Jump to content

Stamford Bridge Thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

Earls court is perfect. Think the underground line might explain why planning permission has not been granted though. Would be very tricky to safely construct on top of it, would probably find a lot of opposition from LU.

Make it do Roman, build a lasting legacy, give us a new home!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've no emotional ties to the Bridge, the ground has changed so much since I was a kid. Gone are the terraces and those crappy wooden / cement benches.

Only tie I have is to the general area, if we move we have to insure its within a 1-2 mile radius, I don't want to be commuting to Crawley for every home game!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Can you just sum up it for me in few words?

So what does this all mean?

There are a number of interpretations that can be extracted. The context, we believe is that CapCo have been keen to incorporate a stadium in order to bring capital and a real shot in the arm to the project. You all know by now that this was the reason behind the share buy back last October. CapCo are rumoured to be less than swimming in cash. The most optimistic of the possible outcomes is one where the club know they have sufficient support from the Mayor and will challenge the development at each stage, eventually persuading him to call the development in. The most pessimistic is that Chelsea, despite their persistence, are flogging a dead horse. A project of this size rarely follows a simple path and within a year everything can change, especially with the toxic issue of the two estates becoming ever more prominent.

We have heard that there are in existence images of a stadium design at Earls Court and we would very much like to see the club publish those.

We would also strongly propose that all Chelsea fans direct their efforts to applying pressure on the council to loosen their position on Earl's Court rather than taking their unsubstantiated claims of SB expansion and trying to beat the club with them. We have said it before; if they are apparently happy to countenance a 55-60k stadium at SB (which simply isn't feasible) then they ought to be comfortable with the club moving a few hundred yards along the railway track and so cfcretaining the financial benefits to the area they profess to be so keen to maintain. We should be asking WHY they are so resistant to Chelsea's obvious desire to bring cash and benefits to the project. When you think about it, it doesn't make any sense at all really does it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you just sum up it for me in few words?

Chelsea FC have kept telling the council that they oppose the proposed housing at Earls Court because 'It does not take advantage of the potential for a new stadium'. They may fight against the decision if permission is given to build houses at Earls Court instead of a stadium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chelsea FC have kept telling the council that they oppose the proposed housing at Earls Court because 'It does not take advantage of the potential for a new stadium'. They may fight against the decision if permission is given to build houses at Earls Court instead of a stadium

They wouldn't need all of EC to build a stadium. What CFC are essentially saying that not all of it should go to houses being built, as potential commercial activity could be lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is good news, for those living abroad earls court is literally a stones throw from the bridge, and has excellent rail links. Biggest challenge with the site is that the district line runs directly under it.

It's a better (cheaper) option than Battersea IMO, and if the council is serious about helping us to remain in the borough (they are thinking £££s here) they should take our objections / application seriously.

The best thing Roman can do for this club is provide us with a suitable home for the next 50-100 years. That's a sign of real commitment and a sure fire way to propel us into the top 5 earners in world football. Hell we could even adopt a similar approach to Arsenal (highbury) and become partners with the firm developing SB, they made a bloody fortune from that.

Roll on a +60k state of the art stadium, would nearly double our match day income if you take into account corporate facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have said it before; if they are apparently happy to countenance a 55-60k stadium at SB (which simply isn't feasible) then they ought to be comfortable with the club moving a few hundred yards along the railway track and so cfcretaining the financial benefits to the area they profess to be so keen to maintain. We should be asking WHY they are so resistant to Chelsea's obvious desire to bring cash and benefits to the project. When you think about it, it doesn't make any sense at all really does it?

Maybe its has to deal w/ history & the fact that people like strolling down the Fulham Broadway Road on Saturdays. Also take a look @ le arse. Has tearing down Highbury & playing @ Emirates really assisted them? I hear that the atmosphere is not the same any longer for le arse & they tried their best to keep the opposing team's fans muted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...