Wonder how quick this can go now. If the club wants to have it ready for 21/22 season they need to have started in not more than a year probably.

CPO shouldn't be an issue and neighter will the mayor for me. Is the railroad issue resolved?

I know what the club plans to do with building over it but is that approved yet?

Edited January 12, 20179 yr by Sindre

3 minutes ago, Chelsbear said:

Is there no scope for extra seating if we require it in the future?

I think we will be fine with 60,000 tbh, no point in having a 70k one and struggle to fill it.

Maybe struggle at the moment but am sure in 5 years we'll be wishing it was 70k.

So happy this got through.  I was really unhappy with the designs 12 months ago, but they have certainly grown on me.  A huge result for everyone involved.

Want it to be ready now!

33 minutes ago, 1905 said:

Maybe struggle at the moment but am sure in 5 years we'll be wishing it was 70k.

 

You can't fit a 70K seat stadium on that site.

What was the battersby proposal size wise?

9 minutes ago, Chelsbear said:

What was the battersby proposal size wise?

Found this article from the Independent. Capacity at Battersea would have been 60,000

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-release-images-of-proposed-stadium-at-battersea-power-station-7876504.html

2 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Found this article from the Independent. Capacity at Battersea would have been 60,000

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-release-images-of-proposed-stadium-at-battersea-power-station-7876504.html

Cheers Boyne.

Seems this was the best choice all round then because it would be the same size and we are staying at the Bridge. People might prefer the design to that Battersea stadium but staying at home is a huge one for me.

The more I see of the structure pics of our new home it grows on me even more, it will be unique and unlike anything in Europe. Great having a bit of identity with a new stadium because most of them look generic 'soulless' bowls.

21 minutes ago, kiwi1691 said:

 

You can't fit a 70K seat stadium on that site.

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.

Is it still going to be called Stamford Bridge? Because I will struggle to call it anything else. Especially if it ends up being some bollocks like the Yokohama Tyres Stadium.

https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/articles/news/2017/01/new-chelsea-fc-stadium-given-green-light-hf-council

New Chelsea FC stadium given green light by H&F Council

11 January 20170 Comments

NEWS Sport, Planning

An aerial view of the proposed new Stamford Bridge stadium designed by architects Herzog & de Meuron

Hammersmith & Fulham Council has approved Chelsea FC’s planning application to build a new 60,000-seat stadium in Fulham.

The decision was made tonight (11 January) at a meeting of H&F Council’s Planning and Development Control Committee.

The new stadium will be built within the grounds of Stamford Bridge in Fulham Road, and require the demolition of the existing stadium.

H&F Council Leader, Cllr Stephen Cowan, said: “Chelsea’s new stadium will deliver some real benefits to the borough. But we have also made it clear to the club that we fully expect them to work with local residents to minimise the disruption of the works.

“We are happy to help usher in this exciting new phase in Chelsea FC’s history. And we will continue to work hard to deliver as many protections and benefits as possible for the area by working with the club and local residents.”

During the consultation about the scheme, 70 per cent of respondents said they were in favour of the re-development of the stadium.

 

The proposed new Stamford Bridge stadium

Community benefits

The council has been scrutinising the application since November 2015 and worked hard to secure £22million in benefits to the local community. This includes a £3.75m contribution to build affordable housing for local residents – not overseas investors. As well as the promised improvement of local leisure, recreation and sporting facilities in the borough.

H&F and Chelsea FC will now finalise the Section 106 grant to capture the community benefits that the club has agreed to provide.

As a condition of the approval, the council has required Chelsea FC to create a new Business and Community Liaison Group to inform residents and businesses of the different stages of the demolition and construction programme, working hours and to provide a 24-hour contact for residents and businesses if they have a concern about the works.

The club is also required to install bird and bat boxes during the works to help protect local wildlife, as well as creating at least 427 cycle racks in the development. This is part of H&F’s push to become the greenest council in the country.

