Tonight sees Wembley hosting the first game of four over the next four days. And it's p1$$1ng down. God help the poor bu88ers who have to play there on Monday in the play-off for a place in the EPL. What's the surface gonna be like?

Crazy. Tomorrow's game against Brazil is only a friendly. Tonight's, Sunday's and Monday's are key matches for promotion to higher leagues. But of course, those money-grabbing b@st@rds at the FA (nice acronym that, eh?) wouldn't even think about that. Nor that Darlo's fans had to travel doon on a work day.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

Answers

Agree 100% with those sentiment Screacher......it is still p*ssing down at 20 minutes past midnight (Friday night/Saturday morning) ....so that is at least another two and a half hours of water on the surface.

I don't want to get into a debate about the whys and wherefores of Darlington having to travel there on a work day, but other than for moneys sake, why did tomorrows game have to be played there.....they could easily have taken it elsewhere.

Surely that stupid bliddy contract the FA had with Wembley, which they reckoned stopped them taking major matches like that to League grounds, must have expired by now, lets face it....if Brent Council hadn't mucked about, the stadium would have been a building site by now, as work was supposed to have started last Septemeber and they would have been forced to play it elsewhere.

THe seond and first division play off are definitely going to be a lottery now.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

I totally agree with the sentiments on this thread. The England friendly could have been played anywhere.

Out of interest I have just had a look at the Wembley site, and their plans for the new stadium. I know that they are still under discussion (now there`s a suprise!) but they are still bleating on about how wonderful the `arch` is going to be. In view of the unpredictability of the British weather, perhaps they should have allocated the `arch` money on a retractable roof? I know they are saying there is 100% roof coverage, but I believe that`s coverage for the seating, not the pitch. But what do I know! And when did logic ever figure in a FA decision! (:o)

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Wembley should be made into a car park or a nuclear waste dump or a site for growing GM crops or a site for testing biological weapons (if such things are harmless as we have been told by governments).

The National Stadium should be situated at a more convenient place so as to minimise the distance that the fans have to travel. This would be weighted towrds the South as most of the population lives there but it should certainly be further north than London.

They are spending #500m on this. All pumped into an overheated London economy. It's an absolute disgrace the tyranny of the capital, depressing everywhere else. Look at the money that is pumped into The British Library, The Dome, Wembley, etc, etc etc. Look at the unemployment rate in the North compared to London. It is a complete farce. Why don't the people protest at this stupidity?

Tell your MP.

Jonno (Kenton Bar Peoples Liberation Front)

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Got to agree with Jonno.
Birmingham was regarded as fine for the NEC, and IMO it is ludicrous to locate the new National soccer stadium in the middle of a grossly conjested London urban area like Wembley that has NO decent road links, AND at vast expense.
It should be located in an area that can be readily accessed by train, AND more importantly, with IMMEDIATE access to motorway traffic coming from both north and south. It should be equipped with enough car/coach parking to cater for the entire ground capacity.
Frankly, I despair of us being to do anything correctly in this country any more because very single big decision seems to be politically loaded, instead of determined by good old common sense.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Right, here we go....get the hangman ready....Jonno will no doubt demand him after this posting.

Now first of all, I am not sticking up for London because I happen to reside here, to be brutally honest and blunt, when there are major matches played at Wembley, they are a pain in the arse as far as I am concerned cos the traffic round this area is bliddy atrocious, as noted today, 95 minutes from Hillingdon to Kew....for gods sake its little more than ten miles, but I was caught among with people going to Wembley for the football and Twickenham for the rugby.

But before you really start getting into the 'why is the National Stadium in London' debate in full.....look round every country in the world and note what and where their national stadium is, and at least 98% of them are in the Capital city.

I bet the people who live in Nice and Monaco really look forward to their team getting into the French cup final and having to endure that long trek all the way to Le Stade de France in Paris.....and this is the same the world over......I'm sorry, but London is the Capital of England and the National Stadium should be in the Capital full stop.

