Stamford Bridge Thread

[OhForAGreavsie 5,897]

On 09/05/2019 at 0:32 PM, !Hazard! said:

I really hope rebuild of Stamford Bridge does happen and the club isnt relocated to some soulless suburb. Battersea was an amazing alternative but that idea is now long gone so how about just go with the rebuild plans that have been already made.

Just save the 500m by playing the youth and selling the overpriced overpaid mediocre players. I can stand a few years of mediocrity if it means the best academy in the world finally gets the recognition it deserves and in the process Chelsea finally get the stadium the fans have been waiting for.

How many academy graduates have left the club and gone on to show that they are Champions League level footballers? I think the answer to that question is zero. If you agree, then maybe you also agree that it's not justified to imply that the club has failed to promote youngsters. The current crop of Cobhamlproducts are getting chances because they are the first to deserve it.

Back to the stadium; whichever way we cut it, building away from the Stamford Bridge site is far less expensive than staying put. Probably as much as £500m less. The problem is finding an acceptable site of course.

[nachikethas 1,149]

So it finally happened! After years of dreaming, I finally went to see my spiritual home, Stamford bridge.

 

Two months before I moved to Leeds for work and will be there till October end. I really want to see a match at the bridge. If anyone has a spare ticket for any of the upcoming matches please let me know. Would really appreciate it.

[nachikethas 1,149]

To be honest I was really shocked when I saw the stadium. It was smaller than I imagined. But then I got it , it's a proper football stadium, not like the hugh multipurpose stadiums that we have in India.

 

😭 Missing my number 10

[Vesper 28,980]

1 hour ago, nachikethas said:

To be honest I was really shocked when I saw the stadium. It was smaller than I imagined. But then I got it , it's a proper football stadium, not like the hugh multipurpose stadiums that we have in India.

 

😭 Missing my number 10

So wonderful you finally made it to the Bridge!

[Hybrid Angel 2,130]

Hey everyone. Been a while since I last posted here, I had a small question regarding finding tickets for a particular match and I remember that there are quite a few local fans in this forum, so thought I would ask. Any help would be appreciated.

I'm thinking of visiting London and watching the team I grew up with for the first time this season. I've already purchased a membership card, but my question is regarding loyalty points. I understand that of most of the matches vs club rivals in addition to the first and last home games of the season are only sold on the premise that a certain amount of loyalty points are met. 

For that reason I'm looking at Home to Palace on Nov 9th, or Home to Norwich on May 2nd. Would I be able to buy these tickets on the official website without having to worry about having 0 loyalty points? Provided that I buy them as soon as the purchase window for members opens on the website. I thought it'd be best to be absolutely sure before booking my flight to London.

Cheers.

[NikkiCFC 8,037]

Chelsea confirm new stadium plans remain on hold as permit deadline looms

 

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2019/10/15/20915830/chelsea-confirm-new-stadium-plans-remain-on-hold-as-permit-deadline-looms

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

The expansion or new version of the Bridge is never going to happen not in my lifetime anyway just to many hurdles to jump. We've had problems with the ground since the 70's and they were self inflicted the board being far to ambitious on the back of a few trophies won. In the 80's we nearly lost the ground completely and although I'm not a fan of Bates he did save the ground but then fucked everything in the 90's concentrating on infrastructure outside of the stadium hotels,restaurants etc Chelsea even had a travel agency once.

The West Stand was knocked down in 1997 and wasn't finished till 2001 because of planning permission and nearly 20 years later and nothings changed it's a logistical nightmare so and I hate to end on a pun but the new ground is a bridge too far.

[Vesper 28,980]

On 16/10/2019 at 3:24 PM, Iggy Doonican said:

The expansion or new version of the Bridge is never going to happen not in my lifetime anyway just to many hurdles to jump. We've had problems with the ground since the 70's and they were self inflicted the board being far to ambitious on the back of a few trophies won. In the 80's we nearly lost the ground completely and although I'm not a fan of Bates he did save the ground but then fucked everything in the 90's concentrating on infrastructure outside of the stadium hotels,restaurants etc Chelsea even had a travel agency once.

The West Stand was knocked down in 1997 and wasn't finished till 2001 because of planning permission and nearly 20 years later and nothings changed it's a logistical nightmare so and I hate to end on a pun but the new ground is a bridge too far.

this is a MASSIVE problem

fucking geo-politics

I got the boot off a yank political chatroom because I was having a chat about footie and obviously brought up Chels, so some thick cunt started calling me a Russian troll who got that twat Trump elected!!

all because of Roman owning us

ffs

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

On the radio earlier it said Eddie Howe has such influence in Bournemouth that he told the board to move the away fans from behind the goal to the side stand. Mourinho did exactly the same moving the away fans from the lower east stand to the Shed simply because he couldn't handle the piss taking the away fans gave him the thin skinned has been.

