Some of you will be old enough to remember the last time we called Wembley our temporary home for two seasons in the Champions League.
Mr Wenger said that while off the pitch it financially made sense, on the pitch it was a disaster. It will be years before we have to worry about finding short-term accommodation again, but it is believed tentative discussions have begun about how to transform the Emirates into the biggest club stadium in London.
There are simple ways to add another ten thousand seats to the venue. Seats can be rearranged, the pitch lowered, the roof taken off, etc. For a builder it is straightforward work, but where it becomes complicated is the surrounding area.
Highbury’s capacity was 38,419. With such a large fan base on a waiting list for tickets, the attendance would have been further restricted by regulations at the time. UEFA demanded that at every game there be advertising boards of a certain height, taking out a few more spectators.
Yet David Dein did not just make an agreement with England’s National Stadium to stop Arsenal losing money, he saw an opportunity to make some. The Twin Towers at the time could hold 77,000 people seated, so in the short term our Chairman was essentially doubling our usual matchday revenue for every European fixture at home. Longer term though, the now 82-year-old wanted to prove to board members that the Gunners were capable of selling out such a stadium, to help convince them it was time to leave Highbury.
Wenger’s vision and Wembley’s disadvantage
Mr Wenger was not being wise after the event, our manager knew his team would be at a disadvantage not playing in familiar surroundings, although he would have expected better results. Yet with a degree in Economics, the Frenchman had long accepted Highbury was too small to be sustainable at the highest level.
Anyone who has ever done a tour of the Emirates will know the 75-year-old had an influence in how it was designed. He requested a layout based on certain physical and mental advantages you might not even have thought of. For example, the home dressing room is spacious and circular so all individuals can see each other when communicating. The away dressing room seats are lowered and there are restrictions in the middle. Many of these details may have been influenced by his own experiences of being out of his comfort zone.
Highbury was famous for a smaller pitch where the fans were so close they could reach out and touch you. Wembley was the opposite, a bigger area of grass which our players were not used to, essentially meaning we were adapting to the pitch tactically as much as our visitors.
Mikel Arteta of course will not have to worry about switching from weekend to midweek between two different-sized pitches. His squad will at least have more time to adjust while most players today are used to playing on wider pitches. Highbury was unique in that regard. Wembley was mythical at the time, with several players who featured in our 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 campaigns describing how they could tell certain opponents were motivated by playing on such a stage. Our current regime will pay more attention to Mr Wenger’s detailing of how he noticed the impact the change had on his players’ pre-match routine.
With the capacity now at 90,000, the only advantage would be more Gooners getting a chance to see their team live in action. For a Red Member like myself who pays a yearly fee just to have my name put in a hat, thirty thousand extra seats every other week can only help my chances. That is the only positive.
Arsenal’s Wembley record
30 September 1998
Arsenal 2-1 Panathinaikos
More methodical than free-flowing. In fact, the first half can be described as sluggish. It was clearly evident from the gap between midfield and defence that we missed Highbury. We scored from two set-piece goals on a night lacking creativity.
21 October 1998
Arsenal 1-1 Dynamo Kyiv
The fixture that perhaps best sums up the disadvantages of being the ‘home team’ at Wembley. Gunners have described the likes of Shevchenko as being noticeably pumped in the tunnel. The majority of the crowd were stunned into silence by the sheer level of dominance from the visitors. Not helped by an injury-hit midfield, it was as if our players did not have their positioning right, leaving too many gaps all over the place. This does not happen when you are playing on a pitch you use regularly. We conceded an equaliser in stoppage time but it was the least our opponents deserved.
25 November 1998
Arsenal 0-1 Lens
Again, it did not feel like the home advantage you get when the same Gooners sit in their usual seats next to the same people and the players are used to the pitch they are playing on. Lens fans were more vocal throughout as we again struggled to create an atmosphere to replicate Highbury. To stress how much we were struggling to find rhythm on the Wembley pitch, in a must-win game we did not manage a shot on target until after the 70th minute. That only came because Mr Wenger decided to throw the kitchen sink at the French side to get the three points, which led to the visitors picking us off on the break.
22 September 1999
Arsenal 3-1 AIK
By the time of the first ‘home’ fixture of our second Champions League campaign many were discussing how the team just were not clicking at Wembley. That chat was only going to intensify when, going into stoppage time, we were being held by the Swedes. Two goals later and Gooners breathed a sigh of relief.
