37 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Not convinced that we can't build the stadium and remain competitive. If we stopped selling top prospects and wasting money on mediocrity then we should remain as challengers. 

Just to add to my previous post....I think this squad was more than capable of competing whilst we built the stadium.

A squad of

Tibo
Willy

Azpi
Rudiger
Luiz
Christensen
Cahill
Zouma
Filepe Luis
Alonso
Moses

Kante
matic
fab
De bruyne
Rlc
Drinkwater

Lukaku
Salah
Willan
E hazard
T hazard
Costa/morata

Lost revenue by not selling
Luis, matic, KDB, Lukaku, Salah,Costa, thorgan

Saved money by not wasting on
Emerson, Pedro, Barkley, bats, Zappa, Baba rehman

What a squad we threw away!

 

I have already convinced myself that we will have 5 or 6 lean years from here. For me top 4 and a few cup runs is the only achievable aim for the next while until the stadium is built and paid for. Anything on top of that is a bonus (maybe even getting the first targets will be a bonus!)

I confess I don't understand the £1bn price tag for a stadium rebuild that will only add 19,000 extra seats.

We have always been told that gat receipt revenue contributes very little to the overall profitability of a club and does get anywhere near television rights and merchandising.

It would be interesting to know what the difference would be between lost revenue from, say, 4-5 years without CL football against the additional gate receipt funds.

I read somewhere that Man Utd don't really care whether Alexis Sanchez is a success at Old Trafford or not, whether he scores goals, contributes to the success of the side. They sold enough shirts from signing Sanchez to service the Glazer debt, which is their primary requirement.

I said in a previous post we should just sign that Son lad from Spurs and sell half a million shirts across Asia, which, I am pretty sure would make us more money than the additional 19,000 seats.

Meanwhile our team slides down the sh*tpan. I don't get it.

I will make the club more attractive for fans to attend, and also a very cool environment for players to play in.

It also will add value to the club, should Roman want to sell down the road, a much nicer home to move into, if you like. 

 

 

Staying where we are is paramount. It’s going to be worth every penny.

Employing local people, creating jobs etc. The stadium’s iconic look is forever, not some cheap mistake like West Ham have bought into.

11 hours ago, The Brit said:

...don't think it's a coincidence that our net spend has plummeted over last few years and I don't believe it's just cos of ffp...City have found a way around it and I'm sure we could be doing the same, if we wanted to

Yes, but there's no sign that we do want to. Roman has always wanted the club to be self-sufficient and that's basically what we're seeing now (and this is a good thing). Personally, I think that it is coincidental that this change in strategy has happened at the same time the club is planning for the new Stamford Bridge. There is still no confirmation that the stadium will be paid for out of the club's resources.

Quote

Whitewall said:

I confess I don't understand the £1bn price tag for a stadium rebuild that will only add 19,000 extra seats.

We have always been told that gat receipt revenue contributes very little to the overall profitability of a club and does get anywhere near television rights and merchandising.

It would be interesting to know what the difference would be between lost revenue from, say, 4-5 years without CL football against the additional gate receipt funds.

The plans have never really made sense economically. They're just too elaborate, too complex to make financial sense. It's really a certain billionaire's Palace to his Ego. However, Arsenal are currently earning £35m a year more in matchday revenue than we are (nearly a quarter of a billion quid over seven years). If we were to miss out of CL football prize money for a say 5 years (which is up to £30m or so a year)  the stadium would 'pay for the CL financial loss within another 5 years. But I don't see why the new stadium necessarily means that we have to miss out on CL football. One doesn't follow from the other.

Is it true that Roman has bought a brick company so keeping the cost down on the stadium?

45 minutes ago, Richard P said:

Is it true that Roman has bought a brick company so keeping the cost down on the stadium?

It was rumoured that that might happen at one point. But there's never been any information to suggest that it has happened (unless it just has).

Surely it would cost more to buy an entire company, than just pay the going rate.

Not if you have a company that’s making money and safe investment. 

1 hour ago, Zeta said:

Surely it would cost more to buy an entire company, than just pay the going rate.

It was also supposed to be about ensuring a secure brick supply. We need an awful lot of bricks.