Now if Birmingham or Manchester or Sheffield or Leeds or Newcastle want to build stadiums that can also come to the same standard as the National Stadium then fine.....the authorities should look to them to potentially host games like that one this afternoon, and not get tied to a stupid bliddy contract like they have been where the stadium authorities demand that all Internationals must be played at Wembley, but all this 'why is everything in London' argument really is cr@p I'm afraid........

If you were trying to lure teams/business to come to these shores and show off their talents in this country, which do you think they would respond to the most....."come here and we will play the game in the National Stadium in our Capital, London" or "come here and we will play the game in Milton Keynes" - Hoho....I can see the Brazilians and Argentineans loving that one.

As I say.....not all International Games should be played at Wembley, but that should still, whatever people say, be the National Stadium.

There we are, rant over, get the noose and I'll loosen my collar!

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

On a side note, when I posted the above....I noticed, Like Screacher did on one of the others postings, that the reply goes to one William Kane.....yet the thread was stared by Screacher.....what gives Duncx

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

ITK,

So basically your argument is that the new Wembley Stadium has to be in London - 'cos its the capital city. Well I'm sorry Ken but you ain't convinced me.

My argument isn't inherently anti-London, but simply that the stadium should be built in an entirely logical place, where road and rail links can fully cope with the requirement to move fans in and out without inconveniencing both the fans themselves, and a sizeable section of the local community.

IMO these should be the key determinants, not whether the Brazilian national team will be concerned about having to travel an hour outside of London - do you really think they all love London that much?Is London the only place that has hotels that can put up visiting teams? I think not.

The problem here is that we've become so totally used to massive inconvenience in this country that we've lost the ability to think logically, to decide what the real requirements are for siting a massive stadium that needs to cater properly and professionally for 100,000 people, and then find the location that best meets those needs. So, as usual we'll just make do and mend, we'll put up with the inconvenience, and the frustration, and the queuing, and the traffic jams for another 50 years. It's become the British way - ptuh!

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Mornin` all! I sort of fall halfway between Clarky and ITK on this one. I feel the National Stadium should be within striking distance of London, but outside the M25. Personally I am not keen on the Birmingham idea. The ring road, especially the bit from the M42 to the M6 can be painfully congested. Why not somewhere like Milton Keynes? Or even Northampton? I suspect the extra few juntions down the M1 would be quicker than the time it would take to cut across to Birmingham, if that was your route from the North. It is still within reasonable striking distance of London, and has Luton airport close by. Milton Keynes, despite all the roundabouts, has a half decent road system, masses of space around, and copes very well with big events at the Milton Keynes Bowl. Although as distances from London go, Southampton isn`t that bad, I, for instance, could get to Milton Keynes quicker and with a lot less hassle, than the centre of London. If there were a direct rail link from the North to Milton Keynes, IMHO that would be the place to look at. (:o)

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

>>>>but all this 'why is everything in London' argument really is cr@p I'm afraid........

And it's cr@p, apparently because :-

>>>>look round every country in the world and note what and where their national stadium is, and at least 98% of them are in the Capital city.

Despite the fact that :-

>>>>>major matches played at Wembley, they are a pain in the arse as far as I am concerned cos the traffic round this area is bliddy atrocious, as noted today, 95 minutes from Hillingdon to Kew....for gods sake its little more than ten miles, but I was caught among with people going to Wembley

So Ken, the logic of your argument is that we should put up with the traffic jams in London and demand extortionate fares from Northerners following their clubs at Wembley because that's what every other country does. Looks to me like a thin argument for dismissing my view as cr@p.

But then again, you do point out :-

>>>>come here and we will play the game in Milton Keynes" - Hoho....I can see the Brazilians and Argentineans loving that one

Erm, let me see now - so let's screw the bliddy Northerners and please the Argentinians and the Brazilians? Personally, I was not aware that international matches were arranged so that the visiting countries could go sightseeing .... (That's normally the job of the England defence (-;)

My contention is that the stadium should be built so as to minimise the travel distance from all parts of the country, weighted by population. That is an argument with a great deal more logic than every other country putting it in their capital and enduring traffic congestion.

