http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/53/Arsenal_FC.svg/180px-Arsenal_FC.svg.png
Arsenal FC

13x Champion:
1931, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1938,
1948, 1953, 1971, 1989, 1991,
1998, 2002, 2004

10x Cup Winner:
1930, 1936, 1950, 1971, 1979,
1993, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005

2x League Cup:
1987, 1993

12x Supercup:
1930, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1938,
1948, 1953, 1991, 1998, 1999,
2002, 2004

1x UEFA Cup Winners' Cup:
1994


http://farm1.static.flickr.com/97/242498465_6dc0e7b04d_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/72636523@N00/242498465/sizes/l/

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/487117607_80b618eb56_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamie_crick/487117607/sizes/l/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2568397432_622e20d813_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26219643@N08/2568397432/sizes/l/

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1117/806118617_d61dc7d552_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48028479@N00/806118617/sizes/l/

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2563/3792181570_da1d8b9d0f_b.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/caughtamonkey/3792181570/sizes/l/

Nice architecture, are there any construction pictures on the net, if the stadiums is already under construction.

It's still not UC

Yes it is.

http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/images/ts21_l.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/gallery21.html

The Stadium will be opening for business August 2006:
http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/timeline.html

ARSENAL FC New Stadium now has a website:
http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/index.html

it includes new pics such as these:
http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/images/ts19_l.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/images/ts23_l.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/images/ts22_l.jpg

I live within walking distance of Ashburton Grove.

Two of the concrete cores were up to about one hundred feet a week ago.

Really? wow! I thought you typed somewhere you live in Camden.

Really? wow! I thought you typed somewhere you live in Camden.

I do. It's only 25 minutes brisk walk, and another 20 past it to my uncle's house.

Camden must be a pretty cool place to live.

---

Latest new Arsenal stadium pics:

http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/images/site3.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/images/site4.jpg

Latest from Arsenal FC (LDN, EU):

http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/stadium_may20041.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/stadium_may20042.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/stadium_may20043.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/stadium_may20044.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/stadium_may20045.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/stadium_may20046.jpg

Coming soon:
http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/gallery/large/img3.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/stadium18062004_23.jpg

Ashburton Grove live webcam.
http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?article=212691&title=New%20Stadium%20webcam

um ... WOW

:)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/stadium_bridge.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/stadium_2106_1024.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/stadium_01.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/Arsenal_07.jpg
[IMG]

wow.

Can anyone tell me how many new stadiums are under construction or planned in London? There seems to be quite a few big ones.

By the way, almost all the picture links are dead, can someone repost the Ashburton Grove Stadium photo's.

Ashburton and Wembley are the 2 stadiums in London currently under construction. If Londons bid for the Olympics were to be succesful an 80000 seater stadium would be built in East London.Apart from that Twickenham is going to have its capacity increased from 75000 to 82000. There has been talk recently of Chelsea's Stamford Bridge having its capacity increased from 43000 to around 60k which would involve knocking down the Chelsea Village Hotel but former chairman Ken Bates has ownership of some of that property and is apparently making things difficult for them.I havent a clue why Arsenal websites Stadium pics arnt working though I'm afraid. :?

I like it.....when is it scheduled to be completed?

Its planned to be completed for the start of the 2006-7 season. Latest news this week is that construction is ahead of schedule.

wow really nice, two very big stadiums u.c. in londen that's so sick :)

Wow, this stadium will be fantastic, very good that arsenal builds this stadium, because Highbury is ugly

http://www.sportsvenue-technology.com/projects/arsenal/images/Arsenal_03.jpg

Vieira visits the new stadium site

Patrick Vieira observed the latest developments at the Club's new stadium site last week when he took time out to assess the views from different areas of Arsenal's future home, including a spot that will eventually be one of the highly-desirable executive boxes.

"I am really impressed with how well the stadium is progressing - it has really started to take shape and you can start to visualise what it's going to be like," said Vieira, speaking at the site. "The views are going to be fantastic from all over the stadium and I'm looking forward to being a part of this exciting time in the Club's history".

There will be 150 executive boxes available at the Gunners new home but only a limited number are still available for sale. Each box will hold between 10 and 15 people and are priced between £65,000 and £150,000 per season. Positioned on the third tier, the boxes will form a ring around the pitch - allowing for numerous vantage points with spectacular views.

Adrian Ford, Commercial Director of Arsenal, said: "We are extremely pleased with how executive box sales at the new stadium are progressing, with only a very limited number still available. With the executive boxes and Club Level, which will be marketed in October, we will have a fantastic array of hospitality at the new stadium catering for all needs, whether it be corporate entertaining or individuals wanting a unique, high quality match day experience."

Rather than take guests directly into their executive box via a staircase or lift and thus detaching visitors from the match day experience, Arsenal's new stadium will be far more inclusive, whilst retaining the privacy required for conducting business. Networking bars will form the perimeter of each box allowing separate box guests to socialise if desired.

The executive boxes are situated one floor above Club Level, which will be marketed in October. Club Level offers 6,700 spectators some of the best sight lines in the stadium and a selection of first class restaurants and bars.

The stadium is amazing and the surounding area... woow.. those buildings.. just beautiful.. :D

looks pretty damn amazing! cant wait to see the best team in the world play there ;)

Ashburton and Wembley are the 2 stadiums in London currently under construction. If Londons bid for the Olympics were to be succesful an 80000 seater stadium would be built in East London.Apart from that Twickenham is going to have its capacity increased from 75000 to 82000. There has been talk recently of Chelsea's Stamford Bridge having its capacity increased from 43000 to around 60k which would involve knocking down the Chelsea Village Hotel but former chairman Ken Bates has ownership of some of that property and is apparently making things difficult for them.I havent a clue why Arsenal websites Stadium pics arnt working though I'm afraid. :?

I've heard lots of people say that Abrahamovic will push Stamford up to 60K. Does anyone have any morre detailed info or pictures?

I think we can safely say that the money is available

Chelsea are supposedly looking at expanding the old shed end, which is the only possible way of developing and the relatively new hotel would have to be knocked down.
I dont think its moved beyond the "looking at" stage and it really will be difficult.
Its the same at Tottenham.

If both of these projects went along London could have ongoing work at the same time on 6 different sports venues with capacities above 50,000

Wembley - 90,000
Twickenham - 82,000
Possible new Olympic Stadium - 80,000 (maybe, as in Manchester, scaled down for Tottenham Hotspur to around 60,000)

Arsenal - 60,000
Chelsea - 60,000
Tottenham - around 38,000

Lol, with these all built London could launch a bid for the FIFA World Cup all on its own!

Has any one got any latest pictures of the stadiums progress?

Has any one got any latest pictures of the stadiums progress?

A webcam of the stadium under construction is available at http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/article.asp?article=212691
(webcam broadcast only available on weekdays - from 8am to 6pm GMT)

In anycase here's a fairly recent photo - looks quite impressive already :)
http://www.arsenal.com/images/thestadium/stadium21092004.jpg

Wembley - 90,000
Twickenham - 82,000
Possible new Olympic Stadium - 80,000 (maybe, as in Manchester, scaled down for Tottenham Hotspur to around 60,000)

Arsenal - 60,000
Chelsea - 60,000
Tottenham - around 38,000

Lol, with these all built London could launch a bid for the FIFA World Cup all on its own!

I believe Tottenham already have permission to expand to 52,000 but Alan Sugar (owner/chairman) said he didn't want to go ahead until the local Underground station was improved (I don't think he was offering to pay for it).

With London's possible Olympic Stadium I think the Hammers (West Ham United) are more likely tennants. As it is their Upton Park ground is pretty modern as it is and holds 35,000 (expansion to over 40,000 was originally planned but will almost certainly wait until they return to the Premiership).

Anyone know if Al-Fayed ever decided what to do with Craven Cottage?

Spurs don't have planning permission. The "threats" not to expand until the Victoria line is extended are just bluster. I think we can be confident that Transport for London doesn't give a toss whether they expand or not, and it has many higher priorities than the Victoria Line, which doesn't even rate a mention on most lists of transport projects in the pipeline.

Fulham announced in the Summer that they are staying at the 22,000 seater version of Craven Cottage for the forseeable future. They are no longer actively looking for a new site. Presumably this means they have ruled out all the the possibilities, which can only have been a handful, and new sites aren't going to magically appear in London. I don't think they will ever move.

Chelsea are supposedly looking at expanding the old shed end, which is the only possible way of developing and the relatively new hotel would have to be knocked down.
I dont think its moved beyond the "looking at" stage and it really will be difficult.
Its the same at Tottenham.

If both of these projects went along London could have ongoing work at the same time on 6 different sports venues with capacities above 50,000

Expansion of the Matthew Harding End, and replacement of the East Stand with a new one with much better facilities and a marginally higher capacity are also possible. Peter Kenyon confirmed in the Summer that the club is looking into the possibilities. I doubt that capacity will ever go beyond the low to mid fifties

Youhave talked about which team could oder would move to a possible olymic stadium. In this regard a have two questions:

a) Are you (England) really thinking about a new Olympic stadium? The new Wembly could be used. I thought that especially for that reason a temporary athletics track for the new wembly was considered.

b) do you really think that a premiership team wohl move to an olympic stadium? an english team in an arena with a big track around the field? :-(

Youhave talked about which team could oder would move to a possible olymic stadium. In this regard a have two questions:

a) Are you (England) really thinking about a new Olympic stadium? The new Wembly could be used. I thought that especially for that reason a temporay athletics track for the new wembly was considered.

b) do you really this that a premiership team wohl move to an olympic stadium? an english team in an arenawith a big track around the field? :-(

If London gets the olympics there will be a new stadium. Wembley is not in the main area for the olympics where the olympic stadium has to be.

The stadium will be rebuilt to remove the track otherwise no club would move there

cant wait to see the best team in the world play there ;)

Maybe Olympiakos will play there if they get in the same group as Arsenal. :jk: :)

there is a rumour going round that it is to be called "emirates stadium" after the sponsors emirates airline.

:lol: :down: :hilarious

can any of you gooners confirm this?

It seems very likely.

Check out Arsenal Mania

a) Are you (England) really thinking about a new Olympic stadium? The new Wembly could be used. I thought that especially for that reason a temporay athletics track for the new wembly was considered.


