^^ have you seen the ticket prices? Normal people can't afford those... oh and the stewards force you to sit down etc...

If the people wanted to protest at prices, there wouldn't be 60,000 at every game. Atmosphere, on TV at least, sounds no worse than 80% of stadiums in England. (Yeah, I get "real fans" have been priced out. My heart bleeds)

NemanjaR, I'm Serbian as well so I'm not offending Zvezda or Partizan, but whats the point of them having a great atmosphere for 1 home game a season? Say what you want about atmosphere at any English football ground, but I'm impressed by fans who show up every game - its what makes the EPL such a great league.

If the people wanted to protest at prices, there wouldn't be 60,000 at every game. Atmosphere, on TV at least, sounds no worse than 80% of stadiums in England. (Yeah, I get "real fans" have been priced out. My heart bleeds)

1. Because the 60,000 in the stadiums are those that generally can afford the prices. There are a lot of people who used to go to Arsenal who can't afford it nowadays, and a lot of fans have been banned from Arsenal they seem eager to get rid of "rougher" fans, all part of creating a classy image to attract the corporates me thinks...

2. There aren't 60,000 every game, Arsenal make up the attendance figures (or they declare tickets sold only). There have been quite a few games this season that have had below 55,000.

3. Yeah the atmosphere isn't that bad, then again we have the second biggest stadium so comparing us to stadiums with half the capacity and saying we're just like them isn't something to be proud of.

4. When did I say that "real fans" have been priced out, I said normal people.

NemanjaR, I'm Serbian as well so I'm not offending Zvezda or Partizan, but whats the point of them having a great atmosphere for 1 home game a season? Say what you want about atmosphere at any English football ground, but I'm impressed by fans who show up every game - its what makes the EPL such a great league.

I agree with this to a point.

However, if the English league lost all its best players before they turned 21 and our country only had 7 million people then i'd think crowds would be low too. That's why you guys desparately need the balkan league!

Also in England hardly any games are on television, 3-4 a week. How many are on TV in serbia?

Although showing apathy by not turning up and contributing income isn't going to bring the players back..

2. There aren't 60,000 every game, Arsenal make up the attendance figures (or they declare tickets sold only). There have been quite a few games this season that have had below 55,000.

So its like at Ajax? Season tickets are included. No matter if they attend or not?!?

So its like at Ajax? Season tickets are included. No matter if they attend or not?!?

Exactly, it's based on the amount of tickets sold as opposed to those that attend. I've always had a major gripe with this as the announcement is always "Today's/Tonight's attendance is....."

Really grinds my gears considering the stadium uses smart card technology that should be a doddle to count. Although in saying that I had major problems getting in recently to the United game where my card had somehow become cancelled even though they had no problem selling me the match ticket on that card number:bash:

@ Sercan, yep, I think it was ARsenal-Everton when it snowed and there were loads of empty seats quite clearly and the fans sort of laughed when the announcer read out the crowd as 60,000+...

@ Gavstar that annoys me too, but it's better than old days when they apparently used to knock 5,000 of the gate... did you get in or a refund?

The average attendance stat should be changed to the average tickets sold stat... or actually publish average attendance...

@ Gavstar that annoys me too, but it's better than old days when they apparently used to knock 5,000 of the gate... did you get in or a refund?

Got in eventually but not before being sheparded to different entrances (five in total) before a blazing row and some steward finally seeing sense and scanning me through on his own card. I still missed the first ten minutes of the game mind you!

One thing I will say is where our seats were (behind the Goal at the north end lower tier, five rows from the front) pretty much everyone was standing which I must admit was far better than the usual seating. What I'd recommend to anyone who complains about the atomosphere at the ground is that they try to get seats here as close to the RedAction boys as this is where you really get the true feeling for the supporters and what it's like to be a Gooner.

As for the Club Level suits who probably squeeze in 70 mins of the matches given the leaving and arriving 5 mins after kick off/before half/after half time and before the end? I won't even get started:ohno:

^^ have you seen the ticket prices? Normal people can't afford those... oh and the stewards force you to sit down etc...

That's the argument here in America. Modern ticket prices are too high for the average fan.

There is not a thread on this, but it a simple question and thought you might know, what language do teams speak?

I ask because what happens with a club like Bayern Munich? You have players from Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Holland, Ukraine, Belgium and Argentina. All have their own native language. Is German the language because they play in the Bundesliga?

What would have if you had a player come in on loan who could not understand the language the team spoke?

what's the average ticket price for the lowest category?

£33 for category B, £48 for Category A against West ham, Spurs, chelsea, man u and liverpool

http://www.arsenal.com/membership/buy-tickets

Got in eventually but not before being sheparded to different entrances (five in total) before a blazing row and some steward finally seeing sense and scanning me through on his own card. I still missed the first ten minutes of the game mind you!

that doesn't matter fergie time isn't until after the last minute...

One thing I will say is where our seats were (behind the Goal at the north end lower tier, five rows from the front) pretty much everyone was standing which I must admit was far better than the usual seating. What I'd recommend to anyone who complains about the atomosphere at the ground is that they try to get seats here as close to the RedAction boys as this is where you really get the true feeling for the supporters and what it's like to be a Gooner.

Easier said than done (prices), although I have heard that redAction are a bunch of mugs sucking up to the club for a few crumbs...

The problem is and always be that you are more likely too sing when with a group of mates or people that sing, strength in numbers etc, people deride singing sections but that essentially was what parts of terracing was!

As for the Club Level suits who probably squeeze in 70 mins of the matches given the leaving and arriving 5 mins after kick off/before half/after half time and before the end? I won't even get started:ohno:

tbf if there are enough seats for normal fans I could care less about the corporates afterall they bring in a lot of revenue to the sport whether they watch the game or not!
That's the argument here in America. Modern ticket prices are too high for the average fan.

but here it's because stadiums are too small and lack terracing (and small clubs have to charge similar prices just to compete). Not because teams have a virtual monopoly on their "markets".

There is not a thread on this, but it a simple question and thought you might know, what language do teams speak?

I ask because what happens with a club like Bayern Munich? You have players from Germany, France, Italy, Turkey, Holland, Ukraine, Belgium and Argentina. All have their own native language. Is German the language because they play in the Bundesliga?

What would have if you had a player come in on loan who could not understand the language the team spoke?

Wenger insists everyone speaks English, most players speak it pretty well...

£33 for category B, £48 for Category A against West ham, Spurs, chelsea, man u and liverpool

http://www.arsenal.com/membership/buy-tickets

Is it cheap?
36€-53€ against big clubs.

At GS you pay 15€-38€ (cheapest ones) :ohno:

Offtopic: In Germany everbofy has to learn german. Actually therefore most coaches are german or from holland

Is it cheap?
36€-53€ against big clubs.

No against small clubs

it's £33-£66 for normal games, and £48-£93 against our big 5 rivals. I dunno about champions league probably the same, season tickets start at around £900 and go up to £5,000 or something. It's a joke, the tickets are cheap for the carling cup though £5-10 etc, but then Wenger plays the youth team...

They say it's the price we pay for living in London, but most of the city isn't rich...

At GS you pay 15€-38€ (cheapest ones) :ohno:

They seem expensive for turkey?

Offtopic: In Germany everbofy has to learn german. Actually therefore most coaches are german or from holland

That's a good thing, I don't like the way the premier league isn't not an "english/welsh" league anymore.

Yes, very expensive at the big clubs. Especially when you consider that a german or english earns 35,000 USD per year and a Turk just 13,000 USD / year.

In Turkey nobody has to learn turkish. Everbody speaks englsh or german (or at GS french)


I have to say that i am a lil bit surprise that the real average attendance is not 60k.
Maybe because of the bad years?

I think it was the weather this season (when it snowed a lot, London was hard to get around), although not all the time, earlier in the season I think people just gave up, paying top dollar to not watch the top team. It only started to become noticeable this season with big empty gaps.

What percentage of revenue to galatasaray make from thei rstadium? Arsena make more from the emirates than from TV... do they share TV revenue in turkey, are all games on TV?

GS's stadium income is 23 mil USD :D
In the new stadium it will be 50mil Euro.


TV income is shared, but clubs who became champion get more.
So GS and FB (both 17 title) get 22 mil. USD this year.
Next year it will rise to 45 Mil. USD (not including UEFA and Cup macthes).

So at GS TV is more while at FB stadiums is / was more (Stadium income at FB is 40 mil. USD)

No against small clubs

it's £33-£66 for normal games, and £48-£93 against our big 5 rivals. I dunno about champions league probably the same, season tickets start at around £900 and go up to £5,000 or something. It's a joke, the tickets are cheap for the carling cup though £5-10 etc, but then Wenger plays the youth team...

They say it's the price we pay for living in London, but most of the city isn't rich...



They seem expensive for turkey?



That's a good thing, I don't like the way the premier league isn't not an "english/welsh" league anymore.

Are there teams in EPL that don't have English as their language spoken on the pitch?


How do the London teams fare as far as TV ratings?

In order, how would you rank the current first league London clubs in terms of popularity?

^^1. None, wouldn't happen... oh yeah don't say EPL, it's just the premier league...

2. I dunno, only 138 of 380 games are televised in England and Wales, for two reasons: to protect match attendance by making people go to games and because scarcity creates demand/value. Our TV rights are worth more than anyone elses because we televise only big games (and they don't clash so everyone can watch them), then we share the money with all the teams more equally than anyone else. Televising some games actually takes value from them!

3. In the top four divisions, it goes: Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, West Ham, Crystal Palace, Charlton, Millwall, QPR, Fulham, Brentford, Leyton Orient, Barnet, Dagenham & Redbridge

GS's stadium income is 23 mil USD :D
In the new stadium it will be 50mil Euro.

not too bad, will you fill it every game?


TV income is shared, but clubs who became champion get more.
So GS and FB (both 17 title) get 22 mil. USD this year.
Next year it will rise to 45 Mil. USD (not including UEFA and Cup macthes).

double? And no wonder no one else can win the title when you give more money to champions.

So at GS TV is more while at FB stadiums is / was more (Stadium income at FB is 40 mil. USD)

fair enough

Yes. TV income is this year 140 Mil USD (Whole league!!!)
2010-2014 it will be 321 Mil USD / year.
2014-2015 it will be 385 Mil USD / year.

Yes its true. But still better than Spain or Italy. Actually even in the EPL only 3-4 teams can be champion.

Yes its true. But still better than Spain or Italy. Actually even in the EPL only 3-4 teams can be champion.At least this is not because the league itself fosters unfair policies, but is rather the result of 1) extreme outside investment and, 2) over-leveraging (for now) by already wealthy clubs. If all clubs were operating on their own regular finances then there would be even more opportunities for the likes of Villa and Everton. In Spain Madrid and Barca command a lion's share of the TV revenue making real competition near impossible.

This is why it's so frustrating to see any football club struggle, let alone one with Premiership money - The delusions of grandeur that cause them to spend beyond their means is an insult to those aware of how much they're already making!

At least this is not because the league itself fosters unfair policies

Huh? Half of the PL's TV money is dependent upon television appearances and prize one (i.e. where you finish in the League). The top earning club from TV income makes about 80% more than the bottom earning one; that’s tens of millions. Consider that over the many seasons... (Together with CL's money)

1) extreme outside investment and, 2) over-leveraging (for now) by already wealthy clubs. If all clubs were operating on their own regular finances then there would be even more opportunities for the likes of Villa and Everton. In Spain Madrid and Barca command a lion's share of the TV revenue making real competition near impossible.

Nope, if clubs could only spend within their means then Man Utd and Arsenal would be far ahead of the rest because they actually make decent profits. Villa for example make a loss (Learner is basically a private bank for them. He has loaned them money but they're paying it back with £1.8m worth of interest payments) and Everton make a tiny profit. Liverpool would be there if they had a cash cow stadium. Spurs make (i think) the 4th largest profits, but without CL's income they're a bit behind. Chelsea make a loss, but that is because their wage bill is about £45m greater than the next largest. Equalising all TV revenue and sponsorship would make things more competitive. Match day income and merchandise should be enough for the clubs to keep for themselves

Huh? Half of the PL's TV money is dependent upon television appearances and prize one (i.e. where you finish in the League). The top earning club from TV income makes about 80% more than the bottom earning one; that’s tens of millions. Consider that over the many seasons... (Together with CL's money)a) Payouts for the 07/08 season gave the top amount of £49.3M to ManU and the bottom amount of £29.1M to Derby. And, to the best of my knowledge, this does not include international broadcast contracts, which are shared more evenly. It is a large gap and is no where near the ideal near-equal distribution I regularly champion here and elsewhere, but it's a far sight better than in Italy and Spain where clubs manage their own rights deals. Bottom line - Under the collective marketing arrangement the bigger clubs are making less than they could individually while the smaller clubs are making a lot more.

b) Yes, the Champion's League payouts exacerbate the problem, but that's a UEFA issue and not a Premiership matter.
Nope, if clubs could only spend within their means then Man Utd and Arsenal would be far ahead of the rest because they actually make decent profits. Villa for example make a loss (Learner is basically a private bank for them. He has loaned them money but they're paying it back with £1.8m worth of interest payments) and Everton make a tiny profit. Liverpool would be there if they had a cash cow stadium. Spurs make (i think) the 4th largest profits, but without CL's income they're a bit behind. Chelsea make a loss, but that is because their wage bill is about £45m greater than the next largest. While I agree the TV money should be split evenly the fact that some teams are in financial straits boils down to mismanagement. Maybe not to Pompey or Leeds-like level of debt, but the failure of other decently sized clubs to find fair profits considering a minimum £30M in revenues is more their own fault, not that of the league's. Even as a Gooner I respect what s**** have done to maintain their fiscal viability, and most fans agree what's been holding them back has been weak transfer maneuvers and suspect coaching. Meanwhile, that Chelski and Citeh are allowed to spend their "daddies'" money (further stratifying wage rates and exaggerating the club-caste system) is a fault of the fiscal management rules and not a TV monies distribution matter.

Again, I'm not saying the Premiership model is ideal but it is much better than the La Liga or Serie A options, hands down.

Huh? Half of the PL's TV money is dependent upon television appearances and prize one (i.e. where you finish in the League). The top earning club from TV income makes about 80% more than the bottom earning one; that’s tens of millions. Consider that over the many seasons... (Together with CL's money)

exactly it's stupid

Nope, if clubs could only spend within their means then Man Utd and Arsenal would be far ahead of the rest because they actually make decent profits. Villa for example make a loss (Learner is basically a private bank for them. He has loaned them money but they're paying it back with £1.8m worth of interest payments) and Everton make a tiny profit. Liverpool would be there if they had a cash cow stadium. Spurs make (i think) the 4th largest profits, but without CL's income they're a bit behind. Chelsea make a loss, but that is because their wage bill is about £45m greater than the next largest. Equalising all TV revenue and sponsorship would make things more competitive. Match day income and merchandise should be enough for the clubs to keep for themselves

by merchandise what are we talking here, club mugs or shirts?

I ask because shirt deals aren't merchandising deals they are sponsorship deals, nike pay Manchester United for brand association as much as there kit sales.

As far as i'm aware a lot of kit deals are fixed contracts not linked to sales. I'd reckon at least 50% of the money paid is to have the swoosh linked to the man u, Arsenal or barcelona brand, so barca claiming they no shirt sponsor is funny. Iirc Barca even got given a bonus by nike last season for winning the treble.

That's the reason it should collective. Match day income I agree with although I have ideas with regards to that.

a) Payouts for the 07/08 season gave the top amount of £49.3M to ManU and the bottom amount of £29.1M to Derby. And, to the best of my knowledge, this does not include international broadcast contracts, which are shared more evenly. It is a large gap and is no where near the ideal near-equal distribution I regularly champion here and elsewhere, but it's a far sight better than in Italy and Spain where clubs manage their own rights deals. Bottom line - Under the collective marketing arrangement the bigger clubs are making less than they could individually while the smaller clubs are making a lot more.

I disagree with that, the big clubs are making less in the short term than they could. In the long term they are ensuring the stability of revenue by making sure they don't kill their product.

Serie A has put the breaks on before it's too late, the big la liga clubs (read Barca and Real) are praying for a European super league to save them.

b) Yes, the Champion's League payouts exacerbate the problem, but that's a UEFA issue and not a Premiership matter.

That would be true if these competitions weren't interlinked. UEFA isn's an island that only cares about itself and nor should it be.

While I agree the TV money should be split evenly the fact that some teams are in financial straits boils down to mismanagement. Maybe not to Pompey or Leeds-like level of debt, but the failure of other decently sized clubs to find fair profits considering a minimum £30M in revenues is more their own fault, not that of the league's.

That's rubbish

The system is set up to encourage gambling, what about that can't you see. If you are prudent you fall behind. Every club who builds a new stadium falls off what ever pace they were at. Hardly anyone lives within their means and those that do can achieve their intermediate goals by doing so. Arsenal for instance can easily come top four living within our means so there is no reason to gamble. Football is a sport, and sport is about doing the best you can within the rules and if the rules allow or even in encourage you to gamble that's what teams will do.

Even as a Gooner I respect what s**** have done to maintain their fiscal viability, and most fans agree what's been holding them back has been weak transfer maneuvers and suspect coaching. Meanwhile, that Chelski and Citeh are allowed to spend their "daddies'" money (further stratifying wage rates and exaggerating the club-caste system) is a fault of the fiscal management rules and not a TV monies distribution matter.

Erm according to David Conn the spurs (it's ok you can say the word) owners made a rights issue. They are nowhere near as well run as people making them out to be, but when you can disguise owners injections behind increasing the paper value of the club you can make even a fool think they're well run.

