What's new

£500 million plan for new Stamford Bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indigo_Blue said:
someone on another forum who is supposedly an itk has suggested that the club is trying hard to rent out upton park for the couple of season that it takes to re-develop SB.

Apparently around 70% of SB staff will have to be let go if we moved to tiwckers or wembley. Also, at both those locations the club will have to operate at a reduced capacity of about 50k.
Click to expand...
I think I'd rather stay in a 40,000 stadium then play in that sh*thole for 3 years. Twickenham to me is the only one that makes sense. It's actually closer to a lot of our fanbase than the Bridge probably is, you can close off the top tier for league matches and probably open it for European nights, the RFU love money and it's not in f**king East London. It's not even trendy East London, it's scumbag country.

Sorry, but if it comes down to sacking the staff and using the RFU's own guys then that's not the biggest stumbling block in the world. The Olympic Stadium would be marginally better but not much. How about sharing with Fulham for a few seasons?

 
Stamford Bridge expansion consultation

Posted on 16th June 2015 by lookwestlondon
Chelsea FC are to open a consultation on options for the expansion of Stamford Bridge.

The club’s programme to see how the capacity of Stamford Bridge could be grown is progressing, and they now plan to show their plans.

A year ago a study of the area from Fulham Broadway to Stamford Bridge and beyond was commissioned by Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich to examine the potential of upgrading the streetscape.

The study also began to assess the feasibility of an expansion of the stadium capacity within the existing historical site boundary, based on the principles of improving site access, benefiting the neighbourhood and enhancing the spectator experience.

Stamford Bridge can currently accommodate 41,837, much less than their Premier League rivals, and other european clubs. It is understood that Chelsea want to expand to around 60,000, and will suggest decking over the railway lines to the east and north of the ground.
 
Blue Daze said:
I think I'd rather stay in a 40,000 stadium then play in that sh*thole for 3 years. Twickenham to me is the only one that makes sense. It's actually closer to a lot of our fanbase than the Bridge probably is, you can close off the top tier for league matches and probably open it for European nights, the RFU love money and it's not in f**king East London. It's not even trendy East London, it's scumbag country.

Sorry, but if it comes down to sacking the staff and using the RFU's own guys then that's not the biggest stumbling block in the world. The Olympic Stadium would be marginally better but not much. How about sharing with Fulham for a few seasons?
Click to expand...
Sharing with Fulham would be a good move, they could do with the extra revenue. Couldn't bare frequenting East or North London. Both sh*t holes and full of c**ts.

 
stevo said:
Sharing with Fulham would be a good move, they could do with the extra revenue. Couldn't bare frequenting East or North London. Both sh*t holes and full of c**ts.
Click to expand...
Fulham is not possible to me . We have to go somewhere that can accommodate all the current season ticket holders and Fulham is to small for this .

I would be very pissed off after having a season ticket for 25 years if me and the 6 fiends around me had no preferential treatment in selecting a seat in the new stadium together or being given a choice on the ground we move to for a couple of years.

 
Blue Daze said:
Sorry, but if it comes down to sacking the staff and using the RFU's own guys then that's not the biggest stumbling block in the world. The Olympic Stadium would be marginally better but not much. How about sharing with Fulham for a few seasons?
Click to expand...
I'm a bit surprised that you advocate showing some compassion to Petr Cech by letting him go to our rivals but then consider sacking 70% of probably loyal staff.  

 
Beerqueen said:
I'm a bit surprised that you advocate showing some compassion to Petr Cech by letting him go to our rivals but then consider sacking 70% of probably loyal staff.  
Click to expand...
True, but I think it comes down to what you personally hold to be more important. You're talking about 30,000 odd season ticket holders and however many individual fans would go to matches over the course of 3 years (maybe 70,000) versus however many staff we employ. I think we should do all we can to relocate them in other areas and obviously give them preferential treatment in the new stadium but I think there's limits.

If that's at odds with my view on Cech then I can maybe understand that.

 
Blue Daze said:
True, but I think it comes down to what you personally hold to be more important. You're talking about 30,000 odd season ticket holders and however many individual fans would go to matches over the course of 3 years (maybe 70,000) versus however many staff we employ. I think we should do all we can to relocate them in other areas and obviously give them preferential treatment in the new stadium but I think there's limits.

If that's at odds with my view on Cech then I can maybe understand that.
Click to expand...
It does seem conflicting to me as both debates are:

What makes sense as hard-nosed business (i.e. not allowing Cech to rivals, sacking staff) vs compassion/sentimentality, (allowing Cech to go and not sacking staff)

And on the first you come down on one side and on the second, the other.

I was going to add in the fans’ views – but I won’t pretend to know what most think.  However if I had to, I would say the majority don’t want Cech to go to Arse – I’m less certain about how the majority would feel re say Twickers and sacking vs Upton Park and no sacking.

I’m not saying you have to be consistent in your views – just pointing out that you’re not.

