Talk:Emirates Stadium/Archive 1

Transport

Any Londoners want to comment on match-day transport options? Bz2 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Turf

I am preparing a wiki page on the use of natural grass as opposed to artificial turf. I know that the new stadium is supposed to have design features which help promote the growth and maintenance of real grass...but does anyone know if there are web articles explaining exactly how the stadium has been modified to help natural grass? Collieman 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Ashburton Grove" v "Emirates Stadium"

I added back the bit about the former stadium always being called "Highbury" as it relates to the fans, and provided a cite. I moved it to the "name" section.

I think this is worthy of inclusion on this page, as many fans are calling the new stadium "Ashburton Grove" rather than by its official name - what do you think? Chancemichaels 14:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

At DB's testimonial, nobody was refering to it as Ashburton Grove. Besides, Ashburton Grove no longer exists as far as I'm aware, the box office and Armoury sit where it used to be. I suppose there might be one or two people who dislike corporate sponsorship enough to make a point of calling it Ashburton Grove, but the season ticket holders and members who were at the testimonial were without exception quite happy to call the stadium by it's proper name, thankful for the £100m from Emirates which went a long way to making the new stadium happen 88.111.123.118 20:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There are people who were at the testimonial who hold a different opinion and still refuse to call it by the sponsored name (e.g. [1] [2]), and polls indicate the name is not universally popular [3]. Even the mainstream media uses the name sometimes, e.g. [4] [5] [6]. It looks pretty widely-used to me.

Additionally, although it's not been confirmed anywhere yet, the stadium will probably be called Ashburton Grove for Champions League matches, as UEFA forbid sponsors other than official Champions League sponsors from being advertised during matches (for example, Bayern Munich got into trouble over not covering up the name of their new stadium, the Allianz Arena, last year [7]). Qwghlm 21:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Months later, does the disdain for a corporate title still exist? I don't live in London, but I'm a big Arsenal fan, following them on television, discussing on internet forums, etc. I've not heard the term "Ashburton Grove" in a long time. Especially as the team's undefeated streak at the new stadium continues, I hear it affectionately referred to simply as "Emirates" or "the Emirates." Perhaps locals can comment further. - Slow Graffiti 06:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I use both Emirates Stadium and Ashburton Grove interchangeably (as well as the shortened version of "The Grove"), and judging from the prevalence of the term on blogs it is still used by many others as well (e.g. [8] [9] [10] [11], all made in the past few days). Qwghlm 13:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that somebody has recommended that the "ashburton grove" article be merged with the "emirates stadium" article. Whoever this is has clearly not read my reasoning for creating the Ashburton Grove article in the first place. Contrary to popular opinion, Ashburton Grove has not ceased to exist as a postal address: I should know, I live there!

Andrew: I would just like to give my vote to Ashburton Grove rather than Emirates. My arguments - first, the contract with Emirates expires in 6 years, and then the stadium will be called Ashburton Grove anyway. Second - i am grateful to Emirates for the 100 million, but with commerce getting so deep into football I do not want to think that some day Arsenal will be called Emirates FC...not even for all the money of the company. This is England, this is Arsenal, money don't buy us! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.242.67 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Can't we use any better pictures? The two on the page so far are fairly similar and they don't give a reader any impression of what it will look like :E TheMongoose 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to take a trip down there to take some photos. When the weather improves in London (which might not be for a few days by the looks of things) I'll go down there. Qwghlm 08:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have got some and will try and work out how to post them in the article--Murphyweb 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Er..?

. The stadium is scheduled to open in July 2006, and will have an all-seated capacity of 60,000, making it the second largest stadium in the Premiership after Old Trafford and the third largest sports stadium of any kind in London after Wembley Stadium and Twickenham.

-- Surely that makes it the 4th??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheMongoose (talk • contribs) 20:17, May 25, 2006.

Nope. Old Trafford is in Manchester. Qwghlm 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

rofl. Didnt see the london bit, I'm quite aware of where old trafford is ;) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheMongoose (talk • contribs) 15:38, May 26, 2006.

