Stamford Bridge Thread

[Vesper 27,317]

Chelsea could take important step closer to new stadium

https://thedailybriefing.io/i/138043778/Chelsea-could-take-important-step-closer-to-new-stadium

Chelsea could be one step closer to redeveloping Stamford Bridge or building a new stadium on the site. Stoll have confirmed they have agreed to sell "the majority of our Fulham site to the Chelsea FC ownership group".

Chelsea will purchase 1.2 acres for around £80m and completion is expected in early 2024. However, Chelsea won’t actually take control of the land until 2025. This is because the deal has a leaseback clause meaning residents don’t immediately have to vacate their homes.

A verbal agreement was in place between Chelsea and Stoll, but before anything could be formally agreed a nine week period of consultation took place with residents.

“The site at Fulham is just not fit for purpose for the long-term and while this is a difficult time for our residents, it is something we must do, to enable us to support veterans now and in the future,” said Stoll’s CEO Will Campbell-Wroe.

Chelsea want a 55,000 seater venue either via redeveloping Stamford or building a new stadium. This could be on the Stamford Bridge site with the Stoll land helping or still potentially elsewhere.

I understand the preference is to find a solution on the Stamford Bridge site but all options will be explored. One of those is Earls Court, but Earls Court Development Company have “categorically denied” any talks with Chelsea.

Consultations and ultimately a blessing from the Chelsea Pitch Owners and wider fan groups will be necessary and engagement is planned in 2024 once a clearer picture and roadmap for potential plans emerges.

If Chelsea build a new stadium it’s likely to be ready in 2030 and a temporary home would be needed if they knock down Stamford Bridge in order to rebuild.

Wembley and Twickenham are two obvious options but each has geographical or logistical concerns. Craven Cottage is close but smaller.

It’s still all hypothetical at the moment, but it was perhaps slightly easier for Spurs because when they built the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium they had Wembley which was also in North London. But there were still plenty of complaints.

It will arguably be even harder to please the Chelsea fan base in the short term if a move away happens. But now most Spurs fans who moaned about Wembley are only applauding their amazing new home. 

Chelsea’s owners priority, along with CEO Chris Jurasek who will play an important role, is to simply have the best stadium in London and if they can deliver that then supporters may ultimately (even if begrudgingly) accept multiple seasons of upheaval at a less ideal temporary home in order to end up with a world class and modern stadium.

[Vesper 27,317]

7 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

So-Fi Park is stunning and technologically outstanding. Anything even close to that would be fantastic new home for CFC.

Obviously we won't be looking at all of the additional things around the stadium itself, there just isn't that kind of room available in London: -

 

different firm

SoFi was 

HKS, Inc.

https://www.hksinc.com/

 

Case Study

SoFi Stadium

An Unrivaled Sports & Entertainment Destination & Homage to Southern California

Inglewood, California, USA

https://www.hksinc.com/what-we-do/case-studies/sofi-stadium/

Edited October 18, 2023 by Vesper

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

8 minutes ago, Vesper said:

different firm

SoFi was 

HKS, Inc.

https://www.hksinc.com/

 

Case Study

SoFi Stadium

An Unrivaled Sports & Entertainment Destination & Homage to Southern California

Inglewood, California, USA

https://www.hksinc.com/what-we-do/case-studies/sofi-stadium/

Ah ok, thank you. I got my info from This article in The Telegraph which said that the club was hiring the driving force behind So-Fi  Stadium to work on CFC's new home.

Edited October 18, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie

[Vesper 27,317]

11 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Ah ok, thank you. I got my info from This article in The Telegraph which said that the club was hiring the driving force behind So-Fi  Stadium to work on CFC's new home.

this was what I initially reacted to:

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/Chelsea-fc-stamford-bridge-new-stadium-latest-b1107887.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1695104877

Architect Janet Marie Smith has been charged with designing what Chelsea believe will be one of the best stadiums in Britain.

[NikkiCFC 7,582]

2 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Roman did go for Battersea, but lost out to a Chinese bidder. In fact he could never have won. The Chinese had deeper pockets and, more importantly, a mixed retail/housing development is always going to generate enormously more revenue than a football stadium. Not only could the Chinese bidders afford to pay more, they could also justify paying more because of the greater returns.

Is there a place for stadium in Battersea Park? Area where is Athletic truck and tennis courts? Would be great place. Obvy after latest purchase we are staying at the Bridge tho...

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

48 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

Is there a place for stadium in Battersea Park? Area where is Athletic truck and tennis courts? Would be great place. Obvy after latest purchase we are staying at the Bridge tho...

Battersea is not, I think, a royal park so it is not necessarily a special protected area. Nevertheless, it's a great open air space enjoyed by millions of Londoners every year. I would hate to see it lost to development. When I was little, I used to be taken the the permanent funfair there. When my daughters were small we enjoyed so many days there picnicking, in the adventure playground, around and on the lake, in the zoo, or riding their bikes by the riverside. The football stadium has to go somewhere else.

