Chelsea Stadium Plans

[paulw66]

4 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

I wonder if the board would do a swapsies with EC development group?

A real life game of Monopoly

[Ham]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

 

Take emotion out of it, and there is no argument to be had. 

And if you look at the objectors on Twitter, that's all they have.  'istory. 

The stadium as is has no real history beyond the early 70s. It's Trigger's broom. 

EC on the other hand allows us to design and build an entirely new fan experience inside and outside of the ground. More of us will be able to get tickets too. 

Already, EC tube station is far better served than FB.  I've always used EC rather than the single Wimbledon branch which trundles along every 11 minutes. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Ham

[Miguelito07]

1 hour ago, boratsbrother said:

Does anyone have any idea how much we'd get for the site?

I spotted this in the DM (i know, I am sorry) article:

"Chelsea are expected to find out this month whether they have acquired a 1.2-acre site next to the stadium for £50m" 

I think the Stamford Bridge area is around 12 acres. 

So in answer to your question, around £600m?

[chara]

@Ham

Triggers Broom indeed....it's been a long time since I was last at SB and even then it was different from the SB I first viewed.

Now if not for the familiar off/on site bits I would not recognise SB on TV as the place I last visited.

But still SB and my spiritual Chelsea home.

Having said that and despite my thoughts that smaller will be better in the not too distant future the way forward should always be an upgrade whether at SB or EC.

Stagnate actually means regress..look at the on field situation at this time coaching wise (sorry my niggle)

Regardless I really think I will see my time out at SB.

[boratsbrother]

5 minutes ago, Miguelito07 said:

I spotted this in the DM (i know, I am sorry) article:

"Chelsea are expected to find out this month whether they have acquired a 1.2-acre site next to the stadium for £50m" 

I think the Stamford Bridge area is around 12 acres. 

So in answer to your question, around £600m?

Thanks for that, Miguel.

If and when the stadium is built, I would like to see a stand named after RA .

[FrankLampard8]

24 minutes ago, Ham said:

And if you look at the objectors on Twitter, that's all they have.  'istory. 

I mean, what other argument could they have? You don't necessarily have to agree with it or put the same amount of worth in it but there is something to be said for it being home for the club and its fans. Fulham Broadway, the same faces, the same pubs, the same pre-match meal, the same walk to the ground. The smells, the sights and the sounds. All the memories the place holds - it's all worth something. 

Ultimately, the sensible decision is probably that we move however, it's not something that should be taken lightly and we should absolutely exhaust every possibility before we do. The new place will feel like home eventually (How long does that take? I don't know but i'm sure the new stadium can't have the same place in a lot of Spurs fan''s hearts as WHL) and we can forge a new history there but it will never be Stamford Bridge - especially to certain generations of fans. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by FrankLampard8
Spelling is hard

[Blue Moon]

20 minutes ago, Ham said:

And if you look at the objectors on Twitter, that's all they have.  'istory. 

The stadium as is has no real history beyond the early 70s. It's Trigger's broom. 

EC on the other hand allows us to design and build an entirely new fan experience inside and outside of the ground. More of us will be able to get tickets too. 

Already, EC tube station is far better served than FB.  I've always used EC rather than the single Wimbledon branch which trundles along every 11 minutes. 

Couldn't agree more - I've been walking to EC for years rather than standing in the queue to get on the District line, and direct access to the Tube would be a godsend to my increasingly arthritic knees. Hanging on to an increasingly decrepit ground makes little sense - ask West Ham or Southend - and particularly when you can stay in the old home until new one has been built. Provided, of course, that there are cast-iron guarantees that we (Pitch Owners) retain our control over the ground, and football continues to be played there by Chelsea FC.

[FrankLampard8]

Just now, boratsbrother said:

Thanks for that, Miguel.

If and when the stadium is built, I would like to see a stand named after RA .

There is absolutely zero chance this happens.

