A total disgrace (Wembley (London))

Member Name: northerner

Product:	Wembley (London)
Date:	04/05/01 (90 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: The stadium will probably now be moved outside of London

Disadvantages: Should have been done 5 years ago

Back in 1996 the FA decided that the new national stadium should be built on the site of the existing Wembley stadium. 5 years down the line, and not a brick has been laid. A number of problems have beset the project. The design isn’t available yet. The bid required the use of the twin towers in the new development, but no one stopped to check the feasibility of this, and it turns out they can no longer be used. Planning permission is yet to be obtained. No one seems capable of being able to finance this project. To compound problems, the existing ground is costing £2m a month to keep open, despite serving no more purpose. Chris Smith has been blamed for intervening in the project, which has halted proceedings. Since this intervention was because the stadium had become too expensive, I don’t believe he was in the wrong. Another critical decision was to pull athletics out of the stadium. It simply isn’t feasible to have a first-rate football stadium that can house athletics. Having a running track round the pitch is not an option. And anyway, why should football fans have to pay for an athletics stadium that will only be needed in the unlikely event we get the Olympic Games, which very few people want anyway. This should be exclusively a football stadium. The biggest problem was letting Ken Bates have any say in anything. Sole responsibility for the spiralling costs of the project must rest with this incompetent fool. The estimated costs of the project had reached £660m before the FA got rid of Bates, and allowed him to concentrate exclusively on turning Chelsea into a financial ruin. Many people are left wondering how the costs of this project had managed to triple on the original £200m estimate. No stadium in the world come anywhere near to this cost. The Cardiff Millennium Stadium only cost £125m, and the new nationals stadiums in France and Australia were both just over £200m. The truth is Bates couldn’t organise a drin
king session in an alcohol factory. Large amounts of the money was to built a hotel and conference facilities adjoining the stadium (any similarities to Chelsea village which is still losing a fortune?) which simply aren’t needed. Is it any wonder you can’t get finance to build a hotel right next to a large Hilton? From start to finish this entire project has been a complete disaster

London should never have been given the contract to build the new national stadium in the first place. Out of all the bids submitted. Only one failed to draw up plans for the stadium, only one failed to get planning permission for the project, only one failed to detail how the development would be financed. This was of course London. Is it any wonder the project has hit problems when such an amateurish approach is shown? The FA have got to take a huge amount of responsibility for giving the contract to Wembley. Would you ask a developer to build you a house if he couldn’t tell you what it would look like, how much it would cost, and if he didn’t even know if you would be allowed to build it? They have only got themselves to blame for this complete disaster.

Refurbishing the existing stadium is simply not an option. The present Wembley is one of the most decrepit stadiums in the country. The running track around the pitch leaves the fans too far away from the pitch, and creates a much less intimidating atmosphere for opposition players. The lower tiers have already been patched up, with bench type seating being placed on the terracing, the rake of which is too shallow to allow proper viewing angles. The upper tiers are obstructed by the roof stanchions, and the leg room is insufficient for any adult. The concourses are dilapidated and the toilette facilities (especially for women) are pathetic. The proposed capacity of a refurbished stadium would only be around 60,000. Spending money on this useless wreck is a complete waste.
The only option is a brand new stadium.

Since the FA ace already spent £100m to buy the Wembley site, the most appealing option would be a new stadium in London. Wembley has world wide name recognition and is recognised as the home of English football. London has the sufficient hotels and bars for a national stadium. However, London has had its chance, and has failed miserably. Even if the ridiculous costs are brought under control, there are many more problems. London is stuck in the corner of the country, meaning most people have to travel excessive distances to reach the ground. There is, as yet, no agreed design for the stadium. The planning application still needs to be submitted before any construction can start. The transport network is insufficient, and £30m needs to be found to improve the Wembley Park tube station and the local road network before Brent Council will even consider the planning application. We need a national stadium to begin construction now, not waiting another 5 years before anything can be started. Wembley shut be shut down as a stadium, and converted into a museum for football in this country, where it can hopefully prove a source of revenue to the FA, recouping some of the £100m which has been wasted buying the site in the first place.

By far the best solution is to build the national stadium outside Birmingham. The site is near to the NEC. So already has the road and railway infrastructure, as well as an international airport nearby. The cost is between £200-300m (dependent on a revaluation of the 1996 bid) which is at least half the cost of the London project. At the centre of the country, this is the best location, giving all fans an equal opportunity to support the national side. The local authorities have got their act together and, unlike London, there is a decent chance of the stadium being built before 3006.

The other major option, proposed by Coventry City, is to alter the plans for
their new stadium which is about to begin construction. The ground would hold 85,000 and represents the cheapest option, costing the FA only £100m. All the infrastructure has been planned and agreed, and the finished stadium should be in operation within 2-3 years. However, what we want is a national stadium, not the use of the club ground. If the FA don’t mind using club grounds for internationals, then we might as well rotate games around grounds such as Old Trafford and the new Anfield without any extra cost.

Quite clearly Wembley should never have been given the contract to build the national stadium in the first place. The combination of overwhelming arrogance and incompetence in not putting any consideration whatsoever into their bid is intolerable. Their pathetic attempts should be punished be moving the stadium to another part of the country where competent organisers can do a proper job. Personally, the stadium should have been built in Eastlands, on the site of the City of Manchester Stadium presently under construction. The site has great access, both to get to the stadium in the first place, and the to get into the city centre after the game. The site is now being used for the Commonwealth Games, and should be in operation for next season. Wembley can make all the claims it wants, but Manchester has delivered. If the bid had been given to Manchester, the FA cup final would be being played in England’s brand new national stadium next season. But that’s no longer an option. Its no use going around blaming everyone now. What is needed is action. Of the possible solutions, the best one is to build a brand new stadium on the outskirts of Birmingham. The FA have got to break the habit of a lifetime and act decisively. The Wembley project should be abandoned straight away, and the construction of the new national stadium should begin in Birmingham as soon as possible. Maybe then we will get stadium fit for the q
uality of football this national is producing.

Summary: