Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 588 times:
If it ever gets built, I've no doubt it will look and be fantastic. The issue is whether it is in the right place or not. If the local authorities don't improve access it'll be the same old nightmare. I mean, the players might have loved it but the old stadium was an absolute dump that you spent half a day trying to get to.
I can understand the FA wanting it there for historical reasons but it does leave a hell of a journey for half the country. I live in the south and it was never particularly easy for me either!
I suppose it was inevitable that Wembley would be chosen and, though not without misgivings, I generally support it.
Of course, if the bloody government hadn't got involved and made the whole country look stupid in front of the rest of the world this would have been sorted out ages ago.
What the hell has it got to do with them anyway? It's not as if any government (i.e. our) money is involved anyway, and the National Lottery is supposed to be separate. They made the same almighty balls-up with Picketts Lock as well.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Lowsonboy From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 275 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 580 times:
I think we definitely need a national stadium. I have to say as a keen football fan I would find it hard to imagine England/FA Cup etc being played anywhere other than Wembley. The proposed design looks fantastic as well and makes up for the demolition of th old twin towers.
Scotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 569 times:
It looks great. But I think England have done well to take their games on the road and the crowds in Liverpool, Sunderland and Manchester have been great.
Maybe there is a good argument for not having Wembley at all and taking the international games to all the other cities, like Germany and Italy do although Wembley and the FA Cup Final are inseperable.
When Hampden Park wasnt available. some of the Scotland games were played in Edinburgh and Aberdeen and it meant that the loyal Tartan Army fans who normally have to travel miles, often from remote islands or the Highlands, could get to the games much more easily and being smaller grounds than Hampden, there was a great atmosphere. Now that Hampden has been rebuilt, we've all got to go to fecking Glasgow again and sit watching crap in a half empty ground.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7144 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 556 times:
Let's go back to 1994 and guess which two venues were on the shortlist: Wobbly and Manchester!
We got fobbed off with the "inferior" stadium that comes with a 35,000 capacity that will become 48,000 in 2003 which is in on course for an April opening. Even now, people are still saying that we needed to have a tenant to make having the stadium worthwhile!
Sorry Banco for describing the City of Manchester Stadium like that but plans were laid for a 65,000 or 80,000 stadia here rent-free to the FA who did, of course, live up to their initials by doing sweet FA, preferring to not move from London.
Meanwhile, the very accessible Wobbly means that the poor Novocastrians will continue to have to take at least one day's holiday just to see England play! Why must it always be that the NATIONAL side has to play in London only?
As for the dubious claim that Birmingham being a "hellhole", I don't care. People would go there for the game and not the tourism or if Wobbly does go ahead, are we to be expected to comply with the sterotypical London view of non-Londoners that "we all enjoy a day out in the Capital".
NJTurnpike From United States of America, joined May 2000, 580 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 552 times:
You talk of Birmingham being a 'hellhole', but have you visited the Wembley area? Most of it needs knocking down and starting again. Transport infrastructure in the area is, at best, abysmal. It's a London suburb, and as such suffers by being cramped, difficult to get in and out of in a hurry, and..er..well that's enough for now, surely. I can't recall where, but I read that it takes some people in East and South London just as long to get to the Wembley and Harrow areas as it does for them to reach Birmingham.
Any thoughts that (new) Wembley Stadium is the only place to hold a football match would soon be put to rest with a magnificent new stadium in the Midlands, easier for everybody to get to. There is absolutely nothing wrong with moving house - that's what English national football probably needs to do. We cannot go on shouting about 1966 forever. Face it, we should have stopped shouting about it in the summer of 1970. A change of scenery would surely be an ideal start in spurring future teams onto some new and badly needed Euro and world victories.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 541 times:
No, David you're making a perfectly legitimate point. The Commonwealth Games stadium could have been developed into a national one instead of being given to Manchester City.
The thing is that I suspect national stadia are always going to be built in the capital city. I'd like to know what the southern French thought about their new home being in Paris. After all it is the same, and better transport links are outweighed by it being a bigger country.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7144 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 530 times:
And here's what the world will see next year:
From today's Manchester Evening News
Lights go on at Games stadium
THE Commonwealth Games Stadium became a spectacular beacon of hope as thousands of lights were turned on throughout the massive building.
The £110m City of Manchester Stadium shone out across the city as the switch was thrown by Sports Minister Richard Caborn.
He praised the Eastlands venue and promised a sporting event the country would be proud of.
Building work on the stadium is on schedule, with most of the 38,000 seats now in place and a hi-tech running track laid.
The stadium will be a lasting legacy in the region and has become a permanent fixture of the Manchester skyline.
It will become the home of Manchester City after the Games.
Mr Caborn said: ''The stadium is fantastic and the Commonwealth Games will be the jewel in the crown of sporting events next year.
''Things are now moving very quickly and there is a robust financial programme in place. People can now get on with what they have to do, which is to produce an excellent Games for everyone to enjoy.''
He said he had spoken to people in the area and they were all looking forward to the event and had been impressed with the stadium and the surrounding development.
He believed everything was now in place for an excellent Games to take place.
Mr Caborn also met local schoolchildren who have designed Christmas cards featuring the stadium. These will be put on massive hoardings surrounding the site.
Council leader Richard Leese said: ''The stadium looks fantastic.
''The people of east Manchester are fully involved in the stadium which is leading a huge regeneration project.''
The stadium is due to be handed over to the Games organisers in March next year. The sporting spectacular starts on July 25.
Jaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 523 times:
There was a programme on at 19:30 on ITV1 last night, and it was all about Birmingham's bid.
