Stamford Bridge Thread

[DH1988 1,346]

Real shame the mock-up of this was a site indeed, sold to greedy developers for a housing market where no one can get mortgages.. guess they will go to social housing.. yippee.

[ZAPHOD2319 4,799]

 

[Vesper 30,085]

On 21/01/2024 at 16:41, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

the same thing has been said for the last 10+ years, lolol

[NikkiCFC 8,286]

This means no new stadium till 2032-2035 or something. Unless we move to different location but that won't be allowed by pitch owners. We are fucked. 

Edited April 11, 2024 by NikkiCFC

[Magic Lamps 11,692]

There is no use to a new stadium that costs around 1bn when it just gives us a matchday revenue bump of 40m. Given higher maintenance cost and all that it would take over 30 years for it to amortize. We will need to find other revenue streams. In the grand scheme of things other assets will be more valuable. Player prices for example are inflating way quicker than ticket prices. Just sell one reasonably talented academy graduate more per year at some point.

[Vesper 30,085]

On 11/04/2024 at 13:37, Magic Lamps said:

There is no use to a new stadium that costs around 1bn when it just gives us a matchday revenue bump of 40m. Given higher maintenance cost and all that it would take over 30 years for it to amortize. We will need to find other revenue streams. In the grand scheme of things other assets will be more valuable. Player prices for example are inflating way quicker than ticket prices. Just sell one reasonably talented academy graduate more per year at some point.

Fuck Putin!

Ffs.

No Skripal poisonings and especially no Ukraine war and we would be within 1 or 2 years MAX of that amazing Roman new gothic football temple monster stadiim opening, and even more importantly, NO SALE TO BOEHLY AND CLOWNLAKE.

[Vesper 30,085]

On 11/04/2024 at 13:37, Magic Lamps said:

There is no use to a new stadium that costs around 1bn when it just gives us a matchday revenue bump of 40m. Given higher maintenance cost and all that it would take over 30 years for it to amortize. We will need to find other revenue streams. In the grand scheme of things other assets will be more valuable. Player prices for example are inflating way quicker than ticket prices. Just sell one reasonably talented academy graduate more per year at some point.

Also, no way a ground-up new west London located new stadium will only cost one billion quid. Likely it will be close to double that at the end of the day.

[bluesman2610 1,415]

I’ve been thinking about this recently what about Stadium naming rights for like 5-10 year period. Enough time to build the new stadium and bring in guaranteed money every season which will help towards FFP/PSR. 

[Billy. 2,742]

I do sometimes think our pitch is too small for fast-paced football. Sometimes it looks like there’s no space to move.

Molineux - Area: 7,140m

The Bridge - Area: 6,901m

Nearly 240m smaller. And last week we looked more fluid. Not an excuse for how poor we are. Just a thought lol

[We Hate Scouse 10,326]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/sep/10/Chelsea-in-talks-new-stadium-earls-court

And so it begins. The Stamford Bridge land is far to lucrative for Clearlake to not see an opportunity.

Driving the club into oblivion to reap the benefits from the land. 

[TheHulk 2,401]

Depends what they building, at Earls Court we have bigger space to actually build an epic stadium, remains to be seen if it will happen, with these clowns you never know.

Edited September 10, 2024 by TheHulk

[Fulham Broadway 17,299]

Guardian take on it:

Chelsea have held talks over leaving Stamford Bridge and moving to Earls Court as they seek a resolution to their plans for a bigger stadium. Increasing the capacity from 42,000 is a major priority for the owners and the difficulty of redeveloping the ground has led the club to look for a new site in west Lon

Discussions have been held with Transport for London (TfL), one of the partners that looks after the Earls Court site, and the real estate developers Delancey. The Earl’s Court Development Committee (ECDC) wants to build a mixed-use development and no football stadium is included in its master plan, which is due to be presented next week to Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council.

Related: Clearlake hopes to buy out Todd Boehly or remove his power in Chelsea civil war

The ECDC will be able to move ahead if it receives planning permission and that would place a major obstacle in Chelsea’s way. Key figures involved in planning in London believe the plans could be too expensive and that could open the door for Chelsea because a multi-use football stadium would in those circumstances be attractive. There would be the potential to build affordable housing on the site if Chelsea’s plan is approved.

 

And this is one of those sometimes eventful things happen

 

A potential obstacle for Chelsea is the civil war between their co-owners. Clearlake Capital, the majority shareholder, and Todd Boehly have fallen out and are looking at ways to buy each other out.

A spokesman for the ECDC said: “There is no plan within our plans for Chelsea FC to relocate to the Earls Court site. We have a fully detailed design, shortly to be registered with both local authorities, which prioritises the delivery of thousands of homes and jobs, culture and open space through a well-designed and considered masterplan which has evolved over four years of engagement. This will see development commence in 2026 with the first residents and occupiers moving in from 2030. This is, and will remain, our primary focus.”