Tomassi Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 London is rammed to the max! The cost of the project has rocketed! The delays seem endless! Should wembley have been built in Coventry/Birmingham or anywhere else away from London?
Strokes Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 London is rammed to the max! The cost of the project has rocketed! The delays seem endless! Should wembley have been built in Coventry/Birmingham or anywhere else away from London? They should have left Wembley alone and built another national stadium in the midlands somewhere.
Tomassi Posted 31 March 2006 Author Posted 31 March 2006 there was a documentary from the 90s which was on telly recently about wembley stadium, its past and present and it brought a tear to my eye. at the end of the program they said wembley will soon have to be repaired or rebuilt, the question is will they keep the twin towers
Strokes Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 there was a documentary from the 90s which was on telly recently about wembley stadium, its past and present and it brought a tear to my eye. at the end of the program they said wembley will soon have to be repaired or rebuilt, the question is will they keep the twin towers I read somwhere that if the new Wembley had been built (not sure where it said) up north it would have cost less than £300 million, I think it has already exceeded £700 million surely there would have been plenty left for a repair on the old wembley.
hairy Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 Birmingham argued for it to be built on the M6/M42 junction near the NEC. They had everything in place such as planning permission, sponsers etc. London won eventough the infrastructure is shite and they had all the obsticles to cross. They said it was important to keep the two historic towers. Makes you laugh really.
Tomassi Posted 31 March 2006 Author Posted 31 March 2006 I read somwhere that if the new Wembley had been built (not sure where it said) up north it would have cost less than £300 million, I think it has already exceeded £700 million surely there would have been plenty left for a repair on the old wembley. plenty more seats too!! someone mentioned other day, why spend so much for only 90,000 seats? When england play it would be a sellout whether it be 90,000 or 150,000. And for games against Germany we can have 140,000 england fans vs 10,000 germany fans lol
Tomassi Posted 31 March 2006 Author Posted 31 March 2006 Birmingham argued for it to be built on the M6/M42 junction near the NEC. They had everything in place such as planning permission, sponsers etc. London won eventough the infrastructure is shite and they had all the obsticles to cross. They said it was important to keep the two historic towers. Makes you laugh really. i think the reason they kept it in london was for commercial purposes
Newcastle_Fox Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 I read somwhere that if the new Wembley had been built (not sure where it said) up north it would have cost less than £300 million, I think it has already exceeded £700 million surely there would have been plenty left for a repair on the old wembley. I think a lot of the extra money was spent on infrastructure improvements around Wembley and I think that was a condition when they won the bid. Will be a cracking stadium when finished but it is taking its time about it!
Unit Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 Should have been built in the centre of england... Leicester!
Steven Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 I am a Londoner and I think the National Stadium should not have been built in London.
Parsons Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 If i had the choice i would of stuck it in London.... simply because i think a national stadium should always be in a capital
Scarby Posted 31 March 2006 Posted 31 March 2006 well if it wasnt in london it wouldnt have been called wembley would it! so only wembley could be bulit in london
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.