I've not made my mind up yet about the new wembley. Half o me thinks it looked like a really good modern stadium, but half of me thinks they missed a trick with it.

I'm not suggesting that what they've built isn't special, but since it's the 'home of football' and money didn't appear to be a problem, why didn't they build it extra special? Instead of 90,000 why not 110,000. Instead of a glass box, what about using local materials, or dare I say a bit of colour. That old guy summed it up quite well while being interviewed outside the ground; "I thought I was going into an airport".

I've only seen the arch on TV, and I'm sure it's an architectural master piece, but it just looks a bit sh#t. Why not rebuild the the two towers, one of the most recognisable icons of football, rather than replace it with an arch that looks toilet?

I know I need to see it for myself before criticising it, but the new wembley just didn't seem to have any 'wow' factor to it IMO. It would be interesting now to see the other original entries for the stadium; the designs that were rejected in favour of this one.

I hear exactly what you're saying. And I more or less agree. However, much like the old Burnden vs The Reebok discussion this new stadium is all about looking to the future and I think it is a bit special! We've all just got to give it time to sink in a bit.

I've not been there myself, though I did go past on the train and seeing the arch high above the surrounding buildings made me feel a small bit of pride. Trouble is, the new place has no history, we have no memories to look back on fondly so why should we give a toss about it? We need Bolton to win the FA cup there, and some cracking England performances to make us care a bit more (let's not hold our breath then ). I must say though, it was great to hear the National Anthem being bellowed out on Saturday before the game.

Went to the old wembley 5 times, loved the place,