|
 |
 | | | You are in: Sports Talk |
|
| | Wednesday, 25 September, 2002, 07:47 GMT 08:47 UK Will Wembley work?  Anger is growing among fans over the decision to stage all England matches at the new Wembley - bringing the highly successful 'England roadshow' to an end. Are fans outside of London getting a raw deal?
England have played 10 friendlies since the last game at the old Wembley in October 2000, playing to sell-out crowds on each occasion. And Mark Perryman, a London England fans representative, told BBC Sport Online that it would be a mistake to scrap the England roadshow. The decision to keep the national stadium in London has already provoked criticism, and the �750m price tag has also been called into question. Will the new Wembley be worth the time and money? And should it play host to every England game? This debate is now closed. A selection of your e-mails appear below. Why does a national stadium have to be built purposefully for about 10 games a year? Surely the FA could have collaborated with the RFU, Arsenal, Sport England or Man City to build a new stadium for a variety of occasions. A running track would not be good because it leaves the football fans miles away from the action. The new Wembley had better be used for sports like Rugby League or it will have been a complete waste of time and money. Unless transport issues are address immediately there will be severe problems and can anyone tell me how �750m can be justified on a stadium. This makes no logical business sense. How many years before they see a return Forget a national stadium. Wembley stank, was only half-full midweek. All the games on the road have been sell-outs which gives a much better atmosphere. Keep on the road. I travelled from Northampton to Birmingham recently to watch England play Portugal. It was easy, off the motorway and at the ground in minutes. Somehow I can't see it being that easy in London! I can't see the sense in having this ground built in London. I don't think anybody has shown any common sense in the location of this ground. The Sapporo Dome cost �80m, the Commonwealth Games stadium cost �120m, I think it's about time someone accounted for the �750m being spent on Wembley. I'd like to see a stadium ten times as impressive as the Sapporo. Internationally, we need a venue to scare the opposition, not a moving circus under Sven (super sub) Eriksson.
I don't know why they don't just renovate the old Wembley. Then they could spend �750m on improving rail or education, or the NHS. Wembley is good for cup finals and some internationals, but I'd like to see England continuing to play games in different cities throughout the country. I feel it will be such a mistake to keep all of England's games at Wembley. The FA wants to sort its act out. Keep the roadshow, or kiss the majority of England's fan base goodbye. Perhaps the FA should have built the national stadium in Milton Keynes and asked Franchise FC if they would like to make it their new home? Seriously, there is adequate provision in the budget for the new Stadium to cure all the problems that the old stadium suffered from, so any argument that compares the old with the new will fall flat on its face.
Any new national stadium has to cater for activities other than football to make it viable. That means it has to be capable of hosting athletics, rugby, and large concerts. Birmingham and the Midlands are well served by places such as the NEC, and Manchester has had a new stadium built with lottery funding. The real reason Wembley was chosen was because it is a brownfield site, which otherwise would have been left derelict for years to come. That's exactly the same reason why so many other new stadiums in this country have got the go ahead. People who compare the project with the Channel Tunnel or the Millennium Dome are simply not comparing like for like. I like the idea of the "roadshow" - after all, it's an England team, not a London team, right? However, we do need a national stadium, so maybe a compromise would be to play the friendlies at other grounds and the competitive games at Wembley. Plus, with the decision by Mr Eriksson to stop all the pointless subs at least in the friendlies, the fans would see a good game. May make club managers more willing to let their players play if it's closer to home, too... The England roadshow has been playing to packed houses, allowing the rest of the country to show their continued vocal support for the team. Will the 'new Wembley' be able to match the intimidating atmosphere of Anfield, Old Trafford and St James' Park?
By the time Wembley is built (and does anyone actually believe this will be done on time and on budget?), Arsenal will have a new 'superstadium' allowing Londoners to pack a stadium. Am I the only one who remembers when the great Wembley echoed (quite literally) to the sound of school children let in for free on a Wednesday evening? I find it difficult to comprehend the gall of the people in charge of what will undoubtedly end up as a fiasco. The debt servicing alone will require high ticket prices for many years, never mind other costs that will inevitably be incurred. I wish to make a point about another news item you have today, that Premier club chairmen want to take over the running of the national team. This might be acceptable if the majority of them had a majority of ENGLISH players in the first team squads - until then, or until the national team can be completed with foreign players, they should keep their noses out! I am delighted that Wembley has finally got the go ahead! We shall now have the best stadium in the entire world in London. Yes, London, which if it was a country on its own would have the fifth-largest economy in Europe. London deserves this stadium. After all, what's the point of having a national stadium in Birmingham when no team within 100 miles has a chance of appearing in it! The BBC is showing its usual pro-south east bias, as seen by the introduction to this story: 'finally approved...after months of uncertainty'. It's been rumbling on for years, and the wrong decision has been taken after all that time.
