The last game I went to at the Bridge was the F.A. youth cup final second leg match against Norwich.A fiver to get in,arranged at short notice,me & the older bruv went along and had a great night,just a shame about the result.Still to be fair, bloody good value though.

 

Even he as a West Ham supporter enjoyed it.(the miserable bugger!).

 

To be honest,we were out sung by the Norwich faithful who fair play to them, brought a fair number along & really got behind their lads.But, apart from the fans memorial wall in the concourse,which was a nice touch, sitting in The Shed was a bit sh*t to be frank.

 

I can't afford to go much these days and even if I could,I'd find it hard to justify £45-£55 spend on a match ticket when there's just so many everyday bills to pay.

 

But if by a lottery win or some such I could afford it,I'd demand a hell of a lot more for my dough.I don't mean the team,I mean the choice to be amongst fans like myself.

 

For example,on cheap matches where you sit anywhere for £30,it's a bit awkward to shout the occasional 'wake up Chels,for f**ks sake!',when there's a family with kids sitting in the row behind you.It just doesn't feel right.

 

You need to feel ok within your surroundings & as I tend to swear a bit,I'd rather be nowhere near a family with kids.

 

We have family sections in grounds which is great of course,but we also need adult only sections where you can swear,shout & make the occasional rude joke out loud & have a fecking good time doing so in my opinion.

 

If the rail seat system helps with the fact that it gives fans a choice where they can watch a game,then bring it on I say.

 

And charge a reasonable ticket price of course!.

What are people's thoughts on the whispers surrounding Linford Christie Stadium / Wormwood Scrubs?

Well, if we are to move, it looks increasingly likely it will have to be North West, where one of Wormwood Scrubs, Old Oak Common or White City may be viable, all of which are in the same borough we're in now (if I'm not mistaken), Hammersmith & Fulham.

 

This means QPR will be nearer Chelsea than us, and we will have encroached on their territory, so to speak, which may contravene rules.

 

Fulham will also have Fulham and Chelsea to themselves, with a new, larger ground. I'm sure they'd be very happy if we moved.

 

It's going to be very difficult for Chelsea to move and we may have to expand the Bridge, even if that's financially unviable, disruptive and results in a relatively low capacity, assuming LBHF allow us to expand at all.

For those of you that take an interest in such things, all three sites are north of SB, i.e. further north of the river than we are already, whereas Battersea was the only site we've been linked with that was south of the river. These things can be meaningful, particularly for Londoners.

 

Wormwood Scrubs and White City are in W12, and OOC is in NW10.

 

Edit: QPR reside in W12. Fulham and Chelsea reside in SW6 (although both are north of the river).

Edited July 22, 201312 yr by Davey Baby

What are people's thoughts on the whispers surrounding Linford Christie Stadium / Wormwood Scrubs?

What whispers are these? As far as I knew the club had ruled out the likes of OOC and White City after feasilbilty studies, or at least they were lower down the order of priority than re-exploring a godawful redevelopment of SB.

Edited July 22, 201312 yr by Fatty_Speeding

I hate all the silence from the handfull of men who really know whats happening....The behind the scenes stuff must be immense.when......How......Someone needs to say something and frankly ive got to the point where i dont care ...Get whatever job has to be done ...Done

I hate all the silence from the handfull of men who really know whats happening....The behind the scenes stuff must be immense.when......How......Someone needs to say something and frankly ive got to the point where i dont care ...Get whatever job has to be done ...Done

Think of it like a transfer, except that we're talking in hundreds of millions of £, not tens; there's so many things working against the club that they aren't going to announce anything until it is substantial.

 

It's catch 22 really, had the club been open like so many craved in October 2011 they'd have won the CPO vote, but probably been pushed out of Earls Court by LBHF before they'd had the chance to close the deal without interference, whereas if they (as they did) tried to keep the relationship between CapCo and themselves hushed until they could push it over the line then they risked the slow uptake of supporters causing them to vote no.

Think of it like a transfer, except that we're talking in hundreds of millions of £, not tens; there's so many things working against the club that they aren't going to announce anything until it is substantial.

