So the backers of wembley have pulled the plug on the development.

This is fantastic news, we'll hopefully get a new national stadium in a more accessable part of the country. Birmingham has been sugested, but I'd prefer somewhere further north. Perhaps Sheffield, Leeds or Manchester would be better?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Answers

Err what backers? the problem was that they didn't have any!

Birmingham.....great....

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Why not Birmingham? Easier access for the rest of the country, and unlike London, they seem keen to build one. Besides given how abysmal we've been at Wembley since the '50s I've few sentimental feelings for the place. As long as it stays a football stadium ie no athletics track.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

I think that Birmingham would be a reasonable location but wouldn't Manchester be more in the football heartlands of England? (and easier for us to get to?)

I think it needs to have an athletics track that can be covered with seating for most of the year.Also a new stadium should have a capacity of OVER 100k, as the 85k proposed wembley wasn't in my opinion big enough. There are plans I think for a smaller stadium in Manchester (50k seats)for the comenwealth games . Screacher will know more about the location.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Swapping our national stadium from a dump of a location in London to a dump of a location in Brum is not progress. I reckon nearer Leeds would be a better spot.

I cannot work out why Wembley was ever considered for the new place. Everything around the stadium is either a large urban market place (normally full of crap the punters / traders leave behind), tired building facades, crap one way system and an industrial retail park. Nice advert for UK Plc.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Birmingham's a dump....yes, I know London is also a dump but that's not a good excuse to build it in another dump....

Why can't we build our new national stadium in the Bahamas or something?

Personally I think the Hillingdon(ish) plans that were spoken about and seemingly rejected last year were pretty good, good road/train and plane access along with a huge stadium....

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Now that I'm moving out, Hillingdon sounds perfect :-)

I think it had to be Wembley for political rather than good reasons.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Was Hillingdon ever a serious contender, or just a figment of ITK's and my imaginations? I think the NW periphery of Lahnaan makes sense. I hear the arguments about taking it further north, but a National Stadium is usually (a) in/near the capital and (b) within reasonable distance of the majority of the population.

Mind - I could imagine the problems on the M25 for a Wednesday evening KO. It's bad enough without 75,000+ spectators flooding the M'way. Same problem exists in Brum. The M5/M6 is hopeless. Nearer the NEC would be a better option with access to the M40/42.

But I still like the idea of the Bahamas. Nee bliddy traffic problems there.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

hoo aboot the wasteland where we played in the cuppa a few years ago that cabbage patch TSM loved so much!!!!

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

This will be my one and only posting on this thread......else I'll end up in yet another meaningless barny with Jonno.....but believe me, the stadium will not be built in Birmingham, Manchester Leeds, Hillingdon or anywere else.....it WILL be built at Wembley.

The Sedgefield Shitehawk will pull out the financiers to ensure that it does go ahead.....and hey, that will happen in about three weeks time......about a week or so before the General Election.......I'll put money on it!

80)

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Bet you a fiver, that Wembley will not be the site for the next national stadium ken. They might chose London, but the Benwell of North London site will not be the site.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

I can't see any sensible, logistical reason for building the national stadium in the tiny little south eastern bit of the country at all. The middle makes sense and the Coventry/NEC are makes considerably more sense than Birmingham - the motorways around Birmingham are more like car parks most of the time.

Another possible alternative is Stoke. Right next to the M6 and a lovely new link road to the M1 completed a couple of years ago. Access both north and south onto the M6 no problems. And there is even a nice site right next to the motorway link road that could be used. It's called Trentham Lakes - is big, flat, loads of room for car parking and right next to the main Manchester to London railway line where you could build a station for the stadium. Slight improvement in the immediate access roads would help. One slight problem is that there is a stadium there already which is the home of Stoke City. It wouldn't take much to knock it down (a good gust of wind would do) and no one would miss it. Sorted.

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

Or why not Burton on trent?

I heard that the new England training camp to be biult there was to have a replica "new Wembley stadium" for the players to train in to give them a feel of playing in the real place. Why not combine the training centre and the New National stadium in the same location?

-- Anonymous, May 02, 2001

What about us buggers who don't drive? The coach to Manchester takes about 7 hours (National Express). The trains take about 3.5 hours if I recall. It's quicker to London than it is to Manchester and certainly quicker than Birmingham. I say stick with London. It may have a crap public transport system within but at least everyone can get there.

It would be nice if they'd play international friendlies around the country though.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

For car travellers it has to be aws close to the M1/M6 junction as possible. This allows north east and north west access as well as south east.

Train wise it is more problematic. The east coast line is, well, on the east coast and doesn't really link nicely with the London- Manchester. The best again would probably be more west than east as Liverpool/Manchester are likely to need more access than us and Sunderland and Leeds. The rail line follows the M6 so stick close to it.

Air access isn't really an issue internally. Midlands has two in East Midlands and Birmingham. If you wanted to push it slightly further south then Luton Airport comes into play as well.

The obvious triangle links Leicester-Birmingham-Rugby with Coventry right in the middle. That whole area suffers from motorway gridlock, ut maybe that can be fixed. The other option is to push south and go to Milton Keynes/Bedford. They could pretend this was a London suburb (or is it anyway ?) which would solve the 'issue' of being in the capital.

So, in conclusion, I think it should be at Wideopen. Easy access to airport, A1, local metro links to national rail network, and a place for our reserves to that is more grand than Kingston Park.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Actually Milton Keynes might not be a bad idea....

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Obviously the only solution is to have a floating mega platform off the international space station. Now that any arse with a wad of cash can get a lift on a rocket, it's the perfect answer. Given the expense of Ingerlan' tickets and the extortionate charges for the fare usually served up in Wemberlee I think no one could object. No longer the bias of the national stadium being yet another London based use of public funds. What's more, with a extra wide screen telly attached to the outside, everyone could enjoy the game too. Imagine the exposure for advertising football?

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Tell me Mam me Mam, I won't be home for tea. We're going to Birmingham............... Doesn't quite work for me ;-))

Mind you Coventry would fit, sort of.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

We could throw them off the platform when they lose as well to give them some kind of incentive....

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

Tell me muuuummm, me muuummmm, we're going to Buurrminguuum, tell me muuum, me muuummm

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001

I agree with ITK - it will be built at Wembley. Quite wrongly IMO - but this Government haven't managed to get a single thing right so far, so why should this little matter prove to be any different?

Talk of a location with ready access to interconnecting transport systems is entirely fatuous - we don't have any transport systems, just a mish-mash of broken down Victorian Museum pieces. So, building on that fact, it may as well be at Wembley as anywhere else - arguably, the worst location in the entire UK regarding fan access.

One of the greatest things this incompetent Government could possibly do for the country is to take the National Stadium away from the insufferable arrogance of Lanhdon Tahn. This would have the added advantage of disenfranchising all of the odious turds who regularly turned up there to 'watch' Engerland.

The present problem is that the idiots directing the project, by coincidence under the leadership of another odious turd, Ken Bates, have allowed the project scope-of-work and hence its cost to balloon to in excess of £650 million from ca. £200mm - which, of course, is entirely unsupportable.

The answer to this problem is blindingly simple, and based on the guiding principal used by our pensioners up and down the country every single week - decide what is affordable and then go and buy it.

The Millenium Stadium in Cardiff was built for £125mm - albeit in Cardiff. Does anyone really believe that a decent football stadium cannot be built at Wembley for £200 or even £250mm, of which the National Lottery has already agreed to stump up £125mm?

Bizarre and bloody ridiculous, but entirely in keeping with the present national malaise for superior incompetence at everything and anything we turn our hands to.

-- Anonymous, May 03, 2001