It will be possible to install a temporary track over the lower tier of Wembley, which will reduce the capacity to 68,000, but this would only be done for a World or European Athletics championships. There was a lot of ambiguity at the planning stage about whether or not the new Wembley was intended to be the proposed venue for the athletics in a future Olympics bid, and the fact that it has turned out not to be led some people to denounce the allocation of £120 million of National Lottery money to the project.

there is a rumour going round that it is to be called "emirates stadium" after the sponsors emirates airline.

:lol: :down: :hilarious

can any of you gooners confirm this?
http://img3.exs.cx/img3/8839/emirates_stadium_large.jpg

there is a rumour going round that it is to be called "emirates stadium" after the sponsors emirates airline.

:lol: :down: :hilarious

can any of you gooners confirm this?

Confirmed.

£100M for 15 years of it being called Emerites Stadium. Seems a fair price for Londons 3rd most popular team
:)

Regarding London's potential new Olympic Stadium I imagine it'll be along the lines on the City of Manchester Stadium whereby after the athletics track is no longer required they'll dig it up and install a lower level of seats. Wembley is completely the wrong side of London to be used. Plus the FA own it outright.

well i hope everyone; fans, papers, commentators, call it ashburton grove instead, like how no-one calls bradford's ground the Bradford and Bingley Stadium but Valley Parade.

Yep, its a bit naff having it called 'Emirates' stadium, however they are paying Arsenal 100 million for the privilege. I am so glad that Wembley Stadium is not sponsored and it will be called its proper name, not 'Adidas, Nike or Reebok Stadium'...

I think that the radio commentators might be forced to call it Emirates stadium. They might say this however, to get around it....

'Here we are, at Ashburton Grove, in the brand new Emirates Stadium. The development at Ashburton Grove etc etc.....'

I figure they might just refer the development and stadium as Ashburton Grove and then when explicitly referring to the stadium using the sponsored name. Who knows.

Latest Pics

http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/article.asp?article=233914&Title=Emirates+Stadium+-+October+Picture+special&lid=the+stadium+-+Latest+News

360 degree virtual view of the Arsenal Emirates stadium from club level seats:
http://www.arsenal.com/clublevel/view_midfield.htm

360 degree virtual view of the Arsenal Emirates stadium from club level seats:
http://www.arsenal.com/clublevel/view_midfield.htm

Are you sure it's not Estadio da Luz? :)

But it looks cool, and it will sure be a fantastic stadium.

Yes both stadiums look incredibly similar :) - both stadiums are designed by the same company (HOKsport). No doubt it is intentional as Arsenal (and HOKsport) stand to save a lot of money using effectively the same stadium design template.

Some pics of how the stadium will look from inside.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/10oclock.jpg

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

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/behindgoal1.jpg

When i see these pics i have to say that it looks really good but for my opinion too similar to the da luz. It's not more or less than an almost 100% copy of the da luz. i bet when we'll see games from the new arsenal stadium on tv we'll take our time to say, if this is london oder lisbon.

Yes i agree. Apart from the roof it does look very similiar to Da Luz.

Confirmed.

£100M for 15 years of it being called Emerites Stadium. Seems a fair price for Londons 3rd most popular team
:)

Regarding London's potential new Olympic Stadium I imagine it'll be along the lines on the City of Manchester Stadium whereby after the athletics track is no longer required they'll dig it up and install a lower level of seats. Wembley is completely the wrong side of London to be used. Plus the FA own it outright.

Er excuse me mate but I'll think you'll find that Arsenal is the BIGGEST club in London. What are you on? Do you honestly think Hotspurs and Chelsea have even 50% of the fanbase Arsenal have? No way.

I think chelsea might

The lower tier appears to be very flat, which is not ideal and can hurt atmosphere as people are moved away from the pitch rather than "on top" of it.
Perhaps its just this particular image but Luz would seem to be a bit better with Emirates to flat and "spread-out". Hope its nonsense though

The pictures were ripped from 360° views on the website and so the views are probably a wider angle than what will manifest in reality.I would imagine so anyway.

The projection is quite correct, the lower tier is indeed very, very flat with an avg. slope of about 17-18°. The whole building is comparatively low, just barely over 30 meters.

That is rather low. The Arsenal web site says The height of the new stadium will be 46 metres from ground level to its highest point. Is that incorrect information?

It doesnt look to good that on them redenders theres loads of stairs right out side the ground.

I had hoped the low angle of the lower tier was an illusion due to the way I ripped the pictures but it seems otherwise.Oh well.

The core building is just about 30 meters, the roof arch reaches ca. 45 meters at its apex.

The core building is just about 30 meters, the roof arch reaches ca. 45 meters at its apex.
Yes that makes sense. There were apparently strict height limits imposed by Islington council. It meant that Highbury was unable to be further redeveloped seeing as it was surrounded by housing and so Ashburton Grove has similiar restrictions but has more area to play with.Very annoying though what with it being less than a stones throw away from this thing.
http://uk.geocities.com/global_learn_uk/images/ourcont4.jpg

Just made a quick comparison between Ashburton Grove (red) and the Allianz Arena (blue). Using nearly identical scaling, the difference is quite obvious:

http://scifi.pages.at/abbafan/aa_vs_es.gif

Excellent comparison , very helpful. The difference isnt quite as extreme as I would have imagined. Afterall you have to remember that Arsenals stadium is for Arsenal only, has a smaller capacity and has height restrictions. The Munich stadium is to be used by the 2 Munich teams and also for international games. The only games you will see at Ashburton Grove are Arsenal V whoever and maybe the occasional cup semi final.I would like to see how "Da Luz" compares with both.

A comparison between Allianz Arena and Wembley would probably be even more appropriate. :)

Hey, that's quite an honour for Munich.
For over 30 years our stadium was widely known as a bleak graveyard and now our new home will be compared to the non-plus-ultra in stadium history.
Amazing !

Its a great stadium.

The best new stadium in Germany V best new stadium in Britain.
One nil to Wembley :yes:

.I would like to see how "Da Luz" compares with both.


Same here. Both look very similar. The only thing that may be different, is the gradient of the stands.. wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Da Luz was steeper. That said, I doubt the Emirates, will only be 30 m high. Looks nearer to 40.

I think we can make a comparison with wenbley when Germany would decide to build a national stadium aswell.But to be realistic,that will never happen.
So a comparison between the allianz and the emirates arena is absolutely fine,since they are both the newest club stadiums in each league.

I think chelsea might

Chelsea are nowhere near as welll supported as Arsenal, Arsenal has huge support in France, Scandenavia and is now the most supported club in India and probably a close 2nd to United in the whole of Asia, or third after Real Madrid. But Chelsea and Tottenham don't have the same number of supporters no way. Chelsea has more money, if you want to judge a club size on that. Personally I would judge them on how many trophies a team has one and global support.

Chelsea are nowhere near as welll supported as Arsenal, Arsenal has huge support in France, Scandenavia and is now the most supported club in India and probably a close 2nd to United in the whole of Asia, or third after Real Madrid. But Chelsea and Tottenham don't have the same number of supporters no way. Chelsea has more money, if you want to judge a club size on that. Personally I would judge them on how many trophies a team has one and global support.

Liverpool's second interms of fan base after United in Asia. And second in Scandanivia too. Both clubs have millions of fans around the world. Arsenal can't match these two clubs interms of fanbase.

And historically Spurs have been the best supported club in Greater London.

The best new stadium in Germany V best new stadium in Britain.
One nil to Wembley :yes:

Considering all the money getting sunk into Wembley that's hardly surprising...

Comparison between New Wembley (blue) and Allianz Arena (red) plus profile of Old Wempley (cyan). Once again scaling/calibration should match sufficiently:

http://scifi.pages.at/abbafan/aa_vs_wmb_sm.gif

Considering all the money getting sunk into Wembley that's hardly surprising...

Comparison between New Wembley (blue) and Allianz Arena (red) plus profile of Old Wempley (cyan). Once again scaling/calibration should match sufficiently:

http://scifi.pages.at/abbafan/aa_vs_wmb_sm.gif

I like theses direct comparisons. I have to say theres very little difference in size between Allianz Arena and Wembley from what I see.I thought Wembley would be more noticebly bigger. The old Wembley looks tiny compared to any of these newer stadiums.

Er excuse me mate but I'll think you'll find that Arsenal is the BIGGEST club in London. What are you on? Do you honestly think Hotspurs and Chelsea have even 50% of the fanbase Arsenal have? No way.

Well, I'm from west London and i'd certainly say Chelsea and Spurs have more supporters within London. Especially Spurs (god knows why though).

I'd probably rank the 6 most popular london sides (within London) as;

1) Spurs
2) Chelsea
3) Arsenal
4) West Ham
5) Palace
6) Fulham

Is there any research available on the internet regarding size of teams fanbase?

I thought Arsenal had the biggest fanbase in London.It would be good to see some decent evidence to back up opinions as it doesnt mean that much otherwise.

Is there any research available on the internet regarding size of teams fanbase?

I thought Arsenal had the biggest fanbase in London.It would be good to see some decent evidence to back up opinions as it doesnt mean that much otherwise.

It's pretty difficult to gauge what team has the larger fanbase quite honestly. And even if we agreed on what criteria to use then someone would disagree with us.

Personally I stand by my assertation that Spurs are the biggest team in London because I'd say I've encountered perhaps 4 Spurs fans for every one Arsenal fan (and 2 Chelsea).
Thats just my opinion/experience.

I'd also point out that Spurs haven't had a decent team since the early 1980's. (having a couple of superstars doesn't make a good team). Yet they still pull in pretty impressive support (at outrageous ticket prices).

chelsea and Arsenal are of course going to have a lot of fans these days because of the current strength of their teams but think back to the mid 1980's when Arsenal were as bad as Spurs are now, where were all the Goons?

And no, I'm not a Spurs fan in the slightest. I'd love to see them relegated.

I have met a lot more Arsenal and Spurs fans in London than Chelsea fans.Not That surprising maybe given where Im from. Historically I doubt either Spurs or Chelsea had Arsenals fanbase in the 40s. In the 50s who knows probably evens between Spurs and Arsenal, 60s I say Spurs,70s and 80s again even though possibly more Spurs fans outside of London.In the 90s and now Arsenal edge it but Chelsea just doesnt compare in my experience.They would be the 3rd biggest fanbase IMO but who knows how that will change now Chelsea are serious contenders and Spurs are looking almost decent again..

