26 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

The cost? It was quoted as £1bn in 2018. In 2022 it was estimated to have risen to £2.2bn. I assume this has increased significantly again.

It was due to the increase in costs of the materials, if I remember correctly, that still stays the same wherever you build. I don't think that a new stadium is going to be cheaper than that independently of where t is built.

45 minutes ago, RMH said:

It was due to the increase in costs of the materials, if I remember correctly, that still stays the same wherever you build. I don't think that a new stadium is going to be cheaper than that independently of where t is built.

The question was about what happened to RAs plans and designs. And the cost is a clear answer. That design, with those plans, is crazy expensive - without taking into account inflation costs.

A new site (or plans) that doesnt need us to take care of building a walkway over train lines, or dig down 20ft, or do anything with the surrounding mansions, or not have the exterior facade in actual brick (unlike the cathedral of football plans) is going to be significantly cheaper.

I dont know for sure - but I assume cost plays a big part.

3 hours ago, RMH said:

What was the problem with RA's building plan? His architects managed to design a larger (I can't remember the exact capacity) and beautiful new Stamford Bridge in its present place. Why can't this lot do the same?

It was a great design but came with a host of difficulties. For one, It meant extending over the railway line which is fraught with danger. A close friend is involved in planning H&S for network rail and you'd be horrified how difficult it is to get anything done within the 15m restriction zone. Then the walkways to the tube etc would need approval and planning

Then you will have countless protests from locals ,vested and unvested interests, the local council , the Mayors office , noise issues, restrictive working hours, planning issues, the proposed schedule of 5 years would almost certainly double as would the cost.

a new build on a brownfield site is cheaper than a rebuild (a greenfield even cheaper) with the added bonuses c/w the sale of the original land or more likely redevelopment to residential then sale in a highly sort after area to help offset the build cost .

7 hours ago, richardbartlett said:

For one, It meant extending over the railway line which is fraught with danger. A close friend is involved in planning H&S for network rail and you'd be horrified how difficult it is to get anything done within the 15m restriction zone.

I have some vague recollection that the line running behind the East stand occasionally carries some nuclear waste or something, and that further complicated building over than line for some reason. Anyone else recall reading about that?

I did just find a reference to that in a 2016 article on We Ain’t Got No History, but it says

and there's even the (perhaps well overblown) issue of "nuclear trains"

Edited May 2, 20251 yr by Snedger
Found a reference

On 02/05/2025 at 11:33, Sexyfootball said:

Quite.

Another option is to lobby to repeal that ridiculous outdated (Henry VIII !!!) line of sight law from that hill in Richmond Park (or wherever it was) to St Paul's .. and then build to whatever height gives the optimal capacity (without taking the piss of course)

Building Permission was granted for Roman's stadium, so it must have complied with regulations etc. I didn't know about that line of sight thing, but you'll see a sign with " ancient lights" on some London buildings, something about not blocking the light ?? That permission has lapsed, so it would need to go through the approval process again I guess.. It was magnificent, but I can't see it ever happening now. .

56 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Building Permission was granted for Roman's stadium, so it must have complied with regulations etc. I didn't know about that line of sight thing, but you'll see a sign with " ancient lights" on some London buildings, something about not blocking the light ?? That permission has lapsed, so it would need to go through the approval process again I guess.. It was magnificent, but I can't see it ever happening now. .

I think they were getting round it in Roman's application by lowering the level of the pitch.

Hansjorg Wyss said after the game that Earls Court is by far our best option, but criticized the lack of the ownership having someone to drive the stadium issue forward, saying nothing will happen until they get someone to do that job.

It would have been so much better if Wyss had bought the club outright and had people working for him!

1 hour ago, Mod said:

It would have been so much better if Wyss had bought the club outright and had people working for him!

Isn't he richer than all of the other owners by some distance? Problem is he is on record saying football is not his game, not sure of he would want more than just an ability to make some money.

2 hours ago, Mod said:

It would have been so much better if Wyss had bought the club outright and had people working for him!

It would be better if any of the single people owned the club. Consortia rarely work, and we have already seen that the parties involved in BlueCo have very divergent interests and strategies.

On 30/06/2025 at 06:58, evissy said:

Don't hold your breath Evissy! 😂

"We have 16–20 years to figure it out. Obviously, inside of London, it’s really complex, but it’s not as if we’re building something in the middle of a rural environment. We have a lot of constituencies to make sure that we care about"

Sadiq Khan has the final say on major building projects in London. He approved Roman's plans and he has said now that Chelsea needs a new stadium and has encouraged the club to have talks with the Mayor's office.