OR, play England games in different places around the country and have at least 2, maybe more, stadia where cup finals or internationals can be played.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

What about Siverstone then Jonno?

Actually, I'm with Gal on this. I do believe that a national stadium should be in or about the nation's capital. But like Clarky says, unless they could dramtically improve communications to the area, it won't work.

Although I've never been inside, I have been past the Stade de France a number of times. Outskirts of Paris, near a motorway and (I believe) decent access par le train.

For me, North Lahndaan , easy access to the M25. What about Hillingdon?

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Galaxy,,p>For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't arguing in favour of Birmingham as a location for the stadium, merely pointing out that that was considered an acceptable location for the National Exhibition Centre. In which case why does the Wembley replacement need to be built in an entirely inappropriate, congested urban area of north London that has no motorway access and rail access limited exclusively to central London?
I think your suggestions are entirely sensible, and based on precisely the logic I'm arguing for. Somewhere just north of the M25 links with the M1 and A1 would seem ideal.
Unfortunately, as I frustratedly 'screamed' in the last para of my post to ITK, it ain't gonna happen because as a nation we seem to have lost the foresight and vision to do anything other than muddle along accepting pathetic compromises and second best.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Well you know Clarky, we can live in hope! One day a decision might be made with the interests of the great unwashed masses in mind, and not just the chosen few. Judging by the most recent decision of it`s ilk that has been made, ie. an unheated tent, so inaccessible that even the people who live in London couldn`t get to it, with an alarmingly short shelf life - well, I guess I won`t be holding my breath either!(:o)

Mind you, we have had one evenhanded decision(or is it just a suggestion) made. Next year`s Cup Finals etc. to be played in Cardiff! That should be just about equally inaccessible for everyone concerned!

My hackles still rise at the folly of the Millenium Dome, and I don`t dare ask how Cardiff`s Millenium Stadium was financed. But I do know which I think was the more worthwhile project! Like you, I get so angry at some the the glaring bad decisions that are made. (:o|

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Screacher you may have said that tongue in cheek but Hillingdon would be a brilliant place.....other than the fact it is in West London, not North......the only problem being that the council round here wear the same kind of blinkers that many others do and go for the NIMBY vote........shown when they blew out the bid from Warners to build a Eurodisney style theme park quite literally round the corner from us....it would have been fabulous.....but as usual they can't see beyond the ends of their own stupid noses.

There is also currently a proposal in for a new football stadium for QPR at the end of Northolt Aerodrome, which as you know is also in my back garden almost, and another plan for a major new athletics stadium ala Crystal Palace next to that, so don't think I haven't given this idea some thought.........

Hillingdon would be the ideal place.....M3, M4, M40, M25, 4 underground stations served by 3 underground lines, several main line railway stations, a small airport known as Heathrow, a smaller aerodrome at Northolt which is being muted as a satellite to Heathrow anyway......but of course, none of that would be anywhere near good enough, because it is in London.....and not north of Watford Gap

Im sorry, but in the first posting I thought I did say that other cities/clubs, including Newcastle could easily build new stadiums, or as in our case because of the NIMBYS can improve their already existing grounds to a standard where major matches, with very large crowds can be played, but that seemed to get overlooked.

Im all for the International matches being moved from ground to ground so that the majority of people can see them, and can also see the point of a stadium other than the National Stadium where the cup final can be played, if for example two Northern team, (ala Newcastle/Newton Heath) could play, but where does that leave a one like the Toon/Arse final, a third stadium in the midlands perhaps.

My main argument here is not that the National Stadium should be built in a major urban area like Wembley, but it does have to be built within the bounds of the capital, and Im sorry if some perceive that as suggesting that visiting teams can go sightseeing, but facts are facts and life is life, more people will be drawn to an event being staged in London that one being staged in Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle or god forbid Sunderlandwhen England played their game there last year the Makems had to give 5,000 tickets free to local schools cos they couldnt sell them all.

