It's nothing short of scandalous the way the BPS site has been allowed to rot and fall apart since the mid 1980's. Ever since then it has changed hands more times than I care to remember, always in the hands of speculators and developers who came up with grand schemes that amounted to jack.

 

The Malaysian conglomerate who outbid us this time are just the latest in a long line of chancers who hoped to build a Dubai-on-Thames type  development and to hell with the local community and its roots. I hope they get their fingers seriously burnt.

 

Personally I would prefer us to stay at Stamford Bridge if we could increase the capacity to 50-55,000. For all their talk though the LB of H & F are never going to allow that. So basically the Clubs hands are tied by a council that pretends it gives a fig but really doesn't, and a Mayor who's main aim seems to be giving the go ahead for overseas speculators to build properties no ordinary Londoner can ever afford to rent or buy, and which will probably lay empty for years to come.

 

Nice use of a prime site eh ? Sickening.

 

Like you say that station has been sitting there rotting for 30 years now and nobody has done anything with it.  This is prime central London land on the river so the authorities must be desperate to redevelop it.  Hopefully the Malaysians will fail to do anything like their predecessors and Chelsea gets a crack at it.  We'd be the envy of the league.  Leaving Stamford Bridge isn't ideal, but it's prohibitively expensive to expand and if the Battersea designs are anything to go by, the club doesn't want to build a plastic bowl like the Emirates.  Roman obviously wants something special, as we've come to expect.

Battersea would be a superb stadium, one of the best in Europe and most certainly of the most iconic, but I doubt we'll get it.

Battersea-Power-Station-Public-Exhibition-Invitation-Flyer1.pdf

 

Sorry doesn't look like a consortium that are about to sell up.

I did a bit of reading and it seems we're waiting in the wings if things break down with the Malaysian developers who currently have the bid.  I don't see why they wouldn't award it to us considering we wanted to restore the iconic building as part of the design.  I would have thought the council would have prioritised that.  But it seems unlikely we'll ever get to see that.  Would have been the best stadium in Europe IMO. 

There's an offer on the table from us but the Malaysians have turned their noses up at it so far and with restoration of the Power Station due to start this month even saying we still have a one in a million shot at Battersea would be wildly optimistic. The Swiss Ramble article mbh posted is dated February 10, 2012.

 

Our best hope of a local move is Earl's Court, but we still have to hope the stars align somewhat before we can make an attempt to snake in through the back door.

It's mad to think cup finals where played at lille bridge depot

blimey, never knew that !!!...in fact, I never even knew about the Lille Bridge stadium until recently.,,,couldn't stand any more rebuilding at the Bridge tbh, unless it could be done without interfering with the stadium, hate the way the hotel restricted the size of the shed

Maybe we should think of ground sharing the Olympic Stadium 

The battersea stadium with the dortmund-style stands and whatnot looked amazing. Gutted we couldn't get that. 

Surprised nobody has posted this story yet http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/qpr-unveils-plan-for-new-40000-seat-stadium-at-old-oak-in-west-london-9002273.html

Surprised nobody has posted this story yet http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/qpr-unveils-plan-for-new-40000-seat-stadium-at-old-oak-in-west-london-9002273.html

 

It's in the following our rivals section.

 

We're all laughing at the idea they think they could fill a 40k stadium when they struggle with their current 18k one. 

Must be planning to go on a mad spending spree again soon.

haha - okay - I assumed it was related to Chelsea's stadium development, didn't realise anyone considered QPR actual rivals :-)

It's nothing short of scandalous the way the BPS site has been allowed to rot and fall apart since the mid 1980's. Ever since then it has changed hands more times than I care to remember, always in the hands of speculators and developers who came up with grand schemes that amounted to jack.

 

The Malaysian conglomerate who outbid us this time are just the latest in a long line of chancers who hoped to build a Dubai-on-Thames type  development and to hell with the local community and its roots. I hope they get their fingers seriously burnt.

