ºÚ¶´ÉçÇø

'Ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go – again. It came as no surprise to the construction or soccer fraternities that the latest round of the epic Wembley Stadium fixture slipped into extra time this week (page 11). As the government's 30 April deadline passed, a German bank – West LB – was about to be brought on to fund the £715m deal as a substitute for Barclays. An announcement was due from the FA today, and heads of terms have been agreed over financing. But the final whistle won't be blown for up to three months. So the weary struggle continues.

Thank goodness we in sight of a decision, even if it involves the home of English football being built by German money. Not only will we have the spectacle tomorrow of two London teams trooping more than 100 miles down the M4 to Cardiff for the FA Cup Final, but in a month's time, our screens will fill with examples of what ought to have happened in the capital. Between them, Japan and South Korea have spent £3bn on 20 World Cup venues (see next week's issue). All were finished on time, all look like great value for money – and the best are breathtaking.

That's not to say that the Foster–HOK design for Wembley would compare badly, if we ever get it built. Cyril Sweett's confidential report to culture secretary Tessa Jowell on the cost effectiveness of Wembley is believed to conclude that it is a match for the Stade de France, Stadium Australia and the cup final venue of the Millennium Stadium. The £300m pricetag is, on a cost per seat basis, virtually identical to the biggest of the Japanese stadiums – the £190m, 64,000-seat Saitama. On the other hand, Wembley would be double the price of the spectacular Arsenal ground, with only 30,000 more seats. It's also understood that financiers had been toying with a unique insurance package to cover cost overruns – which is understandable, given what happened at Cardiff, but hardly encouraging.

Since Jowell has not sanctioned the agreement, it's not too late to ask again whether we need a national stadium, and whether it should be in a rather inaccessible part of north-west London. Certainly, supporters of the Birmingham and Coventry bids have a case in crying foul over this week's missed deadline, even if it was caused by the local election purdah. Other circumstances have a bearing, too. First, Wembley is a target for terrorism. As the Corporation of London's chief planner Peter Rees pointed out at the recent international terror summit, landmarks are more at risk than skyscrapers. Second, with dozens of clubs facing extinction in the wake of the ITV Digital collapse, does the FA want to be seen splashing out £300m on Wembley?

So, to paraphrase that line, nobody involved in this game thinks it's all over. It's a good thing that Arup's blueprint for a London Olympics bid, which identifies Wembley as the main soccer venue, is for the 2012 games. The really galling thing for our industry is that, inexplicably, the Wembley fiasco is being seen as a construction failure – even though the design is wonderful, and Multiplex's first-class team of specialists haven't been allowed to turn a sod yet. We can only hope that the politicians, sports administrators and financiers clear off the pitch and let the contractors into the game. After what everyone's been through, constructing the new Wembley should be the easy bit. But then again, building football stadiums is a funny old game, Brian.