Will The Gp Move To Wembley?

[Blazeaway]

Once English footy goes Cardiff's not left with much - rugger, few Welsh footy internationals, some concerts - and a huge debt to pay back.

  Might even be in a position to get it a bit cheaper or even on a different date as one of the stadium's major users 

PS Why not Hampden for a European Grand Prix, Glasgow's just as good a weekend out  and Edinburgh, Glasgow, Berwick and Workington could come up with something special  to go around it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Its bad enough having to go to Wales. The land of men in skirts would be even worse

[shazzybird]

Why not have a poll to see if people prefer Wembley to Cardiff, at least when the BSPA look in and have a read they'll see what the fans really want. Cardiff for me please!

[Liesdale]

Taking the British GP to Wembley would be a backward step. Chances are the crowd would even drop from the current 40,000 they get at the Millennieum Stadium.

 

Don't try and fix what aint broken.

Edited June 13, 2005 by Liesdale

[Kevin Meynell]

What this Wembley will not be is a versatile multi-sport venue - football and rubgy, yes; anything else and they're not interested.

 

Rugby (Union) already has a very decent national stadium at Twickenham, whilst football and athletics aren't really compatible in the same stadium. I have nothing against athletics, but the sport simply doesn't draw the crowds to justify massively modifying an already expensive stadium. It would be far better to build a smaller purpose-built stadium for athletics.

 

I've visited quite a few of the former Olympic venues around the world, and a good number have become crumbling white elephants, largely because an athletics stadium isn't much good for anything except athletics which simply can't fill large venues.

[AndyM]

Possibly so, but if you're going to build a footie stadium anyway why not kill two birds with one stone and save yourself £300 mill in the process? Two stadiums = twice the chance of constructing at least one white elephant. Strikes me as total madness

 

The only conceivable advantage in having a separate athletics stadium is that they could run events without having to double check dates with the football authorities, and their centrepiece would be closer to other facilities and the Olympic village at Stratford, but it's a hell of a price to pay for convenience.

 

Why is it we in the UK cock up things like this time and again, when the French manage to do it right?

[Kevin Meynell]

Possibly so, but if you're going to build a footie stadium anyway why not kill two birds with one stone and save yourself £300 mill in the process?

 

The sightlines are crap for football if you combine athletics, and that's no good if football is the major sport. The old Wembley suffered badly from the audience being too far from the action.

 

I appreciate you could have all manner of moving stands and raised levels etc.., but in all honesty it's just not worth the effort for the once in 10-20 years that you'll stage a major athletics events.

 

Why is it we in the UK cock up things like this time and again, when the French manage to do it right?

 

I'm not so sure the French do get it right, but if they do, it's probably because they don't insist on all manner of private financing initiatives. That said, they do pay far more tax than us, so it comes at a price. Not much fun if you're a taxpayer who doesn't like sport.

 

BTW - the Stade de France is a terrible location and suffers from the athletics track problem as well.

[Splatty]

I think Robolots hit the nail on the head - keep the GB GP at Cardiff and if long standing bad relations between speedway and Webley can be repaired hold another GP there - Sweden and Poland should not be the only countries to hold 2 gp's

[Kevin Meynell]

keep the GB GP at Cardiff and if long standing bad relations between speedway and Webley can be repaired hold another GP there - Sweden and Poland should not be the only countries to hold 2 gp's

 

I think we need less GPs rather than more (at least during the European season), and certainly no more than one per country. The more GPs you stage in one country, the less 'exclusive' they become, and the harder to draw a decent crowd to both.

[arthur cross]

Kevin Meynell says "the Stade de France is a terrible location and suffers from the athletics track problem as well" ... I think that's rather harsh.

 

Although there's a fair gap between the seating and the rugby/football touchline, it isn't the full width of an Olympic athletics track because the lower deck of seats at the Stade de France is wound back hydraulically for the annual Golden League athletics meeting (you get to see how this is all set up as part of a highly-recommended guided tour of the stadium).

 

As for location, the Stade de France's position within Paris is far better than Wembley's within London for access ... two totally different railway lines (one for the Paris Metro, the other for suburban commuter trains) at the Stade de France within 5 minutes' walk, two motorways within a mile and it's less than 5 miles from the centre of Paris.

 

Just a shame there isn't a great speedway tradition in France beyond the valiant exploits of the Tresarrieu family because there'd be room at the Stade de France for a much bigger track than inside Cardiff's Millennium Stadium and I could happily spend a GP weekend every year in Paris

[Lanzilla]

I think that Cardiff will be the home of the British GP for many years to come.