Anyway it's the fault of both, TV distribution is bad and the fiscal management rules allow the teams to try and bridge that any which way. They aren't mutually exclusive problems

Again, I'm not saying the Premiership model is ideal but it is much better than the La Liga or Serie A options, hands down.

NO shit sherlock... :lol:

Oh and on TV Serie A's deal will be collective from next season, but more like England however instead of appearances on TV the teams with the highest TV ratings will get more.

But TV ratings is a rubbish criteria as bigger teams will always rate higher. Basically what needs to be done is to cut the amount of games on TV and share all money. In Europe we haven't got the population for each team to have all their games on television and it not effect attendances. Simple fact is that Serie A, La liga, the bundesliga, the premier league, super liga whatever would be better off have 3-4 games on TV each week, independent of the normal schedule. Scarcity creates demand, i'm sure if every premier league game was on TV our contract would barely increase as all that would happen is the TV audience would be spread out amongst more games and whatever increase would be offset by a reduction in match day revenue.

Just how much value is hthre in televising Siena vs Chievo when it's going head to head with 6 other games on a Sunday. It drags match attendance down and also only fans of the clubs actually watch the game aka fans who would go to the game it wasn't on TV. TV companies pay pittance for the privilege so it's ultimately pointless but they do it because if they don't they know that those fans would just watch other TV games, that's why the premier league's 1500 black out is a sensible policy (they just need to make it world wide to defeat streaming).

Put it this way the lowest crowd in the premier league this season was Wigan vs Fulham, I don't think there is any doubt that if that was available on TV instead of the 14,000 there there would've been under 10,000 maybe even 5,000. My point is that collectively selling rights isnt enough you need to limit the supply of the TV product too. Mark my words TV will eventually centralise the fan base into a few clubs ripe and ready for a European super league.

random rant

a) Payouts for the 07/08 season gave the top amount of £49.3M to ManU and the bottom amount of £29.1M to Derby. And, to the best of my knowledge, this does not include international broadcast contracts, which are shared more evenly. It is a large gap and is no where near the ideal near-equal distribution I regularly champion here and elsewhere, but it's a far sight better than in Italy and Spain where clubs manage their own rights deals. Bottom line - Under the collective marketing arrangement the bigger clubs are making less than they could individually while the smaller clubs are making a lot more.

b) Yes, the Champion's League payouts exacerbate the problem, but that's a UEFA issue and not a Premiership matter


Right, so 20 out of 29 is 66.6%, so i was over 13% off. Still is significant and don't forget that has now grown in a absolute sense because TV rights have increased but the relative distribution is the same (so in absolute terms the gap increases)

International rights are currently collectively distributed, but they're worth a third of domestic rights (although it will increase). There are rumours that when internet TV takes off due to increased broadband width the biggest clubs want overseas rights sold individually whilst sweetening the deal by equalising the domestic slice further (it is apparently the reason the Yanks have brought Utd and Pool).

Bigbossman is right Serie A now sells its rights collectively. It is split 40-30-30 (the PL is 50-25-25). Ligue 1 and the Bundesliga are also collective iirc (not sure how their income is broken down to clubs). Basically Spain is now an anomaly amongst the big boys (and Barca hinted they might have to go collective).

Btw Murdoch and Sky are now becoming the dominant sports TV outlet in Europe. Sky Italia and Sky Deutschland hold rights to Serie A and the Bundesliga. Add the PL and it means Newscorp (which owns half of the 3 Skys) is the supplier of the 3 largest football league rights. It seems 'Sky' will become the first truly pan-European TV broadcaster during this decade (the German logo is identical to here)

While I agree the TV money should be split evenly the fact that some teams are in financial straits boils down to mismanagement. Maybe not to Pompey or Leeds-like level of debt, but the failure of other decently sized clubs to find fair profits considering a minimum £30M in revenues is more their own fault, not that of the league's. Even as a Gooner I respect what s**** have done to maintain their fiscal viability, and most fans agree what's been holding them back has been weak transfer maneuvers and suspect coaching. Meanwhile, that Chelski and Citeh are allowed to spend their "daddies'" money (further stratifying wage rates and exaggerating the club-caste system) is a fault of the fiscal management rules and not a TV monies distribution matter.

Again, I'm not saying the Premiership model is ideal but it is much better than the La Liga or Serie A options, hands down.

I don’t agree and I think you're missing my point a bit. You argued that the PL would be more competitive if clubs were living within their means. But how can that be when Man Utd and Arsenal make a comfortable profit, yet Villa make a loss and Everton something like £6m pre-tax and pre-transfer fee profits? Spurs are in debt as well, between £40-80m. Chelsea may have Roman to thank for their current situation, but they have the third highest income and aren't that far off Arsenal (mostly to do with more prize money and TV appearances). It's their £145m a year wage bill which causes them to make a loss (it’s about 40% higher than Man Utd's FFS). Even if you got rid of the sugar daddies (which I totally agree with) the gap between the top 4 and the rest would still be large. In fact it would be larger because they borrow to compete with them. I'm afraid it is the fault of TV money; ownership is another matter but also important

by merchandise what are we talking here, club mugs or shirts?

I ask because shirt deals aren't merchandising deals they are sponsorship deals, nike pay Manchester United for brand association as much as there kit sales.

As far as i'm aware a lot of kit deals are fixed contracts not linked to sales. I'd reckon at least 50% of the money paid is to have the swoosh linked to the man u, Arsenal or barcelona brand, so barca claiming they no shirt sponsor is funny. Iirc Barca even got given a bonus by nike last season for winning the treble.

That's the reason it should collective. Match day income I agree with although I have ideas with regards to that.

I mean anything the club has to develop itself to sell; the product, marketing team, etc. I agree that shirts are handled almost exclusively by the manufacture; clubs get a fat fee but Nike and co. deal with the details. Isn't there a split with sales though (although weighted in favour of the manufacture)?

Erm according to David Conn the spurs (it's ok you can say the word) owners made a rights issue. They are nowhere near as well run as people making them out to be, but when you can disguise owners injections behind increasing the paper value of the club you can make even a fool think they're well run.

Eh?

You do realise that it is impossible to "disguise" rights issues, I hope?

They are regulated by the Stock Exchange.

Besides, the rights issue to which you are referring had nothing to do with ordinary trading operations. The £15 million that was raised was specifically earmarked as part payment for the £65 million or so that Spurs have spent over the past three or four years both on the professional fees associated with their new stadium project and on buying all the properties on the site of the proposed new stadium.

So, quite the opposite of your claim, Spurs are even better run than "people make them out to be". They have managed to post whopping big operating profits year on year despite spending a net £50 million on property over the past few years.

^^ I meant disguise to gunnerjacket and people who don't look at what's actually happening, those that just see club in the black and think that's it. I know you didn't think I thought that otherwise how would I have known they did that? Tbf I don't know how you would even have got that from my post...

Iirc the latest profit figures were solely down to the sales of Robbie keane and Berbatov were that not?

And before then you were spending nowhere near what you are spending now, I'd imagine your accounts in the upcoming years won't look too clever especially if you fail to qualify for the champions league.

On the rights issue I was unaware what it was to do with, but David Conn when pressed about how well run Spurs were on a radio interview said he was unsure because there had been a rights issue. He didn't seem too confident on how well Spurs were run (after singing the praises of Arsenal), I put two and two together. Although like I said it will be a while before the effects of Hurricane Harry manifest themselves.

^^ I meant disguise to gunnerjacket and people who don't look at what's actually happening.

The latest profit figures were solely down to the sales of Robbie keane and Berbatov were that not?

And before then you were spending nowhere near what you were spending now, I'd imagine your accounts in the upcoming years won't look to clever if you fail to qualify for the champions league.

When talking about football finances, there are two profit figures that you have to consider: profit before player trading and profit after player trading.

Profit before player trading is the more important figure of the two. It is the figure that can tell the observer whether or not a club is a viable financial entity. If a club is making a profit before player trading, it means that that club has its costs (and especially its wage bill) under control, relative to its income. That's where the likes of Pompey, Leeds et al went so badly wrong. They let their costs spiral out of control.

Spurs have a wage bill that is always at or around the recommended 50% of turnover mark and they have reported substantial operating profits for many years now - usually in the region of £25-£35 million over the past four years or so. So you can be quite certain that Spurs' business model is very robust.

Player trading is another matter altogether. If Spurs can afford to buy new players, they will. If they can't, they won't. Simple as that.

The crucial thing is to keep costs under control.

So I wouldn't be holding my breath if I was you. Barring bizarre or unforeseen circumstances, Spurs are not going to find themselves in financial difficulty any time soon - regardless of whether or not they ever qualify for the Champions League.

On the rights issue I was unaware what it was to do with, but David Conn when pressed about how well run Spurs were on a radio interview said he was unsure because there had been a rights issue. He didn't seem too confident on how well Spurs were run (after singing the praises of Arsenal), I put two and two together. Although like I said it will be a while before the effects of Hurricane Harry manifest themselves.

Who is David Conn? Never heard of him.

Sounds to me as though he doesn't know his subject too well. At least, he certainly doesn't know Spurs too well.

As I said, that rights issue (which raised £15 million) was well publicized and was specifically targeted towards the costs of the new stadium project.

Who is David Conn? Never heard of him.

Sounds to me as though he doesn't know his subject too well. At least, he certainly doesn't know Spurs too well.

As I said, that rights issue (which raised £15 million) was well publicized and was specifically targeted towards the costs of the new stadium project.

He said he hadn't looked into spurs', he just knew there had been a rights issue.

Anyway he's sports journalist of the year or he was. Got the guardian banned from Leeds united, has written two critically acclaimed books on football finance/politics. Writes a blog for the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidconn

I'm suprised you haven't heard of him, he's one of the biggest cheerleaders for greater regulation and more greater sharing of football's wealth.

When talking about football finances, there are two profit figures that you have to consider: profit before player trading and profit after player trading.

Profit before player trading is the more important figure of the two. It is the figure that can tell the observer whether or not a club is a viable financial entity. If a club is making a profit before player trading, it means that that club has its costs (and especially its wage bill) under control, relative to its income. That's where the likes of Pompey, Leeds et al went so badly wrong. They let their costs spiral out of control.

That's the point, I was under the impression you didn't make a profit before player trading.

BTW I'm well aware how business works so quit the patronisation attempts!

Spurs have a wage bill that is always at or around the recommended 50% of turnover mark and they have reported substantial operating profits for many years now - usually in the region of £25-£35 million over the past four years or so. So you can be quite certain that Spurs' business model is very robust.

Player trading is another matter altogether. If Spurs can afford to buy new players, they will. If they can't, they won't. Simple as that.

The crucial thing is to keep costs under control.

So I wouldn't be holding my breath if I was you. Barring bizarre or unforeseen circumstances, Spurs are not going to find themselves in financial difficulty any time soon - regardless of whether or not they ever qualify for the Champions League.

A couple of points, all you know is how the business model was. They could've been operating totally differently since the last set of accounting information was published (I'm not saying they are).

Also this is the information I have on Tottenham last season

Tottenham Hotspur

Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008


Ownership 82% owned by Enic International Limited, registered in the Bahamas, a tax haven. Chairman Daniel Levy an d family own 29.41% of Enic. The controlling owner is Joe Lewis, resident in the Bahamas.


Turnover £114.7m (up from £103.1m the previous year, an increase of 11.34%)

Gate and match-day £28.6m

TV and broadcasting £40.3m

Sponsorship and corporate hospitality £27.8m

Merchandising £9.7m

Commercial activities £8.3m


Wage bill £52.9m (up from £43.8m in 2007, an increase of 20.8%)

Wages as proportion of turnover 46%


Profit before tax £3m

Debts £65m

Interest payable £3.95m

Highest paid director Daniel Levy: £1m


State they're in Fifth highest turnover in the Premier League, but Spurs have serially failed to convert that financial power into consistent performances on the field. They can be expected to keep traditionally high-spending manager, Harry Redknapp, happy by handing him funds again this summer. In a bid to propel the club towards the top four, Spurs plan to build a new White Hart Lane with 58,000 seats with a scheme including a supermarket, hotel, leisure, retail, and 450 apartments. They declared a dividend of 4p per share last year, which meant the club paid £2.5m to Enic, the holding company owned by Daniel Levy and Joe Lewis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

who is your debt to?
And I'd like to know how a 25 million operating profit boils down to a 3 million profit before tax? Or where you got the figure from?

He said he hadn't looked into spurs', he just knew there had been a rights issue.

Anyway he's sports journalist of the year or he was. Got the guardian banned from Leeds united, has written two critically acclaimed books on football finance/politics. Writes a blog for the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/davidconn

I'm suprised you haven't heard of him, he's one of the biggest cheerleaders for greater regulation and more greater sharing of football's wealth.

He may well have been sports journalist of the year but it's a bit silly or ignorant of him to suggest that last year's £15 million rights issue means that Spurs' finances aren't as healthy as they seem.

It's pretty basic stuff. Not something that a journalist with his specialist subject should get so badly wrong.

As to "Hurricane Harry", don't make the mistake of confusing Daniel Levy with any of the amateurs who were in charge of any of Harry's previous clubs. Whatever accusations may legitimately be levelled at Levy, being a fool when it comes to money is not one of them. Levy will continue to keep a very tight rein on the purse strings.

Since taking charge at Spurs, and despite a big spend in January of last year (when Spurs were desperately fighting the threat of relegation), Harry's net spend in the transfer market is only a little over £20 million. That's well within Spurs' spending capacity, given that they generally post profits before player trading of about £30 million per annum.

He may well have been sports journalist of the year but it's a bit silly or ignorant of him to suggest that last year's £15 million rights issue means that Spurs' finances aren't as healthy as they seem.

It's pretty basic stuff. Not something that a journalist with his specialist subject should get so badly wrong.

I never said he suggested that, he was asked if Spurs were well run and he couldn't give an answer just to say they've had a rights issue and he needed to look deeper (he spends/has spent a lot of his time mulling over Leeds, MAn u, Liverpool, Pompey, he only recently got round to Aston Villa in which he found out villa are paying Randy Lerner interest on the soft loans he is giving them). I incorrectly took from that that he was inferring that the rights issue meant that Joe Lewis was pumping money in to "disguise" the losses. As your situation does seem improbable given the size of your stadium and the fact you don't play champions league football.

I was wrong I can admit that.

As to "Hurricane Harry", don't make the mistake of confusing Daniel Levy with any of the amateurs who were in charge of any of Harry's previous clubs. Whatever accusations may legitimately be levelled at Levy, being a fool when it comes to money is not one of them. Levy will continue to keep a very tight rein on the purse strings.

Since taking charge at Spurs, and despite a big spend in January of last year (when Spurs were desperately fighting the threat of relegation), Harry's net spend in the transfer market is only a little over £20 million. That's well within Spurs' spending capacity, given that they generally post profits before player trading of about £30 million per annum.

Fair enough, we shall see. I hope for your sake Levy isn't stupid and doesn't panic at the site of Manchester city...

That's the point, I was under the impression you didn't make a profit before player trading.

BTW I'm well aware how business works so quit the patronisation attempts!



A couple of points, all you know is how the business model was. They could've been operating totally differently since the last set of accounting information was published (I'm not saying they are).

Also this is the information I have on Tottenham last season

No attempt to patronize. Just to educate, since you clearly (and understandably) didn't know the facts about Spurs. I would expect no less of you if I had written an inaccurate assessment of Arsenal's finances.

As to Spurs operating "totally differently" in the few months since they reported on 2008-09 in November, I'm not sure what you mean. Operating "totally differently" how?

More to the point, why would they suddenly do this?

Rather clutching at straws, don't you think?

No attempt to patronize. Just to educate, since you clearly (and understandably) didn't know the facts about Spurs. I would expect no less of you if I had written an inaccurate assessment of Arsenal's finances.

fair enough

As to Spurs operating "totally differently" in the few months since they reported on 2008-09 in November, I'm not sure what you mean. Operating "totally differently" how?

More to the point, why would they suddenly do this?

Rather clutching at straws, don't you think?

Tbf I didn't know you had reported (I have heard nothing about your latest accounts, but heard loads about other teams), but Novembers accounts don't include this summer, no? Maybe I am clutching at straws...

anyway you seem to think I want you guys to fail, not at all. We need you as much as you need us and I want the derby to be relevant on all fronts which in my life time or at least since i've been following football (1993ish) it has been so all to rarely.

Not that i want you to win mind!!

That's the point, I was under the impression you didn't make a profit before player trading.

BTW I'm well aware how business works so quit the patronisation attempts!



A couple of points, all you know is how the business model was. They could've been operating totally differently since the last set of accounting information was published (I'm not saying they are).

Also this is the information I have on Tottenham last season



http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jun/03/english-premier-league-debt

who is your debt to?
And I'd like to know how a 25 million operating profit boils down to a 3 million profit before tax? Or where you got the figure from?

The debt will be shared between:

Clubs to whom we still owe money as part of normal staged payments for players we have signed.

Money borrowed for the building of the new £30 million training ground and academy.

Money borrowed for the purchase of properties on the new stadium site.

As to how a £30 million (in 2007-08) operating profit can become a £3 million profit before tax, as I said in my earlier post, operating profit does not include player trading.

fair enough



Tbf I didn't know you had reported (I have heard nothing about your latest accounts, but heard loads about other teams), but Novembers accounts don't include this summer, no? Maybe I am clutching at straws...

anyway you seem to think I want you guys to fail, not at all. We need you as much as you need us and I want the derby to be relevant on all fronts which in my life time or at least since i've been following football (1993ish) it has been so all to rarely.

Not that i want you to win mind!!

Spurs have their financial year end on June 30th. The accounts are usually published in late October / early November. So yes, it would be correct to say that the accounts published in November did not include any of Spurs' player purchases or sales during July and August.