Edited October 18, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie

[King Kante 1,297]

On 17/10/2023 at 13:26, DDA said:

We should have gone tooth and nail for Battersy Power Station back in the day. That would have been an epic site for a stadium. On the river with the station integrated into the stadium. If only.

I think that one was always a tough ask. Firstly, Battersea was apart of the wider Nine Elms development which is designed around residential buildings, retail outlets and offices. Second the connections down there aren't great, the Northern line extension was added but it isn't apart of the wider Northern Line in that you have to connect at Kennington. Vauxhall is relatively close but it is full of roundabouts down there so the walk isn't great and the station is not really suitable for the amount of people that go through it currently - on matchdays it wouldn't be fit for purpose. Third, the stadium design required demolition of a large part of the power station with the Chimmney stacks only included. The proposal that was used was a lot more sympathetic to the power station overall.

The Earls Court site on the otherhand has Earls Court, West Kensington, West Brompton and Kensington stations all within walking distance - the last two have overground connections. That means it is has a direct tube connection from Heathrow, London Paddington, London Victoria, London Liverpool Street, London King's Cross, Cannon Street, Blackfairs, Moorgate. Second, the site is already cleared and there wouldn't be such a need to dig down, if at all, while that area has developed over decades - even centuries - as a recreation area so the locals wouldn't have as much say about what can and cannot go there. Third, the site has Road access in multiple directions thus ensuring safety as there would not be such bottle necks. Fourth, the build there would be a lot cheaper than at either SB or Battersea so this would allow for more wriggle room to add something like a retractable roof which would make the stadium suitable for events 365 days a year; which would mean much more income. Lastly, the EC site has been in development hell for close to a decade with no-one being able to make it work. It is ripe for a development back into a events arena/stadium. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by King Kante

[DDA 9,570]

6 hours ago, King Kante said:

I think that one was always a tough ask. Firstly, Battersea was apart of the wider Nine Elms development which is designed around residential buildings, retail outlets and offices. Second the connections down there aren't great, the Northern line extension was added but it isn't apart of the wider Northern Line in that you have to connect at Kennington. Vauxhall is relatively close but it is full of roundabouts down there so the walk isn't great and the station is not really suitable for the amount of people that go through it currently - on matchdays it wouldn't be fit for purpose. Third, the stadium design required demolition of a large part of the power station with the Chimmney ends only included. The proposal that was used was a lot more sympathetic to the power station overall.

The Earls Court site on the otherhand has Earls Court, West Kensington, West Brompton and Kensington stations all within walking distance - the last two have overground connections - surrounding it. That means it is has a direct line tube connection from Heathrow, London Paddington, London Victoria, London Liverpool Street, London King's Cross, Cannon Street, Blackfairs, Moorgate. Second, the site is already cleared and there wouldn't need to be so much digging down - if at all, while that area has developed over decades - even centuries - as a recreation area so the locals wouldn't have as much say about what can and cannot go there. Third the site as Road access, thus ensuring safety in four directions so there would not be such bottle necks. Fourth the build there would be a lot cheaper than at either SB or Battersea so this would allow for more wriggle room to add something like a retractable roof which would make the stadium suitable for events 365 days a year, which would mean much more income. Lastly, the EC site has been in development hell for close to a decade with one one being able to make it work. It is ripe for a development back into a events arena/stadium. 

Bang on mate. 

[kiwi1691 255]

On 21/09/2023 at 10:40, Vesper said:

wtf

a yank baseball park designer????

ffs

https://baseballhall.org/discover/short-stops/janet-marie-smith

Quote

#SHORTSTOPS: JANET MARIE SMITH’S BALLPARK DESIGNS HAVE CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE OF THE GAME

A perfect example of how Smith weds the stadium to its surroundings is the complementary relationship between the city of Baltimore and Camden Yards that helped bring about a renaissance of the city’s warehouse district.

“The collection of attractions that were being added to Baltimore at the time was really what drove the design,” Smith said. “It is only 20 years later, in hindsight that you can say it really began a new era of thinking in ballparks. It certainly wasn’t our goal, expectation, nor would we have been presumptuous enough to say, ‘We’re going to change the trend.’ We just said, ‘We want to do the right thing for Baltimore.’"

 

[King Kante 1,297]

CPO have announced that the plans should be with them soon. 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/Chelsea-are-finalising-their-future-plans-the-clubs-future-stadium/ar-AA1iOUDL

Will be interesting to see how these play out. My wishlist would be: 

Location- Earls Court

Freehold - CPO get the same rights at the new stadium. 

Capacity- 65k - I would like to see 50k general seats, and about 15k corporate. My worry with 55-60k is that there wouldn't be enough general seats added. 

Stadium features - 

Roof - may as well make use of the location and transport links and make a truly 365/24/7 venue. 

One tier stand behind a goal - this works really well imo at the Spud Bowl. 

A unique style - my ideal would be a nod to the old art deco style of Earls Court. However, would be happy with anything that isn't a spaceship bowl style like Spuds and Le Arse. 

I suspect, I am going to be disappointed on all aspects however.

