing the stadium which was good.

Abdulla said:

They took into account the past ten year average attendance, but failed to acknowledge the effect of attendance figures on a new stadium project worth 1.2 B.

Click to expand...

Exactly, also the fact that with CL football, the stadium will be pretty much full on those match days. If we regularly played CL in the last 10 years we would have had higher average attendances no doubt. I mean I think we even sold over 60,000 tickets or something against a team like Sparta Praha alone.

During the presentation the Manica project mentioned keeping the San Siro pitch alive as a public park after demolishing the surrounding architecture, I really like that idea.

I love both stadium concepts, would be ecstatic with either.

YoramG said:

During the presentation the Manica project mentioned keeping the San Siro pitch alive as a public park after demolishing the surrounding architecture, I really like that idea.

I love both stadium concepts, would be ecstatic with either.

Click to expand...

that would be sad tbh..watching how san siro is only a normal football field feels very strange

Howl said:

Yeah 60,000 is too low. Most of the big clubs will have stadiums with far more capacity than ours. We should aim for something like 75,000 similar to Allianz arena. If we have so many people coming to an old battered San Siro which has some tiers closed and nothing going on, we would definately pull big numbers in a new stadium.

Click to expand...

Don't you think they know that? It's purely a business move. Watching on TV the only thing you notice is whether the stadium is packed or not. You wouldn't notice the difference between a 60k packed stadium and a 40k packed stadium. Isn't Juve's stadium somewhere around 40-50k? Did you ever watch a match in their stadium and thought 'Oh! what a small stadium'?

Also, limited seating means higher ticket prices.

So, you wouldn't have to spend more for a bigger stadium, on TV your stadium always looks packed and with higher ticket prices you generate the same income you were getting from the previous bigger stadium.

Not to mention the maintenance cost of a bigger stadium. You need bigger parking spaces, more marshals, security, toilets, elevators and other services; even things like electricity bill.

So potentially you could generate a higher income with a smaller stadium.

Since our average is 47k, if we build a 70-75k stadium, it means that most of the time the stadium would be almost half empty. That wouldn't look great on TV, not to mention it wouldn't be a great experience for the people who attend the games specially for the one-time visitors.

The idea should be to have more people at the stadium, not more people in front of their tv screen.

Lol, I find it hilarious how some posters on FIF think they're better than the pros at estimating what the capacity of a 1.2B investment should be Let me remind you we're tlaking about two firms that have designed and supervised the building of more than 20+ stadium/arenas, working on a project for two of the greatest football teams in the world... Trust me, they've done their homework.

If the fucking experts decided it should be a 60-65k seater then we should collectively swallow that decision. Last nights game, against Lazio who aren't some provincial side nobody gives a fuck about, on the contrary, saw 53k people at the stands, 47k on average in recent years... 60-65k seems a good middle-ground figure. Also, more people - more physical space and football is a business, as any other now, less people but more money is equally good for a business. Times are changing.

I'm citing the architecture firms' agenda here but I'd prefer (if I was an Inter player and as a fan) a full stadium than a slightly more than half full stadium (if it's 80k seater and there are only 47k people there on average)... The atmosphere would suffer greatly. Or you want us to be one of the teams that colour their seats differently so the stadium looks full? Come on....

Also, never forget Juve's stadium is 41k :troll:

Wobblz said:

Lol, I find it hilarious how some posters on FIF think they're better than the pros at estimating what the capacity of a 1.2B investment should be Let me remind you we're tlaking about two firms that have designed and supervised the building of more than 20+ stadium/arenas, working on a project for two of the greatest football teams in the world... Trust me, they've done their homework.

If the fucking experts decided it should be a 60-65k seater then we should collectively swallow that decision. Last nights game, against Lazio who aren't some provincial side nobody gives a fuck about, on the contrary, saw 53k people at the stands, 47k on average in recent years... 60-65k seems a good middle-ground figure. Also, more people - more physical space and football is a business, as any other now, less people but more money is equally good for a business. Times are changing.

I'm citing the architecture firms' agenda here but I'd prefer (if I was an Inter player and as a fan) a full stadium than a slightly more than half full stadium (if it's 80k seater and there are only 47k people there on average)... The atmosphere would suffer greatly. Or you want us to be one of the teams that colour their seats differently so the stadium looks full? Come on....

Also, never forget Juve's stadium is 41k :troll:

Click to expand...

