Should We Move to a New Stadium?

[Valerie]

CHELSEA!!!

 

[Scott]

How about we place a twist on this and ask a different question.If we were to move stadiums AND this meant we had to surrender the Chelsea Football Club Name AND some dissident fans decided to keep the Chelsea name alive much the same way as AFC Wimbledon have by creating a team that plays in non-league football under the name of Chelsea FOotball Club which team would you support?

Chelsea Football Club in the non league or Earls Court FC at the top of the Premiership?

(I accept this is a slightly daft question as there are too many ANDs, IFs and BUTs that can be thrown into the equation.

Personally I would have no hesitation in supporting CHelsea Football CLub in non league football.

Earl's Court FC aint Chelsea! No connection to Harris,Tambling,Zola,Terry,Dixon,Ossie,Greaves,Bonetti.....well you get my meaning If they kept the Chelsea FC name and stayed in SW London and called the new stadium (New) Stanford Bridge then I wouldn't have a problem with a move.

 

[Brian M]

How about we place a twist on this and ask a different question.

Are you a magician, Loz? Because you seem very quick at the old, 'Bait and Switch'. One minute you're arguing your point that we can't move because of X or Y. And then when your argument is shot down by some good old fashioned common sense - instead of admitting you were wrong, or even defending your point of view with a counter argument that holds any water - you do the old, 'bait and switch' shuffle to try to change the subject; and hope nobody will notice!

(Kenn, if you're reading this, take note at young Loz's sneaky debating tactics. It may come in handy next time you're mono-a-mono with him!)

 

[Anonymous]

i feel it should be noted that Arsenal are and were one of the world's biggest clubs having a 36k seater as their home for decades upon decades

Stamford Bridge is a hallowed and revered ground not only for us, but around English football. We dont need a new, super seater simply to hang with the crowds of the other top teams when we are so well financed as is.

 

[Brian M]

Stamford Bridge is a hallowed and revered ground not only for us, but around English football.

No it's not. Aside from Chelsea fans, nobody gives a rat's a*se about Stamford Bridge. Same for most of the grounds in the country (with the possible exception of Anfield and maybe, Old Trafford - and I mention those only because of the amount of 'Big European Nights' those grounds have seen compared to everyone else).

 

[Guest]

No it's not. Aside from Chelsea fans, nobody gives a rat's a*se about Stamford Bridge.

Doesn't matter if they don't, what matters is that we do (we being Chelsea fans).

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see us play in a 100,000 odd seater stadium one day. But i'd much prefer it to be a redeveloped Stamford Bridge.

 

[loz]

And then when your argument is shot down by some good old fashioned common sense -:

It has been? All I saw was someone deciding to build an 80,000 capacity stadium purely on the back of two season's of success and with no consideration of whether we would actually fill it or sustain our success.

Were you involved in the Millenium DOme as well?

p.s. No is still winning - long live dewy eyed sentiment

 

[Brian M]

You've 'fixed' the vote haven't you, you sneaky Moderator, you!

(are you sure you're not Italian?!) 8)

 

[coombsie]

It has nothing to do with improved facilities as three quarters of Stamford Bridge is less than 10 years old. The new areas of the Bridge are pretty darned good, especially the Corporate facilities that I have been priveleged to visit occasionally.

Stamford Bridge is our home. Just that very name sends a shiver down my spine, it is steeped in English History too. We do not want or need the "Samsung"stadium, or the Adidas Arena. Have a look at some of the Arse Forums, they HATE the name Emirates Stadium !!!!

We will not defintely not fill a stadium of 50,000 seats with any regularity, remember we sometimes fail to fill 42,500 seats. We would then be back to the days of a half or three quarters full ground with atmosphere to match. Lets face it, many fans are "nouveau" fans and even a lot of the long standing Chelsea fans are somewhat fickle. Anybody think we would still be shifting 42,500 tickets if we have a "Fulham" like Season ???

I love where the Club is. I too love the familiarity of the area, the pubs, restaurants, people etc which have become part of the Club's and my own History.

I would not feel the same visiting a new home. Yes, I would still go and might still enjoy it, but the whole experience for me centres around the Bridge. A very large part of my life both happy and unhappy has been spent inside Stamford Bridge, and I just do not want to lose that.

 

[Brian M]

We do not want or need the "Samsung"stadium

Nor would we have to have one. Roman - who is well across the 'wants' of fans when it comes to the club he owns - doesn't have to get a name sponsor because the money will come out of his pocket. There will be no debt. No paying it off. And it's money he won't even miss.

I'm all for the move myself. So long as it's a ground in keeping with our desire to be a truly 'Big Club' (in the same way Barca and Real are 'Big Clubs'). And so long as it's only a couple of clicks away from the old ground.

And yes, I'm 100% behind calling the new ground 'Stamford Bridge' again. Or, at a pinch, 'New Stamford Bridge'.

But, there's no point re-developing Stamford Bridge AGAIN. If we can only get the capacity up to a 'Medium Sized Club'. We have to think long term and we have to think big. Roman isn't going anywhere, so let him invest in the future. Not only in new players. Not only in new state of the art training facilities. But in a new, wiz bang, bigger than Ben Hur, you-beaut! stadium.

The up-sides of such a stadium (in atmosphere, in match day revenue, in the ability to get tickets even for the big matches, in cheaper tickets for certain parts of the ground, cheaper tickets during cup matches* etc) far outweigh any counter argument.

*When Wales play at the Millennium stadium - for example - they sell tickets on the cheap to make sure there's a bum in every seat. And 80,000 singing Welshman is far more imposing to a visiting team than 20,000 singing Welshman in Ninian Park paying full freight for a ticket. - So imagine getting into a truck load of Chelsea games for ten pound a ticket - and THEN tell me you'd rather be back at the old ground...

 

[munichblue]

Just to reflect......

My hometown club 1860 Munich has it?s own old and not very comfortable stadium in the heart of Munich, in a quarter called Giesing. The club was founded in Giesing in 1860 and the training ground is not a mile away from the "Gruenwalder Stadium". We were Deutscher Meister in 1966, Cup Winner in 1964 and played the SF in the european cup winners cup vs. AC Torino (Final at Wembley vs Hammers) at the Gruenwalder Stadium. After many years of ups and downs we got promoted to the Bundesliga after ten years at the 3rd league and the former chairman decided to relocate to the "Olympic Stadium", where the hated FC Bayern was playing. And then, he decided to built the new "Allianz Arena" together with Bayern Munich.

Since the first relocation our supporters were disrupted in two parts at least. The traditionel old supporters who never will accept the new stadium and the new and "progressive" supporters.

We?ve got a new crowd-record in the 2nd league last year (ave. 42.000), but for what price? A lot of "stadium-tourist" and somewhat we call it "event-supporters" and the atmosphere went down. Imagine what will happen if they have enough seen or the team would play a bad style of football.....

So I have to say: Stamford Bridge is the home of Chelsea for more than 100 years and they never should change this !

 

[Paul_Seery]

No. The reason why we should not move is that Stamford Bridge is our true home and one that can be made bigger.

It is possible :badge: