Stamford Bridge Thread

[xPetrCechx 13,547]

7 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Don't think that's possible otherwise it would have been done years ago. It was hard enough to get a roof on the West Stand that took about six years to complete. Can't do nothing with the Shed because of the hotel and the East Stand it's just not possible to extend for one thing you'd get vertigo being that high up !

Remove the hotel 

[!Hazard! 3,394]

Let's put those Battersea plans back on the table shall we

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

30 minutes ago, !Hazard! said:

Let's put those Battersea plans back on the table shall we

Sold years ago mate.

https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/

[DDA 9,570]

31 minutes ago, !Hazard! said:

Let's put those Battersea plans back on the table shall we

That will not happen now. They are close to completeing a massive development project there. Looks pretty impressive. I'll be driving past it in about 15 minutes, so I will let you know if a stadium can be fitted in there. 😐

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

44 minutes ago, xPetrCechx said:

Remove the hotel 

If only my son if only. Blame Bates the Shed only holding 6,000 was a joke he concentrated to much on other streams of income rather than the stadium.

[Laylabelle 9,326]

31 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Don't think that's possible otherwise it would have been done years ago. It was hard enough to get a roof on the West Stand that took about six years to complete. Can't do nothing with the Shed because of the hotel and the East Stand it's just not possible to extend for one thing you'd get vertigo being that high up !

Yeah you also need a certain amount of exits for certain amount of capacity so that's partly why extending is out.. Learnt that years ago on tour lol. 

[Unionjack 7,531]

On 5/31/2018 at 2:52 PM, Iggy Doonican said:

five years away from the Bridge would have a detrimental effect on both fans and players alike

Cant see spuds or gooners minding!

But there should be a different option. Enlarge the ends and make them safe seating.

[Iggy Doonican 4,186]

11 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

Cant see spuds or gooners minding!

But there should be a different option. Enlarge the ends and make them safe seating.

I'm all for safe standing in theory but don't think a geezer of my vintage could stand up for 90 minutes 120 in some games. Safe standing should be brought back after all it wasn't the terraces that killed fans at Hillsborough it was the fences no fences no deaths.

[Unionjack 7,531]

12 minutes ago, Iggy Doonican said:

I'm all for safe standing in theory but don't think a geezer of my vintage could stand up for 90 minutes 120 in some games. Safe standing should be brought back after all it wasn't the terraces that killed fans at Hillsborough it was the fences no fences no deaths.

I THINK most of the times where we would be standing is just like we do now. During times of added emotions highs and lows. Then we could sit down like normal.

Way I'd do it anyway as I iz no spring chicken bud!

[Fulham Broadway 16,493]

Neil Barnett sacked !

[xPetrCechx 13,547]

54 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Neil Barnett sacked !

I opened a thread for him

[kiwi1691 255]

Quote

Just to say before I carry on that unless Roman's visa situation is worked out to everyone's satisfaction - to the extent that he can secure investment for a large-scale development scheme - then none of what follows is feasible. And who knows how close he is to be able to get to that point? British-Russian relations continue to seem very frosty as things stand.

Anyway, I know this was discussed a few months ago but I've been struck in recent days that some long standing Chelsea fans have once again been speculating about the possibility of the club scrapping the hugely expensive, hugely complex SB scheme and instead revisiting Earls Court as an alternative. 

The Earls Court development has reached a state of limbo with the demolition of the Exhibition Centre having taken place but no sign that building is due to start anytime soon on the main site (the Lillie Square development on Seagrave Road is proceeding but is only selling very slowly). The developer Capco was trying to relaunch the scheme with a new more intensive development (increasing the number of flats by a third) but this has seemingly been rejected by the council. The local council is also trying to get Capco to sell the local housing estates back that the developer secured in controversial fashion a number of years ago. All of this has served to reduce the current valuation of the scheme from £1.4bn in 2015 to half that amount early in 2018. We can see where this is heading and the signals suggest that Capco may well be looking for a way out.



The point discussed by the Chelsea fans is as follows: rather than Roman spending £1bn+ to build a somewhat restricted (albeit beautiful) stadium at Stamford Bridge necessitating a four year exile at Wembley, why not build a great new stadium at Earls Court on a larger, less restricted site? This would mean that the club could play at SB while the building was taking place and then the site could be sold to developers once the club had moved into Earls Court thereby largely financing the overall scheme. 