 

It's catch 22 really, had the club been open like so many craved in October 2011 they'd have won the CPO vote, but probably been pushed out of Earls Court by LBHF before they'd had the chance to close the deal without interference, whereas if they (as they did) tried to keep the relationship between CapCo and themselves hushed until they could push it over the line then they risked the slow uptake of supporters causing them to vote no.

 

That was the massive problem they faced correct - the fact they made a bid for Battersea within weeks of losing the CPO vote, tells us everything

 

The rushed nature of the CPO share offer, was due to Chelsea seeing an opening at Battersea where the Irish owner was on the verge of going under

 

Chelsea could not however tell everyone in the lead up to the CPO vote that it was Battersea we were after, as you do not tell the people who's house you are buying that you must have their house regardless - because the price skyrockets

 

It did mean however that when Chelsea lost the CPO vote - Chelsea were then negotiating for Battersea without even having the freehold of their own stadium - nightmare all round

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/5086300/Chelsea-in-secret-talks-with-local-council-over-Stamford-Bridge-development.html

 

"Blues secret Bridge talks

CHELSEA and their local council are working on hush-hush plans to revamp Stamford Bridge into a 55,000-60,000-seat venue.

An artist's impression of the new-look ground has been drawn up. And it is understood talks continue after owner Roman Abramovich (right) met senior figures from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in June. Chelsea are desperate to boost match-day income and in March 2012 the club effectively ruled out staying at the Bridge, which now holds under 42,000.

But since then the Blues have missed out on a site in Battersea and been frustrated in attempts to join the redevelopment of Earls Court.

Council leader Nicholas Botterill told Sport Uncovered: "We want the Blues to stay at Stamford Bridge and, if it can be done sensibly without negatively affecting local people, increase the ground's capacity.

"We will continue to work closely with Chelsea."
The main issue is still how to get up to 60,000 people safely in and out of a site which is hemmed in by railway lines and housing. The possible solution of raised walkways between Fulham Broadway Tube station and the Bridge is believed to have been resurrected.

Sources warn this and other problems remain, including the likelihood of any planning application not being submitted until after next May's council elections.

That gives Chelsea, who declined to comment, wriggle room to keep looking for other sites. But staying at the Bridge now seems a genuine option."

Would seem to be a solution that would keep all sides happy, except maybe local residents.

Where do we play if the above goes ahead. The bridge would be a building site AGAIN.

Would seem to be a solution that would keep all sides happy, except maybe local residents.

And the club.

 

 

Where do we play if the above goes ahead. The bridge would be a building site AGAIN.

In amongst the rubble. Assuming the project ever begins. Hugely expensive with no recouping of costs by selling our land, planning problems, residential objections, loss of revenue for multiple years (prolonged as the project is inevitably delayed)...

Not that "hush hush" if someone is writing about it.

I'm positive that Chelsea have said it is impossible to build a 60k stadium on the current site even if you knocked it all down and started from scratch as there simply aren't enough acres of space to do so.

Not that "hush hush" if someone is writing about it.

I'm positive that Chelsea have said it is impossible to build a 60k stadium on the current site even if you knocked it all down and started from scratch as there simply aren't enough acres of space to do so.

Correct. They even looked at changing the angle of the pitch.

I cant believe that Roman himself would actually go to a meeting like that. Surely it would be more like Buck or someone like that.

Correct. They even looked at changing the angle of the pitch.

I dont think its the build thats the problem, theres ample space to expand the stands upwards if needed. The problem is safely getting those fans in and out of the ground isnt it?

 

 

I dont think its the build thats the problem, theres ample space to expand the stands upwards if needed. The problem is safely getting those fans in and out of the ground isnt it?

 

 

 

 

Pedestrian tunnel to Fulham Broadway, job done.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31505964@N08/5753926903/

Edited August 21, 201312 yr by coco

 

The problem is safely getting those fans in and out of the ground isnt it?

 

 

Suddenly the Health and Safety officials of the local council activate selective memory about how Chelsea supporters pre 90s were rammed into Fulham Broadway station every other week.