As a Shed boy basically since birth it really sticks in my craw that away fans are put in the Shed it's and I feel a overlooked reason why the atmosphere is nearly always flat at home. Move the wankers back to the East Stand preferably the upper tier well out of the way which they did in the early 90's when the MH was under construction

[Laylabelle 9,373]

Especially when for cup games they sometimes the the whole shed. No piss off! Its ours!

I dont mind the East but being at the top..vertigo! Same as West!

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

1 hour ago, Laylabelle said:

Especially when for cup games they sometimes the the whole shed. No piss off! Its ours!

I dont mind the East but being at the top..vertigo! Same as West!

Nothing is as bad as Newcastle no one over 40 can sing for the first 15 minutes the amount of stairs is unreal.

 

[bigbluewillie 1,859]

12 hours ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Nothing is as bad as Newcastle no one over 40 can sing for the first 15 minutes the amount of stairs is unreal.

 

Our west stand mullers me, took me grandson to one of our games, Watford last season.

He's telling me come on you old bastard, and there's me gasping for air only half way up, thinking i aint gonna make it, and as Layla say's i was fucked when i did get there with the height i was fucking giddy as well.

[Vesper 28,980]

2 hours ago, bigbluewillie said:

Our west stand mullers me, took me grandson to one of our games, Watford last season.

He's telling me come on you old bastard, and there's me gasping for air only half way up, thinking i aint gonna make it, and as Layla say's i was fucked when i did get there with the height i was fucking giddy as well.

so the blue in bigbluewillie stands for

 

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

4 hours ago, bigbluewillie said:

Our west stand mullers me, took me grandson to one of our games, Watford last season.

He's telling me come on you old bastard, and there's me gasping for air only half way up, thinking i aint gonna make it, and as Layla say's i was fucked when i did get there with the height i was fucking giddy as well.

Haven't done it yet but very tempted some tube stations have lifts instead of climbing a couple of flights of stairs 

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

so the blue in bigbluewillie stands for

 

999 now there's a band I forgot about first heard them on this punk compilation from 79 I think. First time I heard The Cure as well the now controversial Killing an Arab.

[bigbluewillie 1,859]

1 hour ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Haven't done it yet but very tempted some tube stations have lifts instead of climbing a couple of flights of stairs 

Try covent garden with stairs, comes with a warning message "there are a 129 steps, equivalent to a 5 story building" that would give me a coronary

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

2 minutes ago, bigbluewillie said:

Try covent garden with stairs, comes with a warning message "there are a 129 steps, equivalent to a 5 story building" that would give me a coronary

Wembley Park going up the stairs after a skinful I feel like doing the Rocky wave when I get to the top 

[Vesper 28,980]

Inside Chelsea: The clock continues to tick on the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge – will it ever happen?

https://theathletic.com/1585623/2020/02/06/inside-chelsea-stamford-bridge-redevelopment/

Three years ago, the project team responsible for the proposed redevelopment of Stamford Bridge left Hammersmith Town Hall on King Street in jubilant mood and headed across the road to The Salutation, the nearest pub. Having just secured unanimous council approval for the construction of a new 60,000-seater stadium inspired by Westminster Abbey and dubbed the “Cathedral of Football”, they understandably felt like celebrating a big step forward in what promised to be one of the most transformative events in Chelsea’s history.

Instead, that momentous evening in January 2017 is at real risk of going down as a monumental false dawn. Planning approval from the council for the new Stamford Bridge, subsequently endorsed by Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, expires on March 31 and cannot be extended. With less than two months to go until the deadline, the first phase of the project — demolition of the buildings around the stadium, including the Millennium and Copthorne Hotels — has not begun.

It is understood that Chelsea don’t have to physically begin working on the site before March 31. They can issue a pre-commencement application, notifying what labour is being carried out and when. As a source told The Athletic: “It is not necessarily a case of Chelsea knocking through a wall — they can file paperwork with the intention of knocking down the wall and when.” But if no communication is received by the deadline, the application process must be started all over again.

There is, as yet, no indication that Chelsea will resume the project, paused with an abrupt 49-word statement on the club’s official website in May 2018 that cited an “unfavourable investment climate”, in time to meet the planning approval deadline. Club officials insist that if it is allowed to lapse, they are confident that a second application would not prove quite as onerous as the first one. Other obstacles — most notably a “right to light” dispute with a local family affected by the proposed redevelopment — have also been overcome.

