Can't help thinking Wembley should have been 100,000

minimum. Even 110,000.</p>

For what they paid, they should have had the &quot;ultimate&quot; rather than just a &quot;very good&quot; new stadium. The popularity of footie and the fact that most home matches are gonna be sell-outs would have justified that.</p>

Trouble is, it wouldn't have been ready for another few years.</p>

 

I can't help thing there should have been a tube station at either side to serve it

There'll be enough delay in everyone getting out as it is!

 

Foster ... ...****

Typical of "Lord" foster to turn up and claim all the credit for building Wembley. When asked about the problems his simple answer was, "well you'd better ask the contractors", utter /poo . whilst multiplex were completely useless and aggressive contractors, there is no doubt that the designers/architects (colouring in) and designers changed things throughout the job to further add to existing problems. Mister teflon shoulders strikes again... ...remember his wobbly bridge anyone, he'd been in the media for weeks for various projects, then the minute his stupid creation sways, he dissappears.... when will the media see through these *****??

 

For that price...

Should have been about 200,000!

 

BTT ......... from BBC website into last nights fiasco.

Gaillard defended Uefa against any responsibility for the problems, adding: &quot;The only responsibility we could have is that we did not choose a stadium with 250,000 seats, but unfortunately they do not exist.&quot; </p>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6686867.stm</p>

</p>

 

RE: BTT ......... from BBC website into last nights fiasco.

But Gaillard responded: &quot;It is very easy to say it is not a suitable stadium, coming from the man that invented the poll tax.&quot; </p>

What a thing for an official spokeman to say. Ignore the issues mate, just get straight to the personal abuse, eh! ffs.</p>

 

Too right!

He's a wänker.

 

RE: For that price...

Imagine the stadium you could have had built for that money in the midlands. Would have been sensational.

London prices are mental, unreal. The MillStad cost £120m and whilst I'd concede that Wembley appears to be better, it's not £680m better!

 

''$4.7 billion was invested at the 20 sports facilities in both countries - Japan and Korea.''

Just think if we had to build 20 new stadiums, would each one cost as much as Wembley?

 

Barca's ground is still bigger.

Went to Barca in March after originally seeing it in the 80's, improved slightly from the concrete shell it was. Visiting the new Wembley for the Brazil game.

 

It is and they have lodged plans to extend it nt