An update on the naming of gates at the new ground.

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2016/04/stamford-bridge-gates-competition-update.html

I found this on skyscraper cities forum

 

 

 

There have been rumours circulating that the planning process has hit a delay and that the demolition of the hotels, apartments, etc has been put back a few months. This might not actually effect the timescale of the overall project as the only actual construction planned for the first year of redevelopment is the decking over the railway lines. The hotels, etc may well be demolished closer to the date pencilled in for the current stadium itself, June 2017. A decision from the council was expected sometime this summer and this is just a rumour as yet.

Note of the CPO Board Meeting on 4 March 2016.

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/content/dam/cfc/pdf-word-documents/CPO/CPO%20Minutes%20040316%20Final.pdf

^ My post above. 

 

Point 1 of the minutes is about a register of interests for those on the CPO board. A question about the register of interests was asked at the CPO AGM in January. It was agreed at the AGM that a register would be produced. The same question had been asked at previous AGMs. Has someone on the board something to hide?

Have just found this. Posted in early March. The developers of Earl's Court have apparently criticised Chelsea's planning application for the re-development of Stamford Bridge. I'm not sure what he has to do with them. I would imagine that there may only be problems for residents, businesses etc if the two redevelopments were taking place at the same time but I'm sure that Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea Councils are considering the impacts of the two re-developments. I'm not sure when the re-development of Earl's Court is to finish. Having lived and worked in London for more years than I care to remember I've seen a number of re-developments been done together in a small area: you only have to look at the Square Mile i.e. City of London.

 

http://www.fulhamsw6.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conchelsea014.htm

 

A slight aside, I walked by the Lillie the other night and saw that it was boarded up. I know that Pat and Mary left at the end of March; didn't know that the pub had closed. Another pub in the area which has closed.

Neilando the guy doing the renders on sky scraper city forums has knocked up a video of the internals now

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ujDG22uFtDo

Have just found this. Posted in early March. The developers of Earl's Court have apparently criticised Chelsea's planning application for the re-development of Stamford Bridge. I'm not sure what he has to do with them. I would imagine that there may only be problems for residents, businesses etc if the two redevelopments were taking place at the same time but I'm sure that Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea Councils are considering the impacts of the two re-developments. I'm not sure when the re-development of Earl's Court is to finish. Having lived and worked in London for more years than I care to remember I've seen a number of re-developments been done together in a small area: you only have to look at the Square Mile i.e. City of London.

 

http://www.fulhamsw6.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conchelsea014.htm

 

A slight aside, I walked by the Lillie the other night and saw that it was boarded up. I know that Pat and Mary left at the end of March; didn't know that the pub had closed. Another pub in the area which has closed.

 

Yep. All pretty sh*t to be honest how the areas changing but that's life. It'll be a worrying time for a few of the decent boozers that are left if we're out of the area for three years too. 

This is a truly stunning stadium, a modern day colloseum.

This is a truly stunning stadium, a modern day colloseum.

Got to have been inspired by it as the walkways look exactly like it

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/is-there-another-twist-in-the-plans-for-chelseas-new-stadium_sto5557302/story.shtml

"All of this is pure speculation at present, but it is something a lot of people are watching very keenly."
No sh*t sherlock !!!

 

I think that Roman will pay for the stadium, and eventually leave the club to his son, he will take not one penny out of the club for doing so...
This is pure speculation as well, but it is as, if not more likely than that article if Roman's last twelve years can be used as a guide. And lets be honest that is the only guide we, or anybody else has.

Anti Roman press is the norm as he wont speak to them and they HATE it... f**k 'em.
The constant slating of Roman and the club on here by certain posters is becoming like some kind of crusade that poisons every thread... We are being told the other foreign owned clubs are much better run than ours, and have better owners.... Really ?????

 

PS Not aimed at you Carlshalton B, just a reaction to the article, and the incessant Roman/club bashing on virtually every thread.

 

Edited May 2, 201610 yr by chelseablueboy

Nobody has one single reason to believe that Roman will turn back from what he started. I would prefer a Chelsea F.C. without a sugardaddy - but if I had to chose one, I would always chose Roman.

 

If he ever gives it to his son, we still can be very happy, as he will also be a true blue, growing up in the right place at the right time to continue what Roman has started.

 

We should be happy and grateful for what he has done for the club and for us - without him, life at the Bridge would be much different, unfortunately.

Note of the CPO Board Meeting on 4 March 2016.