It may not be popular, but when did I ever let that stop me!

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

ITK - I gather you changed your mind about a trip to the seaside today?! Wise move! (:o)

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Certainly did Galaxy....what is it like down there.

My elder daughter was away camping with the Girls Brigade for the weekend, (Friday evening - Monday evening at some place in Hertfordshire) but we got a call this morning to say that they had got to bed about 1.00am and had then been forced to abandon the tents at 4.00am and were on their way home.

It's now 1.00pm Sunday lunchtime, she is now asleep in bed and all her kit, sleeping bag included, is going round in the washing machine......ah, the best of another bank holiday.

Working tomorrow, so can't even make up for it then........another time perhaps.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Always worth giving us a bell if you`re down this way. As for the weather - well, we can`t say we`re not used to it. Mind you, I`ve definately gone soft living down South - all this talk on here about BBQ`s is making me shiver!!!!!(:o)

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Come off it ITK, the reason why they couldn't sell all the tickets for the game at S**derland was because it is so hard to find on the map. Most people assume it's in the Low Countries or something as it's not on the mainline or the Motorway.

I am also duty bound to point out that your argument about national stadiums being in Capital cities is bollocks. Most Capital cities are in the centre of their respective countries, sited there to ease the administration since the city tended to form the hub of the communications network. That is why the stadiums are usually there. In England, however, we were a miserable province at the edge of civilization and the Romans chose to put the admin centre as close to the continent as possible to reduce the need for travel in our Gods- forsaken wilderness. The Normans did exactly the same thing as they needed to control half of France and good old William discovered that it was so hard to keep control in the North that he conducted a scorched earth policy up here with such effect that the population never recovered.

York used to be the administrative centre of a kingdom every bit as wealthy and powerful as the South. The inheritance we have been left as an outpost of continental conquerors and rulers is that we had to move all our communications to this obscure place in the South East for the ease of our masters. That's why f***ing London is so hard to get to. It's designed to be easy to get away from. We ought to burn the sodding place down and re-establish our independence. Build a transport system to suit the spread of the population. redistribute the wealth to where it's needed, not to feed the insatiable maw of London which just puts up its prices to wipe out any increases in funding anyone makes.

Anyone would think I consider London to be a dirty, smelly, impersonal, filthy hole which the Germans should be commended on trying to destroy. I'd best be careful ;-)

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Not your favourite place either then Softie!?(:o)

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

ITK

What`s it like down here? I`m sat watching the torrential rain fly plast my window horizontally! I have a lake where my garden should be, a river instead of a drive, and the wind`s bloody cold! As I said, `wise move`!(:O)

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

I've been visiting this website (I think the term used is lurking?) for a couple of months now, I have a simple question (admittedly quite silly!) for your regular contributor, "Galaxy":

Why do you always sign off your postings with (:o)? I'm fairly new to the internet but I've been told that this (:o) is an expression of surprise, surely you are not surprised every time you (Galaxy) post a message?

Please, no offence meant (simply an observation, in an attempt to gain some knowledge). My humblest apologies and accompanying embarrassment if I've written a load of *o**o@ks, I've had to start somewhere.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Welcome M. Preston!

I suspect you are quite correct about the emoticom! I am the resident cyberplank - as far as I am concerned, it`s just a smiley little face. Pleased you`ve decided to start posting - tell us something about yourself. Everyone`s very friendly on here, and pretty easy going. I was, and still am a rookie on the computer, and I have found this BBs very helpful. I`m sure you will enjoy getting involved.

As for causing me offence - don`t be daft! I`ve been posting on this and the old BBs for 18 months now - very little offends me! (:o)

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Welcom Malcolm Preston....always good to have a new 'face' on board the board as it were.

Galaxy's sign off is a smiley (:o)

the one for suprise is (:-0

the one for laughing is (:0D

and the one for winking.....oi Gav I SAID WINKING is (;0) or have I been getting it wrong all this time........

I know, the answer to that is probably yes.....I'll get my coat!