Does this kind of crap still happen in England as it does in Greece:
Today's match Olympiakos at Panonios
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SPORT/football/01/09/greece.violence/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/soccer/01/09/bc.eu.spt.soc.greece.violence.ap/
http://ultras.gate7.gr/testga/data/media/7/090105_panionios_osfp.jpg
http://sportnews.flash.gr/_img/football/image38883.jpg
http://sportnews.flash.gr/_img/football/image38888.jpg
http://sportnews.flash.gr/_img/football/image38881.jpg
http://www.sportnet.gr/ReportImages/86304A.jpg
http://www.sportnet.gr/ReportImages/86304B.jpg

That looks nasty.You would see similiar scenes in English football during the 1970s and 80s but violence inside Premier league grounds is very rare these days.

January construction pics.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/story_emirates21012005.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_3.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_5.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_6.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_7.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_8.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_9.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_10.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/emirates21012005_11.jpg

It's really a shame that a club like Arsenal publishes only so small constructions pics. These Pics are Thumbnails and not more. For a bulding like the new Arsenal Arena there should be a separate webpage will regulary updates including much much bigger constructions pics. Take a look at the german stadium construction web sites.

For example www.alllianz-arena.de has more than 12 million page impressions a month. But to get such page impressions you have to provide more than Arsenal does on www.arsenal.com/thestadium.

It's really a shame that a club like Arsenal publishes only so small constructions pics. These Pics are Thumbnails and not more. For a bulding like the new Arsenal Arena there should be a separate webpage will regulary updates including much much bigger constructions pics.

I agree 100%. Get your finger out Arsenal Football Club and give us some decent pics you tight gits. :)

Well, I'm from west London and i'd certainly say Chelsea and Spurs have more supporters within London. Especially Spurs (god knows why though).

I'd probably rank the 6 most popular london sides (within London) as;

1) Spurs
2) Chelsea
3) Arsenal
4) West Ham
5) Palace
6) Fulham
What about Charlton?? We must be bigger supported than palace. There's tons of fans in SE London and Kent.

I like theses direct comparisons. I have to say theres very little difference in size between Allianz Arena and Wembley from what I see.I thought Wembley would be more noticebly bigger. The old Wembley looks tiny compared to any of these newer stadiums.

They certainly are interesting - assuming they're accurate of course. I was also surprised by the lack of difference between Wembley and Allianz, especially given the massive disparity in capacity, and the much-touted legroom that Wembley claims to offer. What also surprises is the steepness of the tiers; both Wembley and Ashburton Grove have a lot shallower rakes to them - will we never learn about sightlines in this country (see Chelsea's most recent stand's bottom tier for example)? :bash:

As for London club fanbases, it really does depend on where you live with regards perception, and from my experience it isn't necessarily dependant upon how close you are to each club's ground either. In my area, for example (outer SE London), the most well-supported clubs are probably Chelsea, Arsenal and Millwall, despite both Palace and Charlton being slightly more local. Other areas near me would probably have Spurs and West Ham at the top - largely dependent upon the migration to the area over the past decades from more central areas and the apparent 'class' of the area.


What about Charlton?? We must be bigger supported than palace. There's tons of fans in SE London and Kent.

From my experience, people in the most populated areas of Kent (Medway in particular) are more likely to support Millwall than Charlton, probably because of the traditional migration to the area of dock workers and working class families from South London. Equally, Palace has Croydon and large chunks of Surrey. Charlton's fanbase is definitely growing, especially amongst kids, but they're still seen as a relatively uncool small 'family' club in South/SE London (a bit like the perception of Fulham in West London perhaps).

All that said, I like lists, so in my opinion the best supported London clubs:

1) Arsenal
=2) Chelsea
=2) Spurs
3) West Ham
4) Palace
5) Millwall
6) Charlton
7) Fulham

I'd put Man United ahead of all of those :)

They certainly are interesting - assuming they're accurate of course. I was also surprised by the lack of difference between Wembley and Allianz, especially given the massive disparity in capacity, and the much-touted legroom that Wembley claims to offer.

I tried my best, without any bias. The blueprints of Ashburton Grove (which don't offer any usable scale) and Allianz Arena (giving accurate dimensions in meters) are obviously produced using identical CAD software, so comparing different elements (e.g. cars) and their dimensions, riser width (should be identical, about 80 cm) etc. does yield a valid comparison... i think accuracy is within 5%, probably even better.
The overlay Allianz Arena - New Wembley offers even greater accuracy, because in addition to the previous methodology, the exact height of the Wembley arch (which is also fully visible in the blueprint) is known, so this can be used for calibration.

New wembley can host larger crowds, because of its very wide layout ( almost like a track&field arena), resulting in a very large perimeter for all rows... whereas the Allianz-Arena is much "tighter", barely fullfilling FIFA regulations regarding minimum distance to the pitch.
So Wembley features superior capacity because of its horizontal dimensions, not because of its height.

Btw: Nice progress on the Ashburton Grove construction site... really amazing.

From my experience, people in the most populated areas of Kent (Medway in particular) are more likely to support Millwall than Charlton, probably because of the traditional migration to the area of dock workers and working class families from South London. Equally, Palace has Croydon and large chunks of Surrey. Charlton's fanbase is definitely growing, especially amongst kids, but they're still seen as a relatively uncool small 'family' club in South/SE London (a bit like the perception of Fulham in West London perhaps).

All that said, I like lists, so in my opinion the best supported London clubs:

1) Arsenal
=2) Chelsea
=2) Spurs
3) West Ham
4) Palace
5) Millwall
6) Charlton
7) Fulham

Sorry, totally disagree. How can you say Millwall and Palace are better supported than Charlton?? Millwall attendances aren't even half of that of Charlton. Millwall fans tend to be concentrated around Grove Park/ Bromley/ Lee area in the same area as a lot of Charlton followers and they hardly support Millwall or Palace fans Palace because their clubs are cool. Charlton fans cover a much bigger catchment area.

New wembley can host larger crowds, because of its very wide layout ( almost like a track&field arena), resulting in a very large perimeter for all rows... whereas the Allianz-Arena is much "tighter", barely fullfilling FIFA regulations regarding minimum distance to the pitch.



Which will make the Allianz, a much better footballing arena. Problem with some of the new stadia is that the stands are too far away from the pitch, even though they've not got a track.

In my view wembley cant be compared to munich as it has been here regarding distance from pitch etc.

I dont think its a problem for Wembley at all. It is designed for 90,000 and with that sort of capacity you just cant build straight up as it will get too high.
It has to be built slightly more away from the field rather than above to give everyone a good view. you could probably build a very steep 40,000 stadium and then complain about the munich stadium seats being too far away from the pitch.
Its a ridiculos comparison.
The important and difficult thing because of this is to build stadiums of the right size compared to needs and with the right steepness compared to its size. I think both Wembley and Munich are built that way, whereas Arsenal´s new Emirates stadium is too flat presumably because of height restrictions.

Generally I am not a fan of big stadiums precisely because of this, not only are all the extra seats far away from the pitch it affects all seats and the general atmosphere.
Wembley is different and will be fantastic, I think, because its built the best way possible and will sell out, meaning the size fits, and further it is too be used for special games only where fans are really up for it, many club games having some 35,000 supporters from each club.

This is the way to make a big stadium work and its why, in my opinion, Wembley is going to be even better than people imagine. It will be sensational

Sorry, totally disagree. How can you say Millwall and Palace are better supported than Charlton?? Millwall attendances aren't even half of that of Charlton. Millwall fans tend to be concentrated around Grove Park/ Bromley/ Lee area in the same area as a lot of Charlton followers and they hardly support Millwall or Palace fans Palace because their clubs are cool. Charlton fans cover a much bigger catchment area.

Come on - are you really going to claim that Millwall fans are mainly based in Grove Park, Bromley and Lee?!! What about Southwark, Lewisham, New Cross, Bermondsey, Deptford, Isle of Dogs, Peckham, etc etc etc? Look on a map, and consider both the geographic size and population density of the areas surrounding Millwall; then it becomes clear that Charlton's catchment area is not even remotely close.

The reasons I gave are only perceptions, not facts, and until it can be proved otherwise, I'll continue to firmly believe that both Millwall and Palace are bigger clubs than Charlton. The only figure that could be used, as you suggest, is attendance, but to compare Millwall and Charlton gates is ridiculous - Millwall are an long-term first division team, in one of the 'poorest' areas of London, with relatively high ticket prices and a ridiculous membership scheme that only allows members into the ground for a large chunk of games, including all games that would otherwise be sell-outs. Charlton, on the other hand, are an established Premiership team, with a bigger capacity ground and in a more afluent area. The fact that they are in the Premiership means that all matches will be season ticket only - guaranteeing sell-outs most weeks. Were Millwall in the Premiership, the same would be true - just compare the attendances of Palace this season and last, and look at Charlton's attendences during their time away from the Valley, or during their first few years back - I suspect it would have been very different, and despite attracting some new fans, I seriously doubt the fanbase has changed that much. The fact is the clubs are experiencing opposite levels of success right now, and attendance will obviously reflect that. What it doesn't prove, by any stretch of the imagination, is fanbase size.

Overly-long rant over! :tongue2:



Which will make the Allianz, a much better footballing arena. Problem with some of the new stadia is that the stands are too far away from the pitch, even though they've not got a track.

I agree to an extent, but I don't think that Wembley's stands will be far enough away from the action for it to have much of an impact. It is still closer than the majority of similar-sized stadiums (Stade de France in football mode for example), and the extra 20-30,000 screaming fans will undoubtedly make up for any extra space around the pitch. I think a more important factor in atmosphere is the fact that Wembley has a large bottom tier - which seems to be important for generating atmosphere (which, in a desperate attempt to get back to the thread topic, is something that concerns me about the designs of Ashburton Grove...).

Come on - are you really going to claim that Millwall fans are mainly based in Grove Park, Bromley and Lee?!! What about Southwark, Lewisham, New Cross, Bermondsey, Deptford, Isle of Dogs, Peckham, etc etc etc? Look on a map, and consider both the geographic size and population density of the areas surrounding Millwall; then it becomes clear...