It made me think Birmingham is a lot better than Wembley because the Birmingham one would be right on the M42 near the NEC, it would be in the centre of the country instead of being in London like everything else, and in London it's too crowded
And Birmingham would be good for all the people in the North who have just got the angel of the north to look at, and they could come down to Birmingham.
It'd also be good because there is lots of transport already at the NEC, and there are lots of open fields around the site, so there is plenty of space.
On the programme it said the Birmingham plan would have to entrances/exits going onto the M42, and other roads going everywhere else. Birmingham sounds better than Wembley
NJTurnpike From United States of America, joined May 2000, 580 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 520 times:
It would be an ideal site, just as long as there was money available to upgrade the M42, M40 and M6 in the area W/SW of Brum. It's a log jam there at the best of times - although still miles better than Wembley!)
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 498 times:
Well, the twin towers are just blocks of concrete so there was no way they could have been saved. I did hope that the new design would incorporate two new towers as a nod to the old stadium. We could then at least have kept the phrase and the tradition whilst celebrating the new.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
Jaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 491 times:
I've found some stuff on the Birmingham bid..
Easy to reach. Birmingham is the obvious choice for the National Stadium, at the accessible heart of Britain's road, rail and air connections. New parking for 7,000 cars and 500 coaches will be provided and the Project will benefit from investment in other vital regional transport developments.
Designed for football fans, the National Stadium will offer an unrivalled 'spectator experience'.
Value for money.
The cost of the building is £324 million. The Project is driven by a public/private sector partnership team with a track record for delivering world-class projects on schedule, on budget.
Jobs and investment.
Birmingham's National Stadium project will create 4,300 new jobs in the Midlands and add £100 million per year to the regional economy.
The National Stadium will have 85,000 seats, all with uninterrupted sightlines, arranged in three circular tiers. No seat will be more than 190 metres from the furthest corner of the pitch.
The "saddle-shaped" seating bowl will become a hallmark of the National Stadium's breathtaking design. Seating levels will be linked by wide, curving concourses, featuring cafés, shops and other amenities. Access is by stairs, escalators and lifts, with disabled access at all levels.
The stadium is designed to provide an unforgettable football experience, but with the flexibility to host rugby matches, major concerts and conferences.
A unique 'green design' strategy will complement and support the local environment. The plan includes placing the pitch and lower seating tier below ground level, choosing building materials in harmony with the local environment, encouraging green transport and carrying out enhancements to the local countryside.
In addition to over 120 hospitality boxes (with parking for all clients), the stadium's corporate facilities will include 2000, 750, 500 and 250-seat banqueting halls, a 1000-seat sponsors dining room and royal and directors suites. A themed restaurant, cafés and comprehensive catering services will be provided.
State of the art.
Giant video screens around the pitch will enhance the spectator experience, plus hi-tech lighting, sound and media facilities.
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7144 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 490 times:
I still the 1994 version with Manchester getting the stadium The stadium being built is the modified version of the grandiose one.
As long as the FA are in London, it will always be in London. Anyone want to start the movement to redeploy Sven Goran Ericksson in the labour market for wanting to have England play at Wembley again? I'm sorely tempted to be the leader of that gang!
Oh, anyone know what the Utd-Southampton score was? I can't remember
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 480 times:
"The Project is driven by a public/private sector partnership team with a track record for delivering world-class projects on schedule, on budget. "
that kills that bid then..the UK government is under the kosh over public private partnerships..it wouldnt dare allow the national staduim to be built via that method because it would be dragged over the hot coals by very paper in the land...
Mancester is ok for the cmmonwealth games but to be honest we need to have a staduim that can help win the olympics...mancester was rejected a few times for the olympics..
London is the captial of the UK and the number one destination for forgein tourists..it will help in any olympic bid if the statduim is in london for the world knows where london is...
sorry to insult...i dont mean to but how many people in the world would rather goto mancester..
u cant have the national staduim hundreds of miles from the epicentre, the lifeblood, the heart of the country..that is london..
as for mancester united...MOST of the people in mancester support man city and most man u fans come from the south so im not sure what point is to made there...especially since southampton isnt near london!
any typos then i apologise...
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7144 posts, RR: 14 Reply 19, posted (11 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 476 times:
Why not? You know, it is Britain's National Stadium NOT London's! There are 50 MILLION PEOPLE WHO LIVE AWAY FROM LONDON. Understand? 50 MILLION OUT OF THE POPULATION OF 60 MILLION.
This stadium has to be ACCESSIBLE TO ALL THE POPULATION and not the chosen few nearby.
If London bids for the Olympics then they would expect the country to be behind them. Can you honestly say that London gave 100% to Birmingham in their bid for the 1992 Olympics and Manchester's bids for the 1996 and 2000 Olympics?
Ironically, London would need a successful Commonwealth Games to help prove that Britain can host a major sporting event. Consequently, I am in two minds in hoping that everything runs smoothly!
The other thing to bear in mind is the last major construction project in London (the Millennium Doom) ended up costing the taxpayers a lot more money than what was originally proposed. The Wobbly plan is already twice as expensive as Birmingham's...no doubt it will end up being 3 times as expensive if and when it is constructed.
How much money would need to be spent on creating all the facilities for the different sports for a London Olympics? I can think of one city in Britain that would have everything in place INCLUDING a decent public transport infrastructure.
The whole Olympic bidding process is a farce as the powerbrokers are only interested in seeing what 5 star facilities are available for them and their hangers-on and not on whether the sporting facilites are adequate or not i.e the only raison d'être on deciding where to take the event is not considered!
David/MAN: where more Mancunians go to Old Trafford than Maine Road