Its a total farce, theres enough room behind the West stand to expand and dont forget where the wall for the Old shed goes back to.

Not that "hush hush" if someone is writing about it.

I'm positive that Chelsea have said it is impossible to build a 60k stadium on the current site even if you knocked it all down and started from scratch as there simply aren't enough acres of space to do so.

 

Exactly. I find it very difficult to believe the Sun would scoop this story.

 

So I went looking for this quote.

 

 

 

Council leader Nicholas Botterill told Sport Uncovered: "We want the Blues to stay at Stamford Bridge and, if it can be done sensibly without negatively affecting local people, increase the ground's capacity. "We will continue to work closely with Chelsea."

 

Wow. What a scoop for sport uncovered. Looks like he also gave the exactly same soundbyte, verbatim, to the daily mail too.......18 months ago. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2112665/Chelsea-told-rebuilding-Stamford-Bridge-cheaper-relocation.html

 

In all likelihood, Dan King and his colleagues the Scum don't know anything new. 

Not that "hush hush" if someone is writing about it.

I'm positive that Chelsea have said it is impossible to build a 60k stadium on the current site even if you knocked it all down and started from scratch as there simply aren't enough acres of space to do so.

 

You wouldn't be building "out" though, the pitch is only so big and the stands aren't going to be that far away frmo it. To add more capacity you'd be building "up". Creating more stands on top of existing ones.

You wouldn't be building "out" though, the pitch is only so big and the stands aren't going to be that far away frmo it. To add more capacity you'd be building "up". Creating more stands on top of existing ones.

You still have 600000 leaving the stadium onto the one road that's the main problem.

"Stamford Bridge sits on 11.9 acres in central London. While this is large enough for the current capacity of 41,837, it is generally accepted by stadium architects and construction companies that a new 60,000 stadium would require approximately 18-20 acres of land in a largely square or rectangular shape."

 

 

You wouldn't be building "out" though, the pitch is only so big and the stands aren't going to be that far away frmo it. To add more capacity you'd be building "up". Creating more stands on top of existing ones.

 

You would probably need to build "out" to an extent to allow more height.

 

The obvious stand would be the Shed End and the "easiest" thing to do would probably be to knock down the hotel and mega store to create more space.

 

 

Stamford Bridge is also bounded by railway lines on two sides - the north and the east - and is an unusual stadium in that it has three main exits all of which head to the south onto the Fulham Road. 

 

These three exits - Stamford Gate, Bovril Gate and Britannia Gate - have a combined width of just over 50 metres. Based on the Fourth Edition of the Green Guide for people flows at football matches, the existing exits are currently just large enough to ensure all 41,837 spectators can leave the stadium site within the required emergency egress time. 

 

The Green Guide is the report that sets out the guidance that has to be adhered to for safety at sports grounds and is the guidance that the licensing authority will apply as part of granting a licence for a major sport venue. However, since Stamford Bridge was last upgraded in 2001 (West Stand), the Green Guide has been updated further in 2008 (Fifth Edition). Thus, if we were to rebuild the stadium exactly as it is, the current ingress/egress routes would not be sufficient. This means that any significant change to the stadium's design or capacity will require that the club will need to find one third more egress width (an additional 16 metres) around the ground. This would mean either widening one or more of the three existing exits, or finding new additional exits. 

 

 

Furthermore:

 

1. Could a 60,000 new-build stadium be delivered at Stamford Bridge? 

 

The architect and other consultants were asked to look at a complete new build at Stamford Bridge. 

 

The architect reviewed many possible shapes for the stadium and advised that an elliptical-shaped stadium would be the most efficient stadium design on the Stamford Bridge site. He therefore took a stadium design similar to the Emirates, and, allowing for the regulation-required 15 metre concourse all the way around the stadium, concluded that such a stadium could not fit on the current Stamford Bridge site. 

 

However, it could just fit on the area bounded by the railway lines and the Fulham Road, although decking would be required over the railway lines both for stadium construction and for emergency and normal ingress/egress and the concourse would come right up to the edge of the Fulham Road, necessitating the acquisition and demolition of nearly all of the homes and other buildings along this frontage of the Fulham Road. 