When I said Lee/ Bromley etc I meant the Downham estate area and surrounds I couldn't remember the name at the time! It is mobbed with Millwall fans and they're not afraid to show who they support even when the team isn't doing a lot (FA cup final last year was crazy on the Downham estate) but obviously the dormant fans make it impossible to gauge how big any fan base is. The Charlton area may not have as densely populated an area in the stadium vicinity but don't forget not only will a lot of Millwall territory overlap with Charltons (even Downham) but the fanbase stretches down into Kent, Orpington, Tonbridge district, Maidstone, Dartford, Swanley, Gravesend if they don't support Gillinham,Sevenoaks district, down to Ashford where there are no other big clubs. Don't get me wrong, Charlton have probably inherited a lot of fans in recent years owing to their success and I think right now they have a bigger 'following' than Millwall and Palace but I'd also say football clubs are compared in size according to how much they are valued at, how cash rich they are and how much success they enjoy on the pitch and certainly in the last five years at least Palace and Millwall do not come close to Charlton. I am not a die hard Charlton fan so wouldn't push the point too much but I lived and worked in Kent and more recently Mottingham up near Lewisham and see Charlton as a bigger supported club so think we might have to agree to disagree!!
:)
:blahblah:

I dont think its a problem for Wembley at all. It is designed for 90,000 and with that sort of capacity you just cant build straight up as it will get too high.

Whats wrong with the Nou Camp ? 98000+ capacity, small distance to the pitch... ?

It has to be built slightly more away from the field rather than above to give everyone a good view.
you could probably build a very steep 40,000 stadium and then complain about the munich stadium seats being too far away from the pitch.
Its a ridiculos comparison.

No it's not. If you forget about multi-functionality and hosting track&field events it is not mandatory to use a wider layout to build a very large stadium although it helps reducing construction cost (but then there is the sliding roof...).
In addition the bottom 2 tiers of Wembley are very flat, and there's no real reason for that (except keeping the whole thing artificially low).
A very steep 40,000 stadium being built today couldn't be much tighter compared to the 66,000 Arena in Munich because it also has to comply with FIFA and building regulations. In fact for now, the Allianz Arena will be largely unmatched in this category among newly developed stadia, although most of them have much lower capacities, in the Bundesliga and Europe (including the ones hosting WC 2006 and EC 2004).

think a more important factor in atmosphere is the fact that Wembley has a large bottom tier - which seems to be important for generating atmosphere (which, in a desperate attempt to get back to the thread topic, is something that concerns me about the designs of Ashburton Grove

It might be larger, but sadly it's also flat like the one in the Emirates Stadium, but obviously Arsenal had no alternative, i doubt this is also true for Wembley.

It might be larger, but sadly it's also flat like the one in the Emirates Stadium, but obviously Arsenal had no alternative, i doubt this is also true for Wembley.

True, it is flatter, but it's still steeper than most bottom tiers in English stadiums - besides, this has no impact on the atmosphere (otherwise old Wembley would have been almost silent). Still, I'd agree that there is no real excuse for it not to be a bit steeper and to improve sightlines - or maybe there is, and I just don't get it?

With regards Arsenal's new stadium and the limitations of height - I don't buy it. What has stopped them from digging further down for pitch level, as many other stadiums have done? From what I understand, the main limitation of the Ashburton site was more about ground space than anything else (this has largely determined the stadium's shape, with the top tier being cut off in the corners). Given that steeper stands could have reduced overall floorspace, and could have increased capacity by lowering the pitch level, it doesn't seem to add up. I'm sure there are valid reasons though... :dunno:


I am not a die hard Charlton fan so wouldn't push the point too much but I lived and worked in Kent and more recently Mottingham up near Lewisham and see Charlton as a bigger supported club so think we might have to agree to disagree!!

Indeed!! :goodnight

fman, I really dont understand what you are on about? I am not talking about distance to pitch but elevation of stands and of course you cant just build upwards. I just looked at Munich and I think the view would be very poor if another tier was added on top to expand to 90,000.
You cant do that. Of course a bigger stadium need a flatter lower tier leading more away from the pitch than up.
An extremly steep and tall stand may look good from the ground but its the view in the seats that matter.

Acoustically, I think a large flat lower tier with a "wall" of steeper upper tiers is the best solution and even better if the stadium can be "rounded"
I think Wembley perfects this, and as I said, with the kind of club games that are to be staged there it will be fantastic.

This is absurd.

Without a question of a doubt Arsenal is by far the most supported team in Greater London. I'm from North West London and everyone around these parts either support Arsenal, or Man United. Spurs occupy deep North London but crikey you don't see even 5% of people walking around in a spurs shit then that of a Arsenal shirt in Central London. Also, for pure global fanbase Arsenal are well ahead in international support by a few million supporters no doubt. Chelsea and Spurs would never fill and 60,000 stadium week in week out. Arsenal will. In fact when Arsenal hired out Wembly for their European games we sold out all 75,000+ seats every game.

It's a simple fact. Arsenal is the biggest club in London anyone who thinks different must be stupid.

Spurs occupy deep North London but crikey you don't see even 5% of people walking around in a spurs shit then that of a Arsenal shirt in Central London


Was this an unconscious slip of the tongue or was a conscious attack on spurs?

From what I understand, the main limitation of the Ashburton site was more about ground space than anything else (this has largely determined the stadium's shape, with the top tier being cut off in the corners).

I had never considered that the corners being lower was because of space limitations. Is it not a similar principle behind the shapes of the Huddersfield and Bolton stadiums? The idea is that its the best shape to give everyone in the stadium a decent view. In a bowl or square stadium the furthest distance from the furthest part of the pitch is the corners so their size is reduced in comparison to the size of the stands behind the goal and along the sideline so that you are not further from the action.

I can't see the pics

What pics ??
Here is one that has already been posted.

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

I had never considered that the corners being lower was because of space limitations. Is it not a similar principle behind the shapes of the Huddersfield and Bolton stadiums? The idea is that its the best shape to give everyone in the stadium a decent view. In a bowl or square stadium the furthest distance from the furthest part of the pitch is the corners so their size is reduced in comparison to the size of the stands behind the goal and along the sideline so that you are not further from the action.

Generally speaking, the reason for having smaller corners on top tiers is certainly to give optimum views to the largest number of people. It just happens that this design fits the Ashburton site particularly well, which I'm sure is one of the main reasons it was chosen. The fact is, if the club had chosen a more traditional equal bowl (as with Allianz etc), then the width of the side stands would have needed to be a lot less - hence lowering the capacity. Can't find proper aerial plans of the site, but this picture gives some idea of the shape of the site and why the chosen design fits so well:

http://www.arsenal.com/thestadium/lgallery.asp?article=202538&Title=the%20stadium%20-%20Picture%20gallery

this maybe a bit of a stupid question but how does the rain that lands on the roof drain away because the lowest point of the roof is nearest the pitch and it would seem stupid to let it pour down in front of the fans???

You can exhaust the rain with pumps and conduct it behind the tribunes.

A picture of Ashburton Grove showing the roof and trusses from above.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/trusses.jpg

The Arsenal web site says The height of the new stadium will be 46 metres from ground level to its highest point.

Arsenal have removed that stat and it now states that the height of the new stadium will be 41.9 meters from pitch level to the top of the roof.

Oh and here is another one of their little construction pics for us all to marvel at.:)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/stadium_webcam.jpg

just a quick update to the emirates stadium (not sure how to post pics but im sure someone else can)

Arsenal Stadium (http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?article=258312&lid=NewsHeadline&sub=Emirates+Stadium+-+February+picture+special&navlid=&sublid=&Title=Emirates+Stadium+-+February+picture+special)

The pics are stupidly small. Anyway the grounds coming on well with the roof looking around a 1/3 complete and the top tier almost fully in place.

A couple of Feb construction pics.

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/boingboingbaggies/Ashburton%202.JPG

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/boingboingbaggies/Ashburton%206.JPG

There are some more here. http://www.albiontillwedie.co.uk/ashburtongrove.htm

March construction pics.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/london_10_03_2005_1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/london_10_03_2005_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/london_10_03_2005_3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/london_10_03_2005_4.jpg

March construction pics.More on the Arsenal website

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates07032005_07x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates07032005_08x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates07032005_09x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates07032005_04x.jpg

Coming along nicely

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates16032005_03x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates16032005_04x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates16032005_02x.jpg

I think Arsenal got incredibly lucky in being able to relocate so nearby into a large undeveloped area in what is still heavily built up urban London.What with all the buildings and development that will go around it, its going to be a great stadium.

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates16032005_05x.jpg

On a different note, all 60,000 seats will be upholstered which is a nice touch.
The Arsenal seat.
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/s_story_seat.jpg

The roof was/is being made in my Town 120 Miles away from the new stadium!

It's looking great!

one word, amazing.

been ages since i have seen how far this project has come, but yeh its amazing, didnt realise it was so close to Highbury, so aside from the sposored name of it 'Emirates Stadium', will it have another name aswell, a more traditional one? ie, Herbert Chapman Stadium, Tony Adams Arena, Arsene Wenger Park? :)

Scarily Arsene Wenger Park has a ring to it!

It would be a good idea, but as far as I know there is no other official name. Having said that its almost certain that it will be simply known as Ashburton Grove.

Some pics of how the stadium will look from inside.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/10oclock.jpg

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

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

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/behindgoal1.jpg

Fantastic!

I can't wait for them to use it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/london_10_03_2005_4.jpg

Is that the East Coast Main Line in that photo? I'm taking the train down to Kings Cross tomorrow - which side should I sit to have the best view of the new stadium?

The lines shown take you from Finsbury Park into The City and vice versa in a north south direction.The nearest station would be Drayton Park but it doesnt go to Kings Cross. From what you say I suspect it isnt the same route you are using.

very similiar to the da Luz stadium...
but great stadium...Arsenal deserves it

New pics

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates02042005_05x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates02042005_09x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates02042005_08x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates02042005_06x.jpg

Werent Arsenal originally planning to build something closer to 70-80,000 only to be capped at 60,000 due to policey/transport etc by the planning authorities?