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/content/dam/cfc/pdf-word-documents/CPO/CPO%20Minutes%20040316%20Final.pdf

Oh dear, pretty obvious that CPO are now preparing to fight any attempt by Roman to buy back the lease, even though it may jeapordise the stadium build

Oh dear, pretty obvious that CPO are now preparing to fight any attempt by Roman to buy back the lease, even though it may jeopardise the stadium build

 

I think the likelihood is the club have worked on the fact that the cpo wont sell and that they wont own the lease on any new development, they would be better off going for the lease (if they still plan to) after they have built the new ground, they are 10x more likely to get the vote after plowing the money in and seeing the fruits of the redevelopment than they are prior to the diggers going in.

Surely the CPO wont block this

Surely the CPO wont block this

The cpo have never as far as I'm aware said that they would block an expansion/rebuild of the stadium, the only thing they said no to was selling up to Roman, if he follows through and builds the new stadium then asks the cpo to dissolve then he would stand a better chance, personally I think they should only ever sell if they get some safe guards in place.

Big news coming out of Parkhead.  They are going to go with a safe standing/railed seating area.

 

Hope we can use this to have a similar section at the Bridge

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/04/celtic-safe-standing-next-season

Big news coming out of Parkhead. They are going to go with a safe standing/railed seating area.

Hope we can use this to have a similar section at the Bridge

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/04/celtic-safe-standing-next-season

I was going to post this as well. It seems like we could install them at any time so they wouldnt have to be planned atm.

The biggest benefit would be squeezing more people into the ground. The more regular fans we can get into the new stadium the better given there seems to be an emphasis on corporate/high end seating

I think the likelihood is the club have worked on the fact that the cpo wont sell and that they wont own the lease on any new development, they would be better off going for the lease (if they still plan to) after they have built the new ground, they are 10x more likely to get the vote after plowing the money in and seeing the fruits of the redevelopment than they are prior to the diggers going in.

Spend half a billion pounds on the ground only to end up not owning it if CPO dosnt sell?

Highly unlikely

Big news coming out of Parkhead.  They are going to go with a safe standing/railed seating area.

 

Hope we can use this to have a similar section at the Bridge

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/04/celtic-safe-standing-next-season

 

 

I was going to post this as well. It seems like we could install them at any time so they wouldnt have to be planned atm.

The biggest benefit would be squeezing more people into the ground. The more regular fans we can get into the new stadium the better given there seems to be an emphasis on corporate/high end seating

 

At one of the presentations last year I asked about safe standing and was told that there were no plans to install it but given what's happening at Parkhead it sets a precedent and hopefully Chelsea will do the same. Won't affect the plans too much and won't affect the capacity of the ground. I guess the discussion will be about how many people can stand. Say 6,000 which will be 10% of total capacity.

At one of the presentations last year I asked about safe standing and was told that there were no plans to install it but given what's happening at Parkhead it sets a precedent and hopefully Chelsea will do the same. Won't affect the plans too much and won't affect the capacity of the ground. I guess the discussion will be about how many people can stand. Say 6,000 which will be 10% of total capacity.

Adding standing room would increase the capacity no? More people can stand in an area than sit

Adding standing room would increase the capacity no? More people can stand in an area than sit

 

I guess it all depends on how the standing area is set-up. If they do what happens in German grounds and will happen at Parkhead the standing areas can be converted into seating areas by using rail type seats. I think that under UEFA rules that standing areas have to be converted into seating areas for European matches.

 

It would be good if an area were given over to old type terracing and I agree that should allow more people to get in. Would be good if the club would at least consider the option. I guess they would have to clear it with the FA, Hammersmith and Fulham Council; and whichever Govt. Dept is responsible for football stadiums. 

 

I wouldn't stand but that's only because I have a dodgy knee and it locks up if I stand in the same place for too long. But people should have the choice.

Think I've got this right, sorry if already posted, but Celtic's new stadium plan shows an area of safe standing.

I guess it all depends on how the standing area is set-up. If they do what happens in German grounds and will happen at Parkhead the standing areas can be converted into seating areas by using rail type seats. I think that under UEFA rules that standing areas have to be converted into seating areas for European matches.

 

The majority of standing areas in Germany aren't rail seats, quite a common misconception.

Surely the CPO wont block this

Of course we wont, me personally though(as ive explained before) will not give up my CPO even when the new ground is completed, its our safety net & long may that continue.