Settling on a plan and location for an English national is proving difficult for the Football Association and the government.

They declared Wembley the preferred choice on Wednesday, but have yet to fully finalise financial backing for the project.

Birmingham's bid could yet win if they cannot make Wembley work, but the ongoing saga and lack of a definitive decision has provoked widespread criticism.

We asked you for your e-mails on the stadium fiasco - click below to watch Nigel unravel the confusion surrounding Wembley.

Stephen, Hertfordshire

Whatever the outcome of this farce, no one involved will emerge with any credit. I fear that our inability to get this project off the ground will ruin any chances we had of hosting a future World Cup, Olympics, or any major sporting event.

It's been a complete shambles and I think it has damaged our ability to hold major sporting events. The 2005 World Athletics Championships were taken away from the UK after the Picketts Lock fiasco, and people around the world are looking at this and asking how such things can happen in a place like England, and more specifically the UK as well.

Wembley has been the home of football for many years and the Twin Towers are a huge international symbol, and this affair has been a complete and utter shambles. Many people are wondering why, and at whom they should point the finger of blame.

Who specifically does this reflect badly with?

It reflects badly on a number of people, notably the Wembley National Stadium Company, the Football Association and the Government. In many other countries around the world, one person or one committee is given the job of building the stadium, and everyone says - here's the money, go ahead and build it.

Here it seems that we've had a stadium built, or not built, by committee. A number of people have been involved, and many people have tried to change the design, the amount of money, the sports it is used for, etc. There has been such a mix of ideas, but nothing has been done, and in the end the Twin Towers are still there, and looking rather shabby.

Gareth McMahon, UK

I really am quite shocked about how pathetic this saga has been. Lets look at the Millennium Stadium - this was built at �125 million; a fraction of the cost compared to Wembley.

I think that the FA Cup & Worthington Cup should both stay in Cardiff - it has done really well hosting it and is also in the centre of Britain, which means that it's easy for everybody to get to.

I think many people in Wales are being quite smug about this, but there are different levels here. The Millennium Stadium is a 72,000 capacity stadium. It' fantastic if you've there, and the atmosphere is superb. But there would be around 20,000 extra seats at the new Wembley stadium that would cost an extra �100m. T

he total figure of �700m includes all the regeneration around Wembley as well. The Millennium stadium is basically plonked right in the middle of Cardiff, and there's no real room around that to expand anything else. The �125m spent there was directly concerned with building the stadium itself - Wembley will have to landscape the area around it in North West London, provide better transport links (a new tube station) and car parking.

The local council reckon that having the new stadium will actually bring around 500,000 extra visitors to the area every year, so that has to be taken into account as well. So while the Millennium Stadium was on cost and on time, it's a very different project to Wembley.

Rodney, Australia

The Government should have intervened to sort out this mess a long time ago. The home of English football is an important issue to many, and until recently it seems to have been treated with disdain by the Government. The cost is ludicrous, and the venue wholly unsuitable - the Millennium Dome springs to mind.

I think that many people believe that it shouldn't have become a Government affair. Initially, there was no real inclination for the Government to get involved in sport, as has been the case for many years. It does seem that such a mess has been made of the project that eventually the Government had to step in a get themselves involved.

Ken Bates, the former chief executive of Wembley National Stadium has said the stadium would be well on the way completion had the Government not got involved, but there was such a financial mess caused by the number of factors competing to get Wembley built, that the Government decided to commission a report to try and sort it out.

The Government don't want to put any money into the project, but they do want to ensure that the national stadium is built to the sort of criteria that will make the UK and England proud of it. I think many people the Government has got involved too much, but should have got involved sooner.

Whose head, if anybody's, might roll over this?

If you look at the Government re-shuffle after the last election, Prime Minister Tony Blair basically got rid of everybody within the Culture Department, including the Culture Secretary Chris Smith. As Culture Secretary in the last Government, it was Smith who said that athletics should not have any place in the new national stadium at Wembley. That meant the �20 m of Lottery Money given to the FA by Sport England to ensure that athletics did take place there had to be given back.

That has caused so much confusion, because a lot of people were saying that this was going to be a stadium for football, rugby league and athletics, and the financial criteria was set up with that in mind. To use the clich�, the goalposts were moved as soon as Smith got involved, and the financial situation was changed as well.

I think that Tony Blair's actions show that he blamed Chris Smith for many of the problems around Wembley, but at the same time, fingers have been pointed at the Wembley National Stadium and the FA for having huge grand plans of hotels and corporate complexes. These would cost a huge amount of money without generating sport much money.

Stan Cheeseman, Yorkshire

Despite the obvious benefits of building a new stadium in the midlands, the London-biased decision makers seem to have won the day.

Anyone who had the misfortune to visit the old Wembley knows what a nightmare it was to reach. Whatever its history, Wembley is a dump. We need a new stadium away from London.

Yes it has. There was a poll on BBC Sport Online on Thursday asking where the national stadium should be, and the majority of people who have voted on there want Birmingham. There are lots of arguments to say that Birmingham has a good case. It's a central location, and it gets the national football team out of the capital (many people feel we've concentrating on London for too long).

But the FA said on Wednesday that although Birmingham put forward an excellent bid with many things going for it, they thought that financially they would get more out of being in London. That's because on the international stage, London has more clout than Birmingham, and if they're trying to bring regeneration in that part of London, as well as brining big international events to Wembley, they have a better a chance of success I the capital. I think the FA is going for London because, if nothing else, they'll make more money from it.

In that case, do you think that Birmingham and Coventry were ever in the running?

It's very interesting. I think the FA always wanted to have Wembley as the site, but the national stadium debate has now been taken out of the FA's hands. The Government bought in Patrick Carter, their so-called troubleshooter, to look at the debate as a whole. I think the Government were desperate to get some more bids involved to try and see a more realistic level of stadium building. Wembley was costing �700m and there wasn't really any alternative for the Government to look at.

Birmingham came along and said they could build the stadium for �350m, but Wembley does have planning permission to re-develop their site, which is, of course, crucial. Even though they say they have all the finances in place, Birmingham don't currently have planning permission to develop their site on the outskirts of the city.

So at the moment, Wembley may not be the cheapest option, but it's certainly the most convenient. Supporters of the Birmingham may say that the stadium would be in a more convenient location, but at the same time, many football and rugby fans wasn't a day out in London as well.

Derek Rivers, Manchester

Having followed England around the country over the summer, I see no need for a national stadium whatsoever. England have performed well on the road, and other European countries such as Italy seem to do perfectly well without one.

Many of the England players have also preferred going out on the road. Manchester United defender Gary Neville said earlier this season that the players prefer it because they go into grounds that they're more familiar with.

When they played at Wembley in the past it was a huge stadium with a greyhound track around the side, and continental teams were often more at home there than England. At Anfield, St James' Park and old Trafford the crowd are basically on top of the pitch - it all makes for a very English atmosphere.

So I think the players have preferred it. But the FA have always felt that they can make a national stadium work, and they want to have a 90,000 set piece stadium for the big England games as well as the domestic finals that take place every season.