The lines shown take you from Finsbury Park into The City and vice versa in a north south direction.The nearest station would be Drayton Park but it doesnt go to Kings Cross. From what you say I suspect it isnt the same route you are using.

Well, I'm not sure if it was the exact same tracks, but I did get to go past the west side of the new stadium - very impressive. I was also surprised how close it is to Highbury - I didn't realise that from the maps I've seen...

:doh: Bleedin clueless I am. Still at least you got to see it. It is very close to the old stadium. In fact theres no real reason why it couldnt still be called Highbury.

Werent Arsenal originally planning to build something closer to 70-80,000 only to be capped at 60,000 due to policey/transport etc by the planning authorities?

There were limits agreed on how large the stadium was going to be but I dont think an 80000 stadium was ever seriously considered. It would have been a bad idea anyway . Could you imagine what type of atmosphere you would have in an 80k stadium with Arsenal playing against the likes of Rochdale or Carlisle in the 2nd round of the League Cup ? A stadium that is to big for its purposes is actually a lot worse than one thats too small.

Yeah, i am a Saints Supporter and before they moved into their new stadium they were in The Dell, a stadium so small it was more suitable for amateur football, but the place had great atmosphere, and due to the lack of seats added an exclusivity to watching a Saints game.

There were limits agreed on how large the stadium was going to be but I dont think an 80000 stadium was ever seriously considered. It would have been a bad idea anyway . Could you imagine what type of atmosphere you would have in an 80k stadium with Arsenal playing against the likes of Rochdale or Carlisle in the 2nd round of the League Cup ? A stadium that is to big for its purposes is actually a lot worse than one thats too small.

Indeed although small time FA cup games hardly make up the majority of Arsenals fixtures. I seem to remmber reading somewhere though that they were looking for a larger stadium but when that was turned down went with a design that included more directors boxes(hence the double row) in the hope that it would makeup for the shortfall in gates.

Actually I do remember, years ago there was talk of a huge stadium being built at Alexandra Palace to be shared by Arsenal and Spurs but thankfully that idea never took off. I also remember talk of Arsenal moving to an undeveloped part of the Kings Cross area but again for reasons unknown to me it didnt happen.

You are right that there were limits imposed on Ashburton Grove. A larger stadium would have put too much of a strain on public transport and traffic infrastructure in the area. Also they agreed to design the stadium in such a way that it wouldnt inconvenience residents and businesses nearby.

Maybe 4 or 5 thousand cheaper seats rather than an extra row of executive boxes would have been nice but in my opinion 60000 is a good sized stadium.

This is absurd.

Without a question of a doubt Arsenal is by far the most supported team in Greater London. I'm from North West London and everyone around these parts either support Arsenal, or Man United. Spurs occupy deep North London but crikey you don't see even 5% of people walking around in a spurs shit then that of a Arsenal shirt in Central London. Also, for pure global fanbase Arsenal are well ahead in international support by a few million supporters no doubt. Chelsea and Spurs would never fill and 60,000 stadium week in week out. Arsenal will. In fact when Arsenal hired out Wembly for their European games we sold out all 75,000+ seats every game.

It's a simple fact. Arsenal is the biggest club in London anyone who thinks different must be stupid.

Arsenal are indeed currently the best supported London club. But it's not nearly as clear cut as you seem to think. Replica shirts seen in and around London, while a visible demonstration of strength of support, paint only a small part of the picture.

The fact is that only kids or nerds wear replica shirts other than to play or watch football. And of course, given their outstanding success over the past fifteen years, Arsenal have cornered the market for kids in London.

But if you did a poll of 25-60 year olds in and around London (most of whom never wear replica shirts), I think you'll find that Spurs have a healthy advantage over Arsenal among that age group, because of Spurs' successes and great players in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

In much the same way, in twenty years time - even if Spurs have become a much more successful and attractive team than Arsenal by then - you'll find that far more 25-60 year olds will support Arsenal.

A 1998 survey by Deloitte Touche and the Financial Times estimated that five English clubs had a UK fan base of over one million and Arsenal and Tottenham were virtually level pegging. Chelsea, incidentally, were not one of the five. Nor were they even remotely close to becoming the sixth.

Similarly, an Evening Standard analysis of replica shirt sales two years ago showed Arsenal leading with annual sales of 350,000 and Spurs second on 250,000. Given, as previously discussed, that shirt sales predominantly shows support among the young and given Spurs' general crapness for the past twenty years, it's quite incredible that Spurs should be so close. Once again, Chelsea were some considerable margin behind, with shirt sales less than half those of Spurs.

One final fact: Spurs' all time average league attendance is, even now, still third only to Manchester United and Liverpool and ahead of Arsenal in fourth. Pretty remarkable given the lack of league success for Spurs over the years.

That Spurs sell out White Hart Lane for every game, in spite of extortionately high ticket prices and in spite of fans having to watch consistently poor teams for the past twenty years, is evidence of a huge, latent fan base - one that is primed and ready should the club ever increase capacity at White Hart Lane and should they finally get things right on the pitch and reward the fans' loyalty. The potential is enormous.

One last point re fan bases. Spurs and Arsenal recently played FA replays away from home on consecutive nights. Both games were televised live on Sky. Arsenal failed to sell out their full allocation of 1900 at Sheffield United. Spurs sold out their full allocation of 4500 at Nottingham Forest and were consequently allocated a further 900 tickets, which were all snapped up in double quick time. Similarly, Chelsea (despite their great team and fantastic season) could only sell 1500 tickets for a televised FA Cup game at Newcastle. Two weeks later, Spurs also went to Newcastle for a televised cup game, but Spurs sold out their 6000 allocation.

One last point re fan bases. Spurs and Arsenal recently played FA replays away from home on consecutive nights. Both games were televised live on Sky. Arsenal failed to sell out their full allocation of 1900 at Sheffield United. Spurs sold out their full allocation of 4500 at Nottingham Forest and were consequently allocated a further 900 tickets, which were all snapped up in double quick time. Similarly, Chelsea (despite their great team and fantastic season) could only sell 1500 tickets for a televised FA Cup game at Newcastle. Two weeks later, Spurs also went to Newcastle for a televised cup game, but Spurs sold out their 6000 allocation.

I think earlier in the thread I came to fairly similiar conclusions. This point here though doesnt really wash with me. Lets face it Spurs only win FA Cups. They are Tottenhams claim to fame.Maybe when Spurs fans experience winning as many of the more important competitions e.g. Championships as Arsenal and compete in The Champions League as often, you can understand the perspective Arsenal fans have for a midweek FA Cup game at Sheffield. Its a bit different for Spurs fans. Its as good as its realistically going to get for them. No European games for a start.

I think earlier in the thread I came to fairly similiar conclusions. This point here though doesnt really wash with me. Lets face it Spurs only win FA Cups. They are Tottenhams claim to fame.Maybe when Spurs fans experience winning as many of the more important competitions e.g. Championships as Arsenal and compete in The Champions League as often, you can understand the perspective Arsenal fans have for a midweek FA Cup game at Sheffield. Its a bit different for Spurs fans. Its as good as its realistically going to get for them. No European games for a start.

But surely with such a large fanbase Arsenal would be able to muster more fans for a Cup game? I know, their success has made the FA Cup almost trivial, but in the Uk, the FA Cup is still a big thing, the bigger clubs may not think so but we fans certainly do. So really, the fact that arsenal only managed 1900 shows that their fans aren't as loyal or supportive as the Spurs fans. Which leads to the phrase 'where wre you when you were sh*t.'

As a Spurs fan i have stuck by my team, though if Arsenal were in the samw situation as us i doubt they'd have even close to our fanbase...

But surely with such a large fanbase Arsenal would be able to muster more fans for a Cup game? I know, their success has made the FA Cup almost trivial, but in the Uk, the FA Cup is still a big thing, the bigger clubs may not think so but we fans certainly do. So really, the fact that arsenal only managed 1900 shows that their fans aren't as loyal or supportive as the Spurs fans. Which leads to the phrase 'where wre you when you were sh*t.'

As a Spurs fan i have stuck by my team, though if Arsenal were in the samw situation as us i doubt they'd have even close to our fanbase...

This isnt the 80s when it cost 3 pound fifty to get into the Shelf or the North Bank. I think many loyal fans end up having to prioritise which games they go to.
Is it away to Bayern Munich in The Champions League or away to Sheffield United in the FA Cup. It isnt about not caring about the FA Cup.
You might well doubt Arsenal would have a similiar fanbase were they in your position. I am not surprised you come to that conclusion. You are afterall a Spurs fan.I am old enough to remember when both teams were pretty much on a par in terms of the success they were having on the pitch and frankly both teams had a similiar sized fanbase.

I think earlier in the thread I came to fairly similiar conclusions. This point here though doesnt really wash with me. Lets face it Spurs only win FA Cups. They are Tottenhams claim to fame.Maybe when Spurs fans experience winning as many of the more important competitions e.g. Championships as Arsenal and compete in The Champions League as often, you can understand the perspective Arsenal fans have for a midweek FA Cup game at Sheffield. Its a bit different for Spurs fans. Its as good as its realistically going to get for them. No European games for a start.

Fair points. But the fact still remains that Spurs fans have been remarkably loyal during some very dark years. And the fact still remains that, while Arsenal are currently the best supported London club, it is not by nearly as big a margin as Sitback would like to think.

And should fortunes change at some point in the future (big if, I know), it is perfectly possible that Spurs will, once again, become the best supported club in London (though if Chelsea continue to throw Abramovich's money around like confetti, it is inevitable that they will attract hordes of gloryhunters).

I am old enough to remember when both teams were pretty much on a par in terms of the success they were having on the pitch and frankly both teams had a similiar sized fanbase.

Also a fair point.

It's only Chelsea fans that need lower their faces in shame for deserting their club in the dark days.

Incidentally, to get this thread (briefly, at least!) back on topic, I must say that I envy Arsenal their new stadium. Looks superb and will, of course, catapult them into the serious players' league.

What I am most envious of is that Arsenal will be able to pay for it through sheer good fortune coupled with dodgy political manoeuvring.