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

I agree entirely with Softie's comments but the erstwhile leader of The Popular Front of Willington Quay should recognise just what his people are - a bunch of splitters from the Kenton Bar People's Liberation Front.

ITK

The sightseeing comment was in response to your own argument that apparently it would be difficult to get Argentina or Brazil to play at Milton Keynes. As you know, they come to play football and the venue is an irrelevance once the safety of their squads is assured.

I merely made the point that I felt that you had not advanced a serious argument for the Stadium being in the Capital other than that "everyone else does it". This, is of course, the same logic applied by Lemmings. Doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong but it is not an argument for blindly following without question.

The confluence of roads at Hillingdon you mention (M3, M4, M40, M25) all serve the South with only the M40 going (not very far)North of London.

It is time that the MAJORITY of the population who don't live in London rise up and demand that the regions get a better deal all round. The economy will be in balance when as many Londoners travel North for work as Northerners go South. There needs to be centres of wealth creation set up in the regions not just a few call centres as sops to the masses. The government can and should LEAD in this area by moving those things under it's control away from London. The expenditure on the Dome should have been more evenly spread around the country.

In this day and age of rapid communication, the need for everyone to be located in the same place is now fading. Perhaps some myopic boards of companies will soon realise that they can locate their HQ's in far more favourable and much cheaper environments and the process of centralisation can start to be reversed.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

I believe I heard on the radio recently that the fabulous Tate Modern art gallery cost ca. #25mm to build. So, instead of the staggering profligacy that is 'The 12-month Dome', Millenium Galleries the equivalent of the Tate Modern could have been built in every major city in the UK.
Just think about it for second, the raise three hearty jeers for our visionary Leaders.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

With you all the way on that one Clarky! (:o|

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

'raise three hearty cheers for our visionary leaders'

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Tears are rolling down my face. What a magnificently curmudgeonly remark, Clarky, that has quite possibly made my week! Thank you :-D

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

ITK (and the rest of you miserable downtrodden northerners). My comment about Hillingdon was partially TIC but also had a slightly serious undertone. Whether it be Hillingon or some other similarly located place I believe any National Stadium should be situalted in the Nation's Capital.

Jonno, my good mate, may I suggest you take out your atlas and study it carefully (you know the one you nicked from Fat Alec at BGS). Look up the USA, capital Washington. East coast if I'm not mistaken. Australia - Canberra, somewher over on the right habd side (OK, so waht if it is am aberation ans Sydney is the real capital). Norway - there's a fair few kilometers north of Oslo. France - Paris is very mcuh to the north of the country. Need I go on? Despite the good efforts of the good folk from the Kenton Bar Peoples Liberation Front, I'm afraid it'll be a longer time than you and I have left for the capital of England to be moved from London. So we're stuck with the capital being based doon sooth.

The M25 orbital is a pretty horrendous road. But the western side is better than the east, having 4 lanes on both sides. It links with the M3, M4, M40 (which in turn links to the M42 and M6 to Birmingham, the North West and even (god forbid) Scotland. Not far to the east of the M40 junction, it links with the and the M1, A1(M). In my experience, the most difficult place to get to Hillingdon area from in central London, so with a bit of luck, there could be more northermers than Lahndaa louts if they had decided to move the thing further to the perimeter of the capital. Certainly it would be foolish to build it on the south side (so they might well think hard about doing so!).

It's all pretty accademic. The stadium will be built in Brent, which makes me really cross!

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

Its quite amazing really - put a dozen semi-dim Geordies on a bulletin board for half an hour, and you get pretty much a concensus that the present site of the so-called 'National Stadium' at Wembley in North London is a really daft place to rebuild the so-called 'National Stadium', at vast expense, due its position in a transportation 'black hole'. Rather less of a concensus as to where it should be built mind (although a certain Manchester resident has cunningly suggested either Washington DC, Paris, Oslo or Canberra as potential locations)
So, why is it that the collective wisdom of many of our greatest so-called 'National brains' have decided just to say "oh f**k it", and build it there anyway?
Is this just a stubborn streak? Mischievious, perhaps? Or have perchance they been blindsided by Chief Engineer Scottie convincing them he has negotiated the purchase of a large bag of dilithium crystals with which to energise a 'molecular transporter' that will effortlessly whisk 78,000 fans directly from the relative comfort of their own netty seats into their appointed seats in the so-called 'National Stadium Modern', and back home again after the match?
If none of the above - why the hell are they doing it?
Can anyone enlighten me? Please.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

This is my final posting on this issue..................