If we don't get this sorted while he's in office, the next Mayor might not be so agreeable to our plans. Well , he definitely WON'T be in office in the 16 -20 years timeline that Todd has predicted for " figuring it out ".

That 16 to 20 years is really another way of saying " we ain't going to build you a new stadium" .

What about this design?

Holds about 100,000 if fans are allowed on the roof .

12 minutes ago, evissy said:

Option 1 probably least likely given (a) the overall cost, demolition and build; and (b) opposition from rich and powerful local residents.

This pretty much confirms that and the fact they want to build something different than Roman. Which is fine.

I’m not totally opposed to the whole Earls Court idea in fairness.

The issue with Stamford Bridge is there’s no feasible way to bring it to the levels of Arsenal/Tottenham due to its location.

The biggest club in London should have the best stadium and currently we have the 4th.

Plus it's the non-football usage that is needed to maximise the return. Concerts, whatever. Spurs make a killing on NFL and concerts. Highly unlikely to be allowed in the current location.

1 minute ago, dermott said:

Plus it's the non-football usage that is needed to maximise the return. Concerts, whatever. Spurs make a killing on NFL and concerts. Highly unlikely to be allowed in the current location.

Good point.

If we get to move to Earls Court, any chance they could bring back the military tattoo, The Royal Tournament. Used to love that, shame it got binned off.

Just now, WhiteWall said:

Good point.

If we get to move to Earls Court, any chance they could bring back the military tattoo, The Royal Tournament. Used to love that, shame it got binned off.

It’s pretty obvious that a modern multi purpose venue is far more lucrative providing far greater income than a stadium that has major restrictions which was the reality with the planned RA rebuilt of SB.

It’s odd because there was an update just a couple of weeks ago from the EC development team. Well not so much of an update in terms of how positive messages around past plans more for me starting to outline issues such as potential reside overdevelopment, the need for more defined entertainment venues and talk about places to eat etc.

What we shouldn’t forget is that the transport links both in terms of public transport and indeed roads into the are are far better than North London would make it far more accessible than Wembley .

Stamford Bridge redevelopment, please. We had planning permission to redevelop the bridge to a 60,000 capacity under Roman. Sure there'll be opposition to redevelopment, but locals and business concerns have already been addressed once. Might be good for the owners to release some stadium plans rather than words and promises. This is why I have substantial misgivings about our current ownership on this. Im no architect but surely the footprint of the now relapsed but approved plans could be the base of redeveloping the current site.

New Civil Engineer

Chelsea stadium planning permission expires today | New C...

Planning permission to transform Stamford Bridge into a 60,000-seater stadium will expire today, three years after it was first granted. Work never got

14 minutes ago, bluelightening said:

Stamford Bridge redevelopment, please. We had planning permission to redevelop the bridge to a 60,000 capacity under Roman. Sure there'll be opposition to redevelopment, but locals and business concerns have already been addressed once. Might be good for the owners to release some stadium plans rather than words and promises. This is why I have substantial misgivings about our current ownership on this. Im no architect but surely the footprint of the now relapsed but approved plans could be the base of redeveloping the current site.

New Civil Engineer

Chelsea stadium planning permission expires today | New C...

Planning permission to transform Stamford Bridge into a 60,000-seater stadium will expire today, three years after it was first granted. Work never got

It could . The difference as I see it is two fold

1) To demolish the stadium redevelop the current site etc even if you were working to the same plans would cost an arm and a leg more than it would have when the plans for SB were passed. Those plans came with significant restrictions in terms of what the club could or couldn’t do .

If my memory serves me right there would have been a total restring events such as contracts add to that there was also a restriction around the number of games over and above the men’s first team.

2) BlueCos plans are far different. In terms of hospitality etc there would be far more income from building an events location where there would more focus on a day out as opposed to turning up for say 2 hours

To redevelop SB is much more expensive and they don't get all the bells and whistles they want in the compound such as Tottenham have done.

I am pretty sure if possible they will go the Earls Court route. I have no say or opinion on that other than we need all the extra revenue we can get to be competitive with football. Not a match going fan so my option otherwise is not very valid. You guys who go to games know best.

Wasn't max capacity only be 58,000 as well? In 10-12 years that's going to be deemed small, and we'd have already used all our availability to further expand SB too.

Earls Court is the only option imo.