They were from Bolton and had travelled to south-east England to cheer on Bolton Wanderers in a play-off. Their team lost, and for that, they were as sick as parrots – but at the same time they were over the moon. For their team had played at “Wemberlee” – Wembley Stadium, the Mecca of world football, and they had been there to savour, if not victory, then a unique experience.
These days, you have to come from Bolton to think Wembley Stadium is marvellous.
Its history and its legends are immortal.
The actual building is a dump. Its owners do their best to keep it clean and tidy, but most of the seats are rudimentary and uncomfortable, the corridors and the alleyways are seedy, and the toilets are inadequate.
Compare this shabby relic with the state-of-the-art Nou Camp Stadium in Barcelona, where Manchester United recently completed their historic treble. No one is more conscious of the inadequacies of Wembley Stadium than its owners. One of them recently said the stadium is “a nice old lady but she is 78 years old and she needs knocking down”.
Set aside the novel and alarming notion that when ladies reach a certain age, they should be abruptly put down. When a building, even an iconic one, ceases to fulfil the function for which it was built, it should be demolished and replaced.
These days, you have to come from Bolton to think Wembley Stadium is marvellous … the building is a dump
The need is all the more pressing in the case of Wembley, because England is bidding to stage the football World Cup in 2006, and without a decent stadium, our bid does not stand a chance. So, Wembley is to be rebuilt. Or is it ? The decision has been made. The money –oodles of it – has been found, but there are snags. The English Sports Council, which has contributed £120m to the development, wants the new stadium to host not only football and rugby but athletics as well.
No matter that such a dual use calls for a much more complex design. No matter that accommodating a dual use may well delay, perhaps substantially, the completion of the building. No matter that the planning application process may be delayed as a result. No matter that the 10 000 spectators, tops, who may be expected for the most popular athletics events would look rather forlorn in a stadium designed to seat 80 000. No matter that, at most, the stadium would be used for a maximum of three international athletics events in the next 20 years (the Olympics and the world and European athletics championships).
Furthermore, there is controversy over Wembley’s famous twin towers. Sentimentalists insist that Wembley would not be Wembley without the towers, and demand that they be retained as part of the new building. Experts say the towers are structurally unsound. The idea that a new and fine stadium would be an icon in its own right fails to resonate with the merchants of nostalgia.
All these issues could be resolved at leisure if there were time, but time is a luxury that is not available. If we do not get on with building the stadium, and soon, we will not stand a chance of staging the 2006 World Cup.
In recent months, I have seen marvellous stadia in several countries. Australia, a country with a fraction of our population, is building them all over the place. The Malaysian government has built a 100 000-seater outside Kuala Lumpur that is a credit to the country. The Malaysian prime minister took charge of the project, even to the extent of deciding the seating capacity.
Postscript
The Right Honourable Gerald Kaufman is MP for Manchester Gorton and chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.