The vast majority of people in this country know that this stadium should not be built in London - you only have to look at all the feedback on this page. However, it makes no difference, and this will be another white elephant which will end up costing far more than the �750m, and be late as well. Let's hope that some of the money will be spent on improving the transport infrastructure - only then will the stadium be a success. Let's move forward and support the scheme, because the stadium will be a fantastic arena. This stadium will be an enormous white elephant. What's wrong with taking the England games around the country? Alternatively, why was a Midlands stadium ruled out when it would be more convenient for the vast majority of fans? The Wembley Stadium saga has become another national embarrassment. Not only has it taken two years to get this far but the price to the taxpayer is wholly without merit. In Japan they managed to build their stadiums for the 2002 World Cup for a meagre �100m each. Isn't it about time we started looking east and followed their lead? The stadium was a great idea from the start. If this government had grabbed the project with confidence from the start then the cost would have been less. It's two years of wasted time and an embarrassment for this country! The stadium cannot come too soon!
London cannot keep pace with traffic, visitor numbers, and the housing required to meet its ever growing demands. The north of England (and anywhere outside the south east) is suffering from a lack of investment and government focus. Why oh why is the new national stadium being built in Wembley? I think it will work given the chance. London needs a focal point for sporting events and this will be it. We have not missed Wembley in the last few years. In fact, it has been an opportunity to see major contests around the UK. Either build a more accessible National Stadium - in the middle of the UK - or keep the major events "on the move", it works well. London is the capital of England, and the fact that it doesn't happen to be in the middle of the country doesn't matter. Stop moaning and accept that virtually every country in the world has their national stadium in the nation's capital - it's just common sense! And apart from that, Wembley is a venue that everyone in the world knows. Ask a kid in Africa or Brazil about it and they'll say they dream of playing there in a Cup Final. Somehow, Birmingham doesn't quite have the same appeal. The people on here who are complaining about the cost and location of the new Wembley are totally missing the point. Our national stadium must be in the capital. It just happens that London is one of the most expensive cities in the world, so yes the land is expensive. You didn't see the French build the Stade de France in La Rochelle!
The stadium will be a great asset the UK as a whole, not just London. Norman Foster's design is amazing, and when it is actually built it will blow you away if it is anything like his roof on the British Museum. This stadium will be worthy for a team that is full of future World Cup winners. Let's be proud of what will be a great symbol for English Football and get behind the FA after all the time and money they have spent on this. It is a national stadium and should therefore be built in the capital. Of course it costs more than Cardiff's - it's bigger and better. Of course Scotland doesn't get the same - the Scottish team plays far less football. Let's face it; this is an asset to the Country. My only disappointment is that we didn't spend more to move the towers to the end of Wembley Parade. The most obvious question is: what will the final cost be after the four (or more) years it will take to build? In the UK now it seems to be the exception rather than the rule that projects come in on time and to budget, so we shouldn't be surprised if the new Wembley costs in excess of �1 billion when completed and whenever that is. Birmingham should go ahead with its plans to build the National Stadium, and then when Wembley fails to deliver Birmingham can take its rightful place as the home of football! Almost every time I've visited Wembley I spent the best part of two hours just trying to get out of the car park! I hope that somebody has thought about spending some of the money redeveloping the transport links and parking facilities, as 90,000 fans is a lot of cars!
It is another joke. As a northerner living in north London I know the problems we have getting around the Capital. We should have gone for somewhere between London and Birmingham, therefore opening the catchment area up to over 60% of the population. The saddest thing is that the new stadium is now so expensive that the England football team will have to play all their matches there to make it financially viable. Recently, England have been playing all their matches in front of full houses around the country. Soon we will be back to a half-full stadium for friendlies. Why does London need another new stadium when Twickenham is to be expanded (82,000) and Arsenal are building a new stadium (60,000)? These three new stadia will undoubtedly be under-used as a result. The new Wembley Stadium will work and be successful - if the media give it half a chance and don't destroy it even before it is built. The Dome, which for those of us who bothered to visit was a good day out, very well organised and an amazing facility. The reason it failed was because the Media created a stigma around it, wishing it to fail so they could sell more papers and be self-righteous. The new stadium will either be a breathtaking venue which will shine for many years to come or be a laughing stock. That decision though will not initially be made by the fans and spectators, but the editors of the tabloids and the brain dead journalists.