As the previous poster said.....'It ain't broke so why try and fix it?'

 

The GP is the only thing worth crossing the bridge for.

[AndyM]

The sightlines are crap for football if you combine athletics, and that's no good if football is the major sport. The old Wembley suffered badly from the audience being too far from the action.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't understand your point. Why would you have lousy sightlines in a cantilevered stadium with no supports? Only if you set the stands too low, and there's no obvious reason why that should happen regardless of whether the sport is football or athletics.

I'm not so sure the French do get it right, but if they do, it's probably because they don't insist on all manner of private financing initiatives. That said, they do pay far more tax than us, so it comes at a price. Not much fun if you're a taxpayer who doesn't like sport.

 

BTW - the Stade de France is a terrible location and suffers from the athletics track problem as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They make a decision and they stick to it, for starters. They don't argue the toss and repeatedly change the design so the price ends up ten times higher than it started. Most of the cost problems with the dome, Portcullis House and the Scottish Parliament were because our politicos insisted on sticking their noses into affairs which shouldn't concern them. The French leave it to the pros, and good luck to them.

 

Saint Denis is no worse a location than Wembley. The only time I went there it was by coach, which proved quick and simple. It's also a wonderfully designed stadium with excellent access, which the new Wembley would do well to emulate.

[Kevin Meynell]

Don't understand your point.  Why would you have lousy sightlines in a cantilevered stadium with no supports?

 

An athletics track increases the distance between the pitch and the stands, which also forces the rake of the stands to be extremely steep if those at the top are not to be situated a long way from the pitch. It's a particular problem at the ends of the stadium where the bends of the athletics track create wasted space between the stands and the pitch.

 

I think most fans would agree that the best football experiences are where fans are situated very close to the pitch, and incorporating an athletics track makes this difficult to achieve. To me, athletics has a total disproportionate influence on decision making in terms of its actual popularity, and I'd much rather have a decent stadium for pitch sports than one that's a horrible compromise. After all, when was the last time the old Wembley hosted an athletics event, and how often is Crystal Palace filled?

 

They don't argue the toss and repeatedly change the design so the price ends up ten times higher than it started.

 

Andy, with respect that happens in France as well. They've gone vastly over budget on many projects (e.g. TGV, Ariane, their new aircraft carriers), but their government really doesn't seem to care about blowing vast amounts of taxpayers money on grandiose enterprises.

 

Saint Denis is no worse a location than Wembley.

 

Sure, but that's not saying much for a new stadium built at a cost of millions. It has reasonable transport connections, but there's bugger all in the vicinity, nor is it a particular pleasant area to walk around. I would contrast it with the Munich Olympic Stadium which is set in a beautiful park in which you can spend the entire day. I think no-one has bettered that in the last 35 years.

[pugwash]

BSI have signed a contract for The Millenium Stadium until 2010 so it ain't going anywhere for a least another 5 years.

[AndyM]

To me, athletics has a total disproportionate influence on decision making in terms of its actual popularity, and I'd much rather have a decent stadium for pitch sports than one that's a horrible compromise. After all, when was the last time the old Wembley hosted an athletics event, and how often is Crystal Palace filled?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure athletics fans would say speedway is over-rated and insufficiently important to justify being taken into consideration for any stadium design. To be fair to them, the Olympics and World Athletics Championships fill stadia and are mega money events. Would that speedway could get close to that size of event.

Andy, with respect that happens in France as well. They've gone vastly over budget on many projects (e.g. TGV, Ariane, their new aircraft carriers), but their government really doesn't seem to care about blowing vast amounts of taxpayers money on grandiose enterprises.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So they have, but I don't think you've summarised their decision-making processes well. They decide they need a national stadium, they build a national stadium with a minimum of fuss. The new Wembley is costing £757m according to their website, substantially caused by delays and changes to the plans. The Stade de France cost £260m all in. Regardless of private financing, a substantial part of the budget has come from the UK taxpayer. Who is getting better value for money from their project?

 

A little background. Note that the current cost is £137m higher than the "final" project budget!

[aegirl]

I had this discussion on the weekend. The new wembley is going to be football only, it is being built for the sole purpose of football. So all British GPs will still be at Cardiff, which i think is great.

[Adder]

The pitch at the new Wembley will not be so easily removable as that in the MS which almost certainly rules Speedway out sine die.

[robpeasley]

Moving the question slightly sideways, now that football is going back to Wembley, what chance of moving the date of the Speedway at Cardiff to September, so that it's the final GP of the season.

 

Would boost the meeting even more... and leave Wembley as an overhyped memory of the past.

 

All the best

Rob