[RDCW]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

To redevelop SB, we will need to:

1. Do it piece by piece, play in front of a building site for a few years, with a net gain of around 10k seats.

2. Knock it down, start again, have to play at Wembley for 4 years, with a net gain of around 20k seats

Alternatively, go to Earls Court. No building site. No playing at Wembley. Cost offset by sale of SB. Net gain of potentially 25k-30k seats.

Take emotion out of it, and there is no argument to be had. 

Take the emotion out of football support and there is is literally nothing left. There is no rational reason for supporting a football club: if you admire good football then it doesn't matter who plays it; if you just go because they are your local team then Fulham would do just as well. Partisanship in football is pointless and has no intellectual basis or justification. The only reason we support a football club is because it is an emotional experience.

Aside of that, there is certainly an argument to be had around heritage, historical prestige, the pride of being located on the Fulham Road.... The prospect of playing at Wembley for 4 years is not exactly thrilling, but there are benefits even to that particular recourse, not the least of which is providing the capacity to lure in the extra fans who will fill the 20,000 extra capacity to be created at the Bridge. Any pain from being there for a short time would be offset by the benefits of returning permanently to our ancestral home. 

In short, I think there are good practical (ie "branding") reasons as well as emotional reasons for staying at Stamford Bridge, whatever the short term pain may be.

[chara]

@FrankLampard8

Agree regarding familiar etc but it is an everchanging thing...my long time Chelsea going mate passed a few weeks ago...my memories of match days with him are from a different time..pubs different,,mid week meeting him outside Fulham Broadway Station the walk and inevitable sickness defying burger or such and at a certain time the enthralling police presence and "unruly" situations"..from the terraces to seating and burgers./fish and chips to Italian cuisine for example and pints to a decent red wine..all changes and wider experiences.

All very real still to me but not of this time..as will future memories be whether at SB EC or a nameless as yet Industrial Estate in say Slough!

The future is always a new step..just have to embrace it.

[Blue Moon]

1 minute ago, chara said:

... or a nameless as yet Industrial Estate in say Slough!

Come on, @chara, I said EC - not Slough. That really would be a step too far.

[paulw66]

7 minutes ago, RDCW said:

Take the emotion out of football support and there is is literally nothing left. There is no rational reason for supporting a football club: if you admire good football then it doesn't matter who plays it; if you just go because they are your local team then Fulham would do just as well. Partisanship in football is pointless and has no intellectual basis or justification. The only reason we support a football club is because it is an emotional experience.

Aside of that, there is certainly an argument to be had around heritage, historical prestige, the pride of being located on the Fulham Road.... The prospect of playing at Wembley for 4 years is not exactly thrilling, but there are benefits even to that particular recourse, not the least of which is providing the capacity to lure in the extra fans who will fill the 20,000 extra capacity to be created at the Bridge. Any pain from being there for a short time would be offset by the benefits of returning permanently to our ancestral home. 

In short, I think there are good practical (ie "branding") reasons as well as emotional reasons for staying at Stamford Bridge, whatever the short term pain may be.

Earl's Court is what, 1/2 a mile away? 

As someone else commented, a completely new stadium on the same plot of land is not the same stadium, anyway. 

Where is the emotional attachment to a brand new building, whether at SB or EC?

[paulw66]

51 minutes ago, Ham said:

 

Already, EC tube station is far better served than FB.  I've always used EC rather than the single Wimbledon branch which trundles along every 11 minutes. 

Plus you have got West Brompton overground. Would be ideal, IMO

[FrankLampard8]

4 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Earl's Court is what, 1/2 a mile away? 

As someone else commented, a completely new stadium on the same plot of land is not the same stadium, anyway. 

Where is the emotional attachment to a brand new building, whether at SB or EC?

As a wise man once said

29 minutes ago, FrankLampard8 said:

Fulham Broadway, the same faces, the same pubs, the same pre-match meal, the same walk to the ground. The smells, the sights and the sounds. All the memories the place holds - it's all worth something. 

Plus just the fact it's Stamford Bridge where the club has called home since the very beginning whatever stadium is on top of it. 

It's all nonsense of course but it isn't and it does mean something. 