 
Beerqueen said:
It does seem conflicting to me as both debates are:

What makes sense as hard-nosed business (i.e. not allowing Cech to rivals, sacking staff) vs compassion/sentimentality, (allowing Cech to go and not sacking staff)
Click to expand...
True. But this is all based on the sentimental notion of staying both at the Bridge and around West London. But again, I can see why it might be viewed as hypocritical.

Beerqueen said:
I was going to add in the fans’ views – but I won’t pretend to know what most think.  However if I had to, I would say the majority don’t want Cech to go to Arse – I’m less certain about how the majority would feel re say Twickers and sacking vs Upton Park and no sacking.

I’m not saying you have to be consistent in your views – just pointing out that you’re not.
Click to expand...
I don't want him to go to Arsenal but I understand why he might.

But I think it's more complex than you might be suggesting. As I said above, it's sentimental to want to remain in West London just as it's sentimental to want to keep the staff on and like it is to allow Cech to go where he wishes. If those first two can't be accommodated at the same time then you have to make a decision and that will vary from person to person. For me, the importance of being around West London is more important than keeping the staff on (if that's the case). I just can't see us making that area of London home for 3 years. Being practical, going to a pub before the match would be tough whereas there is a chance to make Twickenham a home of sorts.

So I can see the lack of consistency but I think it's impossible to be consistent when you have two sentimental notions that can't really co-exist. 

 
Chelsea’s plans to redevelop Stamford Bridge into a 60,000-seat stadium could see them play their home matches elsewhere for at least two seasons should the go-ahead be given for work to begin on their home of 110 years.

 
The Premier League champions are to reveal proposals to residents and fans at an exhibition at the stadium running from 30 June to 2 July. The consultation meeting will include an explanation of “the rationale for expansion”, with Chelsea, who are restricted by a site comprising around 12 acres when around 20 acres would normally be required for a stadium of the proposed size, likely to build over the adjacent railway tracks. They are also considering digging below street level.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/15/chelsea-homeless-two-seasons-stamford-bridge?CMP=twt_gu&CMP=twt_gu
 
By the sounds of the various reports coming out if Chelsea have in fact found a way of building (and get approval) a 60k stadium on the current site it could be quite a unique bit of architcture in the way we accomplish it. 
 
Is it possible that one of the stands would actually be built over the railway lines to maximise use of space or something like that? 
 
ForeverCarefree said:
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/15/chelsea-homeless-two-seasons-stamford-bridge?CMP=twt_gu&CMP=twt_gu

By the sounds of the various reports coming out if Chelsea have in fact found a way of building (and get approval) a 60k stadium on the current site it could be quite a unique bit of architcture in the way we accomplish it. 

Is it possible that one of the stands would actually be built over the railway lines to maximise use of space or something like that?
Click to expand...
It's exciting and I hope it pushes the envelope and becomes as iconic as some of London's other wonderful landmarks. A stadium to beat the rest, just like the team.

 
The Brit said:
Apparently club could still do what they did last time and rebuild while they still play games at the bridge http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/chelsea-could-stay-put-while-stamford-bridge-is-rebuilt-as-issues-emerge-over-twickenham-and-wembley-ground-share-10323019.html
Click to expand...
Seems a bit presumptuous to me that the extensive rebuilding would be see the pitch stay in the exact same location it currently is. 

I think that the article is speculative rather than an alternative. 

 
ForeverCarefree said:
 
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jun/15/chelsea-homeless-two-seasons-stamford-bridge?CMP=twt_gu&CMP=twt_gu
 
By the sounds of the various reports coming out if Chelsea have in fact found a way of building (and get approval) a 60k stadium on the current site it could be quite a unique bit of architcture in the way we accomplish it. 
 
Is it possible that one of the stands would actually be built over the railway lines to maximise use of space or something like that? 
Click to expand...
I suggested a few months ago that the solution could be to dig down, to lower the foundations of the stadium in order to then expand upwards rather than sideways. I'm only speculating but this would seem like the most logical thing to do, there's no way we can expand sideways from what I can tell. I think the Bernabeu is built in a similar way, with their lower tier below ground level.

 
Celery1989 said:
I suggested a few months ago that the solution could be to dig down, to lower the foundations of the stadium in order to then expand upwards rather than sideways. I'm only speculating but this would seem like the most logical thing to do, there's no way we can expand sideways from what I can tell. I think the Bernabeu is built in a similar way, with their lower tier below ground level.
Click to expand...
It's sounding more and more likely that something like that is the solution because I just don't see how else you fit a 60k stadium on the limited space available. 

What I'm hoping is that because they're going to have to use a trick or two to get the desired capacity it might lead to a more unique looking stadium. 

 
We could just build around the railway line and have the trains running across the pitch. Preferably in front of our goal.

Then we can park the train instead.

 
If we lower the pitch and gain space over railway lines, then it would look more feasible.

/monthly_06_2015/post-56-0-35260300-1434461483_thumb.png

/monthly_06_2015/post-56-0-82735100-1434461617_thumb.jpg

 

Attachments

  • chelsea_aerial.png
    chelsea_aerial.png
    371.3 KB · Views: 0
  • chelsea_aerial.jpg
    chelsea_aerial.jpg
    103.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top