Interim results are calculated for the period between June 30th and December 31st. And Spurs should be publishing their interim accounts within the next month.

I agree with you about the rest. It would be great if the NLD was more relevant. Better still if Spurs could win....occasionally, at least!

Anyway, that's more than enough discussion about Spurs on this thread. I'll leave it in peace!

And are there allready any planns to fill up the corners from the second ring as I said they should?:nuts:

The Emirates was nice and loud for the first leg against Barcelona.

How would Arsenal fans rate Henry? Do they miss him? He got a nice ovation when he came in.

The ovation was nowhere near the one Beckham got at Old Trafford, but considering Barcelona were leading, it was the first leg and the tie was still up for grabs it's not surprising.

I didn't see the end of the match but I heard the whole ground got up for him after the final whistle which must've been nice.

Good idea of LDN_EUROPE to edit his original post of this thread with pics of the finished article.

I've been looking all over the internet for the distance between the pitch and the stand behind Emirates goals. Does anyone in here know how big the gap is?

Not sure what the distance is, but I do know that if Arsenal ever need it (and I think they will eventually), the ends could be brought forward closer to the pitch to give the Emirates a capacity of 70,000. Hope I'm not talking crap because I read that from some official source!

Not sure what the distance is, but I do know that if Arsenal ever need it (and I think they will eventually), the ends could be brought forward closer to the pitch to give the Emirates a capacity of 70,000. Hope I'm not talking crap because I read that from some official source!Then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you on that one. Not only have past resources indicated the site cannot go any lower for risk of damaging utility lines one one sort, but simply digging down to add seats would in theory ruin the views from that lower tier, which already seems shallow enough. Then even if they could do that, I HIGHLY doubt they could get 10k seats out of such a manuever.

Nothing personal, but as a Gooner and stadium afficianado I'm looking for clarity. The closest to an official suggestion for expansion feasibility said they could add seats to the upper tier, at something amassing to roughly 1,000 seats per row added all around. I've offered my own thoughts on design possibilities throughout, as have others. The near consensus is that while expansion is possible it will likely be costly enough that they'll only be able to do a single effort, and therefore it would have to be sizable. My money is on an expansion around 3 sides, leaving the south end as untouched as possible to retain the best light and air-flow available for the pitch.

But I'm all for anything that adds capacity AND character! :cheers:

Up to date exterior pics.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4685075669_f8bbb57ab0_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/natureseyes/4685075669/

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/stadia_arsenal_682x_113599a.jpg

I've been looking all over the internet for the distance between the pitch and the stand behind Emirates goals. Does anyone in here know how big the gap is?

13.5m

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/futureplans/scheme/stadium.html

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8152/seatinggoals.gif

13.5m

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/futureplans/scheme/stadium.html

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8152/seatinggoals.gif

I don't understand why the seats on the front row are built below pitch level. The views must be awful, unless you are sat right by the pitch itself.

Am i right in thinking that most NFL stadiums have front rows that are raised above the pitch to attain the best views possible? or even to see above the dozen's of people kicking around on the side lines.

Great diagram though

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6108/36018101501958870103896.jpg

I don't understand why the seats on the front row are built below pitch level. The views must be awful, unless you are sat right by the pitch itself.

Am i right in thinking that most NFL stadiums have front rows that are raised above the pitch to attain the best views possible? or even to see above the dozen's of people kicking around on the side lines.The difference being that in NFL venues you need to be higher to see over the army of players sitting/standing by the bench. Not so in soccer, with fewer reserve players all on one side, almost always sitting and often up against the fan seating. Otherwise this is simply a gimmick to accommodate more fans, and the view is usually not too bad.

Keep in mind the drawing may not be equally applied: Each venue may feature a different elevation for where they start the first row, and I suspect the Arsenal seating is aligned with field level. Need someone to verify, though.

I don't understand why the seats on the front row are built below pitch level. The views must be awful, unless you are sat right by the pitch itself.
The raised position of the pitch turns it into some kind of a stage. Which feels and looks way better than being surrounded by a perimeter wall.

The view from the first row seat aren't that bad as long as they are close to the pitch. The lack of overview is just traded-off with proximity to the action.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6108/36018101501958870103896.jpg

Delighted they've listened to the fans and are recreating the Clock End again as well as getting rid of the stupid quadrant idea.:banana:

I gather a lot of the pressure behind the 'arsenalisation' of the stadium came from Ivan Gazidis acknowledging that the fans really did need to have more of an input in the club. Whatever the cause, its great to see anyway

Finally they bring in the famous clock!!!!

Finally they bring in the famous clock!!!!

Its not the actual clock, that one remains behind the video screen in the corner of that end facing out onto the foot bridge at the way entrance

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/3414597898_a7d0599bf7.jpg
photo from flickr

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/jul_08/gun__1214917300_clock.jpg
photo from Arsenal.com

Not sure why they didn't put the orginal up, maybe it was a weight issue on the roof or something but either way its great to have the Clock End back!:banana:

Its not the actual clock, that one remains behind the video screen in the corner of that end facing out onto the foot bridge at the way entrance

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/3414597898_a7d0599bf7.jpg
photo from flickr

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/jul_08/gun__1214917300_clock.jpg
photo from Arsenal.com

Not sure why they didn't put the orginal up, maybe it was a weight issue on the roof or something but either way its great to have the Clock End back!:banana:

Its great that Emirates is getting arsenalized, and I think that the reason for not using the original one over the stand, is because it will be to small in proportion of the stadium, I dont have the measurements of both clocks but with the human scale in the pictures, the new one looks largers.

Great detail by the way.

just great and awesome

More Good News - the return of the mighty North Bank! :banana::banana::banana:

Arsenal Football Club is delighted to announce that the stands at Emirates Stadium are to be re-named for the start of the new Premier League season.

As part of the overall ‘Arsenalisation' process currently taking place at Emirates Stadium, the Club has decided to re-introduce the names of the stands from Arsenal's old stadium, Highbury.

From the first home Premier League match of the 2010/2011 season against Blackpool on Saturday 21st August, the stands at Emirates Stadium will be known as: Clock End, North Bank, East Stand and West Stand.

The existing quadrant colours on all maps and directional signage will be changed in time for the Blackpool match, to recognise the re-naming of the stands; and fans purchasing tickets for the match on Saturday 21st August, will also notice the relevant changes.

The Club is also proud to announce that new Clock End, which is at the south of the stadium, opposite the new North Bank, will be the home for a new Clock inside Emirates Stadium from next season.

Supporters will be able to see the new Clock in the stadium from the Emirates Cup, but the Club is planning an ‘official welcoming' for the new Clock before the Blackpool match to commemorate this historic moment.

These developments are part of the process currently taking place at the stadium called ‘Arsenalisation', in which the Club's rich history is being celebrated through illustrating key players and moments through many initiatives, which are turning Emirates Stadium into a very visible stronghold of all things Arsenal.

All supporters are reminded that the new stand names and associated maps will come into effect from the Blackpool match on Saturday 21st August. Therefore, the existing quadrants will remain for both days of the Emirates Cup.

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/scaled/498x637/jul_10/gun__1279551114_quadrant_guide.png?


http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/emirates-stadium-stands-to-be-re-named

Vuvuzelas not welcome at Emirates Stadium!

Further to their hugely debated involvement at this summer's World Cup Finals in South Africa, Arsenal Football Club has decided to forbid the use of vuvuzelas within Emirates Stadium with immediate effect.

This decision has been taken to ensure the enjoyment and safety of supporters on Matchdays, which is of paramount importance to the Club.

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/vuvuzelas-not-welcome-

^^ :applause:

More Good News - the return of the mighty North Bank! :banana::banana::banana:

Arsenal Football Club is delighted to announce that the stands at Emirates Stadium are to be re-named for the start of the new Premier League season.I'm for it but... a) Why did they have to wait so long and b) 'twould be more effective had the stands featured more independent character.

Emirates is a great structure and not nearly as soulless as some make it to be, but such superficial dressing up can be easily taken over the top.

Alas, it's the club and its fans as a whole that's more important. Up the Gunners! :cheers:

I'm for it but... a) Why did they have to wait so long and b) 'twould be more effective had the stands featured more independent character.

Emirates is a great structure and not nearly as soulless as some make it to be, but such superficial dressing up can be easily taken over the top.

Alas, it's the club and its fans as a whole that's more important. Up the Gunners! :cheers:

a) they had to wait so long because in recent years the club has become almost completely detached in my opinion from the real fans. In so many ways they've gone about whoring out the history of the club to turn a quick buck (the new crest, the jersies that take advantage of some random point in our history to exploit, that horrendous monstrousity of blocks with peoples names on it outside the Armoury, the fact that the stadium was essentially a shell with no real character until maybe two seasons ago...etc). I think they've finally copped on the the very essenence of the club means that you need to have that nod back to the hisory and what they've finally gone about doing is excellent in my opinion - particularly fond of the Spirit of Highbury wall and the Clock now going above that end!

b) definitely agree about the independant stands, that was one of the most charming things about Highbury as well as the intimacy in terms of how close you were to the pitch.

In some areas of the ground, there is a distinct lack of atmosphere. Club level for example is a total sham - you'll usually see empty seats five minutes after kick off, either side of half time and before full time which when I was up there was to do with the customers (I refuse to call them fans) ducking in early to take advantage of free beer that was one offer - not sure if this is still the case though. High up the top of the top tiers suffers from a lack of atmosphere too, i'm convinced it's to do with the way the roof cuts off your line of sight of the stands on the other side.

In saying the, if you're lucky enough to get tickets on the North Bank lower (God it feels brilliant to be able to say that again!) it's an absolute blast. The front five or six rows rarely sit and the banter is great (if a little blue at times but thats half the fun!) and the stewards are quite easy going around that area.

It'll never be Highbury but its certainly feeling more and more like home now. Now all we need to do is add a trophy to the place!:)

gavstar,

As I understand it the club had to remake the badge because they could not claim full legal copyright protections for the previous one. Frankly I don't get that and the change has ever disappointed me. I sent a looong letter denouncing the cartoonish crest we now see adorning the kits. I realize the absence of finer detailing makes it easier to reproduce on hats and such but it does turn its back on the clubs proud history. What better organization to use olde style lettering and classic English heraldry than one of England's oldest and proudest football clubs?!!!

And while I have some laments about the Grove as well I think it's often given a bad rap simply because it is different from Highbury (which in turn is a testament to how nice Highbury truly was). What the lower tier lacks in proximity to the pitch at least provides the closest fans with full views at each corner, and ensures the capacity doesn't take a huge hit for UEFA/FIFA events. I understand the roof line issue as well but that makes for a wonderful pitch, helps the air flow throughout the stands and makes for a wonderfully bright and light (weight) feeling deeper within stadium. So the form is fine I just wish they could've raised the roof a little higher. Atmosphere can be improved through the acts of fans, as well, and I think winning a trophy or two will help resolve that.

Either way it's home, and a damn nice one at that. :cheers:

it's often given a bad rap simply because it is different from Highbury...

a) The people who say that are right.
b) Its not just a relative statement. In absolute terms aswell, this place along with COMS (which could be excused given its unique circumstances) represents a low ebb in English football post Taylor report. If this is in any way a standard bearer of things to come then English football will be irreparably damaged. And it'll probably cement in the minds of desingers and chairmen alike the false choice between a dull lifeless bowl or the old existing [mostly]crap. i bet in the future the words modern english stadium would be inseparable to and mean only this type of bowl. and theres no reason why it should be that 'stadium - terrace + seats = shallow raked cavernous bowl + prawn sandwich tier'.

and as for the badge, copyright issues aside theres no excuse for new crest to be like that monstrosity. just no excuse. the old badge couldve been updated and copyrighted without turning into an nfl logo. i dont know which is worse our badge getting rid of the quays or this thing.

having said all this, arsenal are a very well run club with a man who seems to have managed the transition into modern football well, by at least identifying some of the principles that make a football club a football club instead of just a bussiness. terrible stadium though.

Independent stands are great but cost more. Getting 60,000 as close as possible with good sightlines results in the curvy upper tier. The shallower lower tier just happens tobe a design decision. The low slung roof provides more raincover and keeps more noise inside the bowl.

The Emirates stadium as a world class brand has been a huge success globally.

Independent stands are great but cost more.
huh. thanks, didnt know that.

Getting 60,000 as close as possible with good sightlines results in the curvy upper tier.

ahh, i thought highburys curvy upper tier huged this 180m perimeter http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/6422/zwischenablage01m.jpg. are you saying emirates perimeter may be smaller and designed specifically around the 60000?

coz thats dumbfounded me, why does green point look more intimate?
http://www.rlarchitects.co.za/images/Sport_2010_MB_CT.jpg
in general i like the design principle youve stated, its the right way to go for any new build above 60k if its still cheaper [a lot cheaper mind] to do this than building an ellis park, bernabeu or old trafford-with-modern pitchside space requirements re sponsors needs/fifa regs and so on. its just with arsenal i think it shows a lack of ambition, the design shouldve been flexible enough to be scalable but thats a separate issue to the problem i have with it.

nothing against wavy tiers, this is just a poor example.

this is also a wavy tier
http://www.football-pictures.net/data/media/168/Allianz_Arena_Bayern.jpg

The shallower lower tier just happens tobe a design decision.
THEY SHOULD BE HUNG FOR THIS.

you build a stadium from the inside out. with sightlines as the number 1 priority, architects should not be allowed to express themselves in the way they set a rake. you build the steepest you can get away with in consideration of the other tiers above having to be steeper and local building regs saying how steep you can ultimately go.

The low slung roof provides more raincover and keeps more noise inside the bowl.

all good. if its minimal simplicity is also reflected in the cost than all the better. i have no problem with the aesthetics of the roof or the outside, i think of it as minimalist post modernism. not my cup of esspesso but i have to admit its very tastefull even having accomodated the sponsors name so prominantly. possibly even timeless. but the noise thing, qwest field, galpharm etc, how do they get around that do you know.

The Emirates stadium as a world class brand has been a huge success globally.

great, but would any of this have been hurt by over hanging the tiers, building steeper, starting the first row of seats 1 or 2 metres higher [which can then double as trench] etc. im surprised you like this, every stadium @ 2010 minus rustenburg is miles ahead, miles ahead. saffers are used to alot better imo.

Independent stands do not necessarily cost more, but if you exclude the corners, 60,000 seats increases the height of the venue and means more seats are further away possibly increasing the building envelope.

Its defintely possible to have independent stands.

I'm not suggesting a shallow first tier is a good decision.

On 2010 venues, Emirates is much closer to the pitch than Green Point or most of the venues. Probably on par with Mbombela.

Mbombela could go that steep because its only two tiers. Would be nice if it could go to 60,000 increasing the siez of the second tier...oh wait...thats Allianz!

At the end of the day its about combining the best design/sightlines with the "feel" of a club.

http://www.rlarchitects.co.za/images/Sport_2010_MB_MU.jpg

I think Ellis Park is a good example of a balance between good sightlines, intimacy and keeping the "square" feel of the stadium.

http://www.rlarchitects.co.za/images/Sport_2010_CT_EP.jpg

New Clock-End clock was in position for the Blackpool game

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/emirates-stadium-s-new-clock-pictures

I'll try and get photos to post them but it's great to see the Clock back!:banana:

^^Hopefully it will bring in some much needed luck for us this season and for seasons to come.

Not with the same manager.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4123/4915790106_dcddd5bbd1_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10833852@N02/4915790106/

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4119/4915384583_ac29c0843b_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wonker/4915384583/

THEY SHOULD BE HUNG FOR THIS.

you build a stadium from the inside out. with sightlines as the number 1 priority, architects should not be allowed to express themselves in the way they set a rake. you build the steepest you can get away with in consideration of the other tiers above having to be steeper and local building regs saying how steep you can ultimately go.
The problem is the executive tiers, combined with the intention of making the top tiers premium seats. A steeper lower tier means either the top teir is considerably steeper (increasing building costs, and perhaps not even possible with the current dimensions) or moving the top tier seats back (as at Wembley) which results in seats with very poor viewing distances, that would be hard to sell for top prices.

The solution is to shaft those in the "cheap" seats to allow more cash to be made from the rest of the stadium.

The lower tier concourses are also particularly dreadful and cramped, with the designers for some reason deciding to build the walls well within the footprint of the stadium.

It's not all bad though, as if terraces are ever allowed back into English grounds, the emirates will be able to convert more easily than most, being already at a terrace like rake already.

The problem is the executive tiers, combined with the intention of making the top tiers premium seats. A steeper lower tier means either the top teir is considerably steeper (increasing building costs, and perhaps not even possible with the current dimensions) or moving the top tier seats back (as at Wembley) which results in seats with very poor viewing distances, that would be hard to sell for top prices.

The solution is to shaft those in the "cheap" seats to allow more cash to be made from the rest of the stadium.

The lower tier concourses are also particularly dreadful and cramped, with the designers for some reason deciding to build the walls well within the footprint of the stadium.

It's not all bad though, as if terraces are ever allowed back into English grounds, the emirates will be able to convert more easily than most, being already at a terrace like rake already.

Having been behind the goal in the North Bank for the United game last season there's precious few who sit on their seats at that end anyway! The lower concourses aren't actually that cramped but you get the illusion they are because there's no natural light coming in. The upper concourses are actually smaller but because the windows allow the natural light in it gives you the impression that they're quite open and spacious.

From Wikipedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Emirates_Stadium_-_East_stand_Club_Level.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emirates_Stadium_-_East_stand_Club_Level.jpg

Emirates was a compromise.

