Wembley's woes

By Tom Gard

THE FRENCH have Stade de France, the Australians a magnificent new Olympic Stadium, both were built pretty much on time and to budget. So, what do we get when we decide to build a home for our national game that we are all meant to be proud of The development of Wembley Stadium has turned into a farce before the old stadium has even been knocked down.

First it was going to accommodate athletics and an Olympic bid, then it wasn't. Then it was decreed that Norman Foster's futuristic design for the new Wembley should find room for the most opulent dining and hospitality facilities in the world and a hotel, but not the Twin Towers, the most famous footballing landmark in the world.

Eventually, it was noticed that these add-ons had taken the estimated cost of the project from 475 million to an unsustainable 660 million. So, we find ourselves back at square one before a brick has been laid.

The debacle surrounding the new stadium has all the hallmarks of a Millenium Dome part II unless someone gets to grips with the whole project, and quickly.

Much of the fall-out over the abortive plans has fallen, with justification, on the head of Chelsea and Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) chairman Ken Bates. There is no escaping the fact that some of the more luxurious elements of the Wembley project bear more than a passing resemblence to his own Stamford Bridge brainchild, Chelsea Village. But, if Bates does eventually go, surely whoever it was within the FA who allowed this shambles to develop and failed to intervene before it was too late should go too.

So, when the board of WNSL reconvene to try and salvage the situation, should they once again throw open the debate on where the new national stadium should be sited, and even on whether we need one at all

Very few people who have visited the old Wembley in recent years would argue against knocking the old place down and starting again. But, however wonderful the new stadium is going to be in the end, the frustrations of getting there will remain the same - cramped tube trains, lacking of parking etc.

Surely, we should look again at moving it lock, stock and barrel to the Midlands, or at least a site on the outskirts of London easily accessible by road and rail.

Or why not scrap the idea altogether With Old Trafford just shy of a 70,000 capacity, Newcastle and Sunderland not that far behind and Arsenal announcing a move to a massive new home in the heart of London, do we need a national stadium at all. Click here to join the debate.