Mr Parker's Dogbite

I'm very intrigued by the badge thing. Could we really be about to change it back to the first badge I ever knew as a Chelsea fan? I quite like the current badge - certainly compared to Batesy's disected lion - but compared to what I think of as our original badge it really doesn't stand up. Looking at the crest now, even in unfamiliar 'slate and bronze', it truly is a thing of beauty. Pure class. This is important of course because if the badge is going to be used to decorate the new stadium (as per the image below) , it needs to be the right one...

It's personal taste of course but with no roof things might get a bit damp if you plonked the MetLife stadium in SW6. Why was it so expensive by the way?

Dated? I can understand why some people think it looks ugly (though I completely disagree) but what old stadium looks like this in any way? It's unique.

The Daily Mail says the planning application is being submitted today. Fantastic news.

As no one has commented yet on the official response to the EIA Scoping Report, I can only assume that you haven't managed to get access as there is some interesting stuff in there. Anyway, I've waded through it so that you don't have to and I'll just note some highlights. Worth stating that this isn't just a response from LBHF, it also outlines the response from various other statutory bodies and their responses are very up to date (all received from the 11th Aug-4th September this year). The views were from: RBKC, Thames Water, the Environment Agency, Natural England, Historic Parks, Royal Parks, Sports England, TfL, Network Rail and London Underground and while the individual responses are not available they are summarised in this document. I'm aware that some of this is a bit dry but I thought it was worth listing the issues in the report both to see what the club is up against and to recognise that the council are not trying to stitch us up in relation to the project. Overall, LBHF have considered the EIA Scoping report and feel that it is 'generally sound and clear'. However, they make the following comments: They want the report to include information about the other options that have been considered regarding a new stadium. They want more detail about the restaurant and retail plans outside the footprint of the stadium (i.e. under the new Stamford Bridge presumably) and of the number of spaces in the car park. LBHF note that the geology and groundwater situation seems a bit more complex than the original report suggests. They insist that the project needs to include a sustainable drainage system - a SuDS (from the document this seems a particular concern but it is presumably resolvable) and they want the new stadium's potential to add to the flood risk of the area to be assessed. Thames Water re particularly concerned with the new stadiums water and sewage requirements and the potential for sewer collapse during the demolition and building phase. Natural England is concerned about the loss of the 'protected species habitats' immediately to the north and east of the site when the railways are covered over. They want 'full surveys conducted to establish the absence/presence of protected species' (shades of the search for the rare orchid...). Royal Parks want the impact on the views from seven specific locations in Brompton Cemetery to be considered. LBHF want two separate assessments of the road traffic to the new stadium to understand the impact on air quality and they want a low emissions strategy to minimise the resulting pollution. They also want assessments for all possible match times rather than just Sat 3pm, Sun 4pm and midweek 7.45pm and they want improved footways for pedestrians on Fulham Road (including 'a review of...street vendors'). RBKC 'consider the scope of assessment to be adequate and fit for purpose' but they want to know more about the impact on Earls Court tube station as well as Fulham Broadway and West Brompton. Transport for London state that since no correspondence has occurred with the consultants since April 2015 (despite their initial reaction and pre-application advice letter apparently being positive) 'it is premature to say the Transport Assessment Scoping Report has been agreed with TfL'. Incidentally, if anyone is interested the document confirms the consultants have been talking to TfL since at least Feb 2015. Particular concerns that TfL note centre on 'increased pressure on public transport infrastructure' and the 'effect on rail infrastructure and operations due to the decking over railway lines'. Network Rail state that 'no property rights or engineering approvals have yet been obtained to build the deck and negotiations are in the early stages which may lead to specifications/designs changing as negotiations progress'. LBHF and RBKC have asked for a Retail Impact Assessment for the whole of Fulham Town Centre and other shops close to Stamford Bridge in relation to the development. LBHF and RBKC have asked for light pollution to be considered as part of the report and to provide more information about the right to light of neighbouring properties. LBHF concludes that "the council considers that the submitted Environmental Statement Scoping Report appears to be generally acceptable and comprehensive, subject to the comments and required amendments set out in this letter". From my point of view, I think the major unresolved issue revealed here is that there is still some work to be done on finalising negotiations with TfL and Network Rail regarding the decking over of the railways lines. This is especially true as the work is supposed to start next summer and because their positions noted in the document are very up to date (TfL 17th Aug and Network Rail 4th Sept). I'm also a bit worried about this search for protected species along the railway verges. Just how much of an impact on the plans would there be if another rare orchid or endangered newt turned up? That said, most of the issues highlighted seem fairly technical and should be resolvable with some thought and probably some extra cash.