 

[Vesper 27,317]

Chelsea not in talks to buy Earls Court site for potential Stamford Bridge relocation

https://theathletic.com/5066077/2023/11/15/Chelsea-stadium-earls-court/

Chelsea are not in talks to purchase the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre site for a potential relocation from Stamford Bridge, according to the company overseeing the multi-billion pound redevelopment project.

Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) published the updated version of their masterplan for the 40-acre site in southwest London on Wednesday, which is to include the construction of 4000 new homes, extensive retail and office space, three large cultural and performance venues and an urban park.

The land, which has been largely derelict since Earls Court Exhibition Centre was demolished in 2014, has frequently been touted as the most attractive alternative stadium site if Chelsea were ever to leave Stamford Bridge. In March, the ECDC publicly denied reports suggesting the Premier League club’s owners, Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital, could purchase it.

The ECDC has reiterated its stance as it presses ahead with the project. “We categorically deny that there are any talks taking place with Chelsea FC about a stadium relocation to the Earls Court site,” an ECDC statement read. “After years of consultation with the local community, we have updated our masterplan proposals and today release updated plans.

“Our scheme will deliver 4,000 homes, space for 12,000 jobs, acres of public space and cultural venues, restaurants and community facilities.

“There is no football stadium in the Earls Court masterplan.”

GO DEEPER

How a view loved by Henry VIII could thwart new Chelsea owners' plans to redevelop Stamford Bridge

ECDC plans to submit a hybrid planning application to Hammersmith and Fulham Council and Kensington and Chelsea Council in the middle of 2024. Barring any delays the first phase of construction is slated to begin in 2026, with work on the vast redevelopment project expected to stretch into the 2040s.

Boehly and Clearlake are still understood to be assessing their stadium redevelopment options and have not committed to building a new stadium at Stamford Bridge despite finalising a land deal to purchase the 1.2-acre Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions site adjacent to the ground from Stoll Veterans Housing Charity last month.

That deal expands the footprint of Stamford Bridge for any potential redevelopment but Chelsea are not expected to take possession of the land until the end of 2025 at the earliest and building a new, bigger stadium on the current 11.9-acre site is fraught with difficulty. It would also require the first team to play home matches elsewhere for several years.

Any attempt to permanently relocate Chelsea from Stamford Bridge to an alternative site would need to be approved by Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), who own the freehold to the land on which the current stadium sits as well as the name ‘Chelsea Football Club’, and would likely meet significant fan resistance.

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

9 hours ago, Vesper said:

Chelsea not in talks to buy Earls Court site for potential Stamford Bridge relocation

https://theathletic.com/5066077/2023/11/15/Chelsea-stadium-earls-court/

Chelsea are not in talks to purchase the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre site for a potential relocation from Stamford Bridge, according to the company overseeing the multi-billion pound redevelopment project.

Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) published the updated version of their masterplan for the 40-acre site in southwest London on Wednesday, which is to include the construction of 4000 new homes, extensive retail and office space, three large cultural and performance venues and an urban park.

The land, which has been largely derelict since Earls Court Exhibition Centre was demolished in 2014, has frequently been touted as the most attractive alternative stadium site if Chelsea were ever to leave Stamford Bridge. In March, the ECDC publicly denied reports suggesting the Premier League club’s owners, Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital, could purchase it.

The ECDC has reiterated its stance as it presses ahead with the project. “We categorically deny that there are any talks taking place with Chelsea FC about a stadium relocation to the Earls Court site,” an ECDC statement read. “After years of consultation with the local community, we have updated our masterplan proposals and today release updated plans.

“Our scheme will deliver 4,000 homes, space for 12,000 jobs, acres of public space and cultural venues, restaurants and community facilities.

“There is no football stadium in the Earls Court masterplan.”

GO DEEPER

How a view loved by Henry VIII could thwart new Chelsea owners' plans to redevelop Stamford Bridge

ECDC plans to submit a hybrid planning application to Hammersmith and Fulham Council and Kensington and Chelsea Council in the middle of 2024. Barring any delays the first phase of construction is slated to begin in 2026, with work on the vast redevelopment project expected to stretch into the 2040s.

Boehly and Clearlake are still understood to be assessing their stadium redevelopment options and have not committed to building a new stadium at Stamford Bridge despite finalising a land deal to purchase the 1.2-acre Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions site adjacent to the ground from Stoll Veterans Housing Charity last month.

That deal expands the footprint of Stamford Bridge for any potential redevelopment but Chelsea are not expected to take possession of the land until the end of 2025 at the earliest and building a new, bigger stadium on the current 11.9-acre site is fraught with difficulty. It would also require the first team to play home matches elsewhere for several years.

Any attempt to permanently relocate Chelsea from Stamford Bridge to an alternative site would need to be approved by Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), who own the freehold to the land on which the current stadium sits as well as the name ‘Chelsea Football Club’, and would likely meet significant fan resistance.

@King Kante so you can forget about earls court already....

[DH1988 1,194]

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 3,873]

 

[Vesper 27,317]

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

 

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

[NikkiCFC 7,582]

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 by NikkiCFC

[Magic Lamps 11,450]

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 27,317]

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.