You don't need an expert for common fucking sense. the majority of the past ten years, inter were not in CL and the years were inter achieved a CL spot, attendance increased as observed in the previous year with a 61K average attendance. Have the so called pros took that into consideration? If Suning's project is to take inter back to glory days, this would translate in increased attendance figures + it does not take a pro to understand the fact that a gigantic transformation of the San Siro area would attract more attendance. So their basis for coming up with the capacity of 60K from the past 10 year attendance record does not fully reflect Inter's current state.

even though a 75K stadium would not fill up each and every game, however whenever a big game comes up and the stadium fills up in capacity this makes the atmosphere more intimidating for the opposing team.

Thinking of it in a business-minded perspective purely (which was clearly the approach for the new stadium capacty), a 60K stadium seems reasonable. However for the fans perspective they are cutting 20,000 seats from the attendance which means cutting the potential atmosphere against big teams. Heck why would Barcelona increase their stadium to 100,000 if they average around 78K??

Well, common fucking sense doesn't go along with commerce in many cases. I'm no expert either, it makes sense for me that our stadium is at least as big as it was before, i.e. 80K-ish but obviously there are pretty strong reasons for it not to be as big. What are those reasons, I don't really know. But similar to how Icardi was treated (weird comparison, I know, just hang in there) there certainly are reasons for that decision and the downscale. I mean, most teams' new stadiums are smaller than they were before for some weird reason. The delle Alpi for example was 70k... Juve rebuilt the stadium as a 41k seater. No idea man... Big games are few and far between, as is with speed the average is what matters and what gets your from A to B.

The Delle Alpi was a shithole, including the atmosphere and views. They averaged less than 30,000 in the last few years before it closed so I can see why juve made a low capacity stadium in comparison to their old one, but 40,000 was a bit too low imo.

Torino has more supporters than RuBe in Turin.

Business wise you want the stadium to be smaller so that you can squeeze more $ per seat.

But ideally the capacity falls because you 'waste' space for corporate facilities, boxes, seating etc. But reducing capacity in a carte blanche project doesn't make much sense.

It could make sense if there's a condition to increase capacity to 70+ at some point but not right away. But less seats means more expensive tickets.

If you find the derbies' tickets to be high priced now, wait till you see that 300 price tag on them.

PSG for example charges something like 175 euros for their cheap-ish seats and they don't even own the stadium and monopolize the league. People will be unhappy but residents of the area may still be satisfied as they'll have more use of the new facilities.

So business wise, you don't care that much about matchday revenue from the regular joe. You want to maximize corporate experience and non-match day revenue. People will still come, but if the range is 40 to 60 instead of 45 to 70 it doesn't matter much.

I guess the casual fan that doesn't attends games doesn't give a fuck, but as a typical stadium goer I find this concerning because this is how you reduce stadium experience, atmosphere and fan loyalty. Higher prices can only be excused with a continuous CL run that goes to the quarters at least. For both teams, because don't forget that we're both in it. Milan's ownership will push for it coz they don't give a fuck, but their fans will be quite pissed imo if this project becomes more of a commercial thing than a football stadium.

London clubs and Man Utd due to Pl and the big Spanish clubs are tourist attractions so they have multiple of big spender random people there, but Inter and Milan aren't there yet. And I doubt we want to go there. Because that's how you will fill your overpriced stadium vs Lecce and Sassuolo.

They should tackle this by increasing capacity and go German style, have some sections with piss poor ticket prices.

Derby tickets are already close to 300.

Nope, I can find a ticket for 85 euros now for the Juventus game on the 3rd tier.

115 euros on the 3rd tier of the red zone.

The new stadium should have distinct atributes, so you can say quickly..oh yeah that's the new Stadium in Milano
Populous project has that, Manica project not so much.
Also the Populous project is really something unique, not seen before... The oval is a seen story... Allianz Arena, Emirates Stadium...

3rd tier. The tier which is closed about 30 games a year because not enough attendance even during the treble year. ok.

60k is perfect. We have an average of 60k and they are like 4 times a year where we have 80k fans.

So mostly we have 60 k and a stadium which is always sold out, brings an better atmosphere than an stadium with 20k empty seats!

Populous stadium looks like an ashtray. I don't really love either of them. The Meazza is an absolute wonder. I've been to a few stadiums and none of them are as impressive and imposing almost as the meazza, it's such an amazing sight

Think about the seating number that if we take Milan/Juve/big CL matches out (70-80k), what is the average attendance? Probably close to 50k, definitely less than 60k. Few big matches skew the average up too much. Median attendance would be better stat than average attendance in this discussion.