I heard the news some time ago that there was a proposed sale of our national stadium to (yet again) offshore money and owners and I abhor even the mention of the subject. Having allowed so much foreign investment in to our beautiful game we are now looking to possibly offload our crown jewel that took so long, and so much English money, to yet another entity. Although I believe the deal is still tentative right now I suggest that if we throw in the real crown jewels and the Tower of London we may get it done. Will the real English public stand up and say NO just like Gary Neville who has suggested that the monies needed to fund the retention of a national icon like Wembley should come from a slice of agent's fees (I absolutely love that idea Gary) or from the oodles of banknotes thrown at those that are in the Premiership and those who have been there and want to return as soon as possible. We cant rant all we want about what foreign investment has done to the game, and I'm on the other side of that argument, but isn't it time for the someone to say that enough is enough when it comes down to the blatant selling off of all we love and hold dear? Whatever happened to the idea of fair play throughout the sport because I fear I have seen what from the outside looks eerily like anything goes when it comes down to actually how the monies were derived and where they get laundered.
The old wembley wasn't owned by the FA either. They're just returning to the way it was before this stadium was built. They intend to retain the income stream from match days though. Agree about the foreign ownership though.
Millennium Stadium Plc. Which is a subsidiary of the WRU, so rugby not football. Interestingly, Queens Park own Hampden Park and SFA lease it from them. Don't think it's uncommon for an FA of a country not to own their stadium.
Given its the Fulham owner looking to buy it, expect American Football as a regular occurrence. Looking at it logically, given there are only a few home games a season, its an expensive asset to upkeep for those occurrences and a lot of capital to have tied up. Not sure how much income it generates and how much, if any, profit is made by the FA. One advantage of not having the stadium is that you're not compelled to use it. Gives the opportunity to take some of the 'smaller' games on the road. Man U, Newcastle, etc. I can't remember the exact details but before the new Wembley was built it was privately owned until at least the 60s, so for the majority if not all the time the famous twin towers existed, the FA didn't own it. I'm sure google will throw up some details. Oh, and in the early days it wasn't called Wembley stadium, it was originally the Empire Stadium, and nothing to do with football.
