Jay Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 I think New and Old Wembley is a bit like the Filbert St V's Walkers Stadium debate, at the end of the day a good football ground is about more than just and unrestricted view and a comfy seat! The old Wembley had a real history you see can watch old black and white videos of matches of the past and the running track around the pitch, the twin towers etc the old Wembley was a dump in the end but it was a magical place. I still don't understand how you can waste what £800million on a stadium, spend ages on some Arch, 3000 toilets, restaurants, corporate hospitality and then end up with a stadium where you can't even grow and sustain a decent pitch!!
iBleedLeicesterColours Posted 20 March 2010 Author Posted 20 March 2010 Everyone moans about The Walkers because there's no history like Flibo, Its the same with the new Wembley .. but in time they will make there own history and when new stadiums are built in 100 years time, people will complain the atmosphere and history is not like it is today.
LCFC-ARAB Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Been to the new Wembley twice for Millwall v S****horpe play off final last season and Man Utd v Chelsea Charity Shield this season I was determined not to like it cause i love my old ground and hate all these new football theatres that are being made but i was impressed when i first walked inside it is the best stadium i've ever been too, but couldnt stand going there 3 times every season like Chelsea or Man Utd Once for the play off final will do me then again teh next seaosn for the FA Cup final
Edmund Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Everyone moans about The Walkers because there's no history like Flibo, Its the same with the new Wembley .. but in time they will make there own history and when new stadiums are built in 100 years time, people will complain the atmosphere and history is not like it is today. Not true. History has nothing to do with it. Filbert Street wasn't an attractive stadium at all but it had an atmosphere which could never be recreated at The Walkers. Being meters away from the away fans in the kop was special as well as how close the fans were to the players. It's ironic that most were excited at the prospect of moving to a new stadium and were blinded by the stardom, yet now many of those who were in favour would move back to the bike shed that was Filbert street any day of the week including myself.
purpleronnie Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Not true. History has nothing to do with it. Filbert Street wasn't an attractive stadium at all but it had an atmosphere which could never be recreated at The Walkers. Being meters away from the away fans in the kop was special as well as how close the fans were to the players. It's ironic that most were excited at the prospect of moving to a new stadium and were blinded by the stardom, yet now many of those who were in favour would move back to the bike shed that was Filbert street any day of the week including myself. I wouldn't have minded so much if they for one second gave the fans any consideration when moving. They do in the USA (which pisses me off even more).
iBleedLeicesterColours Posted 20 March 2010 Author Posted 20 March 2010 Although the atmosphere won't be like Filbert Street, its stupid that the kop isnt were the family stand is.
davieG Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Although the atmosphere won't be like Filbert Street, its stupid that the kop isnt were the family stand is. Well it wasn't initially the kop it was the South Stand and as part of the transfer those in the Double Decker were encourage to go in there. It also doesn't differ too much from the family stand in terms of demographics. That with it being the cheapest high volume stand you're bound to get families with over 8 kids in there plus oldies like myself although even I'm now relegated to the 'just a ticket' cheapo seats.
Edmund Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Although the atmosphere won't be like Filbert Street, its stupid that the kop isnt were the family stand is. I'm sure if the club had the choice they would but unfortunately I think it's more down to health and safety and the police recommending that it stays that way. It has been discussed countless times on here.
Ozwin Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 I'll be moving to L1/K1 next season, the people who moan should just do the same, it's only a little bit more expensive and is clearly the loudest section of the ground.
Nick Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Amazingly I didn't mention 'atmosphere', sweetcheeks, I mentioned 'soul'. Turning up to a ground which has seen a succession of heroes, proper heroes and not your fooking shove ha'penny Merc driving ****s who inhabit football these days, fills you with awe. The Towers where countless long-since-dead names ran the turf, where schoolboys with pudding bowl haircuts watched 70's playboys and miners cheered & beered the displays of 50s cloggers. A ground which saw the great names of football, names which now languish in the lower echelons of the league structure, and boots and balls of leather. Trot out your glib 'endless moaning' shite all you like - but it does nothing more than display a youth devoid of the opportunity to pay respect to those who went before, of a culture lacking a knowledge of heritage. So go wave your shite flare, sing your daft song about a player having congress with a wife you don't yet have, and whinge about those who really tasted football. There was only one Wembley, poppet, and like the traditional game - it is now dead.
iBleedLeicesterColours Posted 20 March 2010 Author Posted 20 March 2010 I'll be moving to L1/K1 next season, the people who moan should just do the same, it's only a little bit more expensive and is clearly the loudest section of the ground. Same Kid
Fosse Boy Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Loved the old one both times I went ('96 and '97). There really was something magical as a kid when you saw the twin towers up close. In terms of the architecture the new one's an awesome structure but as others have said, where's the soul? Granted I've only been to the new one for Muse (who were awesome), but if we should be fortunate enough to see Leicester play there this season, I can imagine the only way we'd get more than a few standing and singing would be if we played F*rest in the final.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Went to the old one for the Spurs/Tranmere games, but cant remember much of it, except some big steps to get into the grounds and the crowd was so noisy I couldnt hear the PA! Would really love to go the new one, but people say its not the same in terms of atmosphere, etc.