>>>>>>>>I am also duty bound to point out that your argument about national stadiums being in Capital cities is bollocks. Most Capital cities are in the centre of their respective countries,<<<<<<

I'm sorry Softie, but I can't let that one pass without either comment or geographical retributionOutside of Italy and Spain, which other European capital in anywhere near the centre of their country.....

For Christ sake Paris is closer to London (450 miles) that it is to Marseille (770 miles) - Tell the people of Northern Portugal that Lisbon is in the centre of their country, or the folk of northern Norway that Oslo on the southern coast of country is in the centre. Stockholm is no where near the centre of Sweden and neither Berlin nor Munich are anywhere near the centre of the united Germany, nor were they anywhere near the centre of their respective East and West former selves. Athens is no where near the centre of Greece and Warsaw is pretty far from the centre of Poland.....yet the National Stadiums of all those countries are in the Capital.

And that is just Europe, a quick glance at any world atlas would show that few countries have their capital in the centre. If that were the case, then Alice Springs is the capital of Australia

As I have said in a previous posting, I don't necessarily advocate the stadium being built at its current location, but I have to keep reiterating it must be in the capital and for the best ease of access and use, it should be to the north or west of London.

Finally, Jonno......you say something about companies will relocate to better and cheaper parts of the country when their boards see sense.....is that why places like Milton Keynes, Telford and our very own Washington are awash with major companies.

-- Anonymous, May 28, 2000

The freshly dusted World Atlases can now be carefully placed back in their places on the bookshelf for another few years to rebuild their former dust layers.
Enjoyed the debate.
Eliminating the 'out-liers', I feel we have established an overall consensus that the existing location is a really dumb place to rebuild the national stadium due to transportation inadequacies.
Accepting that we're all effectively shouting down a lift-shaft, a far better location would be on the North to North-West outskirts of London, on a site with direct rail and motorway connections.
I thank you.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

PS. Why only 78,000 capacity...................??

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Error: muddled thinking. Take your pick.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Still no actual REASON advanced for the NS to be in the capital other than the Lemming-like logic "that's what they all do".

There will be no equitable distribution of opportunity in the country until this ridiculous concentration of wealth and power in London is dispersed more widely. How many northerners contributing to this board, have to live or have had to live for some considersable time in the South? The vast majority of us I expect.

Completely unjust and stupid that government money and government backed projects are used to inflate the house prices of the already rich in London.

Screw the National Stadium.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Why would I let Geographical fact get in the way of an argument? ;-)

I think you'll find that Berlin and Paris are both in the centre of their population spreads, with the Eastern side of Germany being far more sparsely populated as is the South and Centre of France. Athens was in the centre of Greece before Macedonia went their own way. Washington was in the centre of the population spread of America when it was just the coastal strip settled and they chose where to place their capital. They only moved into the interior decades later and the West Coast when they found gold.

You'll also find that Stockholm and Oslo are centred in the most densely populated parts of their respected coutries. Russia took the sensible option of shifting their powerbase from St Petersburg to Moscow as it was at the heart of their country. Canbera may be on the East side of Australia but there are only a fraction of the population living on the West Coast and hardly any b*gger in the middle, so once again, I don't find that my argument has collapsed in ruins.

We return again to the fact that London was made our capital out of convenience to continental-based rulers, NOT because it was at the heart of the country and certainly not because it was at the heart of a communications network. If they'd done that it would have been Dorchester or York. Everything was bent towards London and has always just left everything congested with the inconvenience of a sodding great estuary thrown in to boot.