 

Entrance to the proposed new Chelsea Football Club stadium

The plan

Chelsea FC were founded in 1905 and have always played at Stamford Bridge. The long-running works to the current 42,000-seat stadium were begun in the Seventies but were only completed in 2001. The plans also include a new club shop, kiosks, museum and a restaurant/café.

The works would see decking platforms built over the District Line to the north-west and over the Southern rail line to the east.

Once the works are completed, pedestrians will be able to walk to the ground on match days from Fulham Broadway Station and Fulham Road, with motorists able to access the site via Wansdown Place.

Chelsea FC now have three years to begin work on the site before the approval expires.

The brick-clad stadium – which won plaudits from members of the planning committee for its look – was designed by architects Herzog & de Meuron, the same firm which created the ‘Bird Nest’ stadium for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

I'd say the club will push on with this now ASAP, they've wanted this project, either at the Bridge or elsewhere to happen for sometime now so theres no point holding back.

Get in touch with the TFL and resolve any issues regarding the train lines which will be covered first. I'd hope that work starts this summer and once thats done, we can think about moving out of the Bridge at the end of next season.

Regarding the naming rights, I wouldnt be surprised if they were sold to some company, it wouldnt bother me one bit really, everyone will still call it the Bridge and if we can sell the naming rights and claw back some of that 500m + build price, I'm sure the club will do it.

18 minutes ago, Zeta said:

Is it still going to be called Stamford Bridge? Because I will struggle to call it anything else. Especially if it ends up being some bollocks like the Yokohama Tyres Stadium.

Fairly sure it's in the plan to sell the naming rights.  Bound to happen to almost every club in the world.  I've made peace with that decision, will always be Stamford Bridge to me.

This is incredibly exciting! Cant wait to go there when it is all done

2 hours ago, 1905 said:

Pity we couldn't push it up tp 65 to 70k capacity, we'll need that in 5 years.

Hopefully in meantime laws will change to allow safe standing areas, thus increasing capacity somewhat.

I can't remember seeing it in the plans but I would be amazed if future expansion isn't built into the new stadium. By that I mean foundations calculated with 50% residual etc. 

Yeah would seem a bit of a false economy if all we can ever have is 60,000 and no more ever ! They must be planning for this. The design does look complicated and not exactly modular looking though !

My worry would be if we could fill a 70 plus thousand stadium every other week?
 

Not many clubs can do that, certainly not in England.

Maybe not now, but in the future I dont see why not. As long as we remain within title fights etc we will always pull crowds. 

60,000 seater though, I might see about committing to getting a season ticket for that !

We've struggled to sell out Stamford Bridge for cup games and Champions League qualifiers, so talk of anything greater than 60k seems pretty unrealistic to me. I reckon we'll sell out every League game at the new ground but there will be empty seats for the other competitions, unless we are playing a big rival/club.

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. 

2 hours ago, Van Butsen said:

Fairly sure it's in the plan to sell the naming rights.  Bound to happen to almost every club in the world.  I've made peace with that decision, will always be Stamford Bridge to me.

What will the new stadium do for ticket prices? West Ham's increased capacity has meant a reduction, but obviously they got their stadium for pittance.

33 minutes ago, RichardCFC said:

What will the new stadium do for ticket prices? West Ham's increased capacity has meant a reduction, but obviously they got their stadium for pittance.

I don't see it having a major effect either way.

I'd guess it would stay the same (well depending on the rise or fall in prices over the 3 years till it opens)

This is great news for the club and something i have been waiting to happen since Roman Abramovich first took over back in 2003. 

I'm happy that the move to Battersea didn't happen, i never wanted us to move away from Stamford Bridge.

The graphics portraying how our stadium might look are awful.

Fingers crossed that when the thing is actually built that it doesn't look like the stainless steel colander I have stashed in my kitchen cupboard. 

God knows where we will play while it is being built. Wembley doesn't look like a viable option. 

Edited January 12, 20179 yr by Blueblur

5 hours ago, Chelsbear said:

Is there no scope for extra seating if we require it in the future?

I think we will be fine with 60,000 tbh, no point in having a 70k one and struggle to fill it.

With all the babies our forum members are maling, that would be a cinch