Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and log in to join the CFC discussion! ×

Stamford Bridge Thread

Steve
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Neilando
Neilando

Hi. Here is a first *rough* colour render. I've so many things to fix on this image, but thought I'd show you what progress has been made.

pHaRaOn
pHaRaOn

The design of the four new stands will take their inspiration not from the uniform style of most recent stadiums, but from the buttresses, pillars and gothic architecture of Westminster Abbey in whose

We Hate Scouse
We Hate Scouse

It'll be close to 65k. 2 Bridges, 1 to West Brompton and 1 to the back of Fulham Broadway. They will lower the ground. Wembley is looking the most likely temp ground.

Posted Images

Vesper

Vesper 27,373

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

Those permits expired and they would need to start the entire approval process over. The permits expired before he bought the club.

exactly, and there are multiple options we can do

we still, IN THEORY, could build the Roman stadium, I would love that

hopefully if you do that, or do a total tear-down and rebuild of a another design, Boehly and Co can convince the Rugby Football Union to let us lease out Twickenham for the 4 or 5 years it will take

5fe731e25d343da99d14cac3909920c1.png

Edited by Vesper
Link to comment
Share on other sites
xPetrCechx

xPetrCechx 13,548

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Vesper said:

exactly, and there are multiple options we can do

we still, IN THEORY, could build the Roman stadium, I would love that

hopefully if you do that, or do a total tear-down and rebuild of a another design, Boehly and Co can convince the Rugby Football Union to let us lease out Twickenham for the 4 or 5 years it will take

5fe731e25d343da99d14cac3909920c1.png

Why not Cottege or Wembley?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ZAPHOD2319

ZAPHOD2319 3,893

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, MoroccanBlue said:

CPO mugs like Rory Jennings will veto everything. 

If Clearlake make a good proposal and CPO does not get on board, wouldn't that open the door to build the stadium away from SB? I honestly don't know the local politics involved in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MoroccanBlue

MoroccanBlue 5,207

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

If Clearlake make a good proposal and CPO does not get on board, wouldn't that open the door to build the stadium away from SB? I honestly don't know the local politics involved in this?

I remember reading we would have to be called something else, like London FC and the name and brand of Chelsea FC belongs to the CPOs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vesper

Vesper 27,373

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, xPetrCechx said:

Is there a free version? 🙄

yes

here

Stamford Bridge special: Chelsea’s £1.5bn stadium decision

Exclusive: A complete rebuild, albeit still not problem-free, is most likely option as owners target having one of Europe's best stadiums
Chelsea are holding a new round of talks over their £1.5 billion stadium project as the Todd Boehly-Clearlake Capital owners inch closer to a decision that will shape the club’s future.
 
While much of the focus has been on how long the board can keep faith with head coach Graham Potter after a terrible run of results, Chelsea have an even bigger issue coming to a head.
 
Boehly and his co-controlling owner Behdad Eghbali are adamant that Chelsea must have one of the best stadiums in England and in Europe by the time the project comes to an end, with 2030 regarded as the earliest possible move-in date.
 
Telegraph Sport understands that knocking down Stamford Bridge and building a new stadium on the existing site is currently emerging as the most likely option, although a final decision is yet to be taken.
 
Chelsea board member Jonathan Goldstein, who is in charge of the project with Janet Marie Smith, the executive vice president of planning and development for the LA Dodgers, is holding talks with the Chelsea Pitch Owners [CPO] and waiting to find out whether a £50million bid to buy a plot of land next to Stamford Bridge has been successful.
 
Buying the 1.2 acre site that belongs to housing association Stoll would be a huge boost to any plans to build on the existing site, as it would provide Chelsea with increased space for fan parks and offices, while leaving enough room for a new state-of-the-art stadium that could hold at least 55,000.
 

STAMFORD BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT

e4c17f4054c549df84904f84f623adb505fba9c7.jpg

Buying the nearby 1.2 acre plot of land, currently owned by Housing association Stoll, would be a big boost to Chelsea's plans to rebuild or redevelop Stamford Bridge. The club is currently waiting to find out whether a £50million bid to buy the site next to the stadium will be successful.
 
But Chelsea’s supporters are going to be warned there is no problem-free solution, whichever of the three proposals the owners choose to start work on: building a new stadium on the existing site; redeveloping Stamford Bridge or relocating.
Boehly and Clearlake have reassured the CPO that they would only seriously consider a move away with their backing, which means that knocking down Stamford Bridge and building a new stadium, as previous owner Roman Abramovich had planned to do, currently represents the most realistic option.
Chair of the CPO Chris Isitt said: “The CPO is having positive talks with the club about redevelopment. We understand this is a complicated project which needs careful consideration, but we share the common aim, which is to have the best stadium in London.”
 
b419d952c93306520038ebcf4f72baf704d7e7ea

Inside the decision that will shape Chelsea's future – what to do with Stamford Bridge

The options

Knock down and rebuild Stamford Bridge

This is currently the most likely scenario and the one previous owner Roman Abramovich was granted planning permission for. Building a new stadium on the existing site would also be the most popular option among the majority of supporters and the Chelsea Pitch Owners [CPO]. 
While there is unlikely to be enough space to build one of the biggest stadiums in the country, starting from scratch would give Chelsea the opportunity to build one of the best with a new capacity of at least 55,000. Knocking down Stamford Bridge and clearing the debris would take around 12-18 months itself, which means the entire project would take at least five years to complete. 
The big issue with that is Chelsea would need somewhere to play for that period of time and it is hard to find credible alternatives past Wembley, which is a terrifying prospect for supporters who are well aware of the drawbacks of travelling out to the national stadium for cup finals. Groundsharing with Fulham is another possibility, but Craven Cottage will have a capacity of just under 30,000 when the new stand is fully open.
STAMFORD BRIDGE
Circa 1970
 