Sheer good fortune:

They are blessed in so far as their current stadium is located in a highly desirable residential area. Consequently, the sale of housing on the Highbury site will go some considerable distance towards paying for the new stadium. Spurs are not so lucky. We'd be fortunate to get two bob if we sold the land we own at White Hart Lane!

Dodgy political manoeuvring:

Arsenal have managed to do a deal to match in infamy that which enabled Real Madrid to wipe out their enormous debts by selling their training ground to the city of Madrid for a ridiculously large sum.

By imposing compulsory purchase orders on property owners over an area far larger than that needed merely for the new stadium, Arsenal will be able to make a huge profit (maybe as much as £100 million) on the sale of new residential properties. This profit will also help to pay for the new stadium. CPO's should, by law, should never be imposed merely to allow a private company to make profit. They should only be imposed in matters of public interest.

In effect, Arsenal, Islington council and John Prescott have conspired to dump on all those small companies that previously owned the sites in question and they have broken the law in the process. But it seems that they will get away with it. Of course Arsenal have, in return, been obliged to build certain facilities and contribute to transport improvements but overall, they will still make a huge profit. If the sites in question had to be redeveloped for residential use (which they didn't) why shouldn't those small companies, rather than Arsenal, have profited from the development of their sites, given the chance? They were robbed; because of CPO's they were only paid marginally above market rate for run down light industrial property when the value, with planning permission, for land marked for high end residential property development is worth five times as much as they were paid.

Again, given Spurs' location, even if we did conspire darkly with Haringey council, I doubt that we'd be able to pay for more than a few new plastic seats on any profits we might make!

So yes, I'm jealous! And hoping (vainly) that big Spurs fan Phillip Green will finally decide that he will take the plunge, invest some of his billions into football and build Spurs an even bigger, even better stadium at White Hart Lane!

So yes, I'm jealous!
Evidently so.

Why wouldn't we be jealous, we've been holding out on expanding WHL until haringey Council pull their from out of their asses and develop the transport around WHL. In that time you lot have gone and started constructing a bloody good Stadium with the capcity to compete's with the world's best... Its a bitter pill to swallow and one made even worse by gloating Arsenal fans who think the world revolves solely around them... But then thats my own view of the fans i come into contact with.

When to the apartments or whatever they are beside the stadium start going up?

http://www.arsenal-mania.com/images/article_photos/YaihesmFc.jpg

When to the apartments or whatever they are beside the stadium start going up?

http://www.arsenal-mania.com/images/article_photos/YaihesmFc.jpg

I dont know when they will go up, but I can say that the whole stadium complex including those and other buildings around the stadium are being built in a single stage. There are buildings also at the North end of the stadium and work on those is well under way.

With regards Arsenal's new stadium and the limitations of height - I don't buy it. What has stopped them from digging further down for pitch level, as many other stadiums have done? From what I understand, the main limitation of the Ashburton site was more about ground space than anything else (this has largely determined the stadium's shape, with the top tier being cut off in the corners). Given that steeper stands could have reduced overall floorspace, and could have increased capacity by lowering the pitch level, it doesn't seem to add up. I'm sure there are valid reasons though...

There are apprently 3 Thames water pipes that run beneath the site one of which provides a storm relief system for the area. Thats probably why the option to build downwards wasnt considered.

http://img36.echo.cx/img36/4451/emiratesstadium5eg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
A Little Reminder

I love that glass band that surrounds the stadium (the one around the top tier)


And the underside of the roof is amazing.....nice white and smooth....very very rare to see in stadiums!

The emirates stadium is a mini replica of the benfica stadium (Estadio da Luz).
Luz is more stepper, bigger and cheaper. Forca Benfica.

If the Emirates Stadium looks like the Estadio da Luz, then the Estadio da Luz must have got some inspiration from Bolton's Reebox Stadium ;)

There are apprently 3 Thames water pipes that run beneath the site one of which provides a storm relief system for the area. Thats probably why the option to build downwards wasnt considered.
You wouldn't want one of those pipes to burst underneath the pitch :)

If the Emirates Stadium looks like the Estadio da Luz, then the Estadio da Luz must have got some inspiration from Bolton's Reebox Stadium ;)
but the da luz and emirates are more similar

I think the only thing similar is the design of the tiers!

The outside and roof looks nothing like that of the da luz.

I'm inclined to agree that the support of London clubs is far more even than the public perception would suggest. Yes Arsenal have been very sucessful in the last decade but sucess doesnt nessearly breed a large match going(rather than shirt buying) fanbase, look at wimbledon for example, almost a decade in the top flight until recently yet they were still having trouble drawing over 10,000 most of the time. At the other end of the scale I don't think Man Utd's dominance of the 90's is the prime reason for their current massive attendances either, look back to their lean years in the 70's and 80's and you'll find they were still drawing massive gates.

The only thing remotely similar is the design of the tiers!

The outside and roof look nothing like that of the da luz.

yes eddy, thats true...onyle the interior is similiar

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

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/estadio_da_luz/images/innen_03.jpg

lol

What you laughing at?

some of the posts are just funny to me.

In the words of Hugh Grant..

'Rrrrrrrrrrright'

If you were reading from a different perspective you might find many things humorous that you don't currently. I just read something funny.

The emirates stadium is a mini replica of the benfica stadium (Estadio da Luz).
Luz is more stepper, bigger and cheaper. Forca Benfica.
As good as Da Luz is it actually looks cheaper too.
Its normal occupant, Benfica football club, attracts an average attendance of 22,000, and yet they have a 65000 capacity stadium. One big difference between the 2 stadiums is how full they will be. ;)

wow, you're starting to sound American carl

You going to let him insult you like that carl?

wow, you're starting to sound American carl

:badnews:

You going to let him insult you like that carl?

Its not an insult. Carl just realized what I have been saying all along about many venues on this board, while some want to only look at designs that they like. Some stadiums, as pretty as they try to be aesthetically are simply cheap looking. That's what I was laughing at before. Some are coming to this realization at the defense of their own country's venues but fail to look past the aesthetics when talking about the venues in other countries. Its very ironic after reading this board for a long time.

Im sure he meant cheep looking on the outside!

Because IMO Da Luz currently has the best stadium interior in the world at the moment...roll on wembley ;)

I wouldn't take that opinion at all. Many with better interiors, I do like the red seats of both though and they are like a smaller outdoor Louisiana Superdome or smaller Invesco in their layouts. I would agree with the statement referring to the outside but also some inside things, that reflect many of our criticisms of roof design. This has been my point about many stadiums in Europe for a long time. There is substance to that outside area and some elements that transfer into the seating bowl. Probably reflects the huge cost differences as well.

Its not an insult. Carl just realized what I have been saying all along about many venues on this board, while some want to only look at designs that they like. Some stadiums, as pretty as they try to be aesthetically are simply cheap looking. That's what I was laughing at before. Some are coming to this realization at the defense of their own country's venues but fail to look past the aesthetics y76when talking about the venues in other countries. Its very ironic after reading this board for a long time.

No I suspect you have missed the point.The point of my response to "stadiumfuture" is that you cut your cloth according to your demands. Thats a very English thing to do in football. There are very few white elephant stadiums in Britain. My point was that the stadiums built in Britain are often conservative in design but serve their purpose extremely well.The idea that a stadium is better because it is bigger is regarded as slightly missing the point. That is my only real criticism of the "Luz". It is bigger than is required imo.
As for the cheapness comment i was indeed commenting on the exterior of Da Luz.Its not even a criticism, more a response to someone who highlighted the fact that Da Luz was cheaper.

Actually you missed what I was saying. Think back to the first EU vs USA thread, where I was trying to explain how cheap looking many stadiums were on the exterior. You either get it now, or got it all along and were being a homer. Maybe I shouldn't say just you, but many other posters.

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates19042005_2x.jpg

Actually you missed what I was saying. Think back to the first EU vs USA thread, where I was trying to explain how cheap looking many stadiums were on the exterior. You either get it now, or got it all along and were being a homer. Maybe I shouldn't say just you, but many other posters.

Nope, I am not even going to let you get away with that one. Your argument on that thread was that EU stadiums were cheap and substandard. My argument was that USA was building very luxurious stadiums that were often OTT and tacky (remember the Astros stadium with the Choo Choo train ;) ). You never did seem to read posts very carefully and not much has changed it seems.
Anyway back to the thread subject.

Yes, you were arguing that are stadiums were tacky and too luxurious. My point is, in other areas of the stadium(not the tacky parts) you understand what I am saying and probably did all along. You are just, ONCE AGAIN, looking to disagree. The point is, Da Luz is a much cheaper looking stadium do to the lack of built facade on the exterior, right? You pretty much typed that yourself. I know you don't like Americans or things American, but good lord, we are arguing the same thing.

I was laughing because on such threads, because we were evil for having such luxurious stadiums, now you guys are arguing for that and making many of the same points I started out making.

I was not even touching the cost analysis or size issue. Its another issue unless you are assuming that if a smaller stadium was built, that it would be more luxurious, because money could be spent on amenities rather than more stands. That's always an assumption, and because I read your post, I did not want to make such an assumption. You aren't typing rocket science, and I'm not going to give a rocket scientist analysis.

:nuts: Enough Rantanamo. I dont dislike Americans or things that are American and I am not making arguments for luxurious stadiums. Now please Ashburton Grove.Cheers.

Carlspannard,
This season Benfica first Arsenal second.
De avarage of 22.000 is not the good information now.
This stadium is now every match sold out!!!!

Wow, from 22000 up to 65000. I stand corrected. Why was the average so low previously?

Carlspannard
The portugues has not enough money for weekly football. Now Benfica growing up, and they go to football for the few matches (mybe de last 7 matches sold out).

Cool new stadiums also help with attendance.

^
Indeed......Anfiend (my teams stadium) has a capacity of 45,500....yet It only gets up to around 44,000 on match days....yet there is are well over 100,000 people on the waiting list for a season ticket

I hear many people saying if we cant sell out a 45,000 seater how can we a 61,000 seater.....of course more season ticket places and the old saying 'if you build it, they will come'

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icliverpool/aug2004/7/7/00078399-E95C-1110-BCDA80BFB6FA0000.jpg
New Anfield should be U/C later this year....then I can start a thread on it ;)

April 21st pics
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates25042005_01x.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates25042005_02x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates25042005_03x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates25042005_05x.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates25042005_06x.jpg

wow!