 

Personally I would prefer us to stay at Stamford Bridge if we could increase the capacity to 50-55,000. For all their talk though the LB of H & F are never going to allow that. So basically the Clubs hands are tied by a council that pretends it gives a fig but really doesn't, and a Mayor who's main aim seems to be giving the go ahead for overseas speculators to build properties no ordinary Londoner can ever afford to rent or buy, and which will probably lay empty for years to come.

 

Nice use of a prime site eh ? Sickening.

 

Can I like this ^^ 10 times.  That sack of sh*t consortium with grand ideas on a hoity toity development I hope it fizzles to dust and they all catch bubonic plague slowly while we turn it into a proper football stad with reasonable turn up on the day prices for new and old gen proper supporters...........

 No way QPR are ever gonna get more that 20,000 even in the Prem.

 

It's gonna be another Coventry Ricoh Arena situation with more than half the ground empty

Must be planning to go on a mad spending spree again soon.

 

Not sure even their owners can afford to buy 20k new fans.

Being from Coventry, i can tell you the Ricoh plays to CCFC 100% empty!!

Being from Coventry, i can tell you the Ricoh plays to CCFC 100% empty!!

http://cfctruth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/local-election-matters.html

 

Very interesting piece on our continued chances at Earl's Court.

Has there been any news in the last few weeks related to the stadium situation?

Let's keep our fingers crossed this has something to do with Chelsea!

 

http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2014-01-21/calls-for-earls-court-redevelopment-plan-rethink/

I heard a rumour yesterday that the plans have been drawn up to redevelop Stamford Bridge into a 60,000 seater stadium. The feeling seems to be that it's the preferred option for all parties and will be approved. Not sure where the extra will go (though we were speculating), or if we'll have to move elsewhere while the building work is being done. Sounds promising though.

Anyone else heard similar?

I heard a rumour yesterday that the plans have been drawn up to redevelop Stamford Bridge into a 60,000 seater stadium. The feeling seems to be that it's the preferred option for all parties and will be approved. Not sure where the extra will go (though we were speculating), or if we'll have to move elsewhere while the building work is being done. Sounds promising though. <br />Anyone else heard similar?

Nice! Where'd you hear that? Presumably they'd have to try and redevelop the Shed and the MH ends, 10,000 a side? I dont know how we'd manage to redevelop the west or east stand at all.

Edited January 27, 201412 yr by Zola

I heard a rumour yesterday that the plans have been drawn up to redevelop Stamford Bridge into a 60,000 seater stadium. The feeling seems to be that it's the preferred option for all parties and will be approved. Not sure where the extra will go (though we were speculating), or if we'll have to move elsewhere while the building work is being done. Sounds promising though.

Anyone else heard similar?

 

I've heard nothing new but I remember that the council was trying to get us to stay at Stamford Bridge and would probably be no trouble when it came to planning, but I thought they said it was prohibitively expensive to expand?

I've heard nothing new but I remember that the council was trying to get us to stay at Stamford Bridge and would probably be no trouble when it came to planning, but I thought they said it was prohibitively expensive to expand?

The club have always argued that any expansion of the Bridge would - even it it got approval - be ridiculously expensive for the 10-12000 seats we would gain. I'm sure that was stated in the feasibility they published when trying to make the case for moving to Battersea/ Earls Court or wherever.

I dont think thats true at all. There simply isnt the space around the ground to build unless the hotel and offices are knocked down. Also it has been said many times that it wouldnt be allowed to have those kind of numbers because of the lack of exits out of the ground.

Here's the quote I remembered:

 

 

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.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2109564/Chelsea-reveal-massive-cost-rebuilding-Stamford-Bridge.html#ixzz2rb6fGkMb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

and the CPO's reply is here:

 

CPO said of the presentation in a statement: 'The presentations were very open, with regular input, questions and points made by the CPO board. All were responded to with clarity and transparency by the club and the experts they had brought along.

'Like many of our shareholders, we have hoped and felt that there might still be some way to expand the capacity of Stamford Bridge.

'Having seen the detailed analysis, we all felt that a persuasive case was put that this might no longer be feasible or viable.

 

 

Edited January 27, 201412 yr by Backbiter