Mr Parker's Dogbite

It was also supposed to be about ensuring a secure brick supply. We need an awful lot of bricks.

It was rumoured that that might happen at one point. But there's never been any information to suggest that it has happened (unless it just has).

Yes, but there's no sign that we do want to. Roman has always wanted the club to be self-sufficient and that's basically what we're seeing now (and this is a good thing). Personally, I think that it is coincidental that this change in strategy has happened at the same time the club is planning for the new Stamford Bridge. There is still no confirmation that the stadium will be paid for out of the club's resources. The plans have never really made sense economically. They're just too elaborate, too complex to make financial sense. It's really a certain billionaire's Palace to his Ego. However, Arsenal are currently earning £35m a year more in matchday revenue than we are (nearly a quarter of a billion quid over seven years). If we were to miss out of CL football prize money for a say 5 years (which is up to £30m or so a year) the stadium would 'pay for the CL financial loss within another 5 years. But I don't see why the new stadium necessarily means that we have to miss out on CL football. One doesn't follow from the other.

Building a stand for Fulham is a nice idea in theory but the practicalities of getting permission and building the thing in time for us to use it during the Stamford Bridge development simply make it unfeasible. Although Fulham have permission in place for a new Riverside Stand their owner Shahid Khan has started a review of the current plan so I just can't see anything happening anytime soon.

Nor me. Can I asked what their source is? Not sure if they are genuine official renders or just something quite convincing knocked up by an amateur.

Think the article is either misunderstanding the information or is missing something important. If the problem is just with building the rafts then it shouldn't mean four years at Wembley because the work above the railway tracks can carry on while we're still playing at Stamford Bridge. It would just mean that we'd leave for Wembley the year after currently planned (summer 2020 rather than summer 2019), stay there for three seasons then come back to our completed stadium in 2023 rather than 2022.

Not sure Shahid Khan and Tony Fernandes would agree

Construction is due to start at the end of next season with us continuing to play at the Bridge for the first year of the project. That means we've still got two more years at the 'Old' Bridge before we move out.

Bovis's original post confirmed in the national press now. If approved it would affect Spurs initially but would also have a big impact on us assuming we end up going there for three seasons.

I'll have a go at answering these. 1. The Shed End will remain more or less where it is now but it'll be bigger at around 9,750 capacity for the main Shed stand and about 4,500 extra split between the two corners. The two end stands will be the best for atmosphere but given that the opposition fans will be in one of the Shed corners I suspect that one will be the better one of the two. 2. Someone else can confirm but I think the new pitch will be slightly bigger than our current one. 3. The planned distance from the pitch on all sides is 7.2m which is very close. Closer than both the Emirates or the New WHL. This comparison of the Emirates and our new stadium illustrates it well. 4. The number of season tickets will go up to about 30,000 (I think it's about 24 or 25,000 at the moment).

Just to show what we're up against if the club wanted to us to move to Twickenham for three years instead of Wembley. This is a letter from the local MP to the RFU on the very possibility.

Actually, this is from the Fans' Forum in September and it makes much more sense than to think they could start Phase One of the project this summer:

Do we know the outcome of this meeting yet?

Been taking a look at what Arsenal and West Ham have done with prices: West Ham: Adult member tickets are between £25-£70 (but from £25-£35 for Cat C matches to £50-£70 for Cat A). Arsenal: Adult member tickets are between £26-£95.50 (but from £26-£38.50 for Cat C matches to £64-£95.50 for Cat A). In comparison, our current prices are between £47-£82 (but from £47-£65 for Cat C matches to £56-£82 for Cat A). West Ham: Adult season tickets between £289-£899. Arsenal season tickets between £1014-£2013. Chelsea season tickets between £750-£1250. So it looks like both clubs are selling heavily discounted match tickets for Cat C games whereas there is much less variation between Cat C and Cat A at Chelsea. So I can see our prices dropping for the lower profile games in order to ensure a full house. For season tickets, the two clubs are pursuing different strategies. West Ham are selling dirt cheap season tickets to fill the ground whereas Arsenal are squeezing their ST holders as much as possible. Not clear based on that what Chelsea will do but they were saying during the stadium consultations that there was no appetite for greatly increasing prices for ordinary fans. No reason to think that is no longer their position. Also worth noting that West Ham, like Chelsea, offer discounted junior tickets throughout the stadium (and a season ticket for U16s for £99). Arsenal only offer concessions in their family enclosure.

As noted, this whole debate is academic because we won't ever have a bigger capacity than 60,000 due to the size of the Stamford Bridge plot and the potential impact on our neighbours. The only conceivable exception to that is if safe standing is legalised and we're allowed to squeeze in a couple of thousand additional fans but the overall effect will be minimal.