Do England need a home of their own?

Manchester United defender Gary Neville believes England are better off without Wembley and should continue to play internationals in club grounds around the country.

Is he right: or should the national team have a home of their own?

Speaking after England's 2-0 win over Albania at St James' Park, Neville claimed the reception for the England team has been far more supportive away from the Twin Towers.

"I've played on four or five of the grounds around the country now in the past 12 months and we have received great receptions," he said

"There were just too many cynical old England fans at Wembley. They were booing you if you didn't play well. I don't think we've missed Wembley one bit."

And, if there is to be a new national stadium, Neville feels it should be located in the middle of the country.

Do you agree with the England international; or the should the national team have a national stadium?

---

As someone who grew up in Coventry, I will never forget going to see them win the FA cup final. I do agree with Neville that games should be played around the country, there are some fine stadiums outside of London, but I believe also that a national side should have a base.

There was so much history in Wembley, not just for the fans, but for the players too. It was the site of England's greatest football triumph, and some of the best FA cup matches ever.
Phil Hallard, Australia

As the home of football, I feel it is imperative England has a National Stadium - a place to show the world the roots of football and to display it's history. I also believe it should be built in the middle of England to allow access to the whole country and not just the southern region.
Ian Rotchell, USA

We certainly do not need a national stadium. The England games have been a success played around the country and the FA Cup Final can stay at the Millennium Stadium - a far better arena than Wembley ever was or would be. Definitely do not go back to London!
Dave, England

Not having a national stadium works for other countries, and it seems to be working for us

Paul, UK

Neither Italy, Germany, Spain nor the USA have a national stadium, so why do we need one! As the 2006 World Cup is to go the Germany then there is no point building a stadium in hope of getting the 2014 or 2018 World Cup - we may as well wait until these are awarded. The biggest advocates of a London based stadium also appear to be London based supporters. For years us in the "Football Powerhouse" of the North have been forced to make endless trecks to the Capital to see England play in front of a crowd made up of 20,000 fans and 50,000 school children. Give the "national" team back to the nation and not the capital!
Craig, England

The country needs a national stadium, not just for football, but a stadium capable of hosting all sorts of world class events. However, it is good for the fans to be able to watch England play at other grounds.
Dan, UK

Not having a national stadium works for other countries, and it seems to be working for us. It is nice to have those special games in a completely neutral place though. It also seems a waste to just let Wembley rot away, and yes, if we do have a national stadium that's were it should be - in our country's capital.
Paul, UK

Why not both?

Paul, England

We should have a National Stadium and I believe it should be at Wembley. It is important to have a 'focal point' for English football, for future tournament bids and for cup finals. But why not also play one or two internationals each season at club grounds? There is no doubt that this has been a huge success, and it will give us the best of both worlds.
Ian Summers, UK

Though the atmosphere at games has been better with England 'on tour', if we are ever again to host a World Cup or European Championships, we need a national stadium. Maybe if ticket prices were lower and there was less corporate hospitality, the atmosphere at the new stadium would be better.
Dave, UK

Why not both? A centrally located National Stadium for qualifiers, with friendlies to be taken round the country, would be an ideal solution. Gary Neville is right though, never go back to Wembley.
Paul, England

I think having a national stadium is important, not only for identity for the team, but to create fear in the opposition when they play in a stadium where England always win (wishful thinking!)
Sam, England

The national team need a national stadium!!

Matthew Kennedy, England

Let's face it, Wembley was a shocking stadium according to modern standards and people are far too sentimental about it. Ground swapping is brilliant for fans, but a new stadium has to be in the Midlands - Why must EVERYTHING go to London?
Magnus McManus, UK

The national team need a national stadium!! A national stadium is a sort of identity where England need to play. Playing at various grounds such as Old Trafford is good at the moment but there is no buzz like going to Wembley to watch the F.A. Cup. It's the same with the players; they look forward to going to play in the national stadium. Without a national stadium England will loose their identity!
Matthew Kennedy, England

I don't think it's a coincidence that since England have gone on the road, their results and the support has been a lot better than it was at Wembley. Why not put the money that was meant for the new stadium into the lower leagues for teams that are struggling financially?
Steve, England

Yes I agree that the Internationals should be played around the country. It gives us fans in the North a chance to see England's games without travelling for four hours.
Ludo, UK