I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing if the England team were to play around the country even if I don't agree with the pure profit making reasons behind it.
Unless they reduce the ticket prices (which they can probabaly do seeing as the NFL creates £3m a match) then i dont see a problem with it. I hate seeing Wembley empty when england play against minnows at £45 a pop.
Unless they reduce the ticket prices (which they can probabaly do seeing as the NFL creates £3m a match) then i dont see a problem with it. I hate seeing Wembley empty when england play against minnows at £45 a pop.
This is it. The FA should use England to lead by example with things like ticket prices and the prices of replica shirts etc. Instead, they're just as bad as every Premier League club out there, ripping fans off.
The thread title is wrong and the OP's disgust is misplaced.
As things stand England are contracted to play at Wembley - solely because the huge costs associated with building the stadium need to be paid for somehow.
The games England played in the provinces while the stadium was being constructed were a great success and much appreciated by the locals.
But having a NFL team at Wembley would take the cost pressures off the FA and allow them to consider playing more games around the whole country, as some other national teams do. Germany doesn't even have a national stadium! And they seem to do okay.
It would be fairer for supporters based many miles away from London to have an easier and much less expensive opportunity to watch the national team.
In any event, there is no reason why England AND a NFL franchise couldn't both play at Wembley. There's currently only 16 games in the NFL regular season and many of those being played on a Sunday. Surely the Wembley pitch should be able to cope with 8 home NFL games and however many England play per season plus the Cup final and play-off games and a few others?
Agreed with others, England should play all over the country anyway not just Wembley, save Wembley for special games & it allows people from all over the country see an England game without having to travel into London.
It's going to be very interesting to see what happens when the current Seat Licences for the Club Wembley areas of Wembley Stadium expire. This will happen in 2017, after the League Cup Final and the two FA Cup SFs, but before the FA Cup Final. Until then, the FA is committed to hosting all England internationals at Wembley.
The problem is that it's now very clear that it's going to be very hard to resell these Seat Licences, which are defacto debentures, at anything like the current prices. It's horribly expensive and the poor value for money is exacerbated by the fact that there are very few competitive England matches which are remotely entertaining, simply because England are always seeded, in both European Championship and World Cup Qualifying competitions, and hence play very few decent and attractive teams.
The attendances (shown in the article) for friendly internationals are remarkable by any standards, but these fixtures are not going to help sell premium seating at super premium prices.
My guess is that the term of Seat Licences will shorten, say from 10-years to just 3-years, and that for the 3-years from 2017 a further commitment will be made to play all England games at Wembley. After that it's anybody's guess.
The NFL question is a different issue. I'm sure Wembley Stadium Ltd would very much like to host an NFL franchise. Moving to London is a big call for somebody though. Would the Jacksonville Jaguars fill Wembley eight times a season? You'd think Shahid Khan might be once bitten twice shy!!
The thread title is wrong and the OP's disgust is misplaced.
As things stand England are contracted to play at Wembley - solely because the huge costs associated with building the stadium need to be paid for somehow.
The games England played in the provinces while the stadium was being constructed were a great success and much appreciated by the locals.
But having a NFL team at Wembley would take the cost pressures off the FA and allow them to consider playing more games around the whole country, as some other national teams do. Germany doesn't even have a national stadium! And they seem to do okay.
It would be fairer for supporters based many miles away from London to have an easier and much less expensive opportunity to watch the national team.
In any event, there is no reason why England AND a NFL franchise couldn't both play at Wembley. There's currently only 16 games in the NFL regular season and many of those being played on a Sunday. Surely the Wembley pitch should be able to cope with 8 home NFL games and however many England play per season plus the Cup final and play-off games and a few others?
this is pretty much what I posted on another thread. The NFL coming will allow england to move around the country (current wembley lock in ends 2018) rather than england will move to allow the NFL to come.
Tonight's game is competitive but only an estimated 55-60k will turn up. Surely you can see the case for playing these sorts of games at St James' Park or another where we would have a full stadium and good atmosphere?
I just have a massive problem with the new Wembley as a stadium altogether. Way too vast, meaning half the people in the ground can barely see which player is which. Plus it absolutely reeks of corporate hospitality crap. Majority of people at the England games seem to be the whole "got a ticket through work so thought I might as well go" crowd who just sit there eating nachos and not making any atmosphere whatsoever.