Seems the BBC report was referring specifically to LBHF's official response to the EIA scoping report which is now available here (and which includes responses from all the other major bodies associated with the development including RBKC and Network Rail etc). On first glance all the issues identified seem to be technical and should be quite easily resolvable but while this is good news it's not quite a go ahead for the overall development - more an initial OK to the approach being taken.

Not keen on naming rights at football grounds personally. I'd prefer them to stick with traditional names like 'the Bovril Gate'

They're just rebuilding one stand at the moment though (and it's as ugly as you would expect). Their plan is to rebuild at least one other after that to take them to around 60,000 or so.

It definitely will. It's even there in the artist's impressions. .

Well said on all counts. Though I continue to argue that case that the stadium is very nearly symmetrical if you bisect the stadium across the halfway line. It's what they call bilateral symmetry.

I just don't get this concern about the circle and it's association with Brompton Cemetery. It's just an architectural feature - it's not as if the stadium is in the shape of a gravestone or something. And who cares what other fans say? Whatever it is it will be dripping with jealousy. But the actual opening of the roof is rectangular. The circle just (beautifully, in my view) encloses it. And the consultants were very clear that each of the stands would have their own character. If we're going to get a 60,000 stadium the of course the corners will have to be filled in but that doesn't mean it will just be a generic bowl. Just look at the aerial shot from above. It's anything but 'just another bowl'. Anything but 'just another stadium'

Just to be clear, I'm just an interested amateur. Not an expert at all. The best bet is for people to go along and ask your questions yourself. As for the statues they just haven't decided what to do as yet, if anything. Would hate anything tacky though.

Agree with all of that and, I may be in the minority but I love the way a somewhat asymmetrical design also includes a perfect circle. I think it looks spectacular from above.

A few more things I picked up from the consultation which I don't think were mentioned by Boyne. Again in no particular order. The seat width in the new stadium will be an average on 490mm compared to around 430/440mm now. The legroom will increase to an average of around 750mm from around 660mm currently (and 630mm in the East Upper). The distance from the goal to the first seats in the North and South Stands will be 7m which is the minimum it can be in order to give everyone in the stand a decent sightline. The North and South Stands will not be corporate therefore ensuring there isn't a 'ring of silence' as in the Emirates. Club Level seats will be in the corners. There will be five 'Gothic Cathedral' style entrances to the stadium. One near the Britannia Gate, Matthew Harding NW, Matthew Harding NE (corporate), Shed End and East Stand. The roof will be made of steel but they haven't yet decided on a colour scheme. The white on the model is no indication of the final design. There will be some kind of 'grand entrance' for the new 'Stamford Bridge' with statues or similar. Not finalised as yet. The bridge itself will extend from the existing bridge (which will not be replaced or widened as requested by the council who want to restrict large lorries using the route) but the pavements will be widened. As Boyne noted there will be no link to the Lost River Park walkway up towards West Brompton. This will be up to the GLA, Network Rail or the councils to drive forward if they want to. This route is not required for egress (there was a computer model video showing the flow of spectators leaving the stadium for an ordinary game and in an emergency to show how they expect the redevelopment to affect things). They confirmed that the CPO would have to give permission for the redevelopment to take place. They also insisted that they have 'not yet discussed' whether the CPO would exist after the new stadium is built or if Roman would want to own the whole site. Could go either way apparently (not convinced how true this is). People may remember that the consultation started with discussions about street furniture and cycle lanes etc in the local area and especially around Fulham Road. As a result the consultants will be recommending extra cycle lanes and consistent chrome street furniture (bollards, street lights, bins, benches etc). The bollards look good as they have some blue detailing indicating that this is Chelsea territory. Might be true for the rest of it as well. I asked if the timescale was realistic given the permission required and the planned start on covering the railway tracks next summer. The consultant admitted the timescales were 'aggressive' but said that 'if we don't ask we won't get'. He also said that if the current timetable slips by even a month it would mean that the project would effectively have lost a whole year. 5,000 tickets will be set aside for local people apparently. Season tickets would go up to about 30,000. There will be around 10,000 corporate seats and I think he said youth tickets would increase to about 3,000. There will also be four classes of 'Club Level' seats which are 'in between ordinary matchday seats and hospitality' but (as Arsenal prices indicate are still very pricey). Importantly, he said there is no planned increase in ordinary matchday or season ticket prices. The additional corporate and club level seats would effectively pay for the stadium. Finally, apparently Uncle Ken still has his penthouse and will need to agree to move. But they are in discussions with him and he is being receptive. Will no doubt cost Roman a lot of money though. Ken will no doubt maximise the value of the property given that the buyer is desperate and the clock is ticking... I've also posted some more images from the consultation on another site if you're interested: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1079233&page=34