What people don't realise is that this stadium is designed to be a money making machine. It has a hotel and conference centre among other things, whilst the Cardiff stadium is merely a sporting arena. Wembley has a lot more to it, hence the much higher cost. If the Commonwealth Stadium in Manchester required Manchester City to move in to make it financially viable, then how is the new Wembley Stadium, which will probably only be used 20 times a year, going to be cost effective? Secondly, all these arguments about travelling could be put to bed by continuing with the current system of having England play all over the country. After all, the national football team is called England not London. Using a ridiculously expensive design in a grotty, inaccessible suburb of north London and spending �750m on it displays a society which has got its priorities terribly wrong. The current road show around the club stadiums has proved a resounding success, and revitalised interest in England's usually inept national team. Additionally why were the provincial cities invited to bid when it has become obvious that there was only ever going to be one place for a stadium? How can anyone say that the new Wembley is 'good value'? The new stadium in Cardiff cost a quarter of the �750m for the new Wembley - are we going to get a stadium which is four times better? I think not. Complete waste of money! The wrong project in the wrong place. This will make the Millennium Dome look like a minor mistake.
The most sensible, logical and cost effective solution to a new stadium was obviously anywhere outside of London, but once again the FA have avoided setting a precedent and making a decision based on common sense and the wishes of the majority of fans. I live in Southampton and I can get to the NEC in Birmingham in less time and with less bother than I can get to Wembley. The level of support received by the England team at games around the country has shown that not all England fans live in London or want to go to London. If there was a national stadium in Birmingham it would attract more support from the ordinary fans - the ones who dig deep in their own pockets to support their country. It is ridiculously expensive, but any stadium should be built in London. Get a grip and accept that London is the capital of England! Anyone who thinks Birmingham is easy to get to has obviously not used the M5, M6 or Virgin trains before! Thank God for Andrew Smith's comment (below) - I was going into depression reading all the whining and moaning from everyone else. Do people not read anything properly and do they ever stop going on about the same old rubbish? The England football team needs a home and this new stadium will be one to be very proud of. With the inclusion of an athletics track, I'm sure London will win a bid to hold the Olympics in the future as well. So all-in-all, money very well spent. �750m - what a waste of money in any sense for a building. The fact that it is all going on one site is ridiculous. Why not nominate six clubs around England who can hold a good capacity for an England game and give them �10m each to upgrade their facilities for fans?
As for track and field, do the same. Identify three or four sites and spread �30m-�40m to upgrade to first class venues. There saved you �650m, at least, and ensured everyone around the country has a chance to see their sporting heroes at a venue near them. Yet again, we're seeing another huge imbalance of the allocation of public and lottery money. I can't seem to remember Hampden Park getting anything like the contributions being handed out on this project. Does nobody exist outside of London? After wasting the same amount of money already on one failed project in London, they should at least have given huge consideration to other locations such as Birmingham or Manchester. I'm starting to see a pattern developing here! Birmingham or the Midlands is by far the best location logistically for the fans, and undoubtedly land will be cheaper. Wembley and London have had their chance. Time to move forward - and northward. All these whinging Brummies are missing the point. Over a third of the country's inhabitants live in the London catchment area, thus making London the viable option.
The amount of negativity on this board towards the Wembley project is unbelievable. Any self respecting sporting nation would be delighted to have a brand spanking 90,000 seat stadium built! Show some courage England and get behind it, as the whining is laughable. Put your petty regional differences aside, take the strong approach and be supportive of something that is guaranteed to bring worshippers of your national game a lot of pleasure for generations to come. Congratulations to the FA! They've wasted three years making a decision, ignored the pleas of the fans to build it in the Midlands and carried on being London-centric so they can please their corporate sponsors rather than the real fans. And they've spent twice what the Millennium Stadium cost - pathetic. This is a national embarrassment. It's all a joke. The new stadium should be in Birmingham. Wembley is impossible to get to even if you're from London, let alone if you have to make the journey from Newcastle. Yet another farce. Some people seem to be concerned about the aesthetics of the new stadium, but they needn't worry. Sir Norman Foster is one of the greatest architects in the world - the new stadium will look amazing. As a Southerner, even I admit that the Stadium should be built in the Midlands. Coventry would be the best option for all.
