Why Manchester United cannot afford not to build a brand new Old Trafford temple for fans to worship, writes SIMON JORDAN

How do you try to become a 21st-century superclub, or perhaps maintain the position of one? Well, your home environment is one barometer. If you are fortunate enough to inherit a high-capacity arena built for other things that would rather not be left as a white elephant, then - like Manchester City and West Ham - lucky you. For others aware of the growing dimensions of the world’s biggest sport with its new grandeur, building a new stadium is the potential pathway to opportunity and scale - and even a fundamental need.

The debate will rage about the purpose behind a new stadium. Is it a vanity project? An opportunity to increase commercial revenues by pimping out facilities for everything from Beyonce to boxing? To build more value for the owners? Or, what the average fan really wants, to have a bloody winning football team. Really, it’s all of the above and recent history will tell you building a modern stadium is both a challenge and an opportunity.

Manchester United have begun working in earnest towards a move from their increasingly ageing home, Old Trafford. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has made a progressive stadium plan a cornerstone of his new era in charge. Concepts delivered by Foster + Partners (pictured) have posited the new stadium as a 'Wembley of the North'. Fans of Arsenal, Tottenham and Everton know the compromises their clubs have endured to make expensive upgrades.

The next likely cab off the rank for a complete stadium reboot is the Glazer/Sir Jim Ratcliffe project. But being a unique beast, I think Manchester United will not have the same obstacles and challenges some others have faced. Among Premier League clubs, United are in a bracket of their own irrespective of a decade of decay and current playing malaise under Ruben Amorim. Despite figures supposedly showing Liverpool have been watched more in the past 12 months around the globe, United have unsurpassed recognition in terms of worldwide support and brand relationships.

In that respect, a new all-singing HQ to reflect their aura is a necessity to stay as market leaders. Only an institution of United’s size could allow the Glazers to borrow such an amount to buy the club, and then use that club’s own money to pay back the debt they created, plus dividends - and increase its value by 700 per cent. Whilst being the antithesis of what any fan would want, it showed that United can do what others can’t. Hence why Ratcliffe paid £1.25billion for 27 per cent.

I’m not surprised he and the Glazers want an ambitious new stadium. The optics are good – it makes United look big, bold and progressive – but also talks to the fundamental purpose of increasing long-term commercial value. The Miami Dolphins' home at the Hard Rock Stadium is truly multi-use, as the home of the Miami Grand Prix. Tottenham have built a stadium that has been commercialised like no other in the country.

Look to America and see the stadium footprint of the Miami Dolphins which has a fully fledged Formula One race track. It reinforces the idea that Manchester United are important and increased capacity means greater revenues. It would let them monetise new digital technology, increase corporate areas and host other events; sporting and entertainment. Traditional football fans may not like all that hullabaloo but in the real commercial world in which football now exists, it’s what needs to be done.

We’ve seen others find it a hindrance financing stadiums. Arsenal were ground-breaking in being the first big club to completely rebuild. There’s no doubt the funding affected their economic ability to compete on the pitch as the shareholders didn’t want to spend on big transfer fees and wages at the same time. Arsene Wenger toed the line and Arsenal morphed from winners to a top-four participation club. There was even a rumour that one of the conditions for the financing of the Emirates was that Wenger had to stay as manager!.

Tottenham built a phenomenal stadium which has been commercialised like no other in the UK by Daniel Levy, but they have found little in the way of the trophies so far worthy of such magnificent surroundings. My commercial nose tells me there are banking covenants around debt and a raft of other things that restricts Tottenham spending in the way people perhaps think they should. Everton were compromised by the manner in which they accounted for spending on Bramley-Moore Dock which in part led to a points deduction for PSR breaches, though it should also be noted Farhad Moshiri didn’t help himself by also burning through cash on unsuitable players and managers.

Arsene Wenger's reign at the newly built Emirates Stadium was less successful as he saw his transfer budget curtailed. Everton's new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock in part contributed to the club's PSR points deductions last season. Importantly, I don’t think the challenges many clubs had in building stadiums are going to be visited on Manchester United. If they are allocating a separate budget for the development of the stadium, because it is a capital expenditure project, it is not something that will come out of their PSR.