Sorry to be the cynic on this one, but what will the situation be when every big club has a stadium that enables them to compete with Utd and Arsenal? At the moment we have Spurs just about to commence construction on their new ground, City planning an expansion to take them to 60,000, Newcastles 50+ current capacity, both Merseyside clubs aiming to expand or rebuild and Westhams imminent move to the Olympic site. That's 8 clubs (9 if we build anew) with capacities of over 50,000, but there will still only be 4 CL places up for grabs every season, and even if you remove those clubs who would be viewed as unrealistic CL place contenders, Newcastle and Westham as things stand, that is still going to leave at least three of those named disappointed every year.
Maybe it's more to do with how well run a club is, we have been filling the Bridge consistently for more than a decade now, have an owner who is genuinely enthusiastic about the club from a supporter's point of view and a team that has been regularly capable of keeping the big bucks flowing in for on the pitch achievements. I wouldn't be opposed to a move to either Battersea or Earls Court but on the other hand I've no objections to staying where we are. My biggest concern would be getting into an arms race style pissing contest over capacities, a 60,000 seater stadium would be no guarantee at all of success on the pitch, and I dread to think what a few lean years would do to our attendances and finances.
My dream scenario would be to expand the Bridge to 50-55 thousand if possible, but if this can't be done I'd hope that the club would look long and hard at the implications of building a new stadium purely to keep up with the Joneses.