I only ever visited Wembley once and vowed never to do so again. It's a complete nightmare to get to at the best of times. Get a national stadium in the heart of England with good motorway access and away from built up areas. Does that sound too sensible for the FA or are they pampering the corporate bodies? Why do they still think there's a demand for a new national stadium? Ask most people and they would say we don't need a national stadium. We've spent two years without a national stadium without any problems, so is there a need for one if we're getting along fine as it is? I beg to differ that the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is a nightmare to get to. It's easy. You get a train to Cardiff, step off and walk 10 minutes to the Stadium. After the game you walk 10 minutes and take your pick of the Cardiff nightlife. It's what makes it the best venue in the UK. No fighting with the Tube or North Circular Rd. Build the stadium in Birmingham with good rail links and re-develop the current site (more homes perhaps?). I'm sick of some northerners saying "it should be built in Birmingham as it's closer to us all." These People obviously fail to consider that the total mileage done by football supporters would actually increase, due to about 60,000 Londoners having to make a long journey. I bet these people will be the first to complain about motorway congestion and over strained public transport if Londoners have to make a long journey too.
I don't understand Chris from Readings point (below). If the new stadium was in Birmingham, people travelling from the south wouldn't have to go through the M6/M42 junction or use the M6 as the proposed site was south of Brum. People living in the North, whilst still having to go on the M6, at least wouldn't also have to get stuck on the M25! Also, by the time the stadium is finished, the M6 northern relief motorway will have been completed. I don't think that I or others are moaning, we are just voicing our opinions about an appallingly bad decision that affects tens of thousands of people. It is an important issue that the government needs to be berated for. The new Wembley should be built in or around Birmingham. Why should northern fans have to fork out to get to the overrated area that is Wembley? What was funny was the moaning 'darn sarf' about the travelling they had to do to get to Wales for the FA Cup last season! The cheek! We've been doing all that travelling for years! It would probably be far cheaper to move the stadium further north! Is London the centre of the universe? Is it the only city in the UK that counts? It would be refreshing to think that the decision makers actually considered other cities for the new stadium, but as always it's London and the south-east that get funding and investment. London doesn't always equate with success - remember the Dome? While I agree that there may have been a better location than Wembley to put this stadium, I do wish that the whining Brummies would consider their traffic chaos too. The M6/M42 junction in particular is renowned for its appalling traffic, and the M6 is a nightmare at the best of times. Let's draw a line under it and move on. Bury the bad loser attitude.
At least work will get underway now and the bickering can stop. The only thing I cannot understand is why the new stadium is not being built where the Millennium Dome stands. It seems to me that the government had two problems - Wembley and the Dome. I think the Greenwich site would have been perfect for a stadium. It is beside the Thames and has all the transport links you could want. The phrase 'kill two birds with one stone' springs to mind. As a Brummie, nothing would give me greater pleasure than the total failure of the whole Wembley project. This would once again demonstrate that London lags far behind most of the major regional cities when it comes to large infrastructure projects. Farm international fixtures out to club grounds - don't build a national stadium anywhere! Wembley gets �750m. Hampden gets �32m in a total redevelopment cost of �60m, and nearly goes belly-up for the want of �3m. How's that a fair way to spend UK public money? It is about time that we got the Wembley farce sorted out. Ok, it is going to cost a lot more than we would like it to, but I'm quite sure that the FA, government, etc. could have found something else to waste it on. At least this way we'll have something to show for our money - unlike the dome. But get on with it now please - we've been waiting too long already!
As a long-suffering Wembley resident I welcome the new stadium and hope it will bring much-needed regeneration to the area. As for those who have complained about the state of the local transport infrastructure, I can reveal that the West Coast mainline passes right through one of Wembley Central station's platforms. So as long as the rail companies can be persuaded, trains from places such as Birmingham and Glasgow could stop there, providing an almost door-to-door service! Let's assume the stadium was already built and that England had a home game tonight. Who would be able to get there given that the tube staff are on strike? Bad move boys, and one the union knuckleheads will gladly use to their advantage. This should be a great day for English football fans, but instead 95% of football supporters (i.e. non-Londoners) feel cheated. Of course we'll still all go because the alternative is self-defeating, and it will be declared a great success. The Midlands was so obviously the correct option, and it beggars belief that this has not even been seriously considered. Along with the fiasco in actually getting to this point and the extra-ordinary cost, the government and the FA have conspired to make us the laughing-stock of the footballing and the construction worlds. Do they even know there is life outside of the M25? To any sane person, the London bid was the worst - a huge extra cost and harder to get to for the majority of football fans. Stupidity at its best!