[RDCW]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

Earl's Court is what, 1/2 a mile away? 

As someone else commented, a completely new stadium on the same plot of land is not the same stadium, anyway. 

Where is the emotional attachment to a brand new building, whether at SB or EC?

1/2 a mile is a long way in London, as I discovered when I lived in SW4 when I thought we were in SW2! 

[chara]

2 hours ago, Blue Moon said:

Come on, @chara, I said EC - not Slough. That really would be a step too far.

Yeah I know!...couldn't resist it!

[chrisb]

Hardly any of the pubs are the same, the crowds not the same, the grounds not the same and even Fulham Broadway is now a massive shopping centre and a huge underground station compared to what it was 20 years ago.  While I understand peoples sentiments with regards to staying at SB when the OG’s are gone the new fans would know no different. How many here remember the original Wembley and it’s twin towers? Many visitors to Wembley now have no idea there was a better version on that site many years ago.

[chara]

12 minutes ago, chrisb said:

Hardly any of the pubs are the same, the crowds not the same, the grounds not the same and even Fulham Broadway is now a massive shopping centre and a huge underground station compared to what it was 20 years ago.  While I understand peoples sentiments with regards to staying at SB when the OG’s are gone the new fans would know no different. How many here remember the original Wembley and it’s twin towers? Many visitors to Wembley now have no idea there was a better version on that site many years ago.

Well put .. From my junior school class room I could see the "Twin Towers" and all my many visits to there were under the same twin towers.

Wembley Park Station was very familar to me as it was as close as I could get to home when I "courted" Mrs C in the long ago...a walk home from there a regular thing.

Everything has changed there as well of course but my memories are constant.

Any "younger" regulars to Wembley will have totally different and just as relevant memories, 

As will be the case in the future with any changes at Chelsea...I suspect CarefreeM with his very vivid memories sees a totally different SB and surrounds..still OUR Chelsea and as I said..going forward it will always be the same.

Added..I should also say how much I enjoy seeing the modern day SB etc from CarefreeM,s perspective. (and all that comment on game day live attendance.)

Edited March 30, 2023 by chara

[chrisb]

@chara it’s an inevitable fact of getting older that we reminisce of the days gone by and how things change.
SB with the greyhound track and cars parked behind the goals is a far cry from todays SB.. If we were able to (I’m sure some of the more technically gifted could) place a picture of that SB next to todays SB the younger fans would struggle to believe that it’s actually the same ground.

I don’t want to leave SB but I can see the reasons for it and understand that if it were to happen it would probably be  for the best.

[Bob Singleton]

33 minutes ago, chrisb said:

@chara it’s an inevitable fact of getting older that we reminisce of the days gone by and how things change.
SB with the greyhound track and cars parked behind the goals is a far cry from todays SB.. If we were able to (I’m sure some of the more technically gifted could) place a picture of that SB next to todays SB the younger fans would struggle to believe that it’s actually the same ground.

I don’t want to leave SB but I can see the reasons for it and understand that if it were to happen it would probably be  for the best.

No need to look too far as there's an illustrated article on TOCWS

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/stadium-history

 

[Ham]

4 minutes ago, Bob Singleton said:

No need to look too far as there's an illustrated article on TOCWS

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/stadium-history

 

Now that's a beautiful stadium 💙

[Blue Moon]

3 hours ago, chara said:

Yeah I know!...couldn't resist it!

Gave me quite a nasty turn - shouldn’t putting ideas like that into people heads …

[chara]

2 minutes ago, Blue Moon said:

Gave me quite a nasty turn - shouldn’t putting ideas like that into people heads …

Agai😄n..I know!!...it's the giving a snake a ride across the river scenario !!😁

[Mark Kelly]

11 hours ago, Ham said:

Now that's a beautiful stadium 💙

It really is , exactly how it looked when I went the first time.

[FrankLampard8]

13 hours ago, chrisb said:

How many here remember the original Wembley and it’s twin towers? .

Quite a lot i'd imagine. I've only just turned 33 and I went there multiple times.