Well it depends on the situation really and which route we'll take to finance it

Well, to be quite frank, what's so special about the Allianz Arena and Emirates? We can mostly see the Allianz Arena in a pink color - for sponsor deals. It's a great stadium, but the feeling that this is one of few copies all over the world makes it less enjoyable. Emirates? Well, few years ago "Arsenalisation" was the main goal.

My point is, even the good examples you brought into this discussion are on top examples of generic stadiums. From a architectural and historical point of view, those are still incomparable with the likes of San Siro, Camp Nou or the former Olympiastadion.

Ew, I hated the Olympiastadion. I think Allianz Arena is one of the best-looking stadiums in the world. Maybe Emirates might not have a very distinct architecture, but it's still quite a fantastic stadium. And really, what's so special about San Siro compared to those two stadiums? Apart from the history, not much.

Well here are some important San Siro facts:

- the stadium was built in 1925/1926 under the lead of Milan president Piero Pirelli
- in 1939 and 1989/1990 renovations and modernization went under
- initially the stadium was the sole property of AC Milan; only after WWII did Inter start sharing the place
- prior to the WC in 1990, San Siro had a capacity of 150,000, but for safety reasons only 100,000 spectators were allowed
- built as a modern cathedral, the San Siro adapted not only modern and futuristic Italian architecture, but also traditional modes of Italian architecture, presenting a unique blend

I don't think there's anything special about the Allianz Arena. It looks nice and tidy, and the change of lights is modern. But that's about it. Knowing there are replicas over the world diminishes it's esthetic value IMO. San Siro has much more sole, and is much more uniquely connected with it's surrounding = it's home fans and club.

You're looking at it from an emotional perspective. San Siro is a traditional stadium, one of the largest in Europe, with a very rich history, not to mention we were the original tenants. That makes it special, but take the historical aspect aside, it's just another outdated stadium.

Sure, if it undergoes innovation it could become something awesome, and I wouldn't mind that at all. But at this day and age there are other things that count. Comfortability, modernity, the stadium being more than just a stadium, the importance of it generating substantial cash flows for the the owner club etc.

San Siro is owned by the commune, and from what I've read it will continue to be. Even if we leave, Inter will have to divide the earnings with the commune. That means less profit. And besides, fans will have greater incentives to go to a new, modern, freshly-built stadium than to an old one.

Perhaps. I don't like it but I guess things happen that way.

We're all very attached to it. Unlike Juve, who's changed stadiums over and over, San Siro has been our first and only stadium. It's an epic stadium. I've seen it in person many times, and it's always awed me. But it's too old, owned by the commune and shared between two clubs. Take the cash inflows Bayern or Arsenal get from their respective stadiums, compare it to the cash inflows we get from San Siro, worlds apart.

If we manage to build a new stadium, and especially if we manage to finance it externally, we'll have a goldmine in our hands.

Agreed. But sometimes it's better to hold onto history and try doing something against the stream. I'd rather we keep San Siro and try privatize the stadium, maybe buy it out. The taste of leaving it to Inter is enormously bitter for me, and no influx of money can change that.

We tried but they just don't want to sell because the current situation is too profitable for them. I like San Siro just as any Milan fan but if we want to move forward, a new arena is a step we gotta take.

I don't get it? How is that profitable for them and not profitable for us at the same time?

Because stadium revenue is supposed to be one of the main if not the main source of income for most clubs. But as things stand right now, San Siro is not profitable for us. On the other hand, the commune simply gets its share of money, without disbursing any relevant costs, as (I think) maintenance costs are divided between us, them and Inter.

That's my guess anyway.

Yeah, they get a big cut of everything but at the same time won't modernize San Siro to it's full potential 9even if they do, it's still musch more worthwhile to move) . As a result we make WAY too little compared to other big clubs. In a new modern arena, where everything will be controled by us, commercial opportunities are endless compared to what we have now.

Yes, but again, why is Inter making more profit? Don't get it.

Miscommunication there. I wasn't talking about Inter (they don't make more than us and also aren't happy) but about council that owns San Siro.

This post has been edited by Jack Bauer: Feb 13 2014, 11:45 PM

This is what I don't get though, with regards to the council

If both clubs plan to move out of it what benefits will they be getting then?

Because it will be completely dried up as a cash cow for them. Wouldn't it make more sense to sell it to the clubs instead of ending up with an empty stadium which won't be garnering major and steady income anymore?