Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

RFU reveals Twickenham 'masterplan' after rejecting Wembley switch

By PA
Twickenham/ PA

The Rugby Football Union is aiming to begin renovations of Twickenham in 2027 after rejecting a proposal to make Wembley the new home of English rugby.

ADVERTISEMENT

Buying a 50 per cent share in Wembley from the Football Association was considered by the RFU’s board in March last year before the idea was discounted without a formal approach to the FA being made.

“The RFU is focussed on continuing to develop Twickenham,” an RFU statement read.

“Previous considerations looking at the viability of moving to alternative sites have been rejected. We do not anticipate major stadium works starting before 2027.”

Video Spacer

TRY or NO TRY – Boks Office discuss Scotland vs France | RPTV

In the latest episode of Boks Office, the guys and special guest Matt Stevens chat about the late drama in the Six Nations clash between Scotland and France. Watch the full episode on RugbyPass TV now

Watch now

Video Spacer

TRY or NO TRY – Boks Office discuss Scotland vs France | RPTV

In the latest episode of Boks Office, the guys and special guest Matt Stevens chat about the late drama in the Six Nations clash between Scotland and France. Watch the full episode on RugbyPass TV now

Watch now

A 69-page document titled ‘Twickenham Stadium Masterplan Programme’, elements of which have been published in the media, outlines a £663million revamp of the ground that has been England’s home since it was built in 1909.

The report states that a renovation of that size is unaffordable but essential works could be completed for a cost in the region of £300million, which would still require a loan.

Related

Beginning the overhaul between the 2027 and 2028 Six Nations would minimise disruption due to the absence of an autumn schedule at Twickenham in a World Cup year.

“Our long-term masterplan for Twickenham is being developed to ensure England’s national rugby stadium stays up to date, is compliant with all relevant regulations, provides the best possible experiences for fans and continues to generate revenue for reinvestment into the community and professional game,” the RFU statement said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Work will be undertaken over the next 12 months to consider next stage designs and assess what interventions might take place and when within the existing stadium footprint over the next 10 years.

“The RFU board has not agreed any new re-development plans. However, as you would expect all options will be thoroughly considered as part of a long-term strategy.

“As plans are further developed, the RFU board and council will be fully consulted and engaged in the due diligence and approval process, this would include any potential funding sources.

“As per the RFU constitution, if borrowing of over £150m was needed, council members’ views and approval would be required.”

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 8 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

23 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Ex-Ireland wing brands Six Nations champs 'not that good an Irish side' Ex-Ireland wing brands Six Nations champs 'not that good'
Search