My splinter-group fights on, and will continue to daub 'Romani domus eunt' on the BBC studios wall :-)

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Power to the people Softie!!(:o)

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Softie,

It's an weird feeling when I find you and your literary and logic talents on (approximately) the same side in a 'debate'.
I kinda like it!

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

Well, in fairness, if you don't like what is hapopening to lottery money, stop buying a ticket. However, you can't opt out of tax so easily and the money spent on the National Stadium and the Dome are nothing short of scandalous and do involve tax as well as lottery money. I don't care where the National Stadium is - they can use a fraction of the amount they are proposing to spend to sort out the current Wembley: there's nowt wrong with it that about 400 new bogs and a good fumigation wouldn't sort out.

-- Anonymous, May 29, 2000

It came as no surprise when I saw the debate on here about the National Stadium being debated with so much passion.

It is also not surprising to see that the main reason for the delay in planning of the new stadium was due to a Section 106 agreement, whereby the developers would have to make a positive contribution to the infrastructure surrounding the stadium.

All said and done, the current location is pointless. Sentiment shouldn't come into it, either. History of an object can start at any time.

Build a new stadium in a green field location where infrastructure can be utilised/created to ensure adequate facilities. whenever you get 80,000 people charging into a single area in a period of two/three hours you will get congestion.

I'm a little unsure with the argument must be in the capital city. I can see the sense in keeping it there as a symbolic gesture but otherwise there is not a lot more going for it. The new stadium should be accessible for the Nation and that is no good when people from the North have to travel the best part of five hours only to get to the outskirts of London.

The people of Kent and the South West have to be taken into account. I would suggest creating a totally new situation similar to what they have done at Daventry with the International Rail freight terminal.

Looking at it from a symbolic perspective, if you built a stadium capable of hosting 90,000 people, with all the right facilities and transport infrastructure, the people of England would love it. If the stadium is of suitable architectural significance and quality then it would soon be recognised throughout the world as an excellent facility, synonymous with English Football.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

De Builder,

"synonymous with English Football"

I have a sudden dread of turning up to find:

1. It's constantly raining
2. The seats are hard as nails and keep backing into you
3. All the seats are down the right hand side of the pitch
4. The whole ground is full of foreigners
5. The seats aren't wide enough and all slant towards the right
6. Most of the seats at the front keep falling off their brackets
7. The seats at the back are extremely unsightly and always seem to be either facing the wrong way or have gone missing entirely
8. Everything is overpriced

Did I forget anything? :-)

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Ahh very good, Soft one.

i think you forgot.

A) When the supporters get in there they say it isn't like the good ole days. B) They say it's not as good as in other coutries and the building is described as a monstrosity. C) It wasn't bult quick enough. D) It lacks the passion and spirit of other home countries' facilities. E) It should be the best in the world but nobody can understand why it isn't F) People think it is the best in the world but is clearly not.

The list is endless

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Dead simple really, and sorry if the point's already been made, but the emphasis as far as I'm concerned should be on NATIONAL. It's meant to be a national stadium not a capital stadium, so there's no real reasom it should be located in London, bollix to what happens in other countries.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

May I join the fray? A national stadium, in my mind doesn't need to be in the capital, but it does need to have some presence, and if you do away with historical references, the stadium would need to be very special in order to generate the right vibes and feelings of national pride. Other countries and their capitals/stadia are a red herring, and examples could be used to illustrate each and every argument, either way..bit like the Bible really, but I divert.

If Manchester had got the Olympics, then that would have provided a natural split, just like Munich managed to do after the war when Berlin was annexed. Don't Germany now play internationals in both cities, in their olympic stadia rather than 'national' satdia?

But Manchester never won the Olympics because it's a dull, uninspiring dump with no historical basis for being the centre of anything, other than a few industries. Munich was always the capital of Bavaria, and a true centre for a very powerful region. I don't think anyone in their right mind would have built a 'national' stadium in Bonn, for example.

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000