Arsenal needed a bigger stadium in the same area as Highbury. The Ashburton Grove site was chosen. There were height restrictions put in place by the Borough Council - this meant that the overall stadium size had to be designed to fit within the height regulations. Therefore a shallow first tier had to be built to 'cram in as many people as possible.'

The second tier - club level - was put in to maximise revenue, if people are willing to splurge large amounts of cash at a fooball match, make sure your stadium takes advantage of this by having an area to seat all these kind of supporters.

The 3 tier is much steeper so that good sightlines are retained, and has open corners to allow air to pass in, so I am told. However is this really neccesary? Old Trafford does not accomadate for this, neither does Stamford Bridge, yet both these grounds have perfectly playable pitches. This leads me to belive that in time, Arsenal will expand the capacity of the Emirates Stadium by filling in the corners of the Arena. Coupled with lowering the playing surface and adding 3 or 4 new front rows, the final capacity could easily exceed 70,000 - a number easily fillable given the prestige of Arsenal Match Tickets!

Would a new roof be needed for such expansion? Well the roof pillars behind the scoreboards would have to be removed to accomadate any new seats, which suggests yes, they will need a new roof. However a cable supported roof could mean the current roof can stay, but be held in place by support towers like those at the COMS, or the ones at Turin's New Juventus Arena.

If England win the Bid for 2018, I have a strong feeling the Emirates will be expanded. Transport problems or other wise. They will find a way!

^^
Both United's and Chelsea's pitches are reknowned as being awful due to the fact there's little or no air flow and only a minimum amount of light reaches the pitch. Specifically in relation to Old Trafford's pitch:

http://blogs.unicef.org.uk/socceraid2010/archive/2010/06/02/pitching-in-how-the-world-s-football-pitches-are-coming-to-the-aid-of-its-poorest-children.aspx
The last time it was re-laid was prior to the 2003 Champions League final between Juventus and AC Milan. In the seven years prior to that it was re-laid 11 times, but in 2003 it was dug up, right down to the heating pipes and new sand and turf was put down.

The mobile lighting rigs in use by most clubs nowdays ensure year round growth at pitch level but the air flow is still non-existant. One of the prerequisite's of the moving stadiums was that the new one absolutely had to have a pitch that had the quality of the old one at Highbury and this was specifically outlined to the architects when the stadium was in its early development stage, hence the drops in the corner to allow the air flow through the stadium.

In relation to the lower tier being dropped further, this is not possible. From the outside of the stadium it appears there is more room that you think but the podium level on the outside is right at the height of the rear of the lower tier. Below the site itself I refer to Bigbossman:

Doing some reseach about the emirates stadium and digging the pitch down, I found some difinitive information about the site constraints

http://www.burohappold.com/BH/NWS_20...esstadium.aspx
[QUOTE]Quote:
Site constraints

The Ashburton Grove site presented Buro Happold with a series of significant engineering design
challenges.

Its triangular shape occupies 70,000 m2 of brownfield land which over the years has been used for a
variety of purposes. Most recently it has been home to a number of industrial units including a waste
transfer station.

The new stadium has been positioned as far to the apex of the triangular site as possible so that the
full development potential of land lying to the south can be realised.

The west side of the site is bounded by a Network Rail 6m high brickwork retaining wall, behind which
lies the East Coast main railway line. Lying next to the east side of the site is a railway cutting within
which run four local rail lines.

Approximately 7m beneath the western wall are two London Underground tunnels for the Piccadilly
line. On the eastern site boundary are two further London Underground tunnels serving the Victoria
line at a depth of 8m.

Three Thames Water main sewers run beneath the site. Two of these pass through the site from north
to south, one at a depth of 3m and the other at 8m. The deeper of these forms part of a storm relief
system for the area which discharges into a primary storm relief sewer crossing the site from east
to west at a depth of 17m.

The sub-surface strata generally consists of made-ground overlying alluvial deposits overlying London Clay. The London Clay generally starts at between 3 to 6 metres below ground level ends to a depth of approximately 25m below ground level.

Due to the variety of industrial uses some of the land was contaminated at upper strata level.

Any expansion, and I highly doubt you'll see one anytime soon regardless of World Cup bids etc. would appear to require extending the upper tiers/adding additional tiers and jacking up the roof using the same supports so as to keep the airflow. Someone made a point a while back on here about expanding three sides and leaving one at its current height to allow airflow. The point is anything is doable, its only limited by money

The point about the council is a valid one, hence the current height of the roof but things change and decisions can be overturned

nice stadium

Freezing
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5129/5271443405_419d32801e_o.jpg

AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do like this stadium. been passed it on the train a few times just never been inside. would like to see them fill in the corner tiers but a big fan of them curving downwounds

The corner tiers may only be filled with scoreboards. I don't think the stadium is designed to support any seating capacity expansion.

You would need a new roof if they were to expand the corners, as Jim says it was designed for scoreboards.

The official club stance is that the stadium cannot be expanded any more due to planning regulations, height of the stadium, crowd control outside the stadium etc.

Unofficially there is a belief that the stadium can be expanded by jacking up the roof and extending the upper tiers but this would be hugely expensive so don't expect to see it anytime soon

Jim856796 is 100% correct in his observation that currently the corners cannot be filled in up to the same height as the rest of the upper tier because the roof supports all meet in the corners.

If the award existed I would certainly nominate him for "Stadium Wunderkind" :)

Jim856796 is 100% correct in his observation that currently the corners cannot be filled in up to the same height as the rest of the upper tier because the roof supports all meet in the corners.



They could, they would just have to leave gaps for the supports, but looking at it Im not so sure the sightlines from the back would be too hot. Plus it would ruin the stadium internally and externally

Hi guys just though i would add that the stadium could be extended in the 4 corners however the reason it wont be extended and the reason it is how it is, is because if it wasnt like that then the houses nearby wouldnt be able to pickup television radio signals.

That is the only reason stopping Arsenal being able to do it currently.

Did a sketch and its not possible to add to the corners without a new roof. If you're going to expand to 70,000 etc, you're going to have a build a new roof and a "rectangular upper tier" due to filling in the gaps.

you can always do what Texas Stadium was going to do. Dig down about 20-30 ft. Stack two club sections on top of each other that cantilever over a new lower deck that extends a little further back. This allows the utility tunnels to be renovated into the extra club space and concourse for the lower deck. Also allows for a new ring of suites.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5255/5391992893_b6c3930fda.jpghttp://farm6.static.flickr.com/5175/5391992891_3291fbb163.jpghttp://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5391992895_1231409417.jpg

hmm look good then original (because I dont like oval stadium)

and I think 60,000 seat is a good enough

I've never liked how the front row seats here are so far back from the end and side lines. Could they drop the playing surface down a bit and add rows of seats to tighten it up? It's not like there'd be a hooligan problem with Arsenal.

They could certainly charge some stiff prices for new, closer seats.

I've never liked how the front row seats here are so far back from the end and side lines. Could they drop the playing surface down a bit and add rows of seats to tighten it up? It's not like there'd be a hooligan problem with Arsenal.

They could certainly charge some stiff prices for new, closer seats.

I doubt whether dropping the playing surface will ever be an option. Having been on a tour of the stadium, I think the guide said the playing surface and all the state of the art equipment that lies beneath cost a staggering 4 million pounds!

I doubt whether dropping the playing surface will ever be an option. Having been on a tour of the stadium, I think the guide said the playing surface and all the state of the art equipment that lies beneath cost a staggering 4 million pounds!

They cannot go any further down and it has nothing to do with the undersoil heating - Three Thames Water main sewers run beneath the site which prevents any further excavation under the stadium

They cannot go any further down and it has nothing to do with the undersoil heating - Three Thames Water main sewers run beneath the site which prevents any further excavation under the stadium

And the sightlines for the top tier would then be all wrong. People in those non too cheap seats might not be happy to find they can't see the near goal any more.

I've only been there a couple of times, but my problem with the lower tier was how shallow it was, not that the seats were far from the pitch. You can be 20 rows back and still feel like you are in Row C.

Haven't found a topic about the Old Arsenal Stadium, so I will post a link over here.
I will mention that I have never been on a game on Highbury and all I managed is to see it a bit from the outside exactly 5 years ago when I was in London ( between the 2 games against Real Madrid in the Champions League ) because it wasn't open to visitors like Camp Nou or others unless you booked a tour of it :( ( gotta say, totally uninspired those guys, they could have done something at least in the last year of it's existence )! Since I had limited time, I didn't get the chance! But I gotta say, seeing these photos gives me a distinct feeling of a unique place that this was. As much as Ashburton is great for a modern stadium, seems it doesn't represent Arsenal 1% as Higbury did.

Photos: http://www.stadionwelt.de/sw_stadien/index.php?stadion=highbury&folder=sites&site=fotos&id=1032&page=1

I'm sure that they have a plan for redevelopment - it would seem silly to spend £300m and not have a cheap way of adding more seats.

The bet is another ring of 15,000 seats stuck on top with a brand new roof, was it on here I suggested a cable roof like at City of Manchester stadium?

I dont think there is a possibility of increased capacity due to council limitations. The stadium cant go lower due to sewage pipes, cant go higher due to height restrictions, so it looks like its remaining a 60,000 stadium.
Arsenal already is the heighest gates reciept earning club in England (and I think Europe), so it has its equlibrium set pretty well between demand and supply. A teir on top would increase capacity, but those seats would have the lowest selling cost, so for a massive expense you would have only moderate returns. The big money comes from boxes and members seating, which the Emirates already has in place with no room for expansion.

Capacity wise I think it is fine. My only gripe is that the lower tier seats are so far away from the pitch. I realise its a modern stadium so the tier cant be as close as at somewhere like Stamford Bridge or Goodison Park, but its still some distance further than at new stadiums like Alianz Arena and ManCity. The reason for the distance (as well as the shallowness of the bottome tier), as pointed out by someone here a while ago, may be due to the height restriction - by having a larger, shallower bowl, capacity can be higher.

As has already been mentioned, the lower tier is very shallow. Therefore, given the distances to the pitch, just dropping it by say 1 metre would readily allow for 4-5 new rows in front, all around. At roughly 1000 seats per row, this would add up to a not insubstantial 4-5k capacity increase for very little outlay. Sightline geometry would change marginally and the new seats might be quite exposed..... but a cheap route to more seats if they're needed.

Arsenal 2-1 Barcelona

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27453474@N02/5453639257/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozie/5453990007/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kwozie/5454602336/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/42606313@N04/5454613240/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5299/5451730429_1994e527c7_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wonker/5451730429/

^^ How many minutes before/after match time was that photo taken?

20 minutes before kick off according to the Clock End clock.

London's best looking stadium .... and I'm not saying that because I live in Holloway :D

emirates is really adorable.

ideal...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/5000802723_727995a6d8_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ken_lai/5000802723/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Great photo Carl

By Erik Sæter Jørgensen

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5017/5543921889_799c04e9da_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/macint0sh/5543921889/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5543916995_66f566765d_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/macint0sh/5543916995/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5544497258_7f517ab723_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/macint0sh/5544497258/

Brazil 2-0 Scotland

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5567398787_ac2c28360e_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14873709@N02/5567398787/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5060/5567994002_31c095f6ec_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14873709@N02/5567994002/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5265/5568102838_d16057f8fb_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49212535@N06/5568102838/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5103/5567980302_6c9d073e4f_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49212535@N06/5567980302/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5053/5567975756_d3f91b1922_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14873709@N02/5567975756/

Why wasn't this friendly played in Scotland or Brazil?

Why wasn't this friendly played in Scotland or Brazil?

Because it was designated as a home match for Brazil, I guess. And for the past few years, Brazil have played their mid season, "home" friendly matches at the Emirates because probably 90% of the squad is based in Europe.

Because it was designated as a home match for Brazil, I guess. And for the past few years, Brazil have played their mid season, "home" friendly matches at the Emirates because probably 90% of the squad is based in Europe.

Hasn't it been years since Brazil last played in Brazil? It's all about money I believe for all their international games abroad.

Hasn't it been years since Brazil last played in Brazil? It's all about money I believe for all their international games abroad.

Well, they certainly play their competitive World Cup and Copa America qualifying matches in Brazil.

It's only in friendlies that they play "home" matches outside Brazil, as far as I know.

This is perhaps the best stadium currently. Atleast one of the top level stadiums. I recently visited the place and a lot of changes have been made. I bet more and more matches will be played here than before.

The exterior is very nice and very impressive while the interior feels like a deja vu!

This is perhaps the best stadium currently. Atleast one of the top level stadiums. I recently visited the place and a lot of changes have been made. I bet more and more matches will be played here than before.


someone told in a forum that when he visited the stdium in a trip in London he wasn't impressed by the stadium. He thought it was a beauty but not impressive.

Has somebody already had this feeling?

The friendly matches of Brazil has generally been in Europe by several factors:
1 - The big stadiums in Brazil are being renovated for the World Cup.
2 - The Nike prefers to have disclosed their mark in Europe.
3 - Most of the players reside in Europe.

But after the 2014 World Cup friendly matches of Brazil will again be more often in their country.
This year even have a friendly against the Netherlands here in Brazil.

someone told in a forum that when he visited the stdium in a trip in London he wasn't impressed by the stadium. He thought it was a beauty but not impressive.

Has somebody already had this feeling?

Judging by the huge response your post has received I would just put it down to your forum mate not being impressed by beautiful 60k capacity stadiums in general.

you don't understand! He said that the stadium is beautiful but not impressed by size feeling when you enter on the pitch.

The kind of feeling you have in barcelona or madrid or milano...

you don't understand! He said that the stadium is beautiful but not impressed by size feeling when you enter on the pitch.

The kind of feeling you have in barcelona or madrid or milano...

Your forum friend has entered on the pitch on all those stadiums?
They are the 3 biggest club stadiums in the world. If they are your forum friend's reference points then it is kind of understandable that he has that opinion but by any normal standards it is impressive. Much more impressive than any club stadium in your country for example.

http://www.sonyinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/20080622-london-arsenal-fc-emirates-stadium-01.jpg
http://www.sonyinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/20080622-london-arsenal-fc-emirates-stadium-01.jpg

I understand what you mean about it being a compact arena (no bad thing either).

When I did the tour, we were taken up to the director's box, at the halway line in the middle tier, and I was taken aback by how closed in the stadium was for a 60,000 seater!

It did give of an aura though as the sun beamed against the red seats! :cheers:
Similar to the Nou Camp when I visited it a few years back, that stadium is just huge - the 5 tiered 'Mes Que Un Club' stand is just awesome, but I'd rather have a tightly packed 60,000!

-----

I've had another think about expansion:

Remove the top tier - this seems to be nescesary in every plan for expansion - add another small tier that is the same as the current middle tier - this would provide great revenue if there were more restaurants ect - and then add a final top tier that is the same as the current top tier, with it's air gaps in the corner for circulation and ability to grow grass!

That would be about 72,000 and the maxiumum Arsenal would need. :cheers:

Your forum friend has entered on the pitch on all those stadiums?
They are the 3 biggest club stadiums in the world. If they are your forum friend's reference points then it is kind of understandable that he has that opinion but by any normal standards it is impressive. Much more impressive than any club stadium in your country for example.

Even stade de france?

Why are you so touchy? It's was just a remark he made when he was in london.

This stadium is not your mother or your father to defend it like you do :lol:

let's breathe it was just an opinion from someone who visited the stadium not mine :)

i'll visit stadiums of london during a next trip to make my own opinion.

And frankly, i wasn't amazed by stade de france which is much bigger than your emirates, then i suppose i will not impressed by emirates but i wait for final visit

Even stade de france?
No. I would regard that more of a National stadium than a club stadium. I would more likely compare that to Wembley, though not favourably to be honest. I am thinking more along the lines of equivalents to the Emirates Stadium in France eg Velodorome, Parc De Prince etc.

Why are you so touchy? It's was just a remark he made when he was in london.
This stadium is not your mother or your father to defend it like you do :lol:

let's breathe it was just an opinion from someone who visited the stadium not mine :)

I suppose it is because you were trying to instigate a conversation on here based on the negative opinions of a complete stranger who cannot explain his opinions for himself.That is actually quite irritating. Also there is a contradiction in what you say which I was trying to highlight ie by definition a beautiful 60k stadium is actually impressive unless you are not generally impressed by such things.

i'll visit stadiums of london during a next trip to make my own opinion.
That would be a good idea. You will get a less blunt response from me regardless of your opinion.

And frankly, i wasn't amazed by stade de france which is much bigger than your emirates, then i suppose i will not impressed by emirates but i wait for final visit
Obviously not because the only thing that you and your forum friend appear to use in order to define "impressiveness" is size. That is a pretty dumb way to judge such things. Which is also probably a part of why my tone with you shows hints of irritation. Now please go away until you make that visit.:)

Something like this:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/5199/bigemirates.jpg

Something like this:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/5199/bigemirates.jpg


yeah you understand what i mean :)

Not that I think its likely to happen in the near future but I think I would prefer a concerted campaign to turn a small part of the stadium into a standing section. That would up the capacity by 2 or 3 thousand and do wonders for the atmosphere.

there is no doubt it is a beautiful stadium, but to become even more impressive and imponent, his first tier should be bigger or steeper, which also help to improve the atmosphere.

Hey guys...

Can anyone tell me what's the distance between the sidelines of the pitch (and also the end lines) and the crowd, in Emirates?

Incredibly sad, though not unexpected news, is the passing of Danny Fiszman yesterday after he seccumbed to cancer at the age of 66. He was one of the driving forces behind the move to Ashburton Grove, apparently ensuring that the mooted move to Kings Cross was dumped in favour of where the stadium stands now, less than half a mile away from Highbury.