Daggers Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 At the end of the day, it's still Wembley. At the end of the day, it's still Jordan's tits - but they were a fuuck sight nicer when there was something real about them.
Craig Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 Haven't been inside the new one. My first time will be us, however long it takes. Walking down Wembley Way is still special though, when i went to the arena last year I was walking down there imagining May. Magical.
CosbehFox Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 But these soulless new bowls with their draconian stewarding have attracted a different type of 'quiet' fan and sidelined a large majority of late teen/twenties fan who tended to be the vocal majority. That's not to have a go at the 'new' fan they're not responsible and are as entitled as anyone to be there. The blame lies with the authorities who have systematically cleansed the ground of many passionate, vocal and animated fans. York City managed to get an ultra-style atmosphere going in there. Everton fans have nothing but praise for it as do the majority of Man United fans. If City got there in a certain situation, you'd have a good percentage who'd be up for it. I still don't understand how you can waste what £800million on a stadium, spend ages on some Arch, 3000 toilets, restaurants, corporate hospitality and then end up with a stadium where you can't even grow and sustain a decent pitch!! The actual construction of the stadium didn't cost £800million. It's alright the new I suppose. Old Wembley was well Old Wembley, super memories, cracking atmospheres - didn't disguise it was a woeful stadium which suffered when terracing was converted to seating.
Guest ttfn Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 It's a fantastic piece of architecture and a great place to watch football. I'm fortunate enough to have been to the new one for 4 matches (2 League 2 finals, FA Trophy and a Charity Shield) and the Oasis gig in June. There is nothing like walking down Wembley way, new or old. I remember going to the old Wembley and, magical as it was, this is just as special. Just in a different way. The old Wembley filled you with awe because of the history. But obviously the new Wembley can't compete in this way. What the new Wembley has is 'wow' factor.
purpleronnie Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 It's a fantastic piece of architecture and a great place to watch football. I'm fortunate enough to have been to the new one for 4 matches (2 League 2 finals, FA Trophy and a Charity Shield) and the Oasis gig in June. There is nothing like walking down Wembley way, new or old. I remember going to the old Wembley and, magical as it was, this is just as special. Just in a different way. The old Wembley filled you with awe because of the history. But obviously the new Wembley can't compete in this way. What the new Wembley has is 'wow' factor. I thought the whole design was really boring. I guess it depends on how many stadiums you've visited, especially large capacity ones.
Guest ttfn Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 I thought the whole design was really boring. I guess it depends on how many stadiums you've visited, especially large capacity ones. I think I've been to my fair share. And it's my favourite (large stadium).
Daggers Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 What the new Wembley has is 'wow' factor. Laughable.
Guest ttfn Posted 20 March 2010 Posted 20 March 2010 May I ask why? It's difficult to describe. It's more visually impressive than anything else. The arch is a cracking feature, and inside it's very swish. I prefer it to Old Trafford because you get a good view from anywhere and the Stade de France because, well, it's not French. I'll agree the atmosphere isn't great, although I've not ever been when I've had a vested interest in who's playing, so it's not been a concern for me. And it's interesting you should say that you were bored by it. I was the first time, but it's grown on me. And on the 'wow' factor, I challenge anybody to walk down Wembley way, look up at that stadium and not be very impressed. I pass it pretty regularly and it's undeniably impressive. It's the 21st century, we're past staging prestige football fixtures in a run-down stadium.
Daggers Posted 21 March 2010 Posted 21 March 2010 The rows of empty corporate seating always has me exclaiming 'wow!'
Uncle Albert Posted 21 March 2010 Posted 21 March 2010 The new Wembley is absolutely brilliant, possibly just as good as the old one. Everything about the stadium is beaut, the atmosphere is pretty good, well it was when I went to watch England Egypt earlier in the month anyway, how can people say it's not a brilliant stadium? Especially when they havent been to it. Watching England there was pretty special for me personally and can only imagine what it will be like watching Leicester there or any club team for that matter, my mate went in the United end when they won the Charity Shield in the first one there and he is a ST holder for Leicester and he said he loved it. Going with this attitude its not as good as the old one is pretty stupid, especially if you havent been.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.