 

Circa 1970

 

Redevelop Stamford Bridge

This would rank as the second option for the CPO and a number of match-going supporters, but, in reality, is probably the least likely to happen. Chelsea simply do not have the space to replicate the Liverpool approach of building new stands behind existing ones to cause a minimum amount of disruption to supporters during construction. 
Instead, the London club would most likely have to close off large areas of the stadium and play in a building site while stands were rebuilt one at a time. The estimated time of doing this is thought to be even longer than knocking down the stadium and starting from scratch, and the expense would also likely be larger. The biggest downside for Chelsea’s owners, however, will be that delivering an up-to-date, top-of-the-range stadium at the end of a stand-by-stand redevelopment would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. However painful the process, the one non-negotiable for co-controlling owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali is that Chelsea must end up with one of the best stadiums in the country and in Europe.
THE EAST STAND
1981
 
 
1981

Move away from Stamford Bridge

This is the scenario which many fans and members of the CPO could not stomach. For the owners to keep the Chelsea name and move the club to a new site, then it would require at least 75 per cent of the CPO voting in favour. The owners are committed to not trying to move Chelsea without the backing of the CPO and doing so would take much negotiation, even if a vote could potentially be passed. The only viable site that would stand any chance of getting the green light from CPO members and fans would be at nearby Earl’s Court. 
The positive would, of course, be that moving would give Chelsea much more space to build one of the biggest and one of the best stadiums in the world, and remain in Stamford Bridge in the meantime. But it is not even known whether or not Earl’s Court could be bought with the Earl’s Court Development Company last week releasing a ‘draft masterplan’ to redevelop the site themselves as ‘a destination for entertainment, innovation and excitement’, which would include housing. The plans are some way off becoming reality, but even if it could be bought, the estimated cost of the Earl’s Court site would be around £750 million - making it the most expensive option.
 

Do nothing

This is essentially what Abramovich did for his 19 years in charge, but it is not feasible for the current owners if Chelsea want to remain a global brand and grow in size. Stamford Bridge’s capacity of just under 40,000 is dwarfed by the rest of the Premier League top-six and even by London rivals West Ham United. As a result, Chelsea’s matchday revenues are smaller than the clubs they are competing against, which also puts them at a disadvantage in terms of Financial Fair Play.

The time frame

Chelsea would ideally like to be playing in a new stadium in or around 2030, which means big decisions must be taken in the coming weeks and months. The planning process could take over a year, even though Abramovich’s grand plan to rebuild Stamford Bridge was given the green light by Hammersmith and Fulham Council before being shelved and then abandoned altogether. 
Meetings between the Chelsea board and the CPO are taking place, while the club are also due to find out whether their £50 million bid to buy a 1.2 acre plot of land next to their current stadium, owned by housing association Stoll, will be successful. Buying the Stoll site would significantly increase the amount of land Chelsea could build on were they to rebuild or redevelop the current stadium. It would most likely be used to open out the plot and build offices and immersive fan experiences on, leaving more room for the stadium itself on the current plot.

The cost

Given Tottenham Hotspur’s state-of-the-art stadium cost around £1 billion, then Chelsea must budget paying at least £1.5 billion for their own new stadium project. There is no other way to finance such a big spend other than taking on debt, although the Boehly-Clearlake Capital owners may also consider offers of outside investment to help fund the new stadium.

Who's in charge

Board member Jonathan Goldstein has been put in charge of the new stadium project by Chelsea’s owners. The London-based property developer is the chief executive officer at Cain International, the real estate company responsible for developing Islington Square, The Waldorf Astoria in Beverly Hills and Raffles hotel in Boston. Janet Marie Smith, the executive vice president of planning and development for the LA Dodgers, the baseball club Boehly part owns, is also taking a lead role. Among her numerous projects have been the renovations of the 56,000-capacity Dodger Stadium and Fenway Park, home to the Boston Red Sox. Smith is credited with creating the Dodgers’ Centerfield Plaza at the front of the stadium, which has almost two acres of restaurants, shops, entertainment and kids areas.

Will there be a stadium sponsor?

The short answer is it is far too early to say, but it is worth noting that Dodger Stadium, home of the LA Dodgers, is not sponsored. Interestingly, reports in America last year claimed that the Dodgers were looking for partner or field sponsors instead of trying to cash in on stadium naming rights. Two examples quoted were the ‘Dodger Stadium presented by a sponsor’ or ‘the sponsor’s field at Dodger Stadium’. Boehly and Eghbali have already demonstrated an ability to look outside the box during their short time at Chelsea.

What it means for the CPO

The Chelsea Pitch Owners recently celebrated their 30th anniversary and in 1997 purchased the Stamford Bridge freehold, the turnstiles, the pitch and the Chelsea FC name, granting the club a 199-year lease on Stamford Bridge for an extremely small rent. The purpose of the CPO is to ensure that Stamford Bridge could never again be sold to property developers after the club almost lost the stadium because of financial difficulties in the 1980s. 
The CPO fought off a bid to buy back the freehold by Abramovich in 2011 and the organisation, which is nonprofit, has experienced huge growth over recent years and now has around 14,000 shareholders from 44 different countries. At least 75 per cent of the CPO would need to vote in favour of a move to a new stadium in order for Chelsea’s owners to be able to move the club and retain the same name. Boehly and Clearlake Capital made a number of promises to the CPO during the takeover and the new board have met with the organisation on several occasions already.
 
Edited by Vesper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 0 members are here!

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

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You

Sure, let me in!
Enter