He was a lifelong Gooner having served on the board since 1992 and a mark of the man was that even on his death bed, he looked to have negotiated the sale of his shares to where he believed they would be best served in the long term interests of the club. I'd personally love to see some form of memorial for the man, I gather that the fans have already adorned the Clock End Bridge with banners reading "Danny Fiszman Bridge"

RIP Danny, and thanks for everything

And on my above post it would appear the club already had that in mind before Fiszman's untimely passing and have announced the renaming of both bridges for Danny Fiszman and Ken Friar.

From Arsenal.com
http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/bridges-named-in-tribute-to-friar-and-fiszman

Bridges named in tribute to Friar and Fiszman
Arsenal Football Club is renaming two bridges at Emirates Stadium in honour of long-serving Club Directors – Ken Friar and Danny Fiszman.

The bridges, which before today were known as the ‘North Bridge’ and ‘South Bridge’, have been renamed to mark the two men’s huge contribution to Arsenal Football Club.

Arsenal Chairman Peter Hill-Wood today unveiled commemorative plaques on the two bridges during a ceremony at Emirates Stadium, which was attended by the Arsenal Board of Directors, Arsène Wenger and many Club employees.

Today’s ceremony was overshadowed with the death of Danny Fiszman, who passed away on Wednesday, following a long battle with illness. Danny was 66.

Danny, who joined the Board of Directors in 1992, was a much loved and respected figure at the Club and will be deeply missed by his many friends and colleagues at Arsenal.

The thoughts of everyone at Arsenal are Danny’s family and friends at the difficult time.

It was Danny’s instruction to continue with the event and therefore the Club honoured its dear friend’s wish.

As well as serving on the Arsenal Board of Directors for a combined total of more than 55 years, Friar and Fiszman led the project team in the Club’s successful move from Highbury to the new stadium.

The pair were the driving force behind delivering the Club’s new stadium on time and within budget in July 2006, during a project which took many years of hard work and dedication.

Peter Hill-Wood said: “These two men have had a huge impact on Arsenal Football Club. This is a small way of recognising their efforts and ensuring their passion and commitment to this great football club will be remembered through time.”

The North Bridge, which joins Emirates Stadium to Drayton Park, close to Arsenal tube station, has been renamed ‘The Ken Friar Bridge’ in tribute to Club Director Ken Friar OBE.

Ken Friar (76), has worked for Arsenal since 1950. Starting his Arsenal career working in the Matchday Ticket Office, ‘Mr Friar’ as he is affectionately known by all Club employees, became Club Secretary in 1973. Ten years later, he was promoted to Managing Director, a position he held until 2000, when he took on the role as co-ordinator of the stadium move.

The South Bridge, which contains the iconic giant ‘ARSENAL’ letters at one end, has been renamed ‘The Danny Fiszman Bridge’ in tribute to Club Director Danny Fiszman

Life-long Arsenal fan Fiszman , a highly successful businessman, was a leading influence at the Club since joining the Board of Directors in 1992

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/scaled/498x305/apr_11/zp_Bridge1_4439.jpg?ic=6c692cT
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/scaled/498x334/apr_11/zp_Bridge2_4774.jpg?ic=d444efT
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/apr_11/zp_Bridge3_9364.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/scaled/498x332/apr_11/zp_Bridge6_7136.jpg?ic=7395f5T
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/apr_11/zp_Bridge7_9337.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/apr_11/zp_Bridge8_4439.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/scaled/498x331/apr_11/zp_Bridge10_2821.jpg?ic=2b37f6T

I've had another think about expansion:

Remove the top tier - this seems to be nescesary in every plan for expansion - add another small tier that is the same as the current middle tier - this would provide great revenue if there were more restaurants ect - and then add a final top tier that is the same as the current top tier, with it's air gaps in the corner for circulation and ability to grow grass!

That would be about 72,000 and the maxiumum Arsenal would need. :cheers:

About expanding and I realy don´t know if it´s possible.
Between the big first tire and the second small tire extra skyboxes.
Fill up the corners of the third ring.
Should get you close or just over 70 000 too.

Arsenal! Keep the faith!

this stadium seem expandable only where corner angles gaps at the top tiers.

Any venue can be expanded given the time, money and space. In this case it would most likely require more money than desired given the nature of the design.

http://www.sonyinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/20080622-london-arsenal-fc-emirates-stadium-01.jpg
I wanted to recall this image because I think this perspective is underappreciated. The venue is often chided for how the roof a) curtails the full stadium view of the fans in the uppermost seats and b) how it is not designed to retain/amplify noise. However, it does a superb job at what it was primarily designed for - Letting light come into the venue and create a very lightweight appearance from the field. Quite a contrast to the conventional dingy solid roofs over many other venues, and from the players and lower tiers that surely impacts the setting. (For the worse, some would say!) I would've prefered more of the transparent material myself, as well as a form that better captures sound, but I also appreciate what this provides for the lighting effect and how it contributes to the quality of the pitch.

Just felt that should be remembered by those who are quick to cut the Emirates. Now if only the side could get a stalwart defense. :|


Cheers. :cheers:

wooo I like It,
beatiful decoration, I dream to go ther.

I've had another think about expansion:

Remove the top tier - this seems to be nescesary in every plan for expansion - add another small tier that is the same as the current middle tier - this would provide great revenue if there were more restaurants ect - and then add a final top tier that is the same as the current top tier, with it's air gaps in the corner for circulation and ability to grow grass!

That would be about 72,000 and the maxiumum Arsenal would need. :cheers:
Just tearing it down and replacing it with a larger stadium should probably be far cheaper though.

Just tearing it down and replacing it with a larger stadium should probably be far cheaper though.I'll challenge this assumption.

First off this move would be a political disaster, as either an admission of failure with the original design or at the least a waste of the time and money dedicated to the Emirates. To say nothing of the idea of playing for some time outside of Islington. Then consider the costs with demolition and removal, lost revenue during a temporary relocation, etc. It would be a literal do-over for what would amount to a marginal (at best) increase in revenues. Considering the club is about 1 year away from becoming debt-free there's no incentive to go this route for the foreseeable future. Oh, by the way, the renovations for the local tube stations projected to coincide with the stadium remain unfulfilled (to the best of my knowledge), so any substantial increase is unlikely to gain approval.

Other theories on viable, but costly, expansions can be found throughout the thread, including my own. But for now it's far enough out I haven't even bothered with surmising the structual logistics of such. I'm hopeful of someday seeing the stadium enlarged, because that would signify the club continues to do well, but for now I'm simply counting the blessings of what they do have.

Cheers. :cheers:

About expanding and I realy don´t know if it´s possible.
Between the big first tire and the second small tire extra skyboxes.
Fill up the corners of the third ring.
Should get you close or just over 70 000 too.

This is more or less what I meant, without having any knowledge about this stadium by the way. I was wrong about one thing... there will be loss of cap at the first ring, I just don´t know if and if there is how much the overlap from the second ring is. again very basicly.

current stadium

http://i54.tinypic.com/wmb95e.png

future

http://i51.tinypic.com/2096oaf.png

sorry for the pink (:lol:) part, that would be the extension.
I don´t have an idea how the people on the first ring should got now though...

The problem with expanding the Emirates is not a matter of placing the seats, but rather accomodating the additional structural work that would be required outside the existing stadium.

Simply filling in the corners, which might not require additional concessional space for the top tier, would still necessitate the removal of 2 primary structural beams for the roof. Whether this force is redirected through exterior cables and towers, or some buttressing or other support system, it would have to be placed outside the existing structure. Keep in mind the northern end of the venue has a tight footprint due to the train tracks, meaning the engineering would be a modestly extreme compromise of space between structural elements and room for visitors. All this just to support the existing roof, while additional factors might come into play as the roof would need to be expanded to cover the additional seating.

Bottom line - Finding a place to put the seats is not the issue. It's finding the space to accommodate the structural elements to hold up the roof for the expansion that's where the real costs come into play.

I think with any expansion a new roof is required! That wouldn't come cheap.

The solution will be to destroy the roof and expand tribunes and finally remade the roof.

Do someone has pics of Interior of Vip loundges,boxes,retaurants and catering services?

Arsenal - Manchester United

by v6fes (http://www.flickr.com/photos/v6fes/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5143/5679523852_f6b05852f8_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v6fes/5679523852/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5679528724_404c634475_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v6fes/5679528724/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5679457718_e530f44fb1_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v6fes/5679457718/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5104/5678895593_909ceef662_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v6fes/5678895593/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5307/5676973401_a818165dab_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v6fes/5676973401/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5221/5676969227_153a1763d5_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v6fes/5676969227/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5310/5678719625_77f3f83033_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v6fes/5678719625/

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5039/5909397654_93570f8a7a_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmbrightimages/5909397654/

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/jul_08/gun__1216219357_emirates_highbury.jpg


http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/jul_08/gun__1217336928_emiratesstadium_air.jpg


http://www.byrne-bros.co.uk/p/storage/images/emirates_Main1CaseStudy_103.jpg


http://stadiumvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Emirates-Stadium-1.jpg


http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/296/999/119885492_crop_650x440.jpg?1311982202



if you want to see more pictures including World major stadiums , Please visit below URL.



http://cafe.daum.net/stade/london_emirates (http://cafe.daum.net/stade/5Ay7/266)



http://www.binbin.net/photos/generic/adu/adult-emirates-stadium-tour.jpg

Great stadium

seen on a french forum->

Cesc Fabregas: " My life is in danger in london, i' m obliged for safety reasons to quit London with my family to go to Barcelona"




:rofl:

By mac morrison
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6055/6234128750_e26fab204b_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmmorrison/6234128750/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6097/6234130388_66c778e050_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmmorrison/6234130388/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6178/6233613665_9143e75846_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmmorrison/6233613665/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6216/6233612989_c679cf0f90_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmmorrison/6233612989/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6100/6234129764_a8ae217a13_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmmorrison/6234129764/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6171/6234138458_256c262160_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmmorrison/6234138458/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6019/6233610791_96cf21a8c7_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cmmorrison/6233610791/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6206699305_a77b0721a6_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shabbagaz/6206699305/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6009/6207212612_630c03155c_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shabbagaz/6207212612/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6206695705_1e3df1947b_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shabbagaz/6206695705/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6206672029_085a491fd2_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shabbagaz/6206672029/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6207705348_6fbc9454a8_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shabbagaz/6207705348/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6009/6207189736_ac1fb73f04_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/shabbagaz/6207189736/

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6226/6223956735_1991183669_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16479383@N04/6223956735/

Calling the club shop "The Armoury"....???

:lol:

Oh, dear.

^^^^ Well what would you call it ?

Capacity is too small, and no doubt Spurs will end up doing the same thing with their new stadium. Colour of the seats already fading? Still, I'm glad they did that whole 'Arsenalisation' thing, 'cause the extra additions certainly add to the stadium.

Internally yes, but the exterior looks shit, I really can't stand the cheesy poster cladding!

^^^^ Well what would you call it ?

Something less embarrassingly naff.

Something less embarrassingly naff.

The MegaStore ! :ohno: The Battery or The Barracks ?

What I like best about the stadium is the font they used for the huge signs and stuff. Classic.

What I like best about the stadium is the font they used for the huge signs and stuff. Classic.

I've always been a huge fan of that font, myself. Nice touch on a beautiful stadium

What I like best about the stadium is the font they used for the huge signs and stuff. Classic.

Welcome to the Forum. :cheers:

http://www.onlifezone.com/files/attach/images/2688284/571/895/005/emirates%20stadium3.jpg


http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/jul_08/gun__1216219357_emirates_highbury.jpg


http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/jul_08/gun__1217336928_emiratesstadium_air.jpg


http://www.byrne-bros.co.uk/p/storage/images/emirates_Main1CaseStudy_103.jpg


http://stadiumvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Emirates-Stadium-1.jpg


http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/296/999/119885492_crop_650x440.jpg?1311982202



if you want to see more pictures including World major stadiums , Please visit below URL.



http://cafe.daum.net/stade/london_emirates (http://cafe.daum.net/stade/5Ay7/266)



http://www.binbin.net/photos/generic/adu/adult-emirates-stadium-tour.jpg

The Arsenal stadium exterior definetly has chav-appeal with that awful 80's frontage.

For an example of how awe-inspiring the facade could have been take a look at the Warsaw National stadium below - even the colours are the same as Arsenal's.

http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/alma_work/WNSnocturnal.jpg
Photo by Slawek.



.

The Arsenal stadium exterior definetly has chav-appeal with that awful 80's frontage.

For an example of how awe-inspiring the facade could have been take a look at the Warsaw National stadium below - even the colours are the same as Arsenal's.

Given how close the Emirates Stadium is to various large-ish residential areas, it wouldn't be clever to light it up like a Chinese candle, simply to please your aesthetic sensibilities.

Superb stadium!

Given how close the Emirates Stadium is to various large-ish residential areas, it wouldn't be clever to light it up like a Chinese candle, simply to please your aesthetic sensibilities.

Agreed, the exterior of the Emirates is about as architecturally interesting and full of character as your local Tescos so having it lit up properly would just expose its banality even more.
Its already looking dated and it was only built a few years ago!

I hope Spurs don't screw up in the same way. It would be great to see a new Spurs stadium with an exterior of true character that will stand the test of time, having a bit more visual impact than a bog standard supermarket.

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/desktops/feb_11/gun__1298024074_5.jpg

Very nice shot! The Grove is hardly innovative but there is an efficient elegance to its elements and night shots like this help reveal that more clearly, IMO. Definitely apealing to the "form-follows-function" mindset.

i really dont understand the negative comments on here about the Emirates

If I´m not mistaken I think Coldplay will perform here in June...two nights.

Is there any explaination why british stadia, even the newer one have that flat tiers. If I d build a stadium it would be steep a possible.

To increase the size of the Emirates, I would go for making the pitch deeper and the first tier closer and steeper. That would gain more than 5.000 seats and the cheapest way of expansion

i really dont understand the negative comments on here about the Emirates


Because it could and should've been so much better

Is there any explaination why british stadia, even the newer one have that flat tiers. If I d build a stadium it would be steep a possible.

To increase the size of the Emirates, I would go for making the pitch deeper and the first tier closer and steeper. That would gain more than 5.000 seats and the cheapest way of expansion

IF you had read the thread you would know that this wasn't possible.

It was built this way because this was the cheapest/only way to fit 60,000 seats in the footprint given the height limit and the desire to have a 9,000 seat corporate tier.

Is there any explaination why british stadia, even the newer one have that flat tiers. If I d build a stadium it would be steep a possible.
The reason is geometry. With a height restriction in place and the desire to maximise capacity the steepness of the upper tier was already limited. That meant that the tiers below had to be rather shallow correlatively.

Thanks a lot! That explains a lot of those flattend designs to me. In Germany we dont have that problem because most stadias are outside the city or in huge parks.

Leverkusen is the only club of the Bundesliga having a Stadium in the city. Even there is no limitation in height only the the total seats are limited to around 30.000. They are more concerned about the noise and all the people in the streets.

Leverkusen is the only club of the Bundesliga having a Stadium in the city. Even there is no limitation in height only the the total seats are limited to around 30.000. They are more concerned about the noise and all the people in the streets.
Leverkusen isn't a city but an industrial estate.

So do most of the cities in North-Rhine-Westfalia. Still every working class city has inhabitants having rights by german law, even if the city´s father (Bayer) owns the club.

Because it could and should've been so much better


In what way could the emirates stadium be any better than it already is?? Make some suggestions? When you consider the Building/Financial constraints Arsenal were under I dont see many ways in which they could have made it much better.

In regards to expansion im sure it will happen. We currently have 40,000 on the season ticket waiting list so im sure we can fill an 80,000 stadium. We proved when we played our champions league matches at the old Twin Towers Wembley that we could fill a stadium that big, and that was playing teams like AIK Sofia. Plus, its quite clear Arsenal have raised seat prices to there maximum, so the only way to raise more matchday revenue will be to increase the capacity.

In terms of space around the ground for another 20,000, they may have to build another bridge and also upgrade the holloway road train station which they did promise to do in the original proposal.

On the tour of the emirates, Charlie George said if they used the same size seats they had at highbury then they could fit another 10,000-20,000 in. Also hopefully its possible to fill seats in the four corners of the ground and also by using the large space behind both goals, which would bring the fans closer to the pitch improving the atmosphere.

Some of the comments on this thread are indicating there are no plans already put in place for expansion. Which If true, and after all this were stuck at 60,000, as an Arsenal fan I would be extremley pissed off about.

In what way could the emirates stadium be any better than it already is?? Make some suggestions? When you consider the Building/Financial constraints Arsenal were under I dont see many ways in which they could have made it much better.

In regards to expansion im sure it will happen. We currently have 40,000 on the season ticket waiting list so im sure we can fill an 80,000 stadium. We proved when we played our champions league matches at the old Twin Towers Wembley that we could fill a stadium that big, and that was playing teams like AIK Sofia. Plus, its quite clear Arsenal have raised seat prices to there maximum, so the only way to raise more matchday revenue will be to increase the capacity.

In terms of space around the ground for another 20,000, they may have to build another bridge and also upgrade the holloway road train station which they did promise to do in the original proposal.

On the tour of the emirates, Charlie George said if they used the same size seats they had at highbury then they could fit another 10,000-20,000 in. Also hopefully its possible to fill seats in the four corners of the ground and also by using the large space behind both goals, which would bring the fans closer to the pitch improving the atmosphere.

Some of the comments on this thread are indicating there are no plans already put in place for expansion. Which If true, and after all this were stuck at 60,000, as an Arsenal fan I would be extremley pissed off about.

