With AC Milan planning to remain at San Siro with Inter, the Rossoneri are set to abandon the San Donato project, which will certainly come as a frustration.
The San Donato project never really left the opening stage of development, and despite the land being purchased and other admin and clearance work taking place, the first steps had not been taken with Milan umming and arring about the decision.
For some time, it seemed that the Rossoneri were favouring a move away from San Siro, but this has now seemingly changed. A report this afternoon has claimed that the club are preparing a joint bid for San Siro with Inter and by the summer, the two clubs could own the stadium.
As a result of this, the Diavolo would ‘abandon’ the San Donato project – something which would also be mirrored by Inter with their San Rozzano project – permitting that the council accepts the proposal of the clubs.
The initial admission of interest sent to the council had a San Donato clause attached, which had caused frustrations. So the turnaround is certainly a shock, considering how much has already been invested in the project.
Nevertheless, with the project set to cost less than €200 million for each team, it is significantly (and there is heavy emphasis on that) less than a new stadium would cost, with initial suggestions about the San Donato project being priced around the €1.3 billion mark.
FRUSTRANTE!!!!!!
It doesn’t matter. The costs will be shared. My guess is the reason for the delays was because Redbird couldn’t get the funding to build a new stadium.
Not really. The fact that we went all-in onto the San Donato project, despite the money we wasted, is likely what put the fire under Milano’s mayor and City Council and finally unblocked the San Siro situation, after decades of stalemate.
Milan and Inter are now expected to purchase San Siro from the city, for 197 M Euro for each club; they are expected to file the bid by the end of February.
San Siro not only is historical, but also very convenient with a subway station right then and there, unlike the San Donato site. It’s also within Milano city limits, which San Donato is not. That has some symbolic weight, too. We are a Milano club, not a San Donato club.
Owning their own stadium has bumped Juve’s revenue by 66%. Real Madrid gets 93% of their match day revenue from the fact that they own their stadium. Milan gets only 20%, and the share of San Siro revenue for the total income of our club is only 16%; not to forget that we also pay rent there, so it’s not just low income, but added and useless expenses too.
Purchasing San Siro will be a HUGE boost for our financial bottom line, which will allow us to be a lot more competitive in terms of signing players.
This makes a lot more financial sense than the 1.3 billion it would have been needed to build the stadium in San Donato.
For 197 M we get 50% of Italy’s largest and most iconic stadium. Remember, sharing it with Inter is not a problem, given that the league always makes sure that the home and away games for Milan and Inter are reversed; when we play home they play away and vice-versa. So even though we’ll own only half of the stadium, match day revenue will go entirely to us in our home games.
We can also sell naming rights, and get income from musical concerts played there, and from other games there like those by the national team.
Owning San Siro is a dream come true, and frankly, much better than relocating to San Donato.
The only reason Milan fans might be upset at this, is if they live near the San Donato site. All other fans will be pretty happy to remain at San Siro.
I totally agree. The cost is much lower, and San Siro is so iconic it represents the identity of AC Milan. If we move to a new stadium, the club risks losing a significant part of its identity and history. San Siro is located right in Milan, and if you look at the biggest clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid, they also chose to renovate their stadiums instead of moving because of their glory and history. For me, San Siro is the most special stadium of all time and truly deserves a renovation. This would make it a huge source of income and allow the investment to pay off much faster compared to building a €1.3 billion stadium that isn’t even in Milan, which could put us far behind other clubs economically.
Any income from concerts or anything will have to be shared with Inter, as would naming rights and also the area surrounding the Stadium, all shared with inter.
Sorry to say this, but I highly disagree with sharing the plot of land with Inter. It’s like half of Casa Milan will belong to them as well.
The San Siro area won’t be big enough to host all the facilities of both clubs.
The area will be big enough if we build vertically.
We can have a tall building including in the same structure parking floors, a hotel, shopping mall floors, and our administrative headquarters.
If Inter then want to build their own facilities there using the same model, they are welcome to do it and we have nothing to do with that.
The area is not that small. Have you actually been to it? I have to question it because anybody who has been to it knows that the area is actually very large. There is a huge esplanade that is largely underutilized, and parking lots.
Sure, naming rights and concerts revenue would be shared, but as of now we are not getting any money from this kind of thing because the stadium belongs to the city. For only 197 M Euro instead of 1.3 billion Euro, it’s not a bad deal as we will IMMEDIATELY start to collect revenue, instead of waiting for multiple years while the San Donato stadium is built.
