AC Milan and Inter are ready to present the proposal for the purchase of San Siro and the area around it, which poses a question: what about San Donato?
As reported earlier today, official documentation that will be delivered to the City Council which is an offer from the two clubs to them for the purchase of the existing stadium and adjacent land. The idea is to build a new 71,500 stadium on the parking lot, and partially demolish the Meazza.
Some fans will wonder what happened to the San Donato plan, a site Milan invested €55m into with the aim of constructing a new home there. It is clear this project risks being partly of fully abandoned if all the pieces of the San Siro puzzle fall into place in favour of Milan and Inter.
As also reported by Il Corriere della Sera, the areas purchased by Milan through SportLifeCity (a company 90% controlled by the Rossoneri since July 2023 and owner of the area on which to eventually build a new facility) could be used for a new purpose, in agreement with the Council.
For example, Milan could decide to move the youth sector headquarters – currently the Vismara Sports Centre, called Puma House of Football for sponsorship reasons – to the site. That is, in fact, the latest idea.
When purchasing the SportLifeCity vehicle, it was actually stipulated that ‘Even if AC Milan did not intend to exploit the area for the construction of the new stadium, it could still use it for the development of other interesting projects in the entertainment and sports area’.
Furthermore, the following was added: ‘[…] The possibility of transferring the shares of SLC as well as the obligations assumed with the agreements signed with C&P, CFS and SLC to other companies directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by AC Milan’.
In other words, if Milan were to fully commit to the ‘new San Siro’ then they can either use the land in San Donato for another purpose or sell the site on. Whether they make their money back or not is another issue.
Why do Milan insist on throwing Inter a lifeline?
It’s like a poor man giving his last penny to the rich man and before killing himself.
Because together they spend ~500-700M each, alone we spend 1-1.4bn. It’s simple math. Do you have 1bn to loan to AC Milan for the construction of a new stadium? Then when we finance a 1.2bn stadium all by ourselves and spend the next 20 years paying it off and finishing mid-table, like Arsenal did, you will complain about how there is no money, blah blah blah.
How about spending less and building a smaller capacity stadium for now. It’s simple. It’s not like Milan have many fans left after this season and next. :/
They can think about expanding that Stadium further down the line, when the fans actually want to go back to watch this Dog$hit team.
Answer that told us everything about your personality and inteligence …no comment
Funny, You don’t find this team Dog$hit?
That says more about your personality and intelligence.
No Comment 😉
Even in a formerly poor grey industrial city like Liverpool the two clubs can afford a stadium each. The fact that Milan and Inter cant is only embarassing.
They will continue to be behind the English clubs (and some other European clubs) financially for years thanks to the complete lack of balls to build their own.
Even Juventus have the sense to do whats needed
WTF are you talking about? Neither of those stadiums are new, they’re decades old as a matter of fact, and Everton has nearly gone broke like three times, getting docked points and flirting with relegation for the past couple of seasons. They just got saved by the Friedkin Group.
It’s a win-win situation for everybody, from the fans to both clubs.
Juventus built its stadium back when it was way more affordable. It’s been in project for over a decade in Milan but there were many obstacles, including instability at the ownership. And you can’t pop a 70k seats stadium like that in a busy and highly environment friendly metropole like Milan. No need for two stadiums also, there are not so many events that require a stadium for stage.
Right now, both clubs will have their own revenues from their own games if they buy San Siro together. And they will split the bill. Nobody cares in Milan that the stadium is shared. The Milan curva owns the blue stands, the Inter curva owns the green stands. And Inter fans have to witness every time they go at San Siro the seven UCL carved into the face of the stadium.
In a period when ACM’s performances on the pitch have been so disappointing, destroying our season, this is good news.
It makes economic sense to build a new, state-of-the-art stadium on the San Siro site and share it with Inter. Milan – the capital of calcio and one of Europe’s great cities – urgently needs such a venue.
We shouldn’t begrudge Inter their current success in Serie A and Europe. ACM’s problems are of its own making, for which its owner is entirely responsible. They have nothing to do with our city rivals.
Not until we have an owner that’s truly well-heeled and willing to spend big money to bring in world-class players – not has-beens and rejects – to the club; is culturally sensitive and assembles a team that has an Italian core (just as Inter and Juventus have); and respects the club’s traditions (e.g. our red and black striped shirts) and other iconic symbols (e.g. by bringing back the martyred Paolo Maldini, who was crucified by the Cardinal for telling him the truth) will ACM enjoy another Golden Age.
At least, the project to build a new Giuseppe Meazza at San Siro, even if moving at a snail’s pace, is taking us in the right direction.
I have no problem whatsoever with sharing a stadium with Inter. There are only advantages and no disadvantages. We get to have a stadium for half the price. We don’t lose any revenue. We keep the full revenue of our matchdays, and they keep theirs. The fact that they play there on days when we do not, doesn’t affect us at all.
Then people say, “but we’d get only half of the concert revenue.” Not true. We’d get the exact same amount whether we share or don’t share. Yes, we’d share the revenue of each concert with Inter. But if we had our own stadium and they had theirs, the concert revenue would still be the same overall, because we’d get only half of the concerts scheduled for the city of Milano, the other half happening at their stadium. It’s not like having two large stadiums in Milano magically doubles the number of concerts that happen in the city. What, do you think if we had separate stadiums, all concerts would come to ours and none would come to theirs? Why?
Think of it. Let’s say there are 10 concerts in Milano in a given year that require a large stadium. If we share the stadium with Inter, we’d get half of that revenue. Half of 10 which is equivalent to having 5. But if each club had its own stadiums then each club would get about 5 concerts. The exact same total.
Then some people say “the pitch would have more wear and tear.” Look, we’ve shared San Siro with them for decades; have you noticed any bad pitch problems?
Sharing is the way to go because it halves the price of the stadium, freeing money for other pursuits like signing good players.
Luigi – as always, well said.
What the city of Milan needs is one new stadium – not two, which will be a duplication and waste of resources. Building the new stadium at the sacred San Siro site embraces the future while at the same time respecting the past. At least RedBird seems to be making the right moves on this matter. If only, however, the project could move forward faster.
Yet another new stadium is about to open in the UK (Everton’s Bramley-Dock, in Liverpool) while the city of Milan continues to fiddle.
Given all the red tape, I can see this new stadium not being built until 2030, maybe not until 2035. Especially with BOTH clubs needing to include their specified requirements for the new stadium.
All this BS about getting benefits from the stadium won’t come along until a decade later, and we will STILL be renting the current San Siro for the next 5 to 10 years at the very least. Another 75M to 150M of rental fees down the drain for the next 5 to 10 seasons.
At least with the San Donato, once the perms are approved within this season, they Stadium would be up and ready by 2028, with or without InterMErda.
No, we’d be purchasing the current San Siro Stadium this summer, so no more rent. The proposal is to buy the surrounding area AND the current stadium. It will take time to build the new stadium but the current one would be half ours, half Inter’s, which is already a great boost to our yearly revenue.
Will the new stadium at the sacred San Siro site be The Cathedral, the plans for which were released a few years ago? Will it be built immediately adjacent to the current Guiseppe Meazza (GM)? And will the GM be demolished after The Cathedral is built?
I don’t understand why the authorities would want to keep the GM, either in whole or in part. When the British built the new Wembley in London, they did so on the site of the old Wembley, which they razed to the ground. Italians should respect the past but not cling to it.