Mr Parker's Dogbite

No offence but I think you're wrong on several points here. If we strike a deal, we will purchase about 2 acres of the site, and the remainder will be kept by the foundation, who then redevelop their part. The facade of the mansion block that faces Fulham Road would remain, and the rest of the site would be ours to do what we want, maybe redevelop it or maybe use it as one big plaza. It will certainly provide more egress and more access to the Fulham Broadway station, but there's no reason to believe we wouldn't pursue our plans for the railway tracks, particularly given we have planning consent and we are deep in negotiation with the rail authorities and everything is looking very positive in that regard apparently. According to the articles from Building magazine recently quoted, enabling works which centre around the railway lines, has already been contracted out, and will include "piling and diversion works and will see decking platforms built over the District line to the NW of the stadium and a mainline station used by Southern trains to the East".
 
The feedback from the public consultation has already been published and it's very positive from Chelsea's point of view. It's almost certain the foundation will sell. As for why the club are forking out for the land, well, the extra space helps a great deal, given the site is so constrained. It may allow for some tinkering on the original design, it may allow for a slighter bigger capacity, it may allow for club infrastructure to be built, and it also allows for greater egress as you've mentioned. Your Plan B scenario would be deeply unattractive to the club. The club want a total rebuild, they want to build an iconic stadium that compares favourably to any in the world, and if they can purchase any adjoining land they will do so evidently, no matter the cost.
 
They've got the best architects on board, they've got the best engineers on board, they've got the best everything on board. This is a deeply ambitious project and while there might be a lot of pain along the way, I feel the club are determined to reach their ultimate goal.

I have no concerns about how the new stadium will look when built. 
I don't think CGI's do it justice; it will be a feat of engineering & architecture, and will be a masterpiece of a stadium that will be like no other anywhere in the world. I think that, to a point, you just have to trust that with the amount of money being spent on employing experts in every field, this is going to be special. 
When you look at the number of soulless bowls popping up around the country, it only further reinforces my belief that we are getting something so much more special.
My concern is what happens during the three years away, and what is left of the match going fan base when we return. 
It looks like we will be at Wembley for the 3 (or 4) seasons away, and it's probably the only viable option. The only positive note for me is that I live down the road, but even then, I think it is a very bleak outlook for these years away from SW6. 
I think there is a real worry that many of the match going fans of today will see this as the end of an area, and an appropriate time to call it a day. I think many will at least take a break while we are at Wembley. I honestly dread to think what our average attendance will be whilst we are at Wembley, but I don't think it will be pretty. 
Then there is the question of what will be left of our core support when we return. In an ideal world, everyone just picks up where they left off..... but I think that is very optimistic. I am sure prices will rise, and I fear that many who have been going to the current SB for decades will see it as the end of an area and decline. Whilst Arsenal may never have had a reputation for a loud & vocal home support, there is no question that their atmosphere got worse when they moved, and never recovered. Their match going fan base at the Emirates is pretty much the laughing stock of the league now. 
There is also the question of what match day pubs in the area will survive without 3-4 years of match day revenue. They have been dropping like flies for years now anyway, so I do wonder what would still be standing by the time we returned. 
 
 

Severfield sounded out about Chelsea's Stamford Bridge rebuild
By Dave Rogers24 April 2018

Severfield has been sounded out about the steelwork contract at the scheme to rebuild Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground.

The firm, which is currently on site completing work on a £50m deal at the new home of Tottenham Hotspur, said it had been approached for its input into the scheme.

Chief executive Alan Dunsmore said the job was currently projected to use around 6,000 tonnes of steel – less than half the amount being used on the Spurs’ 61,000 seat stadium.

Severfield has a strong track record in carrying out work for high-profile Premier League clubs recently, having completed the steelwork on the main stand expansion at Liverpool’s Anfield ground nearly two years ago for main contractor Carillion.

Dunsmore said: “We’ve been having discussions with Chelsea. If you look at Spurs, we were having conversations around that for five or six years before the tender came through.” Most of the steel used on the Chelsea job will be in the roof structure, Dunsmore added.

Last week, Building revealed that the first major package on the £1bn redevelopment had gone to VolkerFitzpatrick which is set to carry out the enabling works contract which is centred on rail works and carries a pricetag of around £95m.

The next major package set to be let is the deal to tear down the club’s existing ground. As well as demolition, the contract is expected to include excavation, basement and piling and substructure work.

It is believed to have been talking to Multiplex, Lendlease, Mace and Sir Robert McAlpine about the main contractor role with an appointment due next year.

The west London club wants to replace its existing 41,600 capacity ground with a 60,000 seat development that has been designed by Swiss architect Herzog & de Meuron, putting the capacity of the new ground on a par with Arsenal’s Emirates stadium.
 

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.

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.

Chelsea kicks off search for stadium builders
By Louise Dransfield, Dave Rogers 13 February 2018

Premier League club’s new stadium will have 60,000 capacity when built

Chelsea has begun the hunt for the first contractors to get involved with building work at the £1bn redevelopment of its Stamford Bridge ground.

The first tranche of work is expected to include the decking platforms to be built over the District Line to the north west of the stadium and a mainline railway used by Southern trains to the east.

These platforms will be used to help create the areas for fans to mill about outside the new ground which has been designed by Herzog & de Meuron, the Swiss architect behind the Tate Modern extension.

A winner is expected to be announced by the middle of the year.

Last month, the west London club headed off a legal threat to its 60,000 seat development after Hammersmith and Fulham Council sided with it amid a row with neighbouring residents who complained the project would block their daylight.

The Premier League team’s current capacity is 41,600 and the new ground will mean its capacity will be on a par with Arsenal’s Emirates stadium but behind Spurs’ 61,559 when its new ground, being built by Mace, completes this August.

The wider project team includes Arcadis as cost manager, WSP as transport consultant with the firm also providing engineering services along with German structural engineer Schlaich Bergermann which has worked on stadia at the last three World Cups.

Chelsea has been contacted for comment.

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.

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.

From the EU's Intellectual Property Website

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.

The pitch is planned to be only marginally bigger than the present one.   Two metres longer and half a metre wider.  That would give pitch dimensions of 105m x 68m, the unofficial standard size that most top stadiums now have.

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). 
 

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). 
 

Indeed. The thing that people moaning about the restriction on future capacity need to understand is that staying put at SB means that capacity is restricted because the site is restricted. It's the compromise that had to be made if people wanted to stay at our historic home. And a very worthwhile compromise in my view.

Indeed. The thing that people moaning about the restriction on future capacity need to understand is that staying put at SB means that capacity is restricted because the site is restricted. It's the compromise that had to be made if people wanted to stay at our historic home. And a very worthwhile compromise in my view.

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:
 

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. 

Indeed. The thing that people moaning about the restriction on future capacity need to understand is that staying put at SB means that capacity is restricted because the site is restricted. It's the compromise that had to be made if people wanted to stay at our historic home. And a very worthwhile compromise in my view.

This meeting involved a presentation by the Football Association as part of the consultation process.  Brent Council expects them to make a formal application in the next week or two.  What with Spurs moving in next season, they seem to have left this quite late.

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. 

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. 

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. 

Indeed. The thing that people moaning about the restriction on future capacity need to understand is that staying put at SB means that capacity is restricted because the site is restricted. It's the compromise that had to be made if people wanted to stay at our historic home. And a very worthwhile compromise in my view.

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. 

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.