It shouldn't matter where it's being built. If you're proud to be an England fan you'll travel the length of the country to watch our boys play in the best stadium this country will ever see. Not only are we wasting hundreds of millions of pounds, that could be used to bail-out the Nationwide clubs, but we're also copying the design of Munich's Olympic Stadium. Great. I'm delighted that common sense has prevailed in that an athletics track is to be included. I hope the new Wembley can be the focus of a future Olympic bid. Can I assume that adequate improvements to the transport infrastructure will be undertaken prior to opening, or am I being silly? London is the last city in the UK that needs �750m spent on it. The new national stadium should be in Birmingham - it is easier to get to for foreign and home visitors and the economic benefits for Birmingham would make a significant impact. I'm very happy to see the site being used for our National Stadium. I disagree a lot with comments made such as 'it shouldn't be in London' and 'the stadium would inspire the other team more'. C'mon guys, think straight will you! I can't even be bothered to argue! The national team should continue to play matches at the club stadia already available. The atmosphere at matches since Wembley closed down has been excellent at Old Trafford, Anfield, Elland Road etc, and the rotation of venues allows a broader geographical cross-section of England supporters to attend without having to spend a fortune on travel. However, this doesn't mean that all matches should be staged outside the capital, since the financial burden of supporting England would be transferred to supporters from London and the south-east.
Another victory for the London lobby. First the Dome, now Wembley - any room for an airport? First the Millennium Dome, now Wembley. How can anyone justify nearly a billion pounds on a new stadium, when the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff demonstrates that you can build a world class football stadium for a tenth of the cost? A new National Football Stadium should be built in the Midlands, and be given a strict budget of �120m. Let's spend the rest of the money building an 'Olympic Park' at Wembley to benefit all sports, and perhaps bring the 2012 games to the UK. What annoys me the most about this whole fiasco is the obsession with building it in London. It appears to me that regardless of cost, which has spun out of control, the government is against developing this project in a more economically viable, accessible location. And in that I do mean Birmingham! It seems to further strengthen the 'us-against them' mentality that is growing with people outside the capital. Will the whining ever stop? Why do we never look forward in this country? Why do we want to live in the past and spend our time stuck in circular arguments that have no single right answer? Why can we never accept a decision and just move on? Let's look to the future with pride and excitement. By 2006 we shall have the finest stadium in the World, purpose built for 90,000 football fans. No obstructed views, cramped seats, appalling toilets or acres of running track between the spectators and participants. Let's not get hung up on the cost either - this is FA money not taxpayers' money.
And anyway, when comparing like with like, the cost is not outrageous on a per seat basis, and compares favourably to both Stade de France and Stadium Australia. As for Cardiff, it's great stadium but has 18,000 fewer less seats. It's also slap in the middle of the city and dreadful to get in and out of. The England team has always been perceived as a 'Southern' institution by fans in the north, but by playing matches all around the country, this had started to change. What a backward step to move back to Wembley again. Any hope of matching the Germans and the Brazilians in the long term has just been thrown out of the window. A sad day indeed for the England team, and fans across the country. I strongly think the arch design is the worst design I have ever seen! I am embarrassed by the fact that a rubbish arch represents English football's home ground. Every single person I have talked to about it thinks the same. The Twin Towers were known through out the world and symbolised the birth of football. Why not build two new super towers? It all sounds so bombastic. In France they built a nice stadium worth �450m for the 1998 finals. Now in England they plan one costing almost double that? For the sake of English football fans I hope it'll be the most incredible stadium ever built. If not, I'll be happy that they didn't use my tax money to build it.
