Demolition looms for the world's most famous sporting landmark
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES are bracing themselves for the wrath of sporting and architectural traditionalists after reports that Wembley's twin towers, the most enduring symbol of the country's sporting jewel, are to be demolished to make way for a new national stadium.
The two 160ft concrete towers, which presided over England's 1966 World Cup victory, are likely to be demolished to make way for the new arena, after architects decided it would be difficult to incorporate the structures in the new plan.
But Tony Banks, the Sports minister, said yesterday that if public reaction towards the proposed demolition was overwhelming, the towers could be saved. He added that the country would have to be willing to pay more for the stadium, the cost of which has reportedly risen to more than pounds 300m. The price of the original stadium was pounds 300,000.
"No irrevocable decision has been made and if there was a huge national outcry then of course it would influence the final decision," Mr Banks said. "But there would also have to be huge public support for the increased costs that might follow."
A Football Association source said an alternative scenario could see the towers, which now stand at the side of the pitch above the royal box, remaining in place but being positioned behind one of the goals. "But that option, even if it is practical, would be much more expensive," the source added.
Mr Banks said he welcomed the debate likely to ensue about the towers' future. "There is no greater believer in tradition than me, but people should know it's going to be difficult and costly to keep them."
Traditionalists, though, are furious. David Mellor, chairman of the Football Task Force, said it would be "regrettable" if the towers were knocked down. "The twin towers are part of the tradition of football, not just in England but all around the world," he said.
Nobby Stiles, who was in England's 1966 World Cup-winning team, said: "It will be sad for many people if they decide to get rid of the twin towers."
His teammate, Sir Bobby Charlton, said: "They are a landmark in the game of football and wherever you go around the world people are always keen to talk about them." But he said if it was not possible to keep the towers then "we will have to accept it. We need a new stadium. Wembley is a little tired and we are lagging a bit behind other countries."
Wembley also is a shrine for Rugby League and Alex Murphy, who captained Wigan, St Helens and Leigh to victory on the turf nine times in the Seventies, said he favoured the towers being kept, whatever the cost. "So what if it costs more? Wembley without the towers is like Yorkshire pudding without the beef."
The final decision on the towers' future will be made early next year. Wembley Stadium is scheduled to be knocked down to make way for a national football, rugby and athletics stadium. When finished it could become a national showpiece for international sporting events such as the 2006 football World Cup, if Britain were to win its bid to host the event.
The FA spokesman Steve Double confirmed yesterday that the architects designing the new stadium felt that the towers would have to be demolished as their plans for the rebuilt arena would see the towers standing in the middle of the pitch. "Nothing has been finalised but it's down to building the best possible stadium within the budget," he said.
"Of course the twin towers are close to everybody's hearts but the stadium is in need of replacing. The prevailing feeling within the FA ... is that we have to have a new stadium, if we could keep the towers that would be the icing on the cake."
The monuments - made of reinforced concrete and impossible to move - are Grade II-listed buildings. English Heritage and Brent, the local council, would have to give their approval for their demolition.
A spokeswoman for Brentsaid: "As a listed building they would find it difficult to knock it down. They would have to have a strong reason."
Magic Moments at Wembley
n At its debut on 28 April 1923, for the FA Cup final, 200,000 rather than the expected 90,000 spectators squeezed in
n A battalion of 1,200 men sat and stood in unison to test the stands and 40 miles of terraces for safety
n Wembley hosted many events for the first post-war Olympics, held in London in 1948
n At the age of 38, Stanley Matthews inspired Blackpool to win the 1953 Cup final 4-3
n Thirteen years later, England won the World Cup for the first, and so far only, time beneath the twin towers
n Manchester United became the first English club to win the European Cup in 1968, when they beat Benfica 4-1
n The Live Aid concert in 1985, hosted by Bob Geldof and televised globally, encouraged the world to donate funds to ease the famine in Ethiopia
n Pele, the Brazilian legend, calls the stadium the "Church of Football"
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments