Wembley gets green light

Gazza

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2000
Messages
32,674
Location
'tis a silly place
1017553.jpg



<a href="http://www.skysports.com/skysports/article/0,,1860-1038463,00.html" target="_blank">SkySports</a>


Wembley is expected to be confirmed as the site for the new national stadium on Monday, bringing an end to months of uncertainty.

A simultaneous announcement at a Football Association press conference and by Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell in the House of Commons will confirm the plans.

The FA pulled the plug on the deal on May 1, claiming they could not underwrite the huge costs involved in the project.

The Government then appointed troubleshooter Patrick Carter to sort out the mess, and following a six-month review the FA are expected to announce they have chosen to stay with the original design produced by architect Lord Foster, with a huge `triumphant arch' replacing the old Twin Towers.

The fact that the original design first announced in July 1999 is the chosen option will be a potential cause of embarrassment for the FA, Sport England and the Government, but they will point to several key changes.

It appears that plans for an expensive hotel and office complex have been removed in order to save some money.
 
I hope it isn't like the old one where you have to sit far away from the pitch. You could never any atmosphere there for the England games. Like Gary Neville said, the England team should alternate stadiums their home games. That'll give the real football fans a chance to see a game instead of those business ponces down there.
 
Originally posted by Steve Curley:
<strong>I hope it isn't like the old one where you have to sit far away from the pitch. You could never any atmosphere there for the England games. Like Gary Neville said, the England team should alternate stadiums their home games. That'll give the real football fans a chance to see a game instead of those business ponces down there.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The original New-Wembley was planned to have an athletic track ( <img src="graemlins/houllier.gif" border="0" alt="[Houllier]" /> ) which would have meant fans a long way away, but thankfully the FA have decided to change their minds - they thought a track was needed for future olympics.

I agree about travelling round the country but then again when you think about it a top quality country like England must have a national stadium, and a big one at that.

Also, you can not stage major tournaments/events without a big stadium like Wembley. It is to attract big events, and to be fair a country without its own Stadium has lost a lot from it's atmosphere - Wembley has always been the "Heart of English Football".
Click to expand...
 
Information :

<a href="http://www.wembleynationalstadium.co.uk" target="_blank">www.wembleynationalstadium.co.uk</a>


<a href="http://www.wembleynationalstadium.co.uk/new/key.htm" target="_blank">Pictures</a>


Has some amazing features and the generated pictures are simply amazing and with a capacity of 90,000 it looks impressive.
 
True. It'd be good to get the World Cup again. The "Arses" are getting a new stadium aren't they? And the Mickey's are gonna get one too (with painted in crowds so it looks full), shit, even Man City are getting one. Anyway, my point is there should be plenty of decent football grounds in England for a possible world cup. I just hope the punters down south will turn up in full force for the mid-week England games.
 
Originally posted by Steve Curley:
<strong>True. It'd be good to get the World Cup again. The "Arses" are getting a new stadium aren't they? And the Mickey's are gonna get one too (with painted in crowds so it looks full), shit, even Man City are getting one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Within the next 5-6 years I expect all the 'major' clubs will have a new or vastly improved stadium. Sunderland, Derby, Soton, Liecester (next year)and Bolton all have new or newish stadia and that can only serve as a plus for any WC bid. By the time we get it, probably 2014, poo, Arse, sheep and United will have 60,000+ capacity grounds for the big games; couple that with a new Wembley and I wouldn't bet against us getting the WC again.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Steve Curley:
<strong>True. It'd be good to get the World Cup again. The "Arses" are getting a new stadium aren't they? And the Mickey's are gonna get one too (with painted in crowds so it looks full), shit, even Man City are getting one. Anyway, my point is there should be plenty of decent football grounds in England for a possible world cup. I just hope the punters down south will turn up in full force for the mid-week England games.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Arsenal recieved planning permision for their new ground last week which will hold about 60,000 supporters while Leeds United and Liverpool reportedly have plans on the horizon, but none of those are national stadiums.

True, they will be impressive, but no where near compared to the New Wembley - did you have a look at the links?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by True Treble Reds:
<strong>
Within the next 5-6 years I expect all the 'major' clubs will have a new or vastly improved stadium. Sunderland, Derby, Soton, Liecester (next year)and Bolton all have new or newish stadia and that can only serve as a plus for any WC bid. By the time we get it, probably 2014, poo, Arse, sheep and United will have 60,000+ capacity grounds for the big games; couple that with a new Wembley and I wouldn't bet against us getting the WC again.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It is true there are many high class stadia in England but until therre is a 'mothership' stadium which would be the home of English football it will look inferior against The Millenium Stadium, France and Australias quality grounds.


These 60k+ stadia you talk about may be impressive to us but the fact of the matter is places in Germany, Spain and Italy etc. have teams which have grounds like these even if they are low table teams, not just big clubs - puls they have a grand international stadium.


You can not deny the need for an International stadium.


The only arguement here is where it should be. Of course it looks set to be in Wembley, London like the old one but is that not unfair? Midlands is where it should be so it is accesible on Cup Finals and Internations.


Cup finals is another thing. I could not bare to see the FA Cup Final being shared around grounds and seeing Old Trafford, Highbury or Pride Park staging it, however good they are and The Millenium Stadium is a short-term solution and is in Wales.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Gazza:
It is true there are many high class stadia in England but until therre is a 'mothership' stadium which would be the home of English football it will look inferior against The Millenium Stadium, France and Australias quality grounds.I thought that was the subject of this thread... Wembley gets green light

These 60k+ stadia you talk about may be impressive to us but the fact of the matter is places in Germany, Spain and Italy etc. have teams which have grounds like these even if they are low table teams, not just big clubs - puls they have a grand international stadium.None of them do! They play all international's in club stadiums!