For me, not only the revenue part is favorable, but the iconic and historical elements are important too. We are a Milano club. We play at San Siro. That’s where our history is. That’s where our soul is located. We are not a San Donato club.
Yes mate, I’ve been to the San Siro to watch matches.
I know the area around it and how to walk there from the station.
It may seem big, but if we are constructing actual buildings in that area, a lot of work needs to be done. And again, there’s not enough area for both teams.
Check out the area on Google Maps. There are Hotels and residential appartments in and around the Stadium. There isn’t much area, even if you strip the Parco dei Capitani bare to build, to build actual buildings, but those are municipal lands and I doubt that the municipality will allow for the stripping down of park lands.
That all being said, what other top club in Europe SHARES their stadium with another? What happens down the road when we want to further redevelop/improve and Inter says take a hike? Will the clubs agree on naming rights or will the stadium have two different names depending on who is playing? It’s absurd and an instance of “only in Italy”. I, for one, was looking forward to a stadium that was only ours, unique to AC Milan. Now we will just renovate a neutral stadium and change LED lighting and tie-up banners depending on who is playing. Oh, and nevermind how our pitch will never be one of the premier pitches on the continent given games will be played there every three days.
How would the rennovation of the San Siro be just 200M Euros?
This report has no wings.
It would take that amount just to buy the rights of the stadium from the Milan Municipality.
Then you’d have to spend hundreds of Millions to rennovate the San Siro, with the caveat that some sections of the stadium (the second tier) you cannot renovate after 2026.
And why the heck would anyone want to share a stadium again with Inter? Twice the maintenance fees and twice the upkeep costs because the teams play on that field every 3 days. The pitch gets no rest because Milan and Inter keep playing there alternatively.
Just leave Inter to their own devices and have Milan own their own stadium and surrounding area.
The rights to buy the stadium will cost 197 M Euro for each club. That’s not the renovation cost; it’s the purchase cost. That’s why the article said “less than 200.”
This is real. There is nothing wrong with this article. You just didn’t understand it.
The renovation of the second tier got authorized and is no longer limited to being done before 2026. This changed exactly because Milan threatened to leave. Even if we and Inter ultimately decide (in the future) to entirely demolish the existing San Siro and rebuild in the same area, that’s been authorized too. The second tier historical patrimony block got waived by the city, in order to close the deal.
Like I said, the fact that we appeared to be serious about San Donato unlocked the San Siro situation. The city panicked and got the endless stalemate finally solved, not to lose the club.
The renovation is not urgent and can be done little by little. The stadium remains fully functional like it is. Renovation will happen by stages, small chunk (sector) by chunk, without having to close down the stadium and play in Bergamo.
What is great is that owning the stadium will already and in the very short term, significantly boost our revenue, like I explained above and in another thread where I quoted in more detail a research paper on Italian stadium ownership I read.
Maintenance pitch costs are negligible as compared to the HUGE boost in revenue that owning the stadium represents. Just with the money that we will stop paying the city for rent, we can afford any pitch maintenance costs.
Look, we’ve been sharing the stadium with Inter since 1947 and the San Siro pitch is not bad. It is maintained well despite the large number of matches.
It makes a lot more sense to spend 197 M Euro to own 50% of the largest and most iconic stadium in Italy, right next to a subway station, than to spend 1.3 billion Euro in the middle of nowhere in San Donato.
The purchase price does include the surrounding area, so little by little Milan will be able to build facilities there like a hotel, parking structure, like moving Casa Milan to San Siro, and so forth. We can then sell that nice Casa Milan building and recover a lot of the money necessary for San Siro. That modern and large building much more central to the city, is worth A LOT of money; some big business will be happy to purchase it, eventually.
I don’t mind sharing with Inter. It will affect us minimally because the league alternates home and away games for Inter and Milan, and we’ll get the full match day revenue when we play home.
Yes, they are our football rivals but they don’t need to be our financial rivals. The financial partnership works and benefits both clubs.
I don’t aim for the destruction of Inter. It benefits the city and our club to have strong rivals. Rivalry in football is a lot of fun and actually boosts revenues too. If our cousins across town were some minor, broke club, we wouldn’t have sold-out derbies to play against them.
I care for beating them on the pitch. I don’t care for beating them financially. I’m happy to share financial viability with them because I know that it makes sense.