But even the revised schedule, disclosed a few months before the project was officially shelved, had Chelsea moving into their new stadium no earlier than the start of the 2024-25 season after spending as many as four years in a temporary home. With no demolition taking place, let alone the first spade in the ground, it is reasonable to question whether the new Stamford Bridge will be realised before the decade we have just entered is over — or even if it will happen at all.

Chelsea’s decision to halt the redevelopment came amid owner Roman Abramovich’s stand-off with the UK government over an extension to his Tier 1 investor visa. Contrary to noise on social media around the start of the year, sources have told The Athletic that he has not applied for a new one since withdrawing his application in the spring of 2018, and those familiar with the Russian have asked why he would fund a lavishly expensive construction project that he is not welcome to visit.

Questions about Abramovich’s broader commitment to owning Chelsea were answered emphatically by the revelation that he pumped £247 million of his personal wealth into the club during the last financial year, coupled with his move to use the club’s global platform as part of his broader efforts to eradicate antisemitism. Legitimate questions remain, however, as to just how much of the Stamford Bridge redevelopment he is prepared to pay for with his own money.

Chelsea held talks with several investment banks in 2017 about the possibility of borrowing £500 million to fund their new stadium and the estimated overall cost of the project had ballooned to around £1 billion before it was paused. Last summer, a report by New Civil Engineer claimed that the club had instructed the design team to cut costs by as much as £500 million before the project could be resumed, and were even open to the idea of building on an alternative site.

Chelsea pushed back strongly against the suggestion that a permanent departure from Stamford Bridge was being considered, insisting that they remain committed to keeping the club in its historic home on Fulham Road for the long term. Eight years have passed since the club were outbid by two Malaysian companies for Battersea Power Station, and west London is far from flush with plots of empty land or vacant property big enough to accommodate an elite modern football stadium.

There is also the fact that Chelsea cannot permanently relocate anywhere without the agreement of Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), the supporter-led group which has owned the freehold to Stamford Bridge since 1997. The club failed in an attempt to buy back the land from CPO at the direction of Abramovich in October 2011, falling well short of a required 75 per cent majority. There is no desire to revisit an episode that sparked considerable hostility from fans, as well as accusations that those acting on the club’s behalf had purchased shares to try to sway the vote in their favour.

CPO remain adamant that they will not support any attempt to take Chelsea away from Stamford Bridge permanently. The club have also moved to strengthen ties with the group since 2011 and the two parties now enjoy a good working relationship. Details of how to become a CPO shareholder can be found on Chelsea’s official website, while supporters who take tours of the stadium can purchase shares in the museum reception, as well as at a variety of events. There are now around 13,000 CPO shareholders globally, owning approximately 21,000 shares in total.

But while Chelsea may be committed to Stamford Bridge — by choice and by circumstance — for the long term, the design challenges of the project are at a different level of complexity to those faced by Arsenal or Tottenham with their new stadiums. Bordered by train lines on two sides, building out to accommodate 18,000 extra seats was not an option. Plans for the new Stamford Bridge required digging down, resulting in a pitch below ground level, and building up, including a raised walkway over the railway lines to reduce the number of fans accessing the ground from Fulham Road.

The proposed demolition and construction phases present a myriad of logistical difficulties. Chelsea officials have privately expressed concerns about ease of access for heavy machinery and large trade vehicles to the stadium site. Building the walkways over the railway lines would need to be accomplished without disrupting National Rail or Transport for London services. Vibration levels from heavy plant machinery must also be limited to avoid disrupting the catacombs in Brompton Cemetery.

When the full nature of the undertaking is considered, Chelsea’s estimate that they would need to spend four full years elsewhere — more than double the length of time that Tottenham spent as tenants of Wembley — begins to seem almost optimistic. There are legitimate fears that the club’s supporters may not have the stomach for such a prolonged exile, and it is also likely that their absence would have a profound impact on the area surrounding Stamford Bridge.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council are convinced that a redeveloped Stamford Bridge would be a significant long-term benefit to the borough but many businesses nearby fear the more immediate pain caused by the project. Many of the pubs within walking distance of the stadium estimate that between 25 and 30 per cent of their overall revenue comes from match-days. “If they did move, most of the pubs around here would end up closing,” admits Scott Kirwan, owner of the Broadway Bar and Grill on Fulham Road.

Business rates and rents in the borough are high even by London standards and when the stadium redevelopment was first approved in 2017, there was no indication from the council of reductions while Chelsea would be away. “I know that when Tottenham’s new stadium opened, pubs in the area increased their trade by 3000 per cent,” Kirwan adds, though others are less convinced of the benefits. “How much better can it be though?” asks David Nahmad, GM of the Tommy Tucker. “We’re fully booked on match days, with a waiting list as well.”