Not perfect but worth a try. :)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/arsenal.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_8x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_4x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_3x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_5x.jpg

Coming along very nicely indeed.

Eddyk you asked when the surrounding buildings in the Stadium complex will go up?
This is the view north from the North-West corner upper terrace. This picture shows progress on the Northern Triangle building. As far as I can remember it will be 11 storeys high with 2 of those storeys below the podium level.

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_11x.jpg

A couple of pics that show what will happen to Highbury when its vacated.It will be converted into flats/apartments, a community health facility, gym and nursery.

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/highbury09052005_1x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/highbury09052005_5x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/highbury09052005_6x.jpg

On the fourth picture of Sparks post it seems as if the roof is dropping down to the middle? Is that correct or is it just an optical illusion?? A roof that drops down really lowers the quality of the seats because you can't see the whole stadium and its atmosphere imo.
And the lower tier seems to be a bit too shallow.
The exterior of the stadium looks pretty good.

You're right the roof does slope to create a dish shape. If you are at the back it does seem probable that you wont see the whole stadium which is a definite minus.On the other hand though it should enhance the atmosphere acoustically which is also very important for a football stadium.

Cheers carl

I think you're making to big a deal of the bottom tier.....certainly steeper tiers have good views.....but shallow tiers dont have bad views at all!

Oh I was watching Chelsea the other day and saw their botton tier pretty much at the same gradient as the Emirates!

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/ENG/Stamford_Bridge.jpg

A good acoustic atmosphere is important, of course. but so are good views. And this roof definitely obstructs the views. I just think that it might be a strange feeling to be in the stadium but not being able to see the people on the opposing tier, who create the atmosphere. Feels like being in there and although being not in there at the same time. You feel a bit isolated, not as part of the whole thing imo.
It`s just a fact that you`re closer to the pitch with steeper tiers. When a club like Arsenal is building a new stadium everything sholud be as optimal as possible... probably it has something to do with the height restrictions already mentioned

You can see all the pitch from ever seat, it's just at the back of the top tier you can't see all of the other stands.

You can see all the pitch from ever seat, it's just at the back of the top tier you can't see all of the other stands.

yes, I know. I wasn't talking about the pitch but about the other stands! :)

its like that at the back of the 1st tier in cardiff. Its horibble because the 2nd tier overhangs so low you cant see the rest of the stadium, i cant stand it.

You can see all the pitch from ever seat, it's just at the back of the top tier you can't see all of the other stands.

At least it'll be better than Highbury where if you stand up on the back rows of most of the stands you can't even see half the pitch.

http://www.sunwing.co.jp/MatchOfTheDay/stadium/s-Alvalade.jpg

The new Jose Alvalade stadium in Lisbon has a very similar roof design. I watched Portigal vs Spain at euro 2004 from right at the back and it did feel more than a little enclosed, the number of seats it actually effects isnt that high though.

The tier that overhangs the bottom tier at Cardiff is much lower to the ground and so even more of the stadium is obscured. Any stadium with overhanging tiers (Rangers, Soldierfield, Genoa amongst others) or filled in corners (Copenhagen, Cologne, Genoa, Rangers among others), will have seats that have obscured views of the whole stadium, particulary in the back seats in the corners.
At Ashburton If youre in the back seats in the corners or the sides you will see all or virtually all of the stadium.Its probably a fairly small proportion of the seats right at the back directly behind the goal where some of the stadium wont be in view.
The important thing is that the whole of the pitch is seen unobscured from every seat and that is going to be the case at Ashburton Grove. Also as I said before the dish shaped roof should greatly enhance the atmosphere acoustically and also will probably look quite spectacular when completed.
The design of Ashburton grove has been shaped by many restrictions but that is because it is situated in such an excellent site geographically.
I could be seeing all this through Arsenal coloured spectacles but I think its going to be a cool stadium.

Also as I said before the dish shaped roof should greatly enhance the atmosphere acoustically

Well it would, I suppose, in the unlikely event that Arsenal fans ever made any noise. ;)

Well it would, I suppose, in the unlikely event that Arsenal fans ever made any noise. ;)

:) Yes, Highbury The Library and all that. As much as I hate to admit it when Arsenal are playing one of the run of the mill teams it can be oddly quiet but its a much better atmosphere when we are playing the likes of Chelsea/Man U/Spurs. It is at least in part due to Highburys design though so hopefully Ashburton Grove will witness an improvement in volume level.

I had a walk around the Ashburton Grove site last week and I have to say from the outside it looks massive. The pictures I have seen dont do it justice.

Anyhow, some more May 3rd pics from the Arsenal website.
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_10x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_2x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_7x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_1x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates05052005_14x.jpg

May 11 Pictures
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates250505_9x.jpg

The Northern Triangle development
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates250505_1x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates250505_4x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates250505_6x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates250505_5x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates250505_7x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates250505_8x.jpg

wow, I didn't realise how big the other developments were.

No internal views?

Nope, they were taken around 2 weeks ago anyway.

wow, I didn't realise how big the other developments were.
Indeed. Unlike many modern stadiums Ashburton Grove certainly isnt going to be a spaceship in the wilderness.

Wembley wont either. It's good all these projects come with more development of the area. London needs more housing afterall.

I might have a wander over there at the weekend seeing as it's only about a ten minute walk from my house and try and get some pics.

I might have a wander over there at the weekend seeing as it's only about a ten minute walk from my house and try and get some pics.

A ten minute walk?

Where have you been with the construction pics? :bash:

Let's be havin you!

:)

Well I'm not a gooner so I'm not all that bothered tbh and I only have the camera on my phone which is really not that great.

However my housemate has just bought a shiny new pentax digital camera so I might see if I can borrow it. But the weather looks as though it is going to be good so I think I might spend most of the weekend doing something more interesting than photographing a building site...sorry.

The housing on the site near Lough Road / Caledonian Road has been under construction for a long time too.

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_1x.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_2x.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_3x.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_4x.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_5x.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_6x.jpg http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_7x.jpg
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_8x.jpg


All these pics were taken yesterday (June 8th)

Its looking good.

It'll be a good stadium. no question about that.

but i think there'll be two facts at this stadium that won't be as good as the rest in my opinion

1) the lower tier is much to flat

2) when i see the curves with such big radiusses in the four edges (of the lower tier) of the arena i unfortunately expect that the pitch will be farther away from the stands than necessary. That will be much more distance the the fifa regulations require. Especially for you englishs guys who are used to the closeness of the pitches in your stadiums.

I agree the lower tier looks as shallow as the West Stand at Stamford Bridge.

I don't think it'll be worse than what Arsenal currently have to put up with thuogh.

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates09062005_1x.jpg

http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates09062005_2x.jpg

looks great from the air, just seems as though the bottom stands are a little too flat. I wouldn't be able to see past an afro sitting in front of me for instance.

lol, how often do you end up sitting behind Jimi Hendrix though?

Is the stadium so small from above.

Is the stadium so small from above.

Yes if you are in a helicopter about a thousand feet above the stadium that is how small it is. :sly:

So fellas, how does it compare to the Benfica one?

It's shorter in height? ie less steep?

So fellas, how does it compare to the Benfica one?

It's shorter in height? ie less steep?
From memory it looks like a bit of both although I think the flatness of the lower stands is a bit of an optical illusion due to the camara postion and the lack of seats.
http://www.arsenal.com/images/emiratesstadium/emirates08062005_7x.jpg
From the gap between the stands on that pic I'd say the incline is actually greater than that on the bottom level of the millenium stadium.

Less tall and less steep, basically?

It's a nice stadium. Shame they weren't allowed to build higher. I reckon the one in Lisbon looks a bit more impressive, from what I've seen of the renders and construction.

In terms of site lines I would have to say Benfica is better.The extra 5000 seats and the steeper lower tier would also help tip the the balance for Benfica. I suspect Emirates will have a slightly higher quality finish e.g a nicer exterior , and also a bit more luxury . In geographical terms and the atmosphere around the stadium I think the Emirates will be better.Both designs are similiar but given "Da Luz" was the first and what I said about gradient and amount of seats overall, I think most people will prefer The Benfica stadium.
I prefer Emirates but I am completely biased.

The Emirates will look much better from the outside.

But Benfica's is better from the inside, because it's steeper and taller.

Emirates will be a better stadium overall IMO....all 60,000 seats are cushioned, and the outside is amazing.



Infact looking at that pic MoreOrLess posted the lower tier doest look as shallow as i thought it was

The lower tier in the De Luz is equally at a low angle. All lower tiers are the same in having very low angles it's not just down to space as will be seen at Wembley.

http://www.frank-jasperneite.de/jahr2004/daluz1.jpg

Is the stadium so small from above.


Nah....It looks huge, twice the size of Highbury it seems.

Was walking up Blackstock Road yesterday, that place towers over Highbury, very impressive.

I prefer the Emirates stadium. I don't like the massive and dominant roof structure of the Da Luz.

In terms of where Da Luz fits in the extra 5,000 seats I'd guess most of them are actually at the corners of the ground as if you look closely it has a much less pronounced downward slope at the top of the stands than Emirates does in those areas.

I would love to see how a cross section plan of both would match up.

I definitely prefer Da Luz. Simply the better football stadium! Steeper, closer to the pitch, better sight lines, more impressive.
Btw. who cares for cushioned seats!!??

closer to the pitch....Its isnt even finished yet.

Da luz is great on the inside except for the roof....and utter rubbish on the outside, except for the roof.

Ashburton Grove deffinately wins on looks.

I mean zizu....who cares about sight lines if you're never going to go there anyway.

I mean zizu....who cares about sight lines if you're never going to go there anyway.

:sly: Don't understand that. I've already been there, however. And Da Luz doesn't look crap from the outside.
How can you judge that Ashburton Grove wins on outer looks if it isn't even finished yet, ha. ;)

considering the shallow lower tier the views won't be optimal. But it'll be a great improvement compared to Highbury.

I definitely prefer Da Luz. Simply the better football stadium! Steeper, closer to the pitch, better sight lines, more impressive.
Btw. who cares for cushioned seats!!??