Capacity

Although it was planned to have a capacity of 60,000 the club, the ratings agency state 60,095 seats (now they have been installed). --Vivbaker 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a reference for it? I've tried Googling and I can't find one anywhere. What's the name of the ratings agency? Qwghlm 09:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)#

Here is the article:

[12]

--Vivbaker 12:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced - that's just a wire news story, not from the club or Islington Council (who would be i charge of its licence); that could well be a typo. Other news sources covering the story (e.g. BBC [13]) still quote the 60,000 figure. Qwghlm 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

60,000 is a round figure. It's a thousand to one against the actual figure ending in three zeros. What actually matters is the highest figure that can be accommodated with segregation etc and at most Premiership grounds the record all seated attendance is several hundred below the official capacity. I hope it begins with a six. It will be disappointing if the official Premiership attendances are all 59 thousand and something. Calsicol 11:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, 60,000 is not a precise figure. But the real figure is unknown and could be 59,983 or 60,024 or whatever - until a reasonably authoritative source can give the exact number of seats available for matches, then the round number should be used. Qwghlm 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the figures we were given as stewards, they total 60,288. I've not seen the official total, but I have the totals for each tier - as with every stadium it's difficult to tell with disabled areas, commentator gantry, press box, trackside steward seating etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catisfit (talk • contribs) 20:44, August 6, 2006.

5-star status

BTW, could Emirates be an UEFA 5-star rated stadium? It definitely has the capacity (50,000+) and it would be likely that the designers took the other criterea into consideration, although I'm not sure. GoldDragon 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is quite likely, but until UEFA officially certify it as such we should not mention it in the article, otherwise it is just speculation. Qwghlm 13:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal debt

As a consequence of building of stadium. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/5362764.stm Could it be included somewhere in the article? HornetMike 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The actual amount was already in the finance section (with a reference), although the increase by £100m was not - I have added it in. Qwghlm 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Polonium Detected

There are reports on CNN and elsewhere that trace amounts of POlonium have been detected at Emirates, possible brought there unwittingly by an associate of deceased former spy Litvinenko.71.42.81.184 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It was only a trace amount and poses no risk to human health. [14] No need to worry. :) Qwghlm 10:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

UEFA rating

Has this this stadium received a UEFA rating (see UEFA Stadia List)? I would presume it's a 5-star stadium. jaco♫plane 17:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Not yet, though it is only a matter of time. But we should wait for confirmation from UEFA first. Qwghlm 19:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the stadium is no way near the quality of say Old Trafford or the Millenium Stadium and in no way does it deserve 5 stars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki119 (talk • contribs) 22:58, December 17, 2006.

In making such a confident statement, please explain why. Thanks - Slow Graffiti 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ashburton Grove as a postal address

Because Ashburton Grove contains more than just the stadium, I have edited the page so that it shows the Triangle development as well.

I think that this is puts the article more in the style of an encyclopedia, because it is not strictly accurate to refer to the stadium by the name, "Ashburton Grove". Ashburton Grove is certainly the postal address of the Emirates Stadium, but it is also the address of other buildings, principally the Triangle.

My edit makes it possible for people to tell the difference between the stadium and the postal address.

Celtic Park is bigger?

According to this. Soooo, how can Ashburton be the third biggest of any kind unless of course u are just talking about Engerland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.113.199.109 (talk • contribs) 02:48, March 10, 2007.

The intro reads the second largest stadium in the Premiership after Old Trafford, and the third-largest stadium of any kind in London, after Wembley and Twickenham so Celtic Park, being a Scottish Premier League stadium located in Glasgow, doesn't figure in either part. Qwghlm 12:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ashburton Grove" v "Emirates Stadium"

Please do not merge the Ashburton Grove article with the Emirates Stadium article unless you have read the discussion on Qwghlm's talk page, and on my talk page. Benedict Rodgers 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about UEFA Rating?

One piece of criteria for receiving a rating of 5 stars is: Having at least 1,000 five-star hotel rooms. What may I ask does having at least 1,000 5-star hotel rooms have to do with football? Nothing, it is supposed to be a football stadium, not a hotel. It's as if the people in UEFA have become corrupt and want luxury to be put on a higher step of the priority ladder than football. Who are UEFA anyway? The governing body of european football? Wow, that's an impressive title, but what do they do? They make up stupid rules like: The away goal, having at least 1,000 5 star hotel rooms. Personally, I don’t care if they give a 1 star rating, it will not affect my judgement of a stadium.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard LVP Real (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of the star rating is to do with the ability to host finals - therefore lots of visiting fans/officials etc. And the rooms do not need to be directly connected to the stadium, just in the area.

The financing

If the stadium cost 390m pounds and the Highbury apartments yield "comfortably over 300", and the airline pays 100 - is the stadium already paid for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.150.130 (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)