 

In addition the club would need to acquire significant additional land, including homes, offices and the Oswald Stoll property, as well as a number of homes whose rights of light would be significantly affected by a new, larger stadium.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It is clear to the Board of Chelsea Football Club that a complete new build of a 60,000 seat stadium at Stamford Bridge has little chance of acceptability. We believe that, after our discussions with the council they have come to the same conclusion. A 60,000 new-build would cost over £600 million and require the club to play away for at least three seasons and, even if the economics were acceptable, the planning risks would likely be insurmountable. 

 

Expanding Stamford Bridge to 55,000 also has a number of challenges. The cost per seat of expanding the stands is very high. The incremental revenues provide an unsatisfactory level of return, would not even cover the hypothetical financing costs, and the planning risks are significant. We believe the council recognises these challenges.

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/fullwidth-article/article/2629432

 

Post from CFCnet:

 

"Don't know if anyone has been keeping up with this but the latest on Earl's Court is:

-Transport For London are still playing hard to get with selling Lillie Bridge to CapCo

-Residents of West Ken and Gibbs Green Estates, supported by Labour MP Andy Slaughter, continue to protest vigorously against the masterplan, despite their latest legal setback

-District Auditor has been called in to investigate sale of Earl's Court to CapCo at the request of MP Andy Slaughter

-London Assembly have heavily criticised Boris' support for the masterplan

 

All of this against the backdrop of the local elections in May

 

I expect we're watching and waiting."

 

"Stamford Bridge sits on 11.9 acres in central London. While this is large enough for the current capacity of 41,837, it is generally accepted by stadium architects and construction companies that a new 60,000 stadium would require approximately 18-20 acres of land in a largely square or rectangular shape."

 

 

 

You would probably need to build "out" to an extent to allow more height.

 

The obvious stand would be the Shed End and the "easiest" thing to do would probably be to knock down the hotel and mega store to create more space.

 

 

 

Furthermore:

 

1. Could a 60,000 new-build stadium be delivered at Stamford Bridge? 

 

The architect and other consultants were asked to look at a complete new build at Stamford Bridge. 

 

The architect reviewed many possible shapes for the stadium and advised that an elliptical-shaped stadium would be the most efficient stadium design on the Stamford Bridge site. He therefore took a stadium design similar to the Emirates, and, allowing for the regulation-required 15 metre concourse all the way around the stadium, concluded that such a stadium could not fit on the current Stamford Bridge site. 

 

However, it could just fit on the area bounded by the railway lines and the Fulham Road, although decking would be required over the railway lines both for stadium construction and for emergency and normal ingress/egress and the concourse would come right up to the edge of the Fulham Road, necessitating the acquisition and demolition of nearly all of the homes and other buildings along this frontage of the Fulham Road. 

 

In addition the club would need to acquire significant additional land, including homes, offices and the Oswald Stoll property, as well as a number of homes whose rights of light would be significantly affected by a new, larger stadium.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It is clear to the Board of Chelsea Football Club that a complete new build of a 60,000 seat stadium at Stamford Bridge has little chance of acceptability. We believe that, after our discussions with the council they have come to the same conclusion. A 60,000 new-build would cost over £600 million and require the club to play away for at least three seasons and, even if the economics were acceptable, the planning risks would likely be insurmountable. 

 

Expanding Stamford Bridge to 55,000 also has a number of challenges. The cost per seat of expanding the stands is very high. The incremental revenues provide an unsatisfactory level of return, would not even cover the hypothetical financing costs, and the planning risks are significant. We believe the council recognises these challenges.

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/fullwidth-article/article/2629432

 

And what if in 10, 15 years time we find that we need to expand? I do believe that we need a 60k seated stadium today, this very minute. But Chelsea is growing astronomically. So, even if we secure 60k seats, it must have room for expansion. That is why Stamford Bridge, for me, offers no long term future. We must not throw good money at......

Quite upsetting that we cant upgrade our own stadium.

I know that a larger stadium is needed to stay at the forefront, it's such a shame that we cant expand our own base.

Edited October 30, 201312 yr by Zola