The Wembley Stadium shambles could have been avoided if a Midlands location had been chosen, lawyers have warned.

The predicted delay in handing over the complex is set to result in losses of more than £5 million and £45 million of legal claims.

However, two experts believe that many of the issues might not have developed had the Football Association looked beyond London and located the landmark stadium in the Midlands.

Michael Craik, construction partner at Birmingham and London law firm Martineau Johnson, points out that several high profile inner city developments have suffered similar problems because of their location.

Wembley developers Multiplex have been particularly hard hit.

Mr Craik said: "Access issues have been at the heart of the problems facing Multiplex since the inception of this project. Similar problems were encountered at other prestige developments including the Millennium Dome, Murrayfield Stadium and even the Scottish Parliament building, Holyrood.

"Such landmark schemes are always designed to be prominent statements and high profile locations are often preferred - however these bring with them transport issues and logistical problems.

"Despite the most prudent of scheduling by developers and liaison with highways agencies and local authorities, deliveries to these sites are more likely to be hindered in a busy urban environment.

"This then has a knock-on effect on the rest of the build programme and costs and delays begin to mount.

"A Midlands' greenfield site would have removed the problems of transporting materials in built-up areas and instead provided access via larger and often less congested roads such as the M42."

Richard Schmidt, commercial property partner at Martineau Johnson, was involved in the early stages of the Wembley development and says that there are lessons to be learned when planning for any major infrastructure project in the future.

He noted: "It appears that Multiplex has little more than the immediate land for development available to them. They have therefore had to negotiate access with surrounding land owners, arrangements which are not ideal.

"I would always advise developers to have surplus land at their disposal for accommodation works and for works access purposes.

"This land would have come at a premium in Wembley and, with the old Wembley Stadium company's plans to develop the entire area into an entertainment hub, for their part they would have wanted to relinquish as little of the land as possible.

"However the success of the stadium must be vital to the redevelopment of the area, and it may have been a wise investment all round to provide the extra land to facilitate a more problem-free results."

Developments of Wembley's scale also face limitations before work even begins, adds Mr Craik.

He said: "Large public projects are often procured too quickly, with incomplete designs and unrealistic cost estimates.

"Time needs to be invested in the early stages of a development to achieve realistic budgets and designs if we are to avoid this costly situation arising in future projects," he added.