Yes I know the old Wembley was dated and needed rejuvinating, but the character and uniqueness in the design made it so special. Take a look at what the Germans have done with Berlin's Olympiastadion - incredible stadium which still holds character and history after being rebuilt.
I just have a massive problem with the new Wembley as a stadium altogether. Way too vast, meaning half the people in the ground can barely see which player is which. Plus it absolutely reeks of corporate hospitality crap. Majority of people at the England games seem to be the whole "got a ticket through work so thought I might as well go" crowd who just sit there eating nachos and not making any atmosphere whatsoever.
Yes I know the old Wembley was dated and needed rejuvinating, but the character and uniqueness in the design made it so special. Take a look at what the Germans have done with Berlin's Olympiastadion - incredible stadium which still holds character and history after being rebuilt.
Olympiastadion....well, exactly. What should have happened is that the FA Should have been told to join the London Olympic bid, and make the Olympic Stadium the national football stadium afterwards. It after all has vastly superior transport links and the legacy would have been built in. But unlike the Germans, we don't think strategically on issues like this
we should use the national stadium for ALL competitive matches but no reason at all that the friendlies shouldnt be played in the rest of England
this.
Would also make cup finals a lot more special and make england players really fight for a place in competitive games to be able to say they played at wembley for england considering those players are a dime a dozen amongst the english contingent in the prem.
I have never been to the new Wembley, and I take Craig's word on it that the regular England supporters would like to see games played around the country. So my opinion counts for very little, but here it is anyway.
When there is talk about playing games around the country, realistically it means Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. I know that a couple of low key games were at places like Southampton and Ipswich, but as pointed out elsewhere demand meant that the next largest stadium was used for the majority of games and that was Old Trafford, over and over again (and bringing even more income for one particular club...).
If you drew a line from Southampton to Liverpool, not one game took place west of there, because the only suitable stadium is actually in Wales. hardly fair on the good folk of Bristol or Bath is it?
London is a hub, all major cities have direct rail links and National Express coaches run to Victoria from almost every town in the country, most regional airports fly to London. If you are in Dorchester or Diss it's a damn sight easier to get to London than it is to get to Manchester or Newcastle.
It is the national football stadium, world famous and legendary to people from all over the globe. The attendances are the envy of almost every other nation, whether the people at the games meet the exacting standards of the CL supporter police or not.
16% of England's population lives in the South East.
Whether we approve of the actions of the FA, the siting of the stadium or the cost of building it, we are lumbered with the situation. It either gets paid for as quickly as possible and becomes a source of income for the FA, or it gets left to rot and that really would be money down the drain.
If I owned a night club with room for 500 people, would you not think I was stupid if I rented someone else's 300 capacity nightclub for my 50th birthday celebrations, and 50 of my mates couldn't get in?
Someone mentioned FA cup semi finals - I would be mightily pissed off if I missed out on a ticket because they held it at a ground with 75'000 capacity instead of one with 90'000, just to "keep it special" for someone who doesn't support my club...
I would definitely play games like tonights away from Wembley to improve the atmosphere, but obviously keep the big games there. Hate FA Cup Semi-Finals being played at Wembley and would stop that straight away
I just have a massive problem with the new Wembley as a stadium altogether. Way too vast, meaning half the people in the ground can barely see which player is which. Plus it absolutely reeks of corporate hospitality crap. Majority of people at the England games seem to be the whole "got a ticket through work so thought I might as well go" crowd who just sit there eating nachos and not making any atmosphere whatsoever.
Yes I know the old Wembley was dated and needed rejuvinating, but the character and uniqueness in the design made it so special. Take a look at what the Germans have done with Berlin's Olympiastadion - incredible stadium which still holds character and history after being rebuilt.
Olympiastadion....well, exactly. What should have happened is that the FA Should have been told to join the London Olympic bid, and make the Olympic Stadium the national football stadium afterwards. It after all has vastly superior transport links and the legacy would have been built in. But unlike the Germans, we don't think strategically on issues like this
I think timing was the problem there though. Keeping the creaking old stadium going for five years until the bid was confirmed was probably just not feasible?
Play England games at the Valley. Might as actually fill the stadium, the seats are the right colour, food and drink are more reasonably priced and will stimulate the local economy. Plus the national team are as bad as a Championship quality side anyway so no one will notice a difference in the quality of football, but at least you'll be able to see the pitch if you seat any further back than Row H.