Obviously, Earls Court was seriously discussed as an option in the past. Some Chelsea fans supported it at the time feeling that EC was close enough to SB for it to feel like home. Some supporters were adamant that it was Stamford Bridge or nowhere. What struck me in this recent discussion was that people who may have been in the second camp previously had seemingly rethought their stance after being confronted with the reality of a four year exile at Wembley (which was dreaded by all matchgoing fans). I think any such scheme would get the support of Chelsea fans and, crucially, the CPO to an extent that it wouldn't have a few years ago.

So now we just need those pesky visa issues to be ironed out in quite a timely way. 

 

Quote

When a possible inclusion of a stadium on the Earls Court development was imagined before, it was generally thought it would be placed in the north west of the site. This was the old railway depot, TfL land and also what came under Hammersmith & Fulham Council property, the two housing estates. 

As this concept posted earlier shows a likely placement without having to build over the Overground and tube tracks whilst keeping new tower blocks away from the lower rise housing alongside North End Road. Unfortunately, with this particular plan, the stadium itself takes out the Gibbs Green Estate and a portion of the West Kensington one too. But if the circumstances have changed then maybe a new stadium could be shifted nearer the Empress State Tower and over where Earls Court Two used to stand.

Approx, Stadium footprint with (1) West Kensington Estate and (2) Gibbs Green Estate 

 

[Vesper 27,636]

On 18/07/2018 at 2:01 PM, Fulham Broadway said:

Neil Barnett sacked !

[OhForAGreavsie 5,780]

On ‎29‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 5:39 AM, kiwi1691 said:

The point discussed by the Chelsea fans is as follows: rather than Roman spending £1bn+ to build a somewhat restricted (albeit beautiful) stadium at Stamford Bridge necessitating a four year exile at Wembley, why not build a great new stadium at Earls Court on a larger, less restricted site? This would mean that the club could play at SB while the building was taking place and then the site could be sold to developers once the club had moved into Earls Court thereby largely financing the overall scheme. 

Exactly what I've always favoured and argued for. If this possibility becomes a genuine option then I'd back it one hundred percent.

Even though I've attended more than a thousand football matches at Stamford Bridge, I believe the benefits of relocating far outweigh the emotional attachment to our traditional home. In addition to the advantages listed, and those alone already make an unanswerable case in my opinion, a new stadium would also permit improved amenities around the ground and better transport links to it. Compared to a new build at Earls Court, there is nothing to be said for redeveloping The Bridge other than nostalgia.

Is nostalgia enough to justify spending an extra billion pounds, playing four years of 'away' fixtures and finishing up with a stadium which is less good than the one we could build at Earls Court? I don't believe that it is. Nostalgia is great but it's the future that counts. Look what happened to Fulham. They used to be the best team in London but in 1905 they decided against moving to the new stadium down the road when they were offered the chance. Their decision forced the owners of Stamford Bridge to start a new club instead. Now Fulham are not even the best team in Fulham.

Let's not make the same mistake The Cottagers did. It's wise to use the present to make plans for the future, and it would be catastrophic not to choose the future over the past.

[Vesper 27,636]

23 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

 

Even though I've attended more than a thousand football matches at Stamford Bridge,

[OhForAGreavsie 5,780]

1 hour ago, Vesper said:

First match at The Bridge in Jan '74; first season ticket in 1976. By the way, that season ticket cost me £22. Twenty-two quid!!

[Vesper 27,636]

4 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

First match at The Bridge in Jan '74; first season ticket in 1976. By the way, that season ticket cost me £22. Twenty-two quid!!

you be lucky if 22 quid got you 2 pints and 2 pies now

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,780]

On ‎06‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 11:48 PM, Unionjack said:

I THINK most of the times where we would be standing is just like we do now. During times of added emotions highs and lows. Then we could sit down like normal.

Way I'd do it anyway as I iz no spring chicken bud!

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think you will have the option to sit in 'safe standing' areas. I think the area can be configured for everyone to stand or for everyone to sit, not both. A few hundred people choosing to sit, dotted around, would put paid to the 'safe' part of the safe standing system.