I've taken the tour as well (and absolute must for Gooners and stadium fans alike) and Charlie had stated categorically then that there were no plans to increase the capacity at that time, which is the general club stance on the matter but it's widely accepted they investigated expansion options a while after it opened although the main stumbling block is the height restrictions currently in place on the stadium. Bare in mind also, on such a relatively new build, there is no way the original brief submitted to HOK didn't include the potential for expansion if necessary.

Any expansion would involve jacking up the roof to allow extension of the upper tiers or, alternatively, removing the roof altogether, infilling the corners and expanding the upper tiers and building a new roof supported from the outside of the stadium.

The biggest issue with expansion is the local council's opposition given the location of the stadium and the current problems surrounding access to and from the stadium on matchdays. At present there's no way the road and rail network can handle anymore than the current capacity without causing complete and utter chaos (and it's bad enough as it is!). Without Arsenal committing to upgrading the train stations, like they originally promised to do, they haven't got a snow balls chance in hell of getting anywhere with it.

In terms of seeing it anytime soon, I wouldn't be too confident. More and more games are going on general sale to Red Members and in greater numbers(to those of you not in the know that is the basic membership level for Arsenal fans) which I don't necessarily believe is down to what's happening on the pitch but rather its a sign of the times that the average football fan simply can't afford to go as often anymore. Put it this way, i've jumped 13,000 places in a year and a half on the season ticket waiting list to just over 4,000 from the front of the queue. Changing times me thinks! I would imagine the board would want to wait until we ride out the current financial mess that's out there before they look at extending capacity.

In what way could the emirates stadium be any better than it already is?? Make some suggestions? When you consider the Building/Financial constraints Arsenal were under I dont see many ways in which they could have made it much better. One man's opinion, and I realize some of these design features may compromise existing capacity:

- Steeper lower tiers, with the end seating much, much closer to the pitch.
- At least one end different and clearly dedicated to the "ultras." The Kop end proposed for Spurs venue is a very cockneyed variation, but at least it's an attempt to answer this desire most fan groups have.
- A more dignified variation of the ends, if not all four sections. I'd love to be able to more clearly distinguish a Clock End, North Bank, etc.
- Raise the roof a bit more so uppermost seats aren't excluded from seeing the full bowl of seating.
- On the exterior, make the southern entrance a bolder 'front door" to the stadium addressing the plaza. An iconic architectural element here (think twin towers) would've been really sweet. Also, the concrete sections now featuring the murals of players and signage should be more ornately decorated, with more to mask the utility doors at the bottom.

I love the bowl for Allianz, personally, and wish more of the premium seating could've been bundled to one side so as to make the rest of the tiering more harmonious. But that's just me.

Some of the comments on this thread are indicating there are no plans already put in place for expansion. Which If true, and after all this were stuck at 60,000, as an Arsenal fan I would be extremley pissed off about.Newer stadiums are designed to maximize revenues on a per-seat basis. Any expansion Arsenal makes wil likely be for more seats at average/below average prices, meaning the return on investment will be pretty low. There's still the benefit of using this to continue building your fan base, selling merchandise, etc., but as a stadium operation such an effort would be a more costly and less certain investment by comparison. No club at this point ever wants to over-build and reduce ticket values.

Any expansion would involve jacking up the roof to allow extension of the upper tiers or, alternatively, removing the roof altogether, infilling the corners and expanding the upper tiers and building a new roof supported from the outside of the stadium.Most likely option I and some others have theorized would be a section by section renovation so that the roof would be addressed first at one end and then at the midsections, then, if needed, at the other end as well. But the issue won't be space for seating but rather for the structural support built outside the existing footprint to accommodate the expanded concourse areas underneath the new tier. This is where the north end would experience the most cramped conditions for access/egress, and where your new bridges would most come into play (further adding to project cost).

Ashame the building wasn't built further south to account for this, as the north end would be the better option to raise up so as to preserve sunlight access to the pitch.

The biggest issue with expansion is the local council's opposition given the location of the stadium and the current problems surrounding access to and from the stadium on matchdays. At present there's no way the road and rail network can handle anymore than the current capacity without causing complete and utter chaos (and it's bad enough as it is!). Without Arsenal committing to upgrading the train stations, like they originally promised to do, they haven't got a snow balls chance in hell of getting anywhere with it.a) I thought Arsenal was only to cover on-site improvements reaching towards the stations, and that the stations themselves were the governments objectives (long-term, of course)? b) I also thought this was already clarified that the club knew they wouldn't be permitted more than about 63k in capacity for the forseeable future because of these constraints, and that's the reason the club refrained from going bigger at this stage?

As I've guessed previously on this thread I suspect we'll see a one-time expansion by some 12-17k, but easily some 15-20 years out from now.

Even though I am proud the Emirates is our stadium, I do think the club sacrificed way to much just to keep us in Islington. The whole project including building the stadium cost us £450 million, and for that the stadium still had to be under a certain height and a limit on capactiy. In the future were going have to spend further money on expanding the stadium (if were allowed) and the transport infrastructure which both will be expensive.

I would have much preferred the club to have found a site they could have built the stadium they wanted with an 80,000 to 90,000 capacity even if it meant us moving out of Islington. With a 90,000 stadium we could have had around 20,000 tickets at just £10 each, enabling all Arsenal fans being able to afford to watch our great club.

In what way could the emirates stadium be any better than it already is?? Make some suggestions? When you consider the Building/Financial constraints Arsenal were under I dont see many ways in which they could have made it much better.

That's what I mean it could've been better. The height restriction meant we had to build the shallow lower tier with fans miles from the pitch (particularly behind the goals). We also origianlly wanted over 70k iirc. It could've been better without the restrictions.

It could've also been better without one corporate tier. Like Gunnerjacket says, putting the corporate facilities on one or both sides would've allowed them to build a more unique design which enhanced the atmosphere of the place.


On the tour of the emirates, Charlie George said if they used the same size seats they had at highbury then they could fit another 10,000-20,000 in. Also hopefully its possible to fill seats in the four corners of the ground and also by using the large space behind both goals, which would bring the fans closer to the pitch improving the atmosphere.

I've heard they are about 25% to 33% wider than they were at Highbury. However I think the seat size is the standard width that UEFA requires on new builds now or something, I may be wrong though so don't quote me.

I've taken the tour as well (and absolute must for Gooners and stadium fans alike) and Charlie had stated categorically then that there were no plans to increase the capacity at that time, which is the general club stance on the matter but it's widely accepted they investigated expansion options a while after it opened although the main stumbling block is the height restrictions currently in place on the stadium. Bare in mind also, on such a relatively new build, there is no way the original brief submitted to HOK didn't include the potential for expansion if necessary.

So stupid. The stadium was all about the corporate tier unfortunately everything else was secondary.

The biggest issue with expansion is the local council's opposition given the location of the stadium and the current problems surrounding access to and from the stadium on matchdays. At present there's no way the road and rail network can handle anymore than the current capacity without causing complete and utter chaos (and it's bad enough as it is!). Without Arsenal committing to upgrading the train stations, like they originally promised to do, they haven't got a snow balls chance in hell of getting anywhere with it.

I thought the opposition was when Islington was Lib dem? Now it's back with Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington_local_elections#Political_control) things might've changed!!

- At least one end different and clearly dedicated to the "ultras."

Are you serious? dedicated to "ultras"? I know you're American and you guys have copied the ultra style of support for your league, but there will never be and should never be ultras at Arsenal (or any serious English club). Ultras aren't fans of football they are idiots who care more about singing random songs and creating an (unnatural) "atmosphere" in the stadium as well as their "choreos" and being seen to support their club than the actual game on the pitch (it's nonsense). I'm glad English football didn't succumb to that nonsense and I am glad in Germany some fans seem to have had enough of it too. So I can't believe you are suggesting Arsenal should have a gang of them, what for? To create atmopshere? Football needs it's proper ebb and flow atmopshere back not this fake atmosphere they create. *End rant*.

- On the exterior, make the southern entrance a bolder 'front door" to the stadium addressing the plaza. An iconic architectural element here (think twin towers) would've been really sweet. Also, the concrete sections now featuring the murals of players and signage should be more ornately

They need to completely rethink the nonsense cladding the stadium has. It looks awful.

I love the bowl for Allianz, personally, and wish more of the premium seating could've been bundled to one side so as to make the rest of the tiering more harmonious. But that's just me.

I would like them to move the north corporate tier to the upper tier on the west side and then build a new stand over/in front of the current lower tiers from the end of the pitch to meet the upper tier (move the pitch slightly south if needs be) at a slightly different rake, it would create one huge stand. I dunno if I am explaining it well and I dunno if it would be possible either (especially around the corners), but that's what I would like to see. I'd then convert it into a huge terrace...

Newer stadiums are designed to maximize revenues on a per-seat basis. Any expansion Arsenal makes wil likely be for more seats at average/below average prices, meaning the return on investment will be pretty low. There's still the benefit of using this to continue building your fan base, selling merchandise, etc., but as a stadium operation such an effort would be a more costly and less certain investment by comparison. No club at this point ever wants to over-build and reduce ticket values.


*cough* terracing *cough*. Gazidis brought it up a few months back. All it needs is the support of the big clubs imho.

I would have much preferred the club to have found a site they could have built the stadium they wanted with an 80,000 to 90,000 capacity even if it meant us moving out of Islington. With a 90,000 stadium we could have had around 20,000 tickets at just £10 each, enabling all Arsenal fans being able to afford to watch our great club.

I don't think that would've ever happened. They would've gone 80,000 tops and prices wouldn't be that much lower than now.

I think the seats are 50cm wide.
Currently 45-47cm are standard, but there is alos a lil bit space between the seats. In general its 50cm / seat.

At Emirates thy used 50cm, but they have no space between them.

Even though I am proud the Emirates is our stadium, I do think the club sacrificed way to much just to keep us in Islington.

Problem is there isn't anywhere else in inner North London (Camden - Hackney, boroughs) with suitable industrial space, unlike inner West (Shephard's Bush/White City), South (Battersea and along the Old Kent Road) and East (take your pick). They could have gone south into the edge of central London at the Kings Cross site, but let's face it a stadium would have taken up half the site and it wasn't in keeping with what the developers, councils, residents and businesses wanted (probably only the national stadium would have). The only large scale sites in North London as a whole are around Enfield and Tottenham, which obviously aren't realistic from a fans perspective.

I would have much preferred the club to have found a site they could have built the stadium they wanted with an 80,000 to 90,000 capacity even if it meant us moving out of Islington. With a 90,000 stadium we could have had around 20,000 tickets at just £10 each, enabling all Arsenal fans being able to afford to watch our great club.

Don't think that would have happened tbh, what's the cheapest ticket at Old Trafford? Arsenal can get away with charging more. I doubt the cheapest tickers for PL and CL games would have been under £30 personally even with a 80k ground.

Problem is there isn't anywhere else in inner North London (Camden - Hackney, boroughs) with suitable industrial space, unlike inner West (Shephard's Bush/White City), South (Battersea and along the Old Kent Road) and East (take your pick). They could have gone south into the edge of central London at the Kings Cross site, but let's face it a stadium would have taken up half the site and it wasn't in keeping with what the developers, councils, residents and businesses wanted (probably only the national stadium would have). The only large scale sites in North London as a whole are around Enfield and Tottenham, which obviously aren't realistic from a fans perspective.

Don't think that would have happened tbh, what's the cheapest ticket at Old Trafford? Arsenal can get away with charging more. I doubt the cheapest tickers for PL and CL games would have been under £30 personally even with a 80k ground.

Yeah I suppose your right about not to many sites around London, except WEMBLEY of course, which was for sale in 1998 and we even put in an offer in to Wembley plc for £100 million before pulling out. There certainly wouldnt have been any restrictions on height or capacity there. For me, not buying Wembley was an opportunity missed by the club

If Arsenal had bought Wembley, surely Danny Fizman and Ken Frair wouldnt have messed up the costing like the FA did. The actual cost of Wembley should have been around £350million plus £120 million for buying the stadium from Wembley plc =
£250-300m to build the stadium
£120m to buy land
£23m for demolition
£50m for improving infrastructure
So altogether around £450million, the same price it cost to build the emirates!

I no wembley isnt easy to get to and from and the area isnt a patch on Islington, but Wembley stadium is iconic and probably the most famous stadium in the world (a good pulling factor for signing top players). Plus we could have built the stadium we wanted and wouldnt have had to compromise on anything (including capactiy).

As for my point regarding having a 90,000 capacity and selling 20,000 tickets at £10. Thats exactly what Arsenal did in 98/99 & 99/00, when they played there home champions league games at the twin towers. Thats why we sold out capacity (73,707) against teams like AIK Sofia.

Problem is there isn't anywhere else in inner North London (Camden - Hackney, boroughs) with suitable industrial space, unlike inner West (Shephard's Bush/White City), South (Battersea and along the Old Kent Road) and East (take your pick). They could have gone south into the edge of central London at the Kings Cross site, but let's face it a stadium would have taken up half the site and it wasn't in keeping with what the developers, councils, residents and businesses wanted (probably only the national stadium would have). The only large scale sites in North London as a whole are around Enfield and Tottenham, which obviously aren't realistic from a fans perspective.

If I remember correctly we were originally in the running to buy Wembley. Also at various times a stadium (possibly a groundshare) has been proposed at Ally pally, but it has shit transport links imho and too far out. With Kings Cross I thought the problem was that we would've had to wait for the site...

Yeah I suppose your right about not to many sites around London, except WEMBLEY of course, which was for sale in 1998 and we even put in an offer in to Wembley plc for £100 million before pulling out. There certainly wouldnt have been any restrictions on height or capacity there. For me, not buying Wembley was an opportunity missed by the club

On paper maybe but in terms of goodwill it would've been bad imho

As for my point regarding having a 90,000 capacity and selling 20,000 tickets at £10. Thats exactly what Arsenal did in 98/99 & 99/00, when they played there home champions league games at the twin towers. Thats why we sold out capacity (73,707) against teams like AIK Sofia.

For one off games against unattractive opposition, 11 years ago. Prices have accelerated since then.

On paper maybe but in terms of goodwill it would've been bad imho



Maybe in terms of goodwill with the FA it wouldnt have been great, but as an Arsenal fan do you not agree, with hindsight, we missed a chance not buying the stadium from Wembley plc in 1998?

If I remember correctly we were originally in the running to buy Wembley. Also at various times a stadium (possibly a groundshare) has been proposed at Ally pally, but it has shit transport links imho and too far out.

Wembley would have been bad PR, plus it's technically NW not North London, it's just as bad as Spurs going to Stratford (NE) from a geographical perspective.

Where is the room around Ally Pally? you mean replacing the venue?

It's probably about as far North as you can go, but it isn't Islington anymore and I think Camden or Hackney would be more acceptable if you left the borough. Transport is ok, not brilliant, you can walk from Wood Green if I remember and the rail station is on a line with fast tracks I think so could have been upgraded. It's near a decent part of the North circular as well (in terms of lane numbers).

With Kings Cross I thought the problem was that we would've had to wait for the site...

I think building only could have started once the Eurostar stuff was done around 2007 or so, so yeah you'd probably only be getting it now, or 2010 at the earliest. I don't think it would have happened though, It would have meant a huge reduction in office and residential units and too many would be against it. Camden have put a lot of their eggs into the Kings X basket. Would have been cool having a stadium so central. I personally would have liked Wembley to be there, much better from a fans perspective and all the northerners, Brummies, continentals, etc could walk to the ground straight from the 3 main stations, no need to clog up the tube and rail network.

Btw, Chelsea's latest proposal to build a ground in the Power Station shows how desperate they are, it's ridiculous, they'd have so many restrictions. Sorry for the off topic mention!

Wembley would have been bad PR, plus it's technically NW not North London, it's just as bad as Spurs going to Stratford (NE) from a geographical perspective.



Who cares if its NW not North London. Arsenal were originally from south-east London! As for bad PR, we recieved a load of that with Ashburton Grove, making compulsory purchase orders on loads of businesses. The England national team could have been our tennants at Wembley and still held there cup finals there.

As for Ally Pally, that was an idea in the 70s to ground share with Spurs. There was a fire at the Alexandra and I think the idea was we would buy it and knock down the Palace and build a stadium in its place.

As for Chelsea, there best bet would be to buy the bbc television buldings in White City, were the old White City Stadium used to be.

Who cares if its NW not North London. Arsenal were originally from south-east London! As for bad PR, we recieved a load of that with Ashburton Grove, making compulsory purchase orders on loads of businesses. The England national team could have been our tennants at Wembley and still held there cup finals there.

Yeah but was just after WWI though a totally different era and Henry Norris type characters wouldn't get away with it now. It was arguably the best thing any club ever did as Woolwich and the dockland areas badly lost out during WWII and post-war government policies (look at the population figures in the 20s/30s and then the 70s, they bombed. It's actually really sad what happened, Poplar and woolwich had more people than West London iirc) whilst Camden and Islington have sort of flourished since the mid-80s.

Anyway, as I say look at Spurs and the distance is similar and I think the bad feeling would dwarf what you got. I also don't think most people would be happy with the Cup Final at Arsenal's ground! LOL

As for Ally Pally, that was an idea in the 70s to ground share with Spurs. There was a fire at the Alexandra and I think the idea was we would buy it and knock down the Palace and build a stadium in its place.

Had no idea, interesting.

As for Chelsea, there best bet would be to buy the bbc television buldings in White City, were the old White City Stadium used to be.

I think QPR are going for that. Personally I think Chelsea should go out further West closer to their supporter base along the M4 corridor, somewhere near to Gunnesbury and South Action, but it's probably too close to Brentford. QPR should go to Park Royal. There is a large plot south of Willesden Junction, it's about the size of Ashburton Grove, maybe a bit bigger. That would leave White City and thus Hammersmith and Fulham for Fulham.....