19 October 1999
Arsenal 2-4 Barcelona
There was zero disgrace in being outscored by this Barcelona team, which was far more competitive than the scoreline suggests. Yet it highlighted everything that was wrong with playing at Wembley. Ask the Spaniards which pitch they would rather play on, Highbury or Wembley? They got space they never would have had at our usual home. It was not ideal for our ageing back four to have such a wide pitch with so much room to run into and zero protection.
27 October 1999
Arsenal 0-1 Fiorentina
Very similar to the year previously. In our bid to search for a late winner to keep our hopes alive, we were caught out by an incredible strike.
It meant the Gunners had won only two out of their six Champions League games at Wembley. Lots of money made off the pitch, but harmful on it.
Dan Smith
__________________________________________________________________________________________
ADMIN COMMENT
So here are some simple rules which I must insist commenters follow….
You agree not to give any personal abuse to other Arsenal fans. Everyone is allowed to hold their own opinions even if you disagree with them. It COSTS NOTHING TO BE POLITE TO OTHER ARSENAL FANS.
CALLING ALL ARSENAL FANS! Anyone who would like to contribute an Article or Video opinion piece on JustArsenal, please contact us through this link…
It is clubs like the cemetery of talents that is fueling ideas of expansion at the Emirates.
A quick glance at the Bernabeu giant latest financial accounts helps explain why Arsenal now is exploring massive upgrades.
It is reported Real Madrid became the first club to generate more than £886m in a single year, and a key reason for that was matchday revenue.
The Spanish giants banked £210m from match day alone as they reaped the rewards of their recently developed arena.
The Kroenke’s are no stranger in how these things work, they have developed or built some of the largest and most beautiful stadium in the big Apple, it is a clear sign of where the modern game is going .
Difference is Cemmentery of talent win things
There is no doubt the cemetery of talents has won significantly more trophies than Arsenal due to their superior history and consistent success, especially in the UEFA Champion league, where they are record holders with 14 titles. comparing to Arsenal zero.
But they are notorious for not giving quality players enough playing time and have made life very uncomfortable for others who sees their careers negatively impacted by the pressure
Who ?
Because I can name youngsters who do better at Real Madrid then Arsenal
So two players who left the cemetery of talents and exell are Samuel Eto and our own Odegaard.
So two players who left the cemetery of talents and excell are Samuel Eto and our own Odegaard.
Disagree with Odegarrd
He wasnt good enough to get In their team
Getting rid of a player not good enough doesn’t make you cemmentery of talents
That’s like saying Arsenal are cemmentery of talents because we got rid of Joe Wilcok
Hence go look at what Real Madrid won without Odegarrd compared to what Odegarrd has won
You use Eto as an example but didn’t Real Madrid still win things ?
Where as Arsenal gave away a Gnabry to Bayern Munich
So those are your two ?
I’ll counter that with Ramos , Raul , Casilias , Verane and V Junior
So I internally gave you different eras of examples of young players who went to Real Madrid and did okay
Can you name me 5 youngsters ( let’s say under the age of 21 ) who did better then those 5 at Arsenal
More than thirty clubs around Europe made enquiries for Odegaard while he was a youngster at Stromsgodset in Norway, and he visited the likes of Liverpool, Manchester united, Arsenal, Bryan Munich and of course the Bernabeu giant.
But it was the cemetery of talents who won the battle for the young Norwegian, Odegaard told an assembled media at the time, in his own words, ‘ Real Madrid represent the best opportunity for him to develop as a footballer ‘
Five and a half years later, the Norwegian understanding of the Bernabeu giant is different.
It is the story of Odegaard and Samuel Eto and nany more, why the Bernabeu giant is known as the cemetery of talents, it is the club demanding philosophy and high profile signing that more often than not leads to talented players not getting enough playing time, ultimately hindering their career, hence turning it into a grave yard of talents.
Yeah so be went to a club and wasn’t good enough
That happens at all clubs
Real Madrid in his absence went on to win things
He’s won nothing
I don’t see how that makes them cemmentery of talents?
Should they carry on playing someone not good enough ?
Again by your own criteria we would be the same
Look at a Reiss Nelson
and high profile signing that more often than not leads to talented players not getting enough playing time, ultimately hindering their career, hence turning it into a grave yard of talents.?
But I have named you just as many successful youngsters then bad
You have yet to name one youngster who has done better at Arsenal
Readers will see you struggle to answer it
Ramos , Verane , Raul , Vincent Junior , Cassias
Who are your Arsenal 5 who have done better
If you can’t answer it , they can’t be the cemmentery of talents
David Dein wasn’t, and never has been, our chairman 🙄
I did write vice
Might have been edited out or phone typo