Roma and Lazio should also push to buy the Olimpico from the city of Rome. The more strong football clubs we have in Italy, the better for Serie A. Strength in numbers benefits all clubs. We need to recover our league dominance, once the best in Europe, from the EPL and from La Liga. I’m all for ALL Italian clubs to make progress in stadium ownership, even Inter.
No, Ryan. The Parco dei Capitani is INCLUDED in the deal and the city has already approved that we can build there. Here:
“L’area ora occupata dal parco dei Capitani diventerà parte dell’area di pertinenza del nuovo stadio.”
Actually if you add everything, the area seems to me to be bigger than the San Donato area. I’m not sure about that, but if it is smaller, then it is not by much.
Maybe it will even include the area behind the stadium, called Cantiere Ippodromo, and the smaller one across the street called Cantiere Scuderie, and if that’s the case (on that, I’m not sure) then it will be definitely bigger than the San Donato area. But even without that, and with the Parco dei Capitani which is definitely included, the area is at the very least very similar to the San Donato area, in size.
Remember, the City did capitulate. The sale is for the stadium AND the surrounding areas, and they even cancelled the prohibition of demolition. Obviously the City is willing to accommodate the teams. They got scared about losing the teams which would have been a big blow to city finances. These games generate influx of people who are consumers. the City of Milano doesn’t want to give this to the commune of San Donato. They will do what is needed to keep us happy there at San Siro.
For a long time they manipulated us and toyed with us because they didn’t think we were serious about leaving. Now that they learned that we were, they panicked. Mayor Giuseppe Sala was obviously in panic mode.
Again, If we were to go at it alone, then maybe, just MAYBE, that amount of land would be enough for Milan alone.
But if we’re sharing that land with Inter, then it’s pretty obvious it won’t be enough for both clubs and their respective facilities.
I’m not even sure if Inter are planning to build facilities there. They seemed to be content with staying there and still renting. Their financial situation is worse than ours. So, if we get part of the area to build vertically, or even if we don’t build and stay at Casa Milan, owning 50% of San Siro is still better than not owning anything which is our current situation.
All you yankees that want’s a new stadium, why don’t you just change your team to RB Leipzig instead? Im sure you feel well comfortable at their malls and shopping centres.
Love all the financial analysts who come out of the woodwork to defend RedBird lol
I’m not a financial analyst but I read a nice research paper, “Owned Stadiums in Italy: General Overview and Comparison with European Clubs” by Mirko MOZZILLO and Fabio Michele AMATUCCI.
Owning San Siro makes sense. I hate RedBird too but I won’t criticize them for their correct decisions (like the stadium and like founding Milan Futuro). I will criticize them for their blunders (like hiring Paulo Fonseca) but not for what they do right and can make the club be more financially viable for years to come.
Beautiful analysis… San siro is great for what it represents… But sharing a stadium with inter is outdated as far as I am concerned…. And at d end, d stress on d pitch, staggered matches, shared income,..d purpose may not be fully realized
As for the 55 M Euro we wasted in San Donato, not all will come back (e.g. the money we spent to clean the area) but we can re-sell the land we purchased there. Maybe even the money spent to clean it can be recovered because a nice and clean parcel of land can be sold by more than a dirty and problematic one.
San siro makes sense. 1. It’s the history of the club, and always made far more sense to just renovate and make it acceptable by modern standards, updates its needed since 2001 honestly. We’re a Milan team, we need to be here. The plastics complaining just because they always want something shiny and new no matter how pointless. San Siro is home
Nothing surprising – all smoke and mirrors from Redbird as usual. All empty promises.
The truth is Redbird don’t have the $$ to buy the team from Elliot – so there is no way they will go another 1.3BILLION in debt to build a new stadium of our own. They have INVESTORS to think of lol. There is also no proper infrastructure in San Donato so a stadium there was far fetched. Again – This was all BS PR from the PR master Cardinale. It was NEVER going to happen.
Would have rather spent that 55M on a striker lol
So ya 200M but we also “share” all the revenue as well. Cheap way out. If they were serious and actually had $$$ we would buy San Siro ourselves and build new or removed on our own and not share with our biggest rival. No big teams do that anymore – well except us apparently
We don’t share ALL the revenue. We keep the entire revenue of our match days. That’s the bulk of the revenue. We just share naming rights and concerts revenue, which is much less than match day revenue.
The fact that Inter will get their revenue for their match days doesn’t decrease our revenue for our match days. If we weren’t sharing with Inter, the stadium would simply be idle those days when Inter plays, and we’d not make any money out of those days anyway.
