Wem -ber-lee

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

A deal has been finalised to rebuild Wembley Stadium at a cost of £757 million.

Is this money well spent or will it be a major financial mistake which will haunt the government in years to come? Should it have been built in the provinces or does national just mean London?

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Thursday, 26 September 2002 12:47 (twenty-three years ago)

My team is unlikely to ever get to Wembley, except as spectators but nevertheless the metropolitan bias in major national developments I find frustating.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Thursday, 26 September 2002 12:50 (twenty-three years ago)

It always was going to go to Wembley. Particularly as the "land" had already been purchased with money from the lottery.

Unfortunately, the Birmingham NEC bid never stood a chance.

A late intention of interest came from a consortium who wanted to build a national stadium near Luton. In terms of transport infrastructure and cost it would have been a better option than Wembley.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 26 September 2002 13:01 (twenty-three years ago)

it's a pity that, according to Five Live the other week, *all* England matches will have to be played at Wembley once it's rebuilt - it's in the contract. The last couple of years have been the best in England football history if only because they've actually played where the best fans are (ie anywhere outside London, obv).

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Thursday, 26 September 2002 16:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't worry Robin, I think England's next match? is nearby to U at the Skip of St Mary's.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 26 September 2002 18:03 (twenty-three years ago)

yep, and I hear that the England cricket team might play at the Southampton Rose Bowl in a few years' time.

a VERY long time ago (early 20thC) England used to play just about anywhere they turned up - Burnley and suchlike, no doubt with L.S. Lowry doing paintings outside or something :).

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Thursday, 26 September 2002 18:35 (twenty-three years ago)

erm, that's England football obviously - the cricket team has always had the common sense of playing in the Midlands and North as well as London. as for the rugby team, keeping it in the more affluent London suburbs seems about right to me: nobody else really cares (apart from in Gloucester obv)

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Thursday, 26 September 2002 18:37 (twenty-three years ago)

I used to think it was appalling that everything had to be centred on London (not just in football but in many areas of life - arts, politics, etc.), but now I live in London so I'm all in favour of it.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:15 (twenty-three years ago)

I used to think it was appalling that everything had to be centred on London (not just in football but in many areas of life - arts, politics, etc.). I still do. There are other place aside London you know, it's not the center of the universe. While on the subject, Britian is made up of more than one country too.

― Anonymous (Anonymous), Friday, 27 September 2002 11:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Enlgand, Csotland and Slawe?

― Sam (chirombo), Friday, 27 September 2002 12:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Don't forget Rielnad

― Plinky (Plinky), Friday, 27 September 2002 12:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Martin S = the reason why I won't move to London obv

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Friday, 27 September 2002 18:46 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.