Going for a Burton? It's time for answers

December 19, 2007

National Football Centre:
The key questions

Nick Szczepanik

The FA could decide tomorrow whether to complete the National Football Centre (NFC) or abandon once and for all the scheme that was designed to set the England team on a level with rivals such as France, Germany and Italy. The early exit from Euro 2008 demonstrated what a false economy that would surely be.

The future of the centre, near Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire, is on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting of the FA board and although sources played down suggestions that a decision would be taken, it is understood that there is “a groundswell” of opinion against any further delay to a project that was first announced six years ago.

Four options will be considered, only one of which involves committing the estimated £40 million required to revive plans for the centre that was intended to serve as a training camp for England teams at all levels, as well as the base for the FA’s residential coaching development programme.

When Howard Wilkinson, then the FA technical director, presented the plans to the media in 2001, he said that one of its aims was “to produce the best coaches in the world” — something for the FA to bear in mind after the appointment of Fabio Capello as England manager, at a possible cost of £40 million should he remain in place until 2012.

“English coaches now feel there is a glass ceiling that they cannot break through, young players are not getting the opportunity to play top-class football, and we need the National Football Centre to address these long-term problems,” Wilkinson said this week.

What is the National Football Centre?

At the moment, not much more than a 350-acre site, with eight floodlit pitches laid out. Although some England youth teams have trained there, the original scheme envisaged a full-size indoor synthetic pitch, complete with video playback and ProZone facilities, 11 outdoor pitches, a gymnasium and indoor ball court and a centre for sports medicine, sports science and research. Accommodation and conference facilities for up to 300 people were also planned.

Why didn’t it happen?

The redevelopment of Wembley ate up a large amount of the FA’s funds and the scheme was put in mothballs in 2004. The FA decided last year not to proceed until the most appropriate strategy was decided upon.

What’s next?

The FA board will be presented with four scenarios by Jonathan Hill, the commercial director: proceed with the NFC as planned; build a scaled-down version; redevelop the site with a partner; or scrap the scheme entirely.

What is the likely outcome?

Knowing how committees work, an announcement will probably be delayed, with the second option likely to get the eventual nod. A final decision may be postponed until after the FA’s new, independent chairman is in place next year.

What will it cost?

The original planned expenditure was £50 million, which has since risen as high as £80 million according to some estimates; £20 million has already been spent on acquiring the land and laying out pitches. “If they can afford to pay Fabio Capello the sum of money that is being trotted out, they can afford to finish off the development site,” Sam Allardyce, the Newcastle United manager, said.

Why do we need it?

At the moment, there is no facility where England teams can train and coaching can be centralised. Coaches and teams lead a nomadic existence. England have been using club training grounds before international matches rather than having a permanent base.

Who else has such a facility?

Most other leading football nations. The best-known equivalent is Clairefontaine in France, which is credited with developing the coaches and players who won the 1998 World Cup and 2000 European Championship, and which served as the blueprint for the FA scheme.

Who is in favour of it?

Sir Trevor Brooking, the FA director of football development, who said that Burton is “certainly up there with anything else we’re going to do”. But he is backed by leading figures in the game, including Arsène Wenger, the Arsenal manager. “It is crucial,” he said. “You cannot imagine that in 2007 a federation of the size of England has no headquarters and no grounds to develop their whole football education.”

Who is against it?

Sir Dave Richards, the chairman of the Premier League, and Lord Mawhinney, the Football League chairman, who feel that club academies are already producing players and that the money would be better spent on regional or local centres of excellence.

Isn’t that true?

Academies owe their loyalties to individual clubs and do not work exclusively with English players. “The National Football Centre was not intended to be a replacement for club academies,” Wilkinson said. “That is misinformation spread about by who knows who. It was meant to be the headquarters of the development side of the FA.”

Would regional centres be better?

Additional satellite sites would not be ruled out. France has opened eight “mini Clairefontaines” around the country. “There are lots of options,” Brooking said. “Is it just a one-off and do you link it with the academies that are already out there? Or do you need a couple of regional centres, too, or more?”

A long drive to Wembley for the England team, isn’t it?

“I’m personally in favour of a National Football Centre but not necessarily at Burton,” David Sheepshanks, the Ipswich Town chairman and an FA board member, said. “I think it has to be nearer to Wembley.”

Wilkinson said: “I wouldn’t be personally offended if they want to change the place or the buildings. What matters is that we do something.”

Centre spread

2001: Year in which the site was bought by the FA

20m: Amount the FA has spent in acquiring the site, laying eight pitches and putting in floodlights

5m: Amount of money it might expect to recoup if the site was sold

350: Size of the site, in acres

20: Years since the French FA opened the doors of its national centre of excellence, in Clairefontaine. There are now another eight regional academies dotted around the country