Are they mad? �750m - it will almost certainly cost more than that, yet others elsewhere can build a fantastic stadium and still have change out of �100m. The surplus will undoubtedly line the pockets of the London based Consultants, while there are people in this country who can't afford a decent meal. Hang your heads in shame. Between the FA and the government this mess is sure to have some more twists over the next few years. The suburb of Wembley in north-west London is the worst possible area to locate a national stadium. The transport infrastructure in this part of the country is awful. I simply can't believe that all the relevant bodies have failed to listen to millions of sports fans (especially football fans) who have vocally expressed their frustration over the years as they have suffered the inconvenience and grief surrounding a trip to Wembley. That aside, the whole project is a scandalous waste of money. Compare the cost of a new Wembley with the cost of the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. How can the FA, the Government and all the other parties possibly justify an outlay of �750m? A waste of money! Given that the final cost will probably end up nearer �1bn, how will they make it pay? Despite all the money currently sloshing around in top football, I fear it will be the fans and taxpayers who will bear the greatest cost of the new stadium. It's also another example of the obsession that the government, the FA and the media have with basing everything in London.
For England matches, the opposition are always really "up" for playing at Wembley. This puts us, as the home side, at a disadvantage. This is not the case when England matches are played at, say, Villa Park, or the Stadium of Light. We've got lots of great stadia already. We don't need a National Stadium. Re-building the national stadium at the same location is a major mistake. With such a huge budget, the FA had the chance to select a much better location. I remember the nightmare journey to the old Wembley, stuck in a queue of traffic and forced to snake in and out of the Ikea car park - just to get to the ground! Wembley is totally unsuitable. The transport links are inadequate and the local area cannot support the amount of people and traffic routed here on big match days - especially with a full capacity of 90,000 as proposed for the new stadium! The new Stadium hasn't got a chance of being financially viable. It's going to be another financial disaster that the good old British taxpayer will have to bail out. I'm glad they're finally building a new stadium, as it was about time we got rid of the 'Twin Towers'. They belonged to another era, and quite frankly made us look medieval compared to the rest of the footballing world. Roll on the completion of the stadium - 21st century here we come!
This triumphant arch sounds ridiculous in my opinion. This has been a big waste of money, but at least it will be used for more than a year - unlike the Millennium Dome. I don't agree with mixing athletics with it either. They should get their own stadium and stick that in the midlands. Why bother? There are plenty of decent Premiership stadiums, and the World Cup qualifying 'tour' of England was a huge success. Why waste even more money? But if one is to be built, I too think the Midlands is a much better location. No matter how triumphant the arch, or how much the stadium does or doesn't cost, it'll still be a stadium in grotty corner of north-west London with appalling transport links. We never learn in this country. The way the Wembley redevelopment has been handled is a disgrace to the country. There was originally far too much intervention at all governmental levels, and at no point in the last two years were people ever sure if an athletics track was also going to be built. The costs are also incredible, especially when you consider the stadium itself is going to cost over �300m - the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff cost only �90m. Far worse are the delays - surely the present Wembley could have been demolished in advance of the go ahead for the new on being given?
It is pointless revisiting the debates about where to place the stadium. No other bid was ever given proper consideration, and given Government and the media's collective obsession with the capital, they were never going to. London is the wrong place for a national stadium from an economic standpoint, and the only reason for the massive expense of the new stadium is its location. There has never been a large scale building project in London which was finished on time and budget, so expect a delayed opening and little change out of �1bn. At a time when football's revenues are being severely weakened due to plunging TV money, it is madness for the FA to take on this much debt, and something for which ordinary supporters will be left paying for a very long time. It will only restore national pride if it is not another financial farce like the Millennium Dome. Costs are already spiralling again - whose pocket does it all go into? So they think then that it will cost about �750m then? Considering the recent history of grossly underestimated costs of large scale construction projects here - Millennium Dome, Channel Tunnel, Railtrack repair etc - I should think you could take that number and quite happily double it! It's great that we're getting a good national stadium, but it shouldn't be built in London. Having spent most of my life in Manchester (although now living in London) it always seemed grossly unfair that I was never able to see my national team play live, as the expense of travelling to London just made it impossible. Birmingham is central and can be reached fairly easily from most places in England, so would have made a more suitable choice of location. It will work as long as the fans don't have to pay sky high prices. The stadium will only be as good as the people that are in it, and if they can't afford to go it will be another Dome! | | 
Top Sports Talk stories now: Links to more Sports Talk stories are at the foot of the page. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|  | | | | | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |
|  E-mail this story to a friend |
| |
| Links to more Sports Talk stories |
| | | ||
 | ||||
 | | Back to top
| ||
| ------------------------------------------------------------ BBC News >> | BBC Weather >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII | News Sources | Privacy |
40.98% 
59.02% 