Comments
Last time we played San Marino there was over 80,000 there
As things stand England are contracted to play at Wembley - solely because the huge costs associated with building the stadium need to be paid for somehow.
The games England played in the provinces while the stadium was being constructed were a great success and much appreciated by the locals.
But having a NFL team at Wembley would take the cost pressures off the FA and allow them to consider playing more games around the whole country, as some other national teams do. Germany doesn't even have a national stadium! And they seem to do okay.
It would be fairer for supporters based many miles away from London to have an easier and much less expensive opportunity to watch the national team.
In any event, there is no reason why England AND a NFL franchise couldn't both play at Wembley. There's currently only 16 games in the NFL regular season and many of those being played on a Sunday. Surely the Wembley pitch should be able to cope with 8 home NFL games and however many England play per season plus the Cup final and play-off games and a few others?
Would perfer to see england play all around the country. Than rip off Wembley prices.
However I suspect the greedy FA suits will still continue to try and milk the use of the stadium unnecessarily when the debts have been paid off.
The problem is that it's now very clear that it's going to be very hard to resell these Seat Licences, which are defacto debentures, at anything like the current prices. It's horribly expensive and the poor value for money is exacerbated by the fact that there are very few competitive England matches which are remotely entertaining, simply because England are always seeded, in both European Championship and World Cup Qualifying competitions, and hence play very few decent and attractive teams.
The attendances (shown in the article) for friendly internationals are remarkable by any standards, but these fixtures are not going to help sell premium seating at super premium prices.
My guess is that the term of Seat Licences will shorten, say from 10-years to just 3-years, and that for the 3-years from 2017 a further commitment will be made to play all England games at Wembley. After that it's anybody's guess.
The NFL question is a different issue. I'm sure Wembley Stadium Ltd would very much like to host an NFL franchise. Moving to London is a big call for somebody though. Would the Jacksonville Jaguars fill Wembley eight times a season? You'd think Shahid Khan might be once bitten twice shy!!
The NFL coming will allow england to move around the country (current wembley lock in ends 2018) rather than england will move to allow the NFL to come.
If truth be told I enjoyed attending England games more when they were taking them around the grounds whilst Wembley was being rebuilt.
However lets actually do it properly this time and not just do it for a while and then have every f*****g game at Old Trafford.
Most England fans have been calling out for this for ages.
Yes I know the old Wembley was dated and needed rejuvinating, but the character and uniqueness in the design made it so special. Take a look at what the Germans have done with Berlin's Olympiastadion - incredible stadium which still holds character and history after being rebuilt.
It is too vast as you say, it doesn't lend itself to a good atmosphere, in my opinion it's too comfortable.
U S A.........U S A......U S A!!
Would also make cup finals a lot more special and make england players really fight for a place in competitive games to be able to say they played at wembley for england considering those players are a dime a dozen amongst the english contingent in the prem.
When there is talk about playing games around the country, realistically it means Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham. I know that a couple of low key games were at places like Southampton and Ipswich, but as pointed out elsewhere demand meant that the next largest stadium was used for the majority of games and that was Old Trafford, over and over again (and bringing even more income for one particular club...).
If you drew a line from Southampton to Liverpool, not one game took place west of there, because the only suitable stadium is actually in Wales. hardly fair on the good folk of Bristol or Bath is it?
London is a hub, all major cities have direct rail links and National Express coaches run to Victoria from almost every town in the country, most regional airports fly to London. If you are in Dorchester or Diss it's a damn sight easier to get to London than it is to get to Manchester or Newcastle.
It is the national football stadium, world famous and legendary to people from all over the globe. The attendances are the envy of almost every other nation, whether the people at the games meet the exacting standards of the CL supporter police or not.
16% of England's population lives in the South East.
Whether we approve of the actions of the FA, the siting of the stadium or the cost of building it, we are lumbered with the situation. It either gets paid for as quickly as possible and becomes a source of income for the FA, or it gets left to rot and that really would be money down the drain.
If I owned a night club with room for 500 people, would you not think I was stupid if I rented someone else's 300 capacity nightclub for my 50th birthday celebrations, and 50 of my mates couldn't get in?
Someone mentioned FA cup semi finals - I would be mightily pissed off if I missed out on a ticket because they held it at a ground with 75'000 capacity instead of one with 90'000, just to "keep it special" for someone who doesn't support my club...
Just a bit of food for thought, I hope?