The lower tier of Da Luz looks slightly steeper but from looking at these pictures the difference is minimal. The Emirates looks better. Its curvier and looks like it will have a higher quality finish both inside and out and the surrounding development is better.

And Da Luz doesn't look crap from the outside.
How can you judge that Ashburton Grove wins on outer looks if it isn't even finished yet, ha. ;)


But we know what its going to look like, however we dont know the positions of the pitch.

Da Luz is pretty sucky from the outside (Excuse the bloke)

http://mujweb.cz/www/lisboa.erasmus/3_2_da_luz1.JPG


AG, IMO is/will be one of the most beautiful stadiums around...

http://img270.echo.cx/img270/5739/emiratesstadium9is.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

I mentioned the roofs...

Look at the underside of AG, Its totally smooth, very very rare in stadiums, I can only think of one more like it....the stade de france, and even then its only part of the stadium.

http://www.chec.fr/photos/gstade1.jpg

Fair points. But the fact still remains that Spurs fans have been remarkably loyal during some very dark years. And the fact still remains that, while Arsenal are currently the best supported London club, it is not by nearly as big a margin as Sitback would like to think.

And should fortunes change at some point in the future (big if, I know), it is perfectly possible that Spurs will, once again, become the best supported club in London (though if Chelsea continue to throw Abramovich's money around like confetti, it is inevitable that they will attract hordes of gloryhunters).

Arsenal's fanbase in London is bigger, Arsenal's fanbase in Britain is bigger, Arsenal's fanbase internationally is bigger. It's not hard.

PS someone was mentioning spurs success in the 70s and 80s. Give in it was limited success at best. Arsenal have won something like 29 major trophies, how much have Spurs won?

Arsenal's fanbase in London is bigger, Arsenal's fanbase in Britain is bigger, Arsenal's fanbase internationally is bigger. It's not hard.

PS someone was mentioning spurs success in the 70s and 80s. Give in it was limited success at best. Arsenal have won something like 29 major trophies, how much have Spurs won?

I'm not disputing that Arsenal's fan base is currently bigger than Spurs'. It's only a natural consequence of your success over the past fifteen years or so, and Spurs' sharp decline. However, before the 90's, it is probable that Spurs had the bigger fan base - in London, in Britain and internationally. Largely because of the great football that we played, our European exploits and because of the great players (rather than great teams) that we had: Hoddle, Waddle, Gascoigne, Ardiles, Villa, Lineker etc.

Therefore I repeat: while Arsenal enjoy a huge advantage over Spurs in terms of support among the under 25's, Spurs have the slightly bigger support among those aged 25 - 55. The point being that we won't really start to see a massive difference in the sizes of our two fan bases for another generation or so, assuming that Arsenal continue to flourish and Spurs to struggle.

Oh, and in answer to your question, Spurs have won 16 major trophies. And Arsenal have won 27. Not 29.

And before the late 80's, when the balance of power in north London shifted massively towards Arsenal, the major trophy count was 15 - 14 in Spurs' favour. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, Spurs were famous for great players and thrilling football while Arsenal were known for winning by grinding down the opposition with dogged, defensive performances.

So that's why Spurs had more fans than Arsenal in the past. And why it's so galling for us to see you steal our mantle as the entertainers!

Anyway, enough of this. This is a site for stadium discussion. Not bickering over football loyalties!

Ashburton Grove looks much better than that portugese one...from the outside at least A lot more finished off even in its current half built appearance.

I'm not disputing that Arsenal's fan base is currently bigger than Spurs'. It's only a natural consequence of your success over the past fifteen years or so, and Spurs' sharp decline. However, before the 90's, it is probable that Spurs had the bigger fan base - in London
Debatable though not here please.
in Britain and internationally.
Armchair fans your attendance figures during the 70s and 80s were pretty much the same as Arsenal's.
Arsenal enjoy a huge advantage over Spurs in terms of support among the under 25's, etc
More like under 35s ;)
Oh, and in answer to your question, Spurs have won 16 major trophies.
Mainly cups.
And Arsenal have won 27.
Mainly championships

And before the late 80's, when the balance of power in north London shifted massively towards Arsenal, the major trophy count was 15

mainly cups
- 14
mainly championships
in Spurs' favour.
If you rate cups as highly as championships.

And why it's so galling for us to see you steal our mantle as the entertainers!

And win championships. Something Spurs have only managed twice in their history.

Anyway, enough of this. This is a site for stadium discussion. Not bickering over football loyalties!
Agreed :okay:

Wikipedia has some massive photos of the construction site. They are from May 30th so they are a bit out of date but still worth a look.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/800px-Emirates_Stadium_under_construction.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/800px-Emirates_Stadium_03.jpg
These are much smaller than the actual pics.

Some more here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Stadium)

I just went for a wander over to Finsbury Park and it is really looking pretty massive now. I did take a couple of pics too but I only have a camera on my phone and it doesn't have a zoom so it's really difficult to make anything out. I can post thm if you're all desperate to see them though.

Its completely up to you really. I tried a couple of photos using my slightly ageing camera phone a few months ago but they were so useless that i didnt consider posting them to be honest.

June 8th
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v257/carlspannard/12.jpg

More here (http://www.albiontillwedie.co.uk/photoarchive/photofeature/emiratesstadiumjune05.html#null)

Arsenal's fanbase in London is bigger, Arsenal's fanbase in Britain is bigger, Arsenal's fanbase internationally is bigger. It's not hard.

PS someone was mentioning spurs success in the 70s and 80s. Give in it was limited success at best. Arsenal have won something like 29 major trophies, how much have Spurs won?
I remember when Gazza and Chris Waddle and Lineker were at Tottenham. How long ago was that?

That was around 1988 to 1991. Waddle left just at the time Lineker and Gazza signed for them. Many people (particularly Spurs fans ) say if Waddle had stayed they would have won the league.That was the last seriously good Tottenham team. Instead Arsenal under George Graham became the big challengers to Liverpool and Arsenal went on to win the League twice, the FA Cup, League Cup and European Cup Winners Cup and Spurs only managed the one FA Cup as far as I can remember.

Is this baby really gonna be ready by the start of next season? :?

No way jose....I predict middle of next season.


It looks like its ahread of wembley construction wise...I would say January/february 2006 and this will be done.

Hey guys, I was driving past the site today, and managed to get a couple of pics, I'll post later ;)

here you go, excuse the poor quality, its usually good on my phone (2mp) but i had to zoom...

http://img53.echo.cx/img53/1022/emirates12wr.th.jpg (http://img53.echo.cx/my.php?image=emirates12wr.jpg) http://img53.echo.cx/img53/2134/emirates29qo.th.jpg (http://img53.echo.cx/my.php?image=emirates29qo.jpg)

Cheers Genç. Its looking impressive, particularly in the first photo.

wow
thats a giant (1st pic)
thank you Genç
i hope we can post some pics of the new ASY in somedays :(

No probs guys ;) I'll try and get some more updates if I head that way again :okay:
@Sercan, I hope so too...

I'm not disputing that Arsenal's fan base is currently bigger than Spurs'. It's only a natural consequence of your success over the past fifteen years or so, and Spurs' sharp decline. However, before the 90's, it is probable that Spurs had the bigger fan base - in London, in Britain and internationally. Largely because of the great football that we played, our European exploits and because of the great players (rather than great teams) that we had: Hoddle, Waddle, Gascoigne, Ardiles, Villa, Lineker etc.

Therefore I repeat: while Arsenal enjoy a huge advantage over Spurs in terms of support among the under 25's, Spurs have the slightly bigger support among those aged 25 - 55. The point being that we won't really start to see a massive difference in the sizes of our two fan bases for another generation or so, assuming that Arsenal continue to flourish and Spurs to struggle.

Oh, and in answer to your question, Spurs have won 16 major trophies. And Arsenal have won 27. Not 29.

And before the late 80's, when the balance of power in north London shifted massively towards Arsenal, the major trophy count was 15 - 14 in Spurs' favour. Furthermore, as previously mentioned, Spurs were famous for great players and thrilling football while Arsenal were known for winning by grinding down the opposition with dogged, defensive performances.

So that's why Spurs had more fans than Arsenal in the past. And why it's so galling for us to see you steal our mantle as the entertainers!

Anyway, enough of this. This is a site for stadium discussion. Not bickering over football loyalties!

I think I would prefer to win championships with a defensive side then have a team that plays fairly attractive and win F-ALL but a few cups.

And to put this to rest. Arsenal have won 13 Championships, 10 FA Cups. Spurs have won 2 Championships, 8 FA Cups.

Since the 30s. Arsenal have been more succesful in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 70s, 90s and onwards. And your success in the 80s was 2 FA Cups and 1 Uefa Cup and ours 1 Championship and 1 League Cup and to be fair I'd rather win a Championship in the 80s then win what you did. So all this talking about how Spurs could of possibly ever had a bigger fanbase is laughable. Jog on.

Arsenal's trophy cabinet makes yours look laughable.

Sucess doesnt nesseraly equal fanbase though does it? Newcastle havent won anything for decades yet still manage the second highest attendance in the league.

I'll be up there not the next time I go to London but probably the time after that in about a month I asume giving my last respects to Highbury, how long is the walk to Ashburton Grove from there? I doubt it's much

...a few minutes?

Sucess doesnt nesseraly equal fanbase though does it? Newcastle havent won anything for decades yet still manage the second highest attendance in the league.

Use some common sense.

Only because of the size of their stadium, without a doubt most Arsenal will have the second highest attendances come the completion of Ashburton Grove. I think how big your stadium doesn't represent how big your fanbase is. Highbury is small, and their are plenty of clubs with bigger stadiums. But Arsenal's International fanbase is much bigger then most.

Use some common sense.

Only because of the size of their stadium, without a doubt most Arsenal will have the second highest attendances come the completion of Ashburton Grove. I think how big your stadium doesn't represent how big your fanbase is. Highbury is small, and their are plenty of clubs with bigger stadiums. But Arsenal's International fanbase is much bigger then most.

Still an average attendance around 50,000 is not something I think many clubs(maybe Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs and Everton) could beat no matter the size of their stadium which is pretty impressive for a club thats won nothing for 50 years which in turn rather makes a nonsense of the idea that the number of cups won automatically tells you the size of a clubs fanbase.