At least he’s pushing ahead with it all and not bricking it...

 

 

I’ll get my coat.

30 minutes ago, Munkworth said:

At least he’s pushing ahead with it all and not bricking it...

 

 

I’ll get my coat.

You should 

A little bit of news in the Building Magazine. Looks like the next contract handed out will be for the demolition of the current Stadium

 

VolkerFitzpatrick slides in to tackle first major work on Chelsea stadium job

By Dave Rogers20 April 2018

Next work up for grabs is deal to tear down current ground

VolkerFitzpatrick is understood to have picked up the first major package of works on the £1bn redevelopment of Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground.

The firm is preferred contractor for the enabling works contract which is centred on rail works and carries a pricetag of around £95m.

Building understands the firm, which is part of the larger Dutch-based VolkerWessels group, beat Keltbray and Bam Nuttall to the deal.

It will include piling and diversion works and will see decking platforms built over the District line to the north west of the stadium and a mainline railway used by Southern trains to the east.

Edited April 20, 20188 yr by fitz

When will work start then?

If that's what the new stadium will look like, it's god awful.

3 minutes ago, Zeta said:

If that's what the new stadium will look like, it's god awful.

It does look a bit of a monstrosity from above

On 20/04/2018 at 12:02, fitz said:

A little bit of news in the Building Magazine. Looks like the next contract handed out will be for the demolition of the current Stadium

 

VolkerFitzpatrick slides in to tackle first major work on Chelsea stadium job

By Dave Rogers20 April 2018

Next work up for grabs is deal to tear down current ground

VolkerFitzpatrick is understood to have picked up the first major package of works on the £1bn redevelopment of Chelsea’s Stamford Bridge ground.

The firm is preferred contractor for the enabling works contract which is centred on rail works and carries a pricetag of around £95m.

Building understands the firm, which is part of the larger Dutch-based VolkerWessels group, beat Keltbray and Bam Nuttall to the deal.

It will include piling and diversion works and will see decking platforms built over the District line to the north west of the stadium and a mainline railway used by Southern trains to the east.

 

If were looking for a nickname for the stadium, like when buildings get a nickname like the Ghurkin and the cheese grater in London. I think our stadium could be nicknamed the Egg slicer.

It's a thing of beauty you philistines.

Much better than the soulless, atmosphere lacking bowls that everyone else is building. 

I think its a bit too late to complain about the styling at this stage. 

Its styled that way for a number of reasons.

I'm just delighted we wont get stuck with a copy and paste bowl stadium you see the world over.

21 hours ago, Zeta said:

If that's what the new stadium will look like, it's god awful.

Aesthetically i agree.

It's the irregular outer shape, and the perfect circle in the middle, they don't sit together.

Also the round ridge line on top should be rounded off and not like a rim. It would look better Aesthetically if it was all curves and not angles. Like this sort of thing at the Bullring in Birmingham...

From the planning documents this was the the original predicted timescale. Hopefully it will start this summer and follow a similar (but Plus 1 Year) schedule. I don't know how the recent deal with Oswald Stoll will change things though.

The primary demolition and construction works will be carried out in four stages consisting of:

*Enabling works – July 2017 to July 2018: Demolition of the Chelsea Health Club and Spa, Millennium and Copthorne Hotels, and Chelsea Village Complex; Survey works for services and building contaminants; Utility diversion works; and Works to construct decking over part of the adjacent railway lines including the demolition of the redundant bridge over the District line adjacent to Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions and Fulham Broadway station.

*Demolition and Reduce Level Excavation – June 2018 to December 2019: Decant to alternative stadium; Demolition of the existing stadium; Reduced dig excavation; and Sub-structure works.

*Construction of Stadium Superstructure and Roof Structure – August 2019 to October 2020: The concrete frame commencing from podium level; and Superstructure and envelope (including the roof structure).

*Fitting Out, Landscaping and Commissioning – January 2020 to July 2021: Services and fitting out; Commissioning; Pitch construction / external works; and Test events and match ready

 

Seriously those complaining about the aerial view - unless you're a pigeon it's not really going to be an issue though is it?