I would have much preferred the club to have found a site they could have built the stadium they wanted with an 80,000 to 90,000 capacity even if it meant us moving out of Islington.

Plenty of space in Woolwich, I should imagine.

;)

^^ Shouldn't you support Brighton or something :lol:

Who cares if its NW not North London. Arsenal were originally from south-east London!

We've spent 98 of 125 years in inner north London it's hardly the same thing.

As for bad PR, we recieved a load of that with Ashburton Grove, making compulsory purchase orders on loads of businesses.

That was local press, it never made it further than London Tonight or BBC London/Newsroom South East... Moving to Wembley would've been sacrilege on a par with Wimbledon and because of all the implications not least because we had "form".

The England national team could have been our tennants at Wembley and still held there cup finals there.

The FA have always wanted cup finals on neutral ground. They played a few at Stamford Bridge in the early 20s and it wasn't a success and The crystal palace doubled up for a while too.

As for Chelsea, there best bet would be to buy the bbc television buldings in White City, were the old White City Stadium used to be.

No that's QPR's territory.

Yeah but was just after WWI though a totally different era and Henry Norris type characters wouldn't get away with it now. It was arguably the best thing any club ever did as Woolwich and the dockland areas badly lost out during WWII and post-war government policies (look at the population figures in the 20s/30s and then the 70s, they bombed. It's actually really sad what happened, Poplar and woolwich had more people than West London iirc) whilst Camden and Islington have sort of flourished since the mid-80s.

It was 1913, just before WWI.

Hang about what is now Islington had more than 400,000 people in 1911 census (old islington & finsbury), it now has half... If anywhere you listed bombed in the 1970s it was Islington and Camden. They've both rebounded now a little but so has everywhere in London.

As for the Woolwich area, it didn't experience population decline on the same scale. The borough actually saw an increase in population up to 1961 and population around then to now isn't much different. Lot's of estates were built in around Eltham, Lot's of new housing built around Thamesmead West. Woolwich's decline was different top Poplar's as it's always had land to build housing on.

Also when you say West London what do you mean? Hammersmith & Fulham and Kensington & Chelsea lost lots of people too.

I think QPR are going for that. Personally I think Chelsea should go out further West closer to their supporter base along the M4 corridor, somewhere near to Gunnesbury and South Action, but it's probably too close to Brentford. QPR should go to Park Royal. There is a large plot south of Willesden Junction, it's about the size of Ashburton Grove, maybe a bit bigger. That would leave White City and thus Hammersmith and Fulham for Fulham.....

I've always seen Chelsea as more of a South (West) London club not a west london one. They're support base has always been strong in Lambeth, Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton & Croydon and into deep Surrey.

QPR played at park royal (on coronation road) before they're ground got taken over by the army during WW1. Apparently they were happy there and the move to Shepherd's bush (After a spell in kensal) was only supposed to be temporary. It's a shame they didn't stay there, I don't think they should necessarily go back though. I mean why should QPR leave White City to Fulham? It's not near fulham anyway.

Wembley would have been bad PR, plus it's technically NW not North London, it's just as bad as Spurs going to Stratford (NE) from a geographical perspective.

It's further too..

Where is the room around Ally Pally? you mean replacing the venue? It's probably about as far North as you can go, but it isn't Islington anymore and I think Camden or Hackney would be more acceptable if you left the borough. Transport is ok, not brilliant, you can walk from Wood Green if I remember and the rail station is on a line with fast tracks I think so could have been upgraded. It's near a decent part of the North circular as well (in terms of lane numbers).

It's been proposed on an off since the 1970s

I disagree on transport though. Looking at the map Wood green is a little futher from it than Finsbury park/H & I is from the emirates the walk is also through residential areas rather than main roads. Also Alexandra Park station is only served by the surburban lines out of moorgate/kings cross. Much better links around the grove.


I think building only could have started once the Eurostar stuff was done around 2007 or so, so yeah you'd probably only be getting it now, or 2010 at the earliest. I don't think it would have happened though, It would have meant a huge reduction in office and residential units and too many would be against it. Camden have put a lot of their eggs into the Kings X basket.

You also say Camden have put all their eggs in the Kings cross central basket, that is now what about then. Thing's change remember. Also what do you mean too many would've been against it? Who? This indepedent article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/arsenal-pitches-for-kings-cross-1083433.html) states that the kings cross residents' group preferred it. It's conjecture anyway. Would've been the best site though.

Would have been cool having a stadium so central. I personally would have liked Wembley to be there, much better from a fans perspective and all the northerners, Brummies, continentals, etc could walk to the ground straight from the 3 main stations, no need to clog up the tube and rail network.

Yep would've been perfect site for the national stadium. In an ideal world they'd have swapped the Wembley site for London zoo. I can dream...

Btw, Chelsea's latest proposal to build a ground in the Power Station shows how desperate they are, it's ridiculous, they'd have so many restrictions. Sorry for the off topic mention!

I don't think it will be in the power station just in the site.

Tbh a stadium with that facade would've been immense. I'm a massive fan of the Indianapolis colt's stadium.

It was 1913, just before WWI.

Oops...

Hang about what is now Islington had more than 400,000 people in 1911 census (old islington & finsbury), it now has half... If anywhere you listed bombed in the 1970s it was Islington and Camden. They've both rebounded now a little but so has everywhere in London.

Well, all of inner London/Country of London bombed. At its peak the old boundary held, what, up to 5 million. Now it's just getting to 3 million after almost 20 years of growth.

As for the Woolwich area, it didn't experience population decline on the same scale. The borough actually saw an increase in population up to 1961 and population around then to now isn't much different. Lot's of estates were built in around Eltham, Lot's of new housing built around Thamesmead West. Woolwich's decline was different top Poplar's as it's always had land to build housing on.

I was getting mixed up a bit with Poplar, which saw a huge decline. Should check in future...

I've always seen Chelsea as more of a South (West) London club not a west london one. They're support base has always been strong in Lambeth, Wandsworth, Merton, Sutton & Croydon and into deep Surrey.

True, but also in Ealing, Hounslow and into Slough and beyond. Paddington gets rammed when Chelsea are at home.

QPR played at park royal (on coronation road) before they're ground got taken over by the army during WW1. Apparently they were happy there and the move to Shepherd's bush (After a spell in kensal) was only supposed to be temporary. It's a shame they didn't stay there, I don't think they should necessarily go back though. I mean why should QPR leave White City to Fulham? It's not near fulham anyway.


Lol, I was being a bit cheeky. I'd rather see the grounds more spread out, QPR use to have a lot of support in NW London around Kilburn, Willesden, etc. Park Royal is one of the few sites where a stadium would be welcomed and they're the most natural fit for the area. Fulham don;t have to go to White City, I was kidding. But there aren't many plots around esp. if Chelsea go to somewhere in Wandsworth.

I disagree on transport though. Looking at the map Wood green is a little futher from it than Finsbury park/H & I is from the emirates the walk is also through residential areas rather than main roads. Also Alexandra Park station is only served by the surburban lines out of moorgate/kings cross. Much better links around the grove.

It's not as good as around Highbury/holloway rd, no doubt. But still better than WHL.

You also say Camden have put all their eggs in the Kings cross central basket, that is now what about then. Thing's change remember. Also what do you mean too many would've been against it? Who? This indepedent article (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/arsenal-pitches-for-kings-cross-1083433.html) states that the kings cross residents' group preferred it. It's conjecture anyway. Would've been the best site though.

That's just one cut-off quote. I never trust the media with that, I'd want to see the whole response. Also, I don't know what else was being planned at the time but I do know after HS1 had been agreed that one plan envisioned a couple of skyscrapers so if that was on the cards that quote makes sense seen in a 'least bad option' light.

I mean once LCR sold it to the developer they weren't then going to go with Arsenal. I also doubt the council would have because all the residential plots are at the north of the site (and a fair bit is social housing by today's standards)). Near the station it's all offices and Camden's new HQ, the middle is retail and St. Martins. BUt yes, it was 1999 and plans were only being drawn up. You have to figure the council had their own wish list as well.

It's all moot anyway, the government railroaded the HS1 link and I'm glad they did as its more useful than a PL club ground overall (Arsenal weren't prepared to wait for the site to be cleared which is fair enough)

Was the Dome idea really realistic?! Crazy if true but close to Woolwich ;)

Yep would've been perfect site for the national stadium. In an ideal world they'd have swapped the Wembley site for London zoo. I can dream...

It was the best site for me by far if the stadium was in London. Stratford was the only other London site just because of the connections now and possibilities (e.g HS2 link). Could have anchored the sports complex and would have solved the Olympic stadium nonsense and allowed that cash to be used elsewhere. A Stade de France lower retractable stand could have been built and after the games bulldozed for a fixed one (the stands are far at Wembley anyway). Athletics could get the 10-15k ground it needs and would actually fill...

I don't think it will be in the power station just in the site.

Tbh a stadium with that facade would've been immense. I'm a massive fan of the Indianapolis colt's stadium.

So they'd have to knock it down? Is that allowed? Would it be good PR for a club hardly liked?

The problem with using the shell of BPS is more the difficulty of expansion and how much they'd have fit around imo.

Well, all of inner London/Country of London bombed. At its peak the old boundary held, what, up to 5 million. Now it's just getting to 3 million after almost 20 years of growth.

The south east didn't (Original Lewisham & Woolwich boroughs), but then you could argue they should never have been in the county in the first place


True, but also in Ealing, Hounslow and into Slough and beyond. Paddington gets rammed when Chelsea are at home.

More competition west than south though...

Lol, I was being a bit cheeky. I'd rather see the grounds more spread out, QPR use to have a lot of support in NW London around Kilburn, Willesden, etc. Park Royal is one of the few sites where a stadium would be welcomed and they're the most natural fit for the area. Fulham don;t have to go to White City, I was kidding. But there aren't many plots around esp. if Chelsea go to somewhere in Wandsworth.

Fulham should stay put

It was the best site for me by far if the stadium was in London. Stratford was the only other London site just because of the connections now and possibilities (e.g HS2 link). Could have anchored the sports complex and would have solved the Olympic stadium nonsense and allowed that cash to be used elsewhere. A Stade de France lower retractable stand could have been built and after the games bulldozed for a fixed one (the stands are far at Wembley anyway). Athletics could get the 10-15k ground it needs and would actually fill...

So you think there was a better site outside London?

Would we have got the Olympics without the "Legacy"?

So they'd have to knock it down? Is that allowed? Would it be good PR for a club hardly liked?

http://consult.wandsworth.gov.uk/events/10630/images/web/1511026_0_1.jpg

You might be able to shoehorn one in.

The problem with using the shell of BPS is more the difficulty of expansion and how much they'd have fit around imo.

If they can afford it I still say why not.

I 'm big fan of The gunners
I like Emirates But i like Highbury more :)

^^ Shouldn't you support Brighton or something :lol:

We've spent 98 of 125 years in inner north London it's hardly the same thing.

Moving to Wembley would've been sacrilege on a par with Wimbledon and because of all the implications not least because we had "form".



Im not the only person who thinks Arsenal moving to Wembley was a good idea. Hence the Arsenal board (including Danny Fizman, David Dein & Ken Frair) made an offer to buy the stadium in 1998.

They obviously thought it was a great opportunity, as it was there first choice of venue if we had to move from Highbury. And it would have happened, but we pulled out because of pressure from the FA who thought it would jepodise there bid to host the 2006 World Cup.

When the announcement was made that we had made a bid to buy Wembley - http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/1998/03/12/BSP120398010/?s=arsenal+wembley+stadium+bid&st=0&pn=1 - I dont remember seeing too many Arsenal fans on the street protesting against the move.

Arsenal to wembley would has been a sacrilege!

Wembley must stay above the partisianism
Arsenal has nothing to do with wembley except to play some fa cup finals

Fulham should stay put

At the cottage? It looks hard to expand though. There might be a site at West Brompton but you figure Chelsea already looked at that.

So you think there was a better site outside London?

No, not just because I am bias but also because fans say they prefer stadiums in central areas (SJP) rather than off a motorway in the middle of nowhere or in some residential district and this was the only site that could offer that.

I can understand fans outside London though and their views.

Would we have got the Olympics without the "Legacy"?

I always thought the urban regeneration was the bigger part of the legacy package than the athletics bit and that wouldn't have changed. They knew that the 25k athletics-only stadium was always at risk because the sport isn't commercially viable and governments change. The stadium here would have saved hundreds of millions that could have - at least partially - be spent elsewhere.


You might be able to shoehorn one in.

If they can afford it I still say why not.

Given that the site is already compromised due to the PS it's going to be hard to convince the borough imo because all the housing units were built on the rest of the site.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/369/bpsriverfront2.jpg

That being side I think the developers/site owners have debt that needs rolling over and aren't in a great position. If they can build the stadium into it that would be best, but unlike the Colts (from what I can see) they aren't starting from scratch. I'd say they can do it but more of the station would need demolishing than in the current plans.

excuse me but what is the actual function of battersea station?

I think it had been renovated like the tate? No?

Then what is this scheme? To make of it appartment or hôtel? Why not to destroy it?

Battersea Power Station would be the most segnificant football stadium in the world. But I dont think that landmark is affordable for anyone.

excuse me but what is the actual function of battersea station?

I think it had been renovated like the tate? No?

Then what is this scheme? To make of it appartment or hôtel? Why not to destroy it?

Because it's a fantastic, beautiful and iconic building. Grade 2* listed. Not a chance in hell that the planners would allow any developer to demolish it.

Sadly, it has been an empty shell for the past 10-15 years. There have been a number of different proposed schemes during that time - all of which failed to materialise.

There has recently, however, been more positive talk about the latest proposal.

a palace? mmm... a 5 stars then :)

I think this part of london with a attractive thing like a stadium would make more & more tourists come there .

A museum would be the better thing then why not the tate 2 wasn't there? The extension of tate is great but would have been greater in that site.

Money cost perhaps?

Or why not to transform it like american do with their old factories making them new arenas?

There's no football arena in England! :dunno:
A shame! even wales has one :|

a palace? mmm... a 5 stars then :)

I think this part of london with a attractive thing like a stadium would make more & more tourists come there .

A museum would be the better thing then why not the tate 2 wasn't there? The extension of tate is great but would have been greater in that site.

Money cost perhaps?

Or why not to transform it like american do with their old factories making them new arenas?

There's no football arena in England! :dunno:
A shame! even wales has one :|

I don't like the idea of football arenas.

It's a sport that's meant to be played outside, in the elements.

even when it snows and delays or cancel the match? :|

i don't understand how conservative are people... To have indoor conditions enables to keep the game spectacular like in summer conditions.

Have you forgotten all the matchs played in cardiff for community shield or FA cup?

The roof keeps everybody (players & spectators ) in good conditions
.

Here in lille we'll verify this next year :cheers:

I'm sure if tottenham would has planned an indoor arena everybody from london & spurs would have said "oh great! we'll be equipped of the 'best of best', oh ! it will be fantastic etc..." :lol:

even when it snows and delays or cancel the match? :|

i don't understand how conservative are people... To have indoor conditions enables to keep the game spectacular like in summer conditions.

Have you forgotten all the matchs played in cardiff for community shield or FA cup?

The roof keeps everybody (players & spectators ) in good conditions
.

Here in lille we'll verify this next year :cheers:

I'm sure if tottenham would has planned an indoor arena everybody from london & spurs would have said "oh great! we'll be equipped of the 'best of best', oh ! it will be fantastic etc..." :lol:

It rarely snows in England.

And even when it does, now that top clubs all have heated pitches, the only reason a game might be postponed is because conditions outside the stadium are too hazardous for travel etc. Having a fully enclosed roof isn't going to change that.

As I said, football is a game that is meant to be played in the elements. Playing under a fully enclosed roof seems unnatural and sterile to me.

But if it's what you want for Lille, fine. À chacun son goût.

It rarely snows in England.

And even when it does, now that top clubs all have heated pitches, the only reason a game might be postponed is because conditions outside the stadium are too hazardous for travel etc. Having a fully enclosed roof isn't going to change that.



:D

London december 2010 a saturday match:

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/5097/gun1233572571emiratessn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/gun1233572571emiratessn.jpg/)

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6024/gun1233572617emiratessn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/gun1233572617emiratessn.jpg/)

A one in 10 year event is a good enough reason to build a roof which would cost 10s of millions? I think not. It's so rare matches are called off because of snow in the Premier League.

:D

London december 2010 a saturday match:

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/5097/gun1233572571emiratessn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/gun1233572571emiratessn.jpg/)

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6024/gun1233572617emiratessn.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/171/gun1233572617emiratessn.jpg/)

As far as I recall, that game was abandoned because of the conditions outside the stadium. Had that not been the case, Arsenal could have turned on the pitch heating and cleared the snow.

Besides, as Rob said, it's such a rare event that it wouldn't, in itself, justify the building of a fully enclosed roof.

and the utility to play on a snow field? :|

You never give up jim b & rob h . All is perfect under the sky of london...

I'm sure if emirates would had one retractable roof you would consecrate as a "sacred temple"

and the utility to play on a snow field? :|

You never give up jim b & rob h . All is perfect under the sky of london...

I'm sure if emirates would had one retractable roof you would consecrate as a "sacred temple"

I repeat:

1. Arsenal could have cleared the pitch easily enough if they had wanted to. They have undersoil heating. But there was no point. The game was already postponed because of the poor and dangerous conditions on the roads.

2. Heavy snow that actually settles on the ground to any great depth is such a rare event in England (especially in London, where the temperature is generally 2 or 3 degrees higher than in the countryside) that it would be ridiculously wasteful to build a fully enclosed roof purely for that eventuality.

