As teams this weekend book their places in the semi finals of the FA Cup, they’ll start to plan their trips to that game.
They’ll all be going to the same place, Wembley. This is part of the FA’s 30 year agreement to play a minimum number of games at the national stadium per year. Many people seem against this and I wanted to see what SW members think.
I’ve made a list of advantages and disadvantages of the current arrangement, feel free to add your own.
I see the arguments on both sides. If it is United v City then where else could it be held? Tickets would be gold dust and there's only two other grounds that come close in terms of style, one of them being United's and the other one being in London anyway.
BBC Sport's Andy McKenzie on Twitter: "Unless Reading beat Man City, we'll have four teams all travelling 150+ miles to play FA Cup semis at Wembley."
Let's say City win. Where would you have that game?
I know Bolton/ Stoke could be at Old Trafford but where for the derby?
The capacity of that is just over 50,000. About 10,000 would be taken by corporates, sponsors, FA etc so leaving 40,000 for fans. Wembley is 90,000 with 72,000 being general admission.
And it's not that much closer.
I know it is still quite a bit of travelling but not as far as Wembley.
I would say St James' Park or Anfield but the former would be all corporate as thecityisred pointe dout and the supporters would trash (more so) the latter.
Realise that, just meant it is closer for both Manchester teams.
Maybe the FA could set up an agreement to play at Hampden park...? lol