they despise the round ball and all it stands for. It's no coincidence that to my knowledge not a single minute of associated football has ever taken place at Twickenham. There's more chance of Dagenham and Redbrige winning the Champions League than us setting foot in the place

 

It would be like rugby being played at Croke Park or rugby league being played at Twickenham.

 

You've got more chance of seeing Lady Gaga at Twickenham than Chelsea.

 

 

Not directly topic related but I found this article on the Dortmund way interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29624410

They are entitled put yourself in the position of the residents. Anyway its a bit cheeky selling tickets for a gig that hasn't got the go ahead. All in all the whole think was a shambles could only happen in Ireland

I resemble that last remark!

The whole thing was quite complex, promoter muscling the local authority, people looking for compensation and good old greed of course.

Almost a painful read, the article about Dortmund.  So far away from where English football is.

To bring it back on to topic though; a lot of people have said that they'd like to see a stand like Dortmunds incorporated into the new Bridge if/when it happens, but as that article says it's about so much more than just the stand, if we had that I still don't think we'd create the atmosphere, fans and players still wouldn't stand there for 5 minutes after a disappointing defeat to show their appreciation of the role the other has played.

I don't think any club in England will ever get close to what Dortmund have achieved, we simply don't appreciate our fans and never have done.

Never mind increasing the capacity at the Bridge, I'd rather we concentrated on getting people to sing.

Many of our older school fans have visited these stadiums, personally I do not want to see Stamford Bridge turned into flats or similar.

Interesting comment from Dr Jeans who has slightly mixed feelings about the old Highbury. Maybe he is a member of this Forum

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29460621

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/new-chelsea-stadium-wont-happen-4617909

Chelsea are unlikely to move to a new stadium for at least seven years, it has emerged.

The club bid in the region of £300million for the Battersea Power Station site in 2012 but were outbid by a Malaysian consortium and have since rejected the idea of moves to Earl’s Court and Old Oak Common, both nearby in west London.

The league-leading Blues would prefer to stay as close as possible to their traditional Stamford Bridge home and may attempt further redevelopment of the ground.

But its current capacity of less than 42,000 contributes to the fact that it earns £1.5m a match – or £35m a season – less than London rivals Arsenal in terms of matchday revenue.

Chelsea are now outside the world football top 50 for stadium capacity. The club have estimated that it would cost £20,000 per extra seat to redevelop their current home.

Chelsea have now slipped outside the top 50 in the world in terms of stadium capacity and that hurts their ability to meet their Financial Fair Play obligations.

But even if they agree on a new site, their best estimates suggest it would be five years before work began and that the project would take two further years to complete.

If the Blues redevelop the Bridge instead, it is possible they will play at Twickenham - England's rugby union HQ in the outer reaches of south-west London - for a year, or probably two.

Edited November 13, 201411 yr by Zola

But its current capacity of less than 42,000 contributes to the fact that it earns £1.5m a match – or £35m a season – less than London rivals Arsenal in terms of matchday revenue.

This is why we need it done ASAP whatever the descision is.

The irritating thing is, the Manchester clubs have it easy as there's plenty land space for them to build on, whereas for us, being london (especially west london) based is extremely hard to find these areas without them being bought up by wealthy investors. I guess it's the con to being london based, but it's mightily frustrating.

At least our players want to live in their city.

Edited November 13, 201411 yr by Zola

Anyone else read Steven Howard in todays Sun?

 

this caught my eye about Chelsea, "they also say they are ready to raise the capacity at Stamford Bridge to 60,000"

Hope its true, thoughts?

Edited November 13, 201411 yr by Carshalton Blue

I dont know how thats feasible without knocking down parts of the village etc.

I dont know how thats feasible without knocking down parts of the village etc.

Word is the MH/East & Shed to be knocked down, so my mate has heard.

Word is the MH/East & Shed to be knocked down, so my mate has heard.

That's one hell of a job if was true

Would be amazing if we could somehow raise the capacity at SB to 60k. Easily the best case scenario

 

Also heard that any money spent on a new stadium or redevelopment won't count towards FFP 

That's one hell of a job if was true

Yeah that's why we'd have to move out for a while, not sure how feasible it is to be honest, demolition alone would be a massive task i'd imagine, the design would have to be done then the re-building & thats only if they got planning permission first.

Would be amazing if we could somehow raise the capacity at SB to 60k. Easily the best case scenario

 

Also heard that any money spent on a new stadium or redevelopment won't count towards FFP 

 

Chelsea conducted a feasibility study for a 60k study, as far as I know it is still ongoing. Or at least they have not released any info on it which would be strange as the CPO would likely be notified. That study is probably still ongoing.

 

As far as FFP goes though, no money spent on the stadium would not count towards it.

Yeah that's why we'd have to move out for a while, not sure how feasible it is to be honest, demolition alone would be a massive task i'd imagine, the design would have to be done then the re-building & thats only if they got planning permission first.

Don't want to leave the bridge but can't see the redevelopment happening. Took us decades to finish of the ground as we now know it

Surely the clubs best bets now is to pretty much pull the whole stadium down and start again.

That's going to be at least a two year development and how likely are we to be allowed to use somewhere like Twickenham for that long?

60K would be one hell of a job! It would be a tough task trying to get out of the bridge after a game. Surely the club must be looking at making another exit.

They should get rid of the hotel. It looks like our very own piece of Milton Keynes in SW6.

Word is the MH/East & Shed to be knocked down, so my mate has heard.

 

I take it he knows someone?

I read an article saying that expanding SB was next to impossible given the safety and evacuation requirements. Apparently the exits aren't wide enough for an expanded amount of people and contructing new avenues for that would be insanely costly. Of course expanding would be the best option but I think this will have to be a rebuild. Battersea would have been awesome to move to but alas.

 

 

Went past Battersea Power Station yesterday. Safe to say that ship has well sailed. Looks like they're taking the chimneys down brick by brick !!!!

 

It all come down to egress. If we don't widen all the exits or create new ones then there will be no rebuilding.

 

Unfortunately some of the properties are listed buildings and most of the occupants are loaded £££.

 

With regards to the East Stand being rebuilt the tiers would have to go over the railway line such is the steep angle that would not pass H & S rules that are present today.

 

So knocking down the hotel and the Chelsea gym will not make a blind bit of difference I'm afraid.

Is 60k even enough in the scale of our long term ambition to be the biggest club in the world?