Motogull
Todd Warrior
- Sep 16, 2005
- 9,849
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29546374
Bring in a NFL Franchise then.
Would be a good thing I reckon.
Bring in a NFL Franchise then.
Would be a good thing I reckon.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
England may play some home games elsewhere than Wembley
- Thread starter Motogull
- Start date
This new Wembley really is proving to be a waste of time and money isnt it?
Arthur
Well-known member
Wouldn't happen in Germany
Wembley, despite not having any of the character of the old ground is a fantastic stadium that will have been bought and paid for within 15 years of opening. Baring qualifiers against poor sides and games involving those down the leagues every event sells out. How that can be deemed a waste of time or money is beyond me?
Yes the design and build process was a huge car crash and it cost far too much money but we've only got to look at our own house to see that can easily happen.
Butch Willykins
Well-known member
Is it? It seems to be UEFA's favourite stadium by a long way.
The construction was farcical, but I think it's a fantastic stadium.
Ali_rrr
Well-known member
I really do think they should play some games around the country. What's the point of hosting a game against San Marino at Wembley with a small crowd in comparison the capacity when it'd probably sell out if they held it elsewhere? Only the big games should be played there.
Although would be nice to see games played around the countries stadiums, saying smaller teams don't fill it up and therefore should play elsewhere is unfair, all international teams want to play at the home of football.
Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo
Waxing chumps like candles since ‘75
- Oct 4, 2003
- 11,063
It think it's more of an indication on how poor the current England team is that they are being turfed out in favour of American Football. The FA need to make money and as it seems American Football is a bigger draw it makes sense from a financial point of view.
Ali_rrr
Well-known member
But even playing at Old Trafford or the Emirates would be good surely? A full stadium rather than the half empty Wembley would be better for both teams.
Irrelevant though. Its not up to the away teams to dictate where England choose to host their matches. The only ones who would have any say would be those briging a side over for a glamour freindly - but then those would be at Wembley anyhow.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Wouldn't happen in Germany
Wembley, despite not having any of the character of the old ground is a fantastic stadium that will have been bought and paid for within 15 years of opening. Baring qualifiers against poor sides and games involving those down the leagues every event sells out. How that can be deemed a waste of time or money is beyond me?
Yes the design and build process was a huge car crash and it cost far too much money but we've only got to look at our own house to see that can easily happen.
I don't think 'what it is' is the main issue. England needs a national stadium - and has one.
But when Empire Stadium was built, it was in the countryside, and there was a different set of social and practical circumstances for people to attend. Nowadays, everything is different. I think the main issue is 'where it is'. If you started with a need for a new national stadium now, somewhere as spiritual as Wembley wouldn't tick as many boxes as somewhere like say, the NEC area.
The 'waste of money' people talk about is something you alluded to in your last sentence. But for the FA's internal bickering (guaranteed once Ken Bates stuck his DNA all over it), the same stadium could have been built with less money and fewer spurned opportunities. That's the waste I would refer to.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
if the FA prefer to use their stadium for NFL than the national team, then its probably time they disbanded and replaced with a competent organisation. they insisted it had to be built Wembley (a terrible place to get to, even if in London), at great cost that burdens them to seek revenue to pay back the construction rather than putting into football.
Vegas Seagull
New member
- Jul 10, 2009
- 7,782
With no relegation I look forward to seeing the crowds for the last 3-4 NFL games if the 'Monarchs' are 0-8 and out of the playoffs
severnside gull
Well-known member
More money in the pockets of Man U, Liverpool etc.
ironic when they are the people responsible for the relative demise of the international side
ironic when they are the people responsible for the relative demise of the international side
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
I don't go to watch England live anyway - I did back in the day - but from the comfort of my armchair it seems to make sense for England to go round the country, and play smaller countries in smaller stadiums. If the NFL are the ones to allow that - everyone is a winner.
Arthur
Well-known member
We're too quick to disregard tradition in this country. The FA dropped a bollock in my opinion by not incorporating the twin towers into the design of the new Wembley. But I completely disagree the national stadium should be anywhere other than where it is. England's home has always been Wembley and as far as I'm concerned I hope it always will be. That has nothing to do with me living in the home counties and it being just up the road. I loved it when it was being built going around the country to various grounds (until the FA saw pounds signs and decided to have every game at Old Trafford) BUT we were always going to end up back at home at Wembley.
I much prefer the old Wembely in the same way I much prefer the Goldstone to the Amex but in both cases those days are long gone and football has moved on to brand new all singing and dancing modern stadia and thankfully in both cases a good job has been done.....eventually.
The argument about making it more accessible for people past the Watford Gap really doesn't wash in my opinion. In the 20 years I've been following England all the northern based fans I've met loved a day out in the smoke which I guess is similar to my own experiences travelling around the country watching England. So send the qualifiers around the country (and not just to Old Trafford - oh and stop having the FA Cup semis there as well!) but the big games should always be at Wembley IMO.
Can't disagree with you there. Bates' has the ability to **** pretty much everything he gets his grubby little mitts on for everyone apart from himself.
Randsta
New member
IMHO I think it would be fairer have England play up & down the country give more people the opportunity to see them
- Aug 8, 2005
- 26,545
It shouldn't be difficult to work out really should it.
If you can fill Wembley for the big games then it's Wembley.
If you're playing Norway in a friendly then stick it in a 30-40,000 stadium.
San Marino at home on a Thursday - who would go to that? I am (nuts).
But makes total sense to move around other grounds across the country. Other countries do exactly that.
If you can fill Wembley for the big games then it's Wembley.
If you're playing Norway in a friendly then stick it in a 30-40,000 stadium.
San Marino at home on a Thursday - who would go to that? I am (nuts).
But makes total sense to move around other grounds across the country. Other countries do exactly that.
HawkTheSeagull
New member
Moving England round the country makes financial sense as its a bigger draw to people, though clubs will want a share of takings. The FA will still get to pay off Wembley as well as the NFL would use it. 8 years is a reasonable amount of time to wait to see whether the boom in NFL popularity in the UK is sustainable long-term though, if priced correctly - it could be a winner, which would have to mean lower prices than what is charged for the current games.