Wembley - the farce/fiasco continues

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=D2U4PZKYMSVAXQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/sport/2006/09/06/sfnfro06.xml

English football new home in even more of a mess, ffs sort this out and never employer and aussie to build anything again.

Arsenal on time so why not wembley

It's their own fault for wanting to go so over the top with the project and have the best stadium in the world. The Emerits, any of the german stadiums, particularly the Allianz Arenal, the millenium stadium even - any of these would have cost a shed load less and would have been completed by now. Had to be the best in the world though


At this rate Stanley Park will be completed before Wembley.

Incidentally, news on Stanley Park is due on Friday

imho any agreement to ruin stanley park is a bad move

Tweedledum wrote:Incidentally, news on Stanley Park is due on Friday

That's why I mentioned it. I really hope it doesn't go through. I remember one of you saying that there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to increase anfield - I'd rather see us do that.

If it goes through it's likely to be completed by the start of the 2009/2010 season. Before Wembley at this rate

It would be ok if Anfield was to be made public open space - it seems that Liverpool City Council are using it as a money spinning project instead of taking account of the local need for public space

Obispo wrote:

Tweedledum wrote:Incidentally, news on Stanley Park is due on Friday

That's why I mentioned it. I really hope it doesn't go through. I remember one of you saying that there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to increase anfield - I'd rather see us do that.

If it goes through it's likely to be completed by the start of the 2009/2010 season. Before Wembley at this rate

That was me - they conducted a feasability study towards the end of the 1990s - could be increased to 55,000

its like saying lets build a stadium in hyde park there´d be a national campaign against it but as its in liverpool only scousers are bothered and half of them are probably all for it as footy is more important than public open space

@ frank

haha

VERY funny you mention that

Tweedledum wrote:

Obispo wrote:

Tweedledum wrote:Incidentally, news on Stanley Park is due on Friday

That's why I mentioned it. I really hope it doesn't go through. I remember one of you saying that there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to increase anfield - I'd rather see us do that.

If it goes through it's likely to be completed by the start of the 2009/2010 season. Before Wembley at this rate

That was me - they conducted a feasability study towards the end of the 1990s - could be increased to 55,000

That would be far better. It's still over 10,000 more seats. Ok, it's not 60,000 odd like they want Stanley Park, but that's a small price for history. Even if the revenue would do us well.

Plus, no offence to your lot... but I hate the look of most modern stadiums. They're all too similar. Too few look unique, like the Alliainz.

Tweedledum wrote:@ frank

haha

VERY funny you mention that

you are joking right

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:its like saying lets build a stadium in hyde park there´d be a national campaign against it but as its in liverpool only scousers are bothered and half of them are probably all for it as footy is more important than public open space

To be honest, I'm against the idea in general. Not just because it'll destroy a large part of a nice park.

I just don't want stadium's to be moved.

It's ridiculous anyways. In 10-15 years we'll have to increase capacity, or build a larger megastore or something ridiculous. Something that'll destroy more land.

@ obispo

I agree

Emirates lacks the soul of Highbury.

It would be much better and I can't see why Liverpool want to move - at Highbury a) part of the building was listed and b) there was no room foe expansion.

At Anfield this isn't a problem so it seems bizarre they didn't go with this option

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:

Tweedledum wrote:@ frank

haha

VERY funny you mention that

you are joking right

No

Chelsea ARE interested, Won't happen though

the reason they all look similar is that there is about 2/3 specialist architects and most of the big players started out at Lobb who were the early 90s pace setters

And because it's a lot more expensive and risky to go with a radical design.

Tweedledum wrote:

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:

Tweedledum wrote:@ frank

haha

VERY funny you mention that

you are joking right

No

Chelsea ARE interested, Won't happen though

isn't roman buying up half of london in his search for a new site

a new stadium won't improve their atmosphere one bit

Well designing and building stadiums is a very specialist business - its not like Richard Rogers can sit down and draw up a design for a stadium - there are zillions of rules that have to be adhered to

@ COTR/Frank

Chelsea are investigating three options (I didn't tell you this )

1. Expand the present stadium to 55,000 - there are problems with this though as they would have to construct over the District line adding a lot of $$ and time to the project.

2. Earl's Court Stadium - the company that owns EC stadium is presently looking for a buyer - they want to sell EC and Olympia for a combined fee of £400m - if Roman got this he could build the stadium at Earl's Court and develop Olympia for housing (2000 units or more - so BIG profit). EC could *possibly* accomodate a 70,000 capacity stadium

3. Kesnington Gardens - part of Hyde Park (the western part) - this would NEVER get granted but apparently they have been looking into it - if they did put in a planning permission the s106 agreements required would be unquantifiable so realisitcally its not an option.

Tweedledum wrote:Well designing and building stadiums is a very specialist business - its not like Richard Rogers can sit down and draw up a design for a stadium - there are zillions of rules that have to be adhered to

building regs ok could manage that, but a green guide which has numerous conditions, best practice (which is taken as gospel by the LAs too), etc., includes min seating heights, widths, distances, no., of seats in a row, design of handrails, distances to exits, stair/exit widths, no. of toilets, seat sightlines, roof to cover seats by specific distance

structurally it has to be designed so that when everybody taps their feet in time it doesn´t collapse can´t remeber what this is called but once saw a video where 20 people were doing it and the upper tier of a german stadium was moving 8 inches,

requirements for pa system, emergency telephones, fire alarm system, hosereels, fire extinguisher locations,etc.. they also call vfor v strict requirements on the catering kiosks

Yeh - when i worked for WS Atkins as work experience they were one of the companies bidding for the Wembley project - whilst I was there we had to make plans for emergency egress - so difficult - you have to run all these crazy computer models that assimilate human movement in a state of panic - was quite fun actually

Does anyone think there is a chance of the Emirates Stadium hosting some England matches soon if Wembley doesn't get its act together? Obviously Old Trafford is the main stadium until Wembley is built, but if they move around the country again then at least there is now a large, new stadium in the capital to use.

must do surely they´ve been criticised for the constant use of old trafford over recent matches and the southerners need a chance to see england, the roadshow they adopted when wembley was first shut was such a success i don´t know why they changed, sorry i do ticket revenue

@ sheffield gunner

Defo gonna happen