Yes, but not that clearly. It's in the left foreground of the second image.

Images of the new stadium from another site:

The main way the 'egress' issue is being tackled is via this direct walkway from Fulham Broadway straight to the ground which could result in Fulham Road itself being much quieter despite 20,000 more fans attending matches. There's no official indication of the local council's views on the proposals as yet because there is no planning application but it would seem that they are being more co-operative than previously. As for the flats, the consultants made it quite clear that they wouldn't be pursuing compulsory purchases (I've heard some people say that it's unlikely they'd be granted anyway). Successful compulsory purchases probably would have resulted in sales at the market rate but the intention appears to be to persuade the residents to move. Seems to me the best way to do this is to throw money at the current residents and we know anecdotally that some of the flats which were rented out now have Fordstam as their landlord. Incidentally, the scoping report referred to above talks about 'reproviding the flats offsite' which may mean that the club is planning to build or more likely buy apartments for the current residents in the local area. It might get expensive but then this whole project will get very expensive.

I'm sure you're right. Club Wembley seats currently cost around £2,064 inclusive for around 12 events a year. At the Emirates it's between £2,910 for a Corner 'Club Level' seat to a whopping £5,755 for one at the Halfway Line. This just entitles the member to a seat to every home game, a programme and a 'complimentary' drink at half-time as well as access to some exclusive bars. If they want a meal at each game then there's an additional charge of between £1,840 for a buffet to £6,580 for a 'WM Club Booth' and no doubt a very, very posh meal. So the best seats plus the poshest food adds up to £12,335 a season. As a comparison, we appear to be planning 6,089 of these seats at the new Stamford Bridge while Arsenal are offering 7,139 Club Level seats in total. However, while Arsenal only provide additional 2,222 'proper' corporate seats in their stadium, Chelsea are proposing 10,431. Unless our definition of 'Club level seating' is very different from Arsenal's the level of non-standard seating at the new Bridge will be much, much higher than at the Cameldome. And somehow the club think they could sell those seats. I think they may well struggle.

That's right I believe but as a concern it just doesn't bother me. Much more important to have a big beautiful new stadium to call our own. Just finding a way to fit a 60,000 stadium on such a compact piece of land is a miracle in my view.

I was told at the consultation that the new stadium will not meet the UEFA criteria for a top stadium and would never be used for a CL final. In fact they specifically stated that the stadium has been designed specifically as our home and as a football stadium and would never be used for any other purposes including rock concerts and other sporting events like boxing.

The bit about the proposed spectator mix is also interesting given the rumours of 15,000 corporate seats. Hospitality (Boxes, Platinum. Gold & Silver): Existing = 4,500, Proposed = 10,431 Members Club Area (Bronze): Existing = 0 , Proposed = 6,089 Members General Admission: Existing = 6,000, Proposed = 10,000. Season Ticket Holders: Existing =,26,000 Proposed = 26,715 Away Supporters: Existing = 3,000, Proposed = 2,569 Juniors: Existing =1,500 Proposed = 3000 Players, Directors (Boxes), Officials, Disabled, Media etc: Existing = 500, Proposed = 926

It was from the SB consultation directly from one of the consultants.

I posted this on another site but it's relevant to your question:

I don't think this is right. At the time of that statement the council was in Tory hands and their apparent main motivation was to squash any possibility of the club muscling in on their pet project at Earls Court. Whatever people think of the national party, the local Tories have never been supportive of the club. It was only when the council changed hands to Labour in May 2014 that the wheels on this project began to move. Pure coincidence or did the club finally get a local authority they could work with?

No sight restrictions. Great views from all around the stadium.