But the successful transition that Tottenham have made to a state-of-the-art home looms large over Chelsea. Many at Stamford Bridge are bracing themselves for some grim reading when their bitter London rivals publish their latest financial results in the coming weeks, bolstered for the first time by the increased match-day revenue made possible by their shiny new stadium.

“Match days are probably where clubs can make the most difference financially, especially going forward,” Kieran Maguire, Football Finance lecturer at Liverpool University, tells The Athletic. “If you look to see what Spurs have done, going from a 35,000 capacity stadium to one that fits 62,000, they will be able to increase their match-day income from around about £35-40 million (per season) to close to £100 million. That will make a significant impact.

“At present, Chelsea are reliant on Abramovich. There is no questioning his generosity — he is still putting the money in — but they’re also reliant on player sales to help them get through Financial Fair Play [FFP]. With FIFA restricting the amount of players going out on loan and subsequently being sold, Chelsea could be hit quite hard because that has been part of their business model.

“Unless they can generate more match-day revenue, there is going to be a gap: Arsenal are 60,000 capacity; West Ham are 60,000; Manchester United are 75,000; Manchester City are 55,000 going to 60,000; Liverpool are 54,000 and are planning to take it to 61,000. Chelsea are sticking out like a sore thumb.

“If Chelsea are able to redevelop Stamford Bridge to make it more competitive, they will be able to offer more add-ons, such as we are seeing at Spurs, which is a multi-functional stadium. Supporters are prepared to spend four hours there. Obviously, the longer you stay in the stadium, the more money they can make off you. Spurs have been really smart in the route they’ve taken and that will make a financial difference to them.”

Chelsea posted a pre-tax loss of £101.8 million in January, their largest since 2005. The results covered a year in which the club won the Europa League, and their stagnant match-day revenue failed to paper over the cracks caused by the absence of Champions League participation. The financial pressure on Frank Lampard to secure fourth spot this season is considerable.

“Without the benefits of a bigger ground, it makes finishing in the top four more vital for Chelsea,” Maguire adds. “The way that UEFA split the prize money means roughly 80 per cent goes to the Champions League clubs and 20 per cent to the Europa League. Chelsea and Liverpool both won their respective competitions last season but Chelsea earned just €39 million for the Europa League and Liverpool got €107 million.

“Liverpool had a further advantage though because they could charge a higher price for match day last season because of the superior opposition. Everything racks up. The difference between making and not making it can be £80-100 million when you factor everything in.”

The “unfavourable investment climate” cited by Chelsea when halting the stadium project was also impacted by the prolonged political and financial uncertainty that followed the Brexit vote in 2016. Now that the UK has officially left the European Union, there is at least a measure of clarity to the situation but Maguire does not expect recent events to do much to limit the already-spiralling costs of such an expansive project.

“The price has gone up to an extent because the pound has fallen in value since the Brexit vote, although there has been a recovery in the last few months,” he explains. “If you look at the cost of building anything, it’s a combination of material, labour and overheads. It could be a case that raw material prices will go up if originally importing from the European Union and now there are going to be complications in terms of logistics and supply line.

“It’s fair to say the construction cost will rise because there is certainly evidence that construction workers from the EU are returning there, so that will push up domestic prices for staff. Overheads in general will equally rise because if goods are being imported and there is not a free trade deal, then those costs will be passed on to the buyer, which in this case will be the football club.

“I don’t think it will be a deal-breaker, though. It’s just not going to help on the cost front.”

The key to Chelsea resuming the stadium project post-Brexit could well be Abramovich securing more favourable terms on bank loans, or partnering with outside investors.

“Chelsea will be looking for some third-party funding,” Maguire says. “If you look at the Spurs deal, what they’ve been smart in doing is borrowing money on a very long-term interest-only mortgage of about 2.5 per cent. So let’s say Chelsea’s stadium costs £1.5 billion, of which Abramovich puts up half and the banks put up the other half — the interest cost per year at 2.5 per cent will work out at £17-18 million a year.

“That’s nothing compared to the additional match-day revenue you hope to generate and also, Chelsea will be able to potentially get extra hospitality income and start to pitch for events that Wembley and Tottenham go for, like outdoor concerts and the NFL. As for spending four years away, Spurs covered that relatively easily when they played at Wembley. West Ham pay £2.5-3 million to rent the London Stadium. That’s not going to cause Abramovich to blink.”

The problem for Chelsea is that their stadium redevelopment has become something of a staring contest. If next month’s planning approval deadline is allowed to lapse, the prospect of a new elite stadium fit for a modern European giant will recede beyond the horizon — and until it is brought firmly back into view, Chelsea are a club on hold.