What's new

Chelsea’s temporary home until the bridge is finished

Chelsea’s temporary home until the bridge is finished

  • Craven cottage

    Votes: 14 51.9%

  • Wembley

    Votes: 8 29.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • Total voters
    27
Munkworth said:
Help redevelope Craven Cottage with Fulham and stay there please. I can’t be doing with this traipsing to Wembley lark thanks. 
Click to expand...
I don't think they will need any help, their owner is royaly minted.

 
I see Wembley as the only realistic option.

Fulham is too small under 30k from a business perspective that does not make sense.

Twickenham has the capacity yet can't see Rugby doing football a favour and is also tricky to get to for many.

 
Kev56 said:
We are not welcome there. Us the unwashed would not be aloud to sully their hollowed turf.
Click to expand...
I think they might for 3 years of rent money, I seem to remember the locals kicking up a fuss about the thought of having football fans going there every week/2 weeks. Maybe the council didn't allow it.

Also depending on where you live Twickenham can be a real bitch to get to

 
The Cottage and Wembley being potentially owned by the same person makes it possible that we'd get neither ground to use.

Logistically speaking, the Cottage shouldn't even be on the table, we shouldn't be attempting to re-develop the Bridge and helping out a guy whos willing to spend some 800m on buying Wembley, o do up the Cottage either.

Best case scenario is we end up at Wembley, its probably the best of the options available to Chelsea.

 
If Fulham get promotion would the locals around Craven Cottage really put up with a Premiership game on their doorstep virtually EVERY weekend for 3+ years plus mid-week games? I imagine the amount of opposition by residents would make it a non-starter.

 
fitz said:
If Fulham get promotion would the locals around Craven Cottage really put up with a Premiership game on their doorstep virtually EVERY weekend for 3+ years plus mid-week games? I imagine the amount of opposition by residents would make it a non-starter.
Click to expand...
Hammersmith and Fulham did allow Fulham to groundshare with QPR between 2002-2004.

Fulham FC is in a nicer area than Loftus Road however, and as a rule of thumb the residents in upmarket areas tend to complain more. 

I agree that there would likely be opposition.

 
mclovin83 said:
http://metro.co.uk/2018/04/29/chelsea-set-groundshare-west-ham-four-years-7506546/

Suddenly the thought of playing at Wembley doesn't seem so bad....
Click to expand...
London Stadium, as a football stadium, is dreadful. 

Even as temporary digs for Chelsea I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the place. 

It's going to be hard enough playing away from Stamford Bridge as it is, let alone playing somewhere that's so awful for fans what with the huge gaps around the pitch. 

I'd rather see us just play in a reduced capacity for a few years then go there. 

 
It's literally the worst ground I have ever been to. Not fit to host a Premier league game. 

And it's a god awful location too. 

I would hate Wembley, but I would grin and bare it. The London season would see me giving up my season ticket. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top