3. Not all is perfect "under the sky of London" at all. Neither Rob nor I have claimed anything of the sort. My antipathy to fully enclosed roofs has nothing to do with the weather. I can't speak for Rob but, as I've already told you twice, the experience of watching a game of football under an enclosed roof feels artificial to me. Not like a proper football match at all. I just don't like it. End of story.

As I also said, à chacun son goût. In other words, I respect the fact that you obviously like football stadiums with fully enclosed roofs. I wouldn't attempt to persuade you otherwise.

So please afford me the same respect and stop trying to tell me what I do like or what I ought to like. Fair enough?

No more silliness, please, Axel. There's a good lad.

and just to finish what do you think of rain?

It doesn't rain in london?
You prefer to see a match on a dry field or a wet one?

It's obvious a roof enables the best conditions no?

I don't want to change your mind but recognize the best games played are in wet conditions.

Dealing with the various weather conditions is thankfully still part of the game. Oh, and you just know Axel wouldn't have mentioned any of this if the new stadium in Lille didn't have a retractable roof. :|

and just to finish what do you think of rain?

It doesn't rain in london?
You prefer to see a match on a dry field or a wet one?

It's obvious a roof enables the best conditions no?

I don't want to change your mind but recognize the best games played are in wet conditions.

you cant beat a game played in the rain,

Ok londons sports structures don't need retractables roofs! Oh i forget what is this semi retractable roof above people at wembley? :mad:

Hurry up! Abandon this aspect of wembley London stadiums don't need that! O2 arena is enough

Stadiums with retractable roofs should be build in countries where the winter is harsh enough to stop play for 2-3 months.
For example in Romania, those idiots build the National Arena with a retractable roof but the stadium has no facade to complete the isolation from the outside ( like the one in Warsaw ).
In London a retractable roof would be just a good add-on if you don't want the team to play in the rain, depending on the style of play, you could choose to do so.

Ok londons sports structures don't need retractables roofs! Oh i forget what is this semi retractable roof above people at wembley? :mad:

Hurry up! Abandon this aspect of wembley London stadiums don't need that! O2 arena is enough

every time i go into a thread you're in there is some sort of big argument you have created! you're such a troll on these boards and i don't think many people like or take kindly to you at all. people have a right to their opinions without you always trying to give your 2 cents or compare what they have to what you have in lille. the way you go on some times you make it seems as if lille is some sort of mecca.:bash:

Wimbeldon has a retractable roof. Wembley Stadium's roof is pointless really should just fix the roof in once place. Emirates could use a retractable roof help bring in more non-football events. Sure it has snowed more than once in ten years in England, Think a winter break might be on the cards if it keeps snowing year on year. Also Axelferis is a troll

Also Axelferis is a troll

:applause:

Ok londons sports structures don't need retractables roofs! Oh i forget what is this semi retractable roof above people at wembley? :mad:

Hurry up! Abandon this aspect of wembley London stadiums don't need that! O2 arena is enough

Wembley's retractable roof is a completely different matter, as you should well know. Even when fully extended, the roof only covers the limited areas that a normal roof at any outdoor stadium would cover. The pitch remains always open to the elements.

The purpose of the retractable sections at either end is to have the option of there being less roof coverage rather than more. The idea is to allow more sunlight to reach the pitch a) so that the grass will grow better and b) so that, for improved TV pictures, there isn't too big an area of dark shadow over he pitch.

That said, considering how little the retractable roof has been used, the FA would have done far better just to build a normal roof and thereby save themselves £50 million.

and just to finish what do you think of rain?

It doesn't rain in london?
You prefer to see a match on a dry field or a wet one?

It's obvious a roof enables the best conditions no?

I don't want to change your mind but recognize the best games played are in wet conditions.

Football in the rain is great.

i'm sorry but cardiff did right! They understand well the sport of 21st century ;)

the millenium stadium is designed primarily for rugby ^^

rugby an outdoor sport no?

:)

http://static.mamamia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg

You're not going anywhere with this argument Axel, drop it. Football in the rain is great, it's a winter sport.

The only possible argument you may have is for Wembley, since it is a bit more of a multisport arena, hosting concerts and things as well as football. But I haven't heard any complaints about there being not fully retractable roof, so I suppose people aren't too bothered about it.

For pure football stadiums like the Emirates, or Spurs' new ground when it is eventually built, the cost of a full roof would FAR outweigh any minor benifit, and if it means footballers don't have to play in the rain and are mollycoddled even more, then the roof is probably a bad thing for the sport rather than a good thing.

Cardiff (and, yes, Lille :yawn:) made a decision to have a retractable roof; that doesn't mean every new stadium that doesn't follow this model is wrong or doesn't understand sport in the 21st centrury.

i'm sorry but cardiff did right! They understand well the sport of 21st century ;)

So Wembley has it wrong?
The Camp Nou has it wrong?
The Santiago Bernabeu has it wrong?
The Azteca has it wrong?
The Allianz Arena has it wrong?
The Signal Iduna Park (Borussia Dortmund) has it wrong?
The San Siro has it wrong?
The Stade de France has it wrong?
The Estadio Dragao has it wrong?
The Estadio da Luz has it wrong?

But Lille has it right?

I see where you're going with this.....

The Stade de France has it wrong?
The Estadio Dragao has it wrong?
The Estadio da Luz has it wrong?



The guys of Stade de france regret to not have this roof because some spectacles can't be organized there in winter :|

Look at the future New national french stadium (more 80k seater) . They will copy a lot lille new scheme and functionnement because they want it very multipurpose.
And chances for a possible bid of the company which is building Lille arena to get involved in the new french rugby national stadium are very high

England rugby team will come in france to play in a bigger Lille arena copy :lol: then you would understand better the comfort you'll have there!


For Lisbon estadio da luz i don't think their winters are so cold then they don't need.

After i don't have the pretention to change english mentality :lol:

If england don't need retractable then i accept that .it's their problem not mine :)

The guys of Stade de france regret to not have this roof because some spectacles can't be organized there in winter :|

Look at the future New national french stadium (more 80k seater) . They will copy a lot lille new scheme and functionnement because they want it very multipurpose.
And chances for a possible bid of the company which is building Lille arena to get involved in the new french rugby national stadium are very high

England rugby team will come in france to play in a bigger Lille arena copy :lol: then you would understand better the comfort you'll have there!


For Lisbon estadio da luz i don't think their winters are so cold then they don't need.

After i don't have the pretention to change english mentality :lol:

If england don't need retractable then i accept that .it's their problem not mine :)

1. It rains in Portugal plenty.

2. Preferring an outdoor sport to be played outdoors is not "a problem". It's just natural. If you prefer it to be played indoors, then that is not a problem either. It is just your preference - although not one shared by most proper football fans.

@jimB - i, as well as everyone else who comes on these boards, understands you. this little git is going to keep arguing so just leave him be. there is absolutely no use in responding to him.

Axel causing a huge debate about why there isn't a roof? This is an event which has never happened before at all!

LOL

Im sorry but cardiff did right! They understand well the sport of 21st century - Axel

So Sport in the 21st Century is to be multipurpose?

What so cricket players playing rugby and soccer players playing golf ?

ugh.... here we go again.

i give up guys :)

Emirates is emirates like it is.

No problem.

Are you serious? dedicated to "ultras"? I know you're American and you guys have copied the ultra style of support for your league, but there will never be and should never be ultras at Arsenal (or any serious English club).Sorry, I should've said "die-hards." I wasn't referring to the violent gangs more commonly seen in Italy and elsewhere but rather the true fans who would be standing if they could, singing, waving banners, etc. American press sometimes uses the ultras terms as the generic catch all for footie fanatics gathered at the end lines and I mistakenly adopted that here. Sorry to cause you a scare!

:cheers:

Sorry, I should've said "die-hards." I wasn't referring to the violent gangs more commonly seen in Italy and elsewhere but rather the true fans who would be standing if they could, singing, waving banners, etc. American press sometimes uses the ultras terms as the generic catch all for footie fanatics gathered at the end lines and I mistakenly adopted that here. Sorry to cause you a scare!

:cheers:

I wasn't refering to the violent gangs either. I was talking about the types posted in the football fans emotions thread which you seem to be cosigning. They're so die hard they care more about the atmosphere than the game on pitch.

It doesn't rain in london?

It rains a great deal in London, as you know.

You prefer to see a match on a dry field or a wet one?

I prefer whichever is dictated by the weather that day.

It's obvious a roof enables the best conditions no?

No. It enables the *driest* conditions.

Let's see Lille spend their own money on a roof...

It's great what you can build when others are paying for you.

I wasn't refering to the violent gangs either. I was talking about the types posted in the football fans emotions thread which you seem to be cosigning. They're so die hard they care more about the atmosphere than the game on pitch.

I'm only taking a wild guess here, but I think GunnerJacket may have been referring to something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHywRb9megA

Seeing as you've posted in support of standing terraces for English clubs in the past, you're opposition to a similar sort of stand/vocal terrace at the Emirates is surprising.

Football in the rain is great, it's a winter sport - Rob H

That's rather like saying sex in the rain is great because its a winter activity.

Its all down to personal preference. For example, a lot of people much prefer indoor sex, especially when its really sunny outside thay can draw the curtains for shade (as well as for the obvious reason - privacy).

Don't forget that protecting spectators and players from excessive sunlight can also be another great advantage of fully retractable roofing, not just ensuring the snow and rain do not effect or prevent play.

I'm only taking a wild guess here, but I think GunnerJacket may have been referring to something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHywRb9megA

Seeing as you've posted in support of standing terraces for English clubs in the past, you're opposition to a similar sort of stand/vocal terrace at the Emirates is surprising.

Here in lies the problem, Gunnerjacket wants a stand where what he calls the hardcore (ultras) can sing and create what he calls an atmosphere. You've misconstrued that as being in conflict with my comments (ones I made three pages back even) in support of terracing. This is because you erroneously link my desire to bring back terracing with the desire to create an “atmosphere” when for me it couldn't be further from the truth. I want to bring back terracing because it would on paper allow ticket prices to be decreased without loss to the clubs and therefore theoretically it would allow the poor, normal people and the more importantly the young back into stadiums (particularly at the larger clubs) amongst other reasons.

The fact that you also referencing it as a "vocal terrace" is part of the problem, terracing =/= better atmosphere. I remember reading a comment where someone said that in their opinion cheap tickets and terracing won't bring the "atmosphere" back because atmosphere is (and has always been) linked to the importance of the game and to how well a team is doing. After all you still get good atmospheres for the big games in England, just look at Arsenal-Barcelona last year or whenever we play Spurs, Chelsea or United. The problem is the atmosphere at the less important games (which are covered far more by the media nowadays) but games against smaller clubs rarely had "great" atmospheres but it seems that revisionist history has made it seem like every game prior to all-seater era was rocking. It is this belief that has manifested in many countries into ultras who try and create what they consider atmosphere for every game they go to. I'm not saying atmosphere now even for the big games is as good as then, but I am quering as to why Arsenal vs. Wigan or Man United vs. Fulham should be bouncing.

And that's where that Dortmund-Schalke video you posted comes in as it is exactly what I am saying. What it shows is two sets of fans partaking in for the most part choreographed bouncing and chanting (tbh I don't know if this is before, during or after the game) and that is my problem, the choreography that is. This especially given that this is a derby which surely shouldn't need any help getting the atmosphere going. Basically in my opinion if it needs to be choreographed then it is not real passion, not real emotion or a real football atmosphere because all those things require spontaneity and that's something you can't get with organised support (the football fans emotion thread shows no emotions). This (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=598423&sec=europe&root=europe&cc=5739) article from German writer Uli Hesse sums it up for me, particularly this quote:
"ultras have become less interested in support than self-staging, that their constant chanting is stupefying rather than exhilarating, that they have become so self-centred and cliquish they won't even take up songs started by non-ultras and that their orchestrated approach kills off anything that is spontaneous."

Basically yes I’m massively in favour of terracing, but not so some idiots with megaphones can tell people what to do/sing and some idiot with a flag can wave it in front of people and then tell them if they don’t like they can fuck off. If it brings back a proper ebb and flow football atmosphere then it would be a boo but that's not the primary motive for me.

The fact that you also referencing it as a "vocal terrace" is part of the problem, terracing =/= better atmosphere. I remember reading a comment where someone said that in their opinion cheap tickets and terracing won't bring the "atmosphere" back because atmosphere is (and has always been) linked to the importance of the game and to how well a team is doing. After all you still get good atmospheres for the big games in England, just look at Arsenal-Barcelona last year or whenever we play Spurs, Chelsea or United. The problem is the atmosphere at the less important games (which are covered far more by the media nowadays) but games against smaller clubs rarely had "great" atmospheres but it seems that revisionist history has made it seem like every game prior to all-seater era was rocking. It is this belief that has manifested in many countries into ultras who try and create what they consider atmosphere for every game they go to. I'm not saying atmosphere now even for the big games is as good as then, but I am quering as to why Arsenal vs. Wigan or Man United vs. Fulham should be bouncing.


I remember reading (i think David Conn, but really not even 70% sure) that what's made the atmosphere worse, if you accept it is, is not the removal of terracing per se - If you go to the first 3/4 years after all-seating was introduced was the atmosphere really worse than before? Instead, it's the lack of young people (who tend to be the most vocal) and the growth of the season ticket, meaning fewer people in total saw games live. Basically, the end stands were where the cheapest tickets were and where you'd get groups of teenagers and guys in their 20s, with the faces rotating frequently bringing 'hunger' into the ground and having an effect on the atmosphere. Going to games was also a social event, you often hear of people saying it was like what clubbing became in the 90s - i.e. you would go with loads of mates, spending the whole day out between the match and the pub and by the end of the day you kind of had forgotten about the result and it was really all about that.

Not saying this is my view btw.

I remember reading (i think David Conn, but really not even 70% sure) that what's made the atmosphere worse, if you accept it is, is not the removal of terracing per se - If you go to the first 3/4 years after all-seating was introduced was the atmosphere really worse than before? Instead, it's the lack of young people (who tend to be the most vocal) and the growth of the season ticket, meaning fewer people in total saw games live.

Basically, the end stands were where the cheapest tickets were and where you'd get groups of teenagers and guys in their 20s, with the faces rotating frequently bringing 'hunger' into the ground and having an effect on the atmosphere. Going to games was also a social event, you often hear of people saying it was like what clubbing became in the 90s - i.e. you would go with loads of mates, spending the whole day out between the match and the pub and by the end of the day you kind of had forgotten about the result and it was really all about that.

Not saying this is my view btw.

It was David Conn and I am inclined to agree to a point. Iirc he said something along the lines of the same people are in the stadiums as in the eighties at most clubs it's just they are older, fatter, balder and more comfortable. Like you said what has changed is you don't get the churn with new kids replacing the older guys who graduated to the seats on the side. So that atmosphere gets old with the fans, it's no coincidence that ultras in Germany tend to be kids rather than adults. I think this whole argument would be more true if stadiums were packed and rocking every week but they weren't.

A sunderland fan had a theory (on a sunderland forum) that it's the noise that is missing, the roaring, shouting etc (roker roar). Saying that on the terrace you were anonymous packed with your mates, but if you stand up to shout something in all-seater stadium you look like a bell end. It was all that roar and shouting combined which created the atmosphere. He's got a point for me. And when you watch old games on ESPN classic or youtube you do get the sense that there is more ebb and flow noise in the stadium.

But like I said I've read a number of points where they talk about the fact that there were plenty of games back then when the atmosphere was as bad as it is now and it's a bit of revisionism. Picking out a few highlights vids from youtube it's clear that it wasn't always bouncing.

RvdlXpjtxDA

uW70X4FRYAA

yUvgBYWg1Wo

_gEYH_3_Qcc

a5h9OUdgNd8

With the exception of the first clip (which was a cup semi between two rivals and highlights the noise argument best) the atmosphere doesn't sound too disimilar from today to me (you can hear more shouts from random kids). What's more it sounds completely different and far more natural than the mind numbing drone that ultras come out with.

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/scaled/366x498/dec_11/zp_135455710_SM_1504_B_98DA0A0_5762.jpg?ic=eba475T

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/scaled/341x498/dec_11/zp_135455710_SM_1455_B_98DA0FC_6346.jpg?ic=da0b72T

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/scaled/342x498/dec_11/zp_135455710_SM_1801_C_98D9F9E_6077.jpg?ic=6987edT

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/arsenal-statues-picture-special

and ian whright? Why he has not his statues?

and ian whright? Why he has not his statues?

Because Ian Wright is not an Arsenal legend and has done himself no favours with his outspoken views towards the club through his media carear.

Would have loved a David Rocastle statue.

What about someone from the first double winning side when it was a real big achievement? I know they sold him off and he had some trouble, but Charlie George was a local boy from Islington and Arsenal supporter growing up who went through the club's ranks straight from school. A fan's player if you will.

There are loads of candidates. George Graham, Dennis Bergkamp and Arsene Wenger are 3 more who spring to mind also worthy of a statue but still I wouldn't disagree with the 3 chosen.

How apt to have Tony Adams statue appealing for offside :cheers:

^^ :bash:
qD8w5d1V628

http://www.arsenal.com/assets/_files/images/oct_11/gun__1319553319_125picture_092.jpg

;)

Robin van Persie statue please

http://www.nationalturk.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/van-persie-nazi-salute-nationalturk-0273.jpg

The statues are ruined by the sponsors logos imho, the Henry one doesn't even look like him.

This shot should be considered for any future statues imho

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/NistelrooyDM0111_468x949.jpg

Robin van Persie statue please

http://www.nationalturk.com/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/van-persie-nazi-salute-nationalturk-0273.jpg

LOL