Do you actually understand how this works?
As for Redbird, they refinanced the vendor’s loan until June 2028 (and did pay back a chunk of it, I think some 165 Million, before refinancing the remainder). The purchase of San Siro is scheduled for this summer, with the bid being filed in February 2025. So, yes, it does look like RedBird is moving onto the purchase of San Siro, and that will IMMEDIATELY boost our revenues and produce athletic benefits. If in 2028 RedBird can’t pay back the vendor’s loan and they return the club to Elliott, they will then sell their share of San Siro to Elliott (or maybe they will sell to an Arab sovereign fund). For us, it doesn’t change much. Actually that would be a plus, because both Elliott and Arab money would likely be better for Milan in terms of financial resources. I actually root for the club to be sold by RedBird either back to Elliott or to a sovereign fund; but in the meantime, yes, let’s purchase half of San Siro! Much better than nothing!
As for the 55 M, we purchased that San Donato land and cleaned it up. We can always resell it to some other business interested in that area now that it is all clean and proper, given that the metropolitan city is always expanding. It doesn’t mean that the 55 M were lost forever. Real state is real state. It’s an asset. It can be sold.
But yes, weeks ago I had said that I didn’t believe that RedBird would invest 1.3 billion on San Donato exactly because it would hurt their investment; it would require too many years to recover the investment.
So, the alternative is NOT owning a stadium and continuing to rent. I’d much rather see Milan owning 50% of San Siro than not owning anything. Yes, this is a positive move, any way you look into it.
Inter and Milan will become the fourth and fifth Serie A teams to own their stadium, and that’s a positive, no doubt.
Isn’t it shameful that a club will in the calibre of Milan doesn’t have a stadium of it’s own after a century. Where is the boasting of having a big name when you can’t match others in a basic thing like a ground of your own.
If RedBird had to employ smoke and mirrors to convince the City of Milano and the City Council to unblock the situation in order to keep us at San Siro, including, agreeing with selling the stadium and the surrounding areas (which does include the Parco dei Capitani with no prohibition to build there), by purchasing the San Donato land in order to make the city panic, then I’ll say, I tip my hat to their strategy!
The City has toyed with us literally for decades. If it took a fake push to go to San Donato to scare the City of Milano and the result is that San Siro will indeed become 50% ours, with no more rent to pay, full 100% match day revenue the days of our home games, 50% of naming rights, 50% of concerts revenue, and no prohibition to renovate or demolish with no 2026 deadline (this is all gone!) then, I’ll say, RedBird was pretty smart.
Sure, they spent 55 M in San Donato but it’s not like they threw the money down a drain. They actually purchased land. It’s real state; it’s tangible, it’s not lost. The land can be sold. That money is not gone; it just became real state.
Italy is a country notorious for bureaucracy and political deadlock. That’s exactly why so few current Serie A clubs own their stadiums (only Juve, Atalanta, and Udinese), which is one of the major reasons for the league to be financially poor, when compared to the EPL and to La Liga.
So if RedBird was able to successfully put the City politicians against a wall, thus obtaining the purchase of the stadium and surrounding areas for a reasonable price, and the waiving of the demolition and renovation restrictions, wow, chapeau!
Again, we don’t need to criticize RedBird when they are correct. There are plenty of things they did and do wrong and we must criticize them for those, but if they strengthen the club by owning half of a huge and iconic stadium (and founding a 2nd team, Milan Futuro, to develop our youngsters), those correct decisions deserve praise, not criticism. Otherwise, it’s just blind hatred.
Good common sense is that we criticize the wrong parts and praise the correct parts.
Of course this is what they’re good at. The business side. It’s the sporting side they suck at but they have massive egos so they keep making wrong decisions there.
Football, the sporting side of it, is not that black and white. It’s not all about money. Money-ball won’t succeed. Suits can’t do it right. There are always the emotional aspects. Something more is needed there and I’m not sure if they would ever understand this.
Great comment, mate!
Yes, it would be fantastic to keep San Siro, although they must renovate it.
I believe that the land in San Donato won’t be wasteful as they can come with other ideas for making money out of it.
Why Italian government are so corrupt and d*mb???
CMIIW, isn’t san siro going to be a historical monumen or something? if milan and inter bought it, how can they renovate it?
Pls fix the toilets guys it’s overflowing and disgusting whenever iv been to watch a match
The priority was always to remain at San Siro. San Donato was a plan B and kind of a leverage to show the council they were serious.