You can not deny the need for an International stadium.I didn't ..."couple that with a new Wembley and I wouldn't bet against us getting the WC again." ...<hr></blockquote>
Click to expand...
 
When I said the comments about Italy, Spain and Germany, I meant that all the stadia in those countries are large, not just the big clubs, which is a vital point.


England may not get the World Cup for an extremely long time if the new Nation Qualifying comes in to place :


FIFA may decide to bring the Nations in on a circle so everyone, and with England having gone almost nine World Cups ago, England would have to be patient.


It is a miracle Britain has been chosen to hold the 2002 and 2003 Champions' League Finals, and will do wonders to English football, and with Arsenal etc getting new stadia, and New Wembley on the horizon, England are catching up in all aspects of the more advanced Continental nations.
 
Originally posted by Gazza:
<strong>When I said the comments about Italy, Spain and Germany, I meant that all the stadia in those countries are large, not just the big clubs, which is a vital point.

.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Spain: only Barca, Real have stadiums with a 60k+ capacity.

Italy: Milan, Turin, Rome, Napoli with 60k+

Germany: Munich(old), Dortmund(less than 60k at international stage) Hamburg(less than 60k), Berlin.....


England: United, Arsenal(new), Sunderland(future), Everton (kings dock), liverpool (when?), leeds (55k), manchester city(commonwealth 55k)


no, there wasn't a need for a national stadium.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah Gazza, I had a look at the links, thanks. It looks amazing.
 
OOps, I shall repost my words of wisdom here then

I can't believe nothing has been said here of the issue. After all, have they not decided (again) that Wembley is the preferred location.
I went down to London in the summer and was amazed to find the twin towers still standing when I passed on the train. The pitch may well have been auctioned off as well as other items but Wembley is still there and it decaying. What a complete embarrassent to have our national stadium reduced to a decaying wreck before something is donw about it.

Now, Wembley the preferred site? Er... the only reason that I can see is tradition. Though if it is so traditional then why do the twin towers not remain in the design, the whole point IMO!

As for Wembley......

-over flowing toilets
-shite facilties
-run down area (it really is minging, do we really want our national stadium in such a dive?)
-in the middle of nowhere
-technically it's not even in bloody London. Look at the address of the stadium, it's in bloomin MIDDLESEX!
- crap transport links (esp. road)

The whole affair is a complete embarrassment to this country. If the other countries can manage why do we have to pussy foot around and behave like such idiots?

We need a national stadium and I'd go for Brum! At least they can actually get arsed to doing something unlike our southern counterparts.

And why are the sports committee and all those nonsence organisations, full of people who wouldn't have a clue what a football is if it hit them in the face?
 
we don't need a national stadium, however i do agree that this Wembley fiasco is an embarrassment to England.


Logically, Birmingham is the only choice.

Wembley will need a complete overhaul of its trasnport system.. how much will that cost??? on top of an intial 720million for the stadium( the cost will rise, it always does) I've had enough of this bias towards London, if they gave manchester 30million out of the lottey money, the commonwealth stadium could've been developed into a 80,000 arena...a national stadium in the making!


BTW, I prefer the design of Wembley.(new)

<img src="graemlins/devil.gif" border="0" alt="[Devil]" /> REPUBLIC OF MANCUNIA <img src="graemlins/devil.gif" border="0" alt="[Devil]" />
 
Originally posted by barca99:
<strong>A national stadoum in Gorton? What an attractive prospect ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

are sure you that its Gorton? Ashton New Road???


anyway, it is a dump.... ;)

the stadium's looking great BTW.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>

are sure you that its Gorton? Ashton New Road???


anyway, it is a dump.... ;)

the stadium's looking great BTW.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I was told the area was Gorton, if not, then it's near there anyway, East Manchester anyway :)
Click to expand...
 
The opposite is being reported here. The press are saying that the British Government are vetoing a Wembly development in it's current form which may result in no stadium at all. Not a big loss IMO. If the new is anything like the old I'd rather hold England Internationals at Gresty Rd.
 
According to CNN, Wembley Stadium II will be in either Wembley, Birmingham or Coventry.


I think Coventry and Birmingham were only thrown in to the voting so it would look like the FA are giving England a fair deal.


They know Wembley is where it will be held they just want to show people they are giving the Midlands a chance too - false hopes.
 
Wembley has only been confirmed as "the preferred option" of the Government & FA.
The FA have apparently been given a deadline (supposedly April '02) to produce a final proposal. Which must include, amongst other items; "fully commited funding". In other words real backers who must sign an actual contract for the financing. :confused:
This still stinks of being a whitewash that will ultimately favour Wembley but what it does mean is that the Midlands bids are not yet dead in the water.
In fact the 'review team' have reccomended that if the FA fail the April deadline then "serious consideration" should be given to the Birmingham bid. :)
Lets hope the FA feck up and it gets to be Birmingham. ;)
 
Originally posted by Wibble:
<strong>If the new is anything like the old I'd rather hold England Internationals at Gresty Rd.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well there are superb transport links in Crewe. The ground is near the motorway and right next to the station so it could work ;)
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Gazza:
<strong>When I said the comments about Italy, Spain and Germany, I meant that all the stadia in those countries are large, not just the big clubs, which is a vital point.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

This actually is not true.
For instance: the average capacity of Spanish First Division stadiums is 38.650, for the Premier League this is 37.475 at the moment. This difference is only baused by the fact we have no Nou Camp or Bernabeu. This means we actually have a lot of stadiums that are bigger than theirs. Taking into account the massive increases the new stadiums of Arsenal, Leicester and others will bring the PL will soon have a bigger average capacity then them. Add to that the New Wembley and no-one tops the Premier League.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.