Wembley madness

Why spend £780M on a stadium designed to make sure the pitch is in good condition, and then build a retractable roof on it as well to keep it dry, and then not use it? Wembley is a technical masterpiece for it's design, and as a venue it's superb with little queuing for anything, easy to get in and out of, great view all around the stadium of the pitch. But was it really needed?

Would the Stade De France have done the job? It's certainly big enough, was a lot cheaper to build, and if they were to do it again I'm sure they would lose the running track to get a better atmosphere. Millenium Stadium - looks like a dog, but what an atmosphere. Shame the pitch suffers so badly. However, if you really want to see a brilliant covered stadium, there is only one - and it's German.

The Veltins Arena in Gelsenkirchen is the home ground of Shalke. It has a retractable pitch, so it can sun itself when not in use, retractable roof, a moveable video cube and one of the stands move. It seats 60,000+, but there would be no reason why you couldn't make it bigger. Why people start again with design when something as brilliant as this exists, I'll never know. And having been to both it and Wembley - I'd rather watch football in Gelsenkirchen. The atmosphere is just unbelievable, the view perfect and did I mention the atmosphere? Noise like you've never heard from a crowd (well, maybe Hampdem on Saturday, but as I wasn't there I can't really comment!)

See for yourself. The pitch is out the front in this one.




The video cube can be moved if needed, or left where it is even with the roof open.



http://www.arena-auf-schalke.de/portrait_arena_en.php