I don´t think that anybody should judge about RA without deeper knowledge, or in Latin audiatur et altera pars.

We should not waste our time on talking about relationships, we all don´t really know (Putin to RA, RA to Yelzin, Yelzin to Putin etc). When anybody trusts the mass media, I can´t help him anyway.

As long as nobody from the club or RA himself tell us the reason(s) for the delay, we are all completely clueless.

4 hours ago, Mr Parker's Dogbite said:

In fact, Roman made his fortune through his relationship with Boris Yeltsin. However, he he been close to Putin from the start (in fact, there is a suggestion that RA recommended Putin to Yeltsin as his successor). 

IMO, Putin is an publicly acceptable front for the nationalist generals that wanted to protect Russia from balkanisation, I agree he made his money under Yeltzin and then Putin warned the oligarchs including Putin not to attack the state and support the state. Putin then funded one of the Eastern provinces. They came to an arrangement I doubt that makes them friends more just respecting each others sphere's of influence.

3 hours ago, nominator said:

I don´t think that anybody should judge about RA without deeper knowledge, or in Latin audiatur et altera pars.

We should not waste our time on talking about relationships, we all don´t really know (Putin to RA, RA to Yelzin, Yelzin to Putin etc). When anybody trusts the mass media, I can´t help him anyway.

As long as nobody from the club or RA himself tell us the reason(s) for the delay, we are all completely clueless.

Putin has just expelled 50 UK diplomats from Russia. It's no surprise that the UK government would go after his very public "ally" Abramovich. He must have known if relations between the UK and Russia soured that he would be first on the chopping block due to the nature of his public persona. 

8 minutes ago, Total-Football said:

Putin has just expelled 50 UK diplomats from Russia. 

 

In retaliation for Russian diplomats being sent home.

2 hours ago, Strider6003 said:

IMO, Putin is an publicly acceptable front for the nationalist generals that wanted to protect Russia from balkanisation, I agree he made his money under Yeltzin and then Putin warned the oligarchs including Putin not to attack the state and support the state. Putin Abramovich then funded one of the Eastern provinces. They came to an arrangement I doubt that makes them friends more just respecting each others sphere's of influence.

A senior moment!

I’m still confused by your corrected post.  ‘Putin warned the olIgarchs including Putin’ does not make sense to me.  Putin warned himself?

10 hours ago, Davey Baby said:

 

In retaliation for Russian diplomats being sent home.

In retaliation to assassination attempts in the UK. 

If there's such a lack of space in London, let's just go full futuristic cyberpunk and build a level above the main city:

9 hours ago, Total-Football said:

In retaliation to assassination attempts in the UK. 

 

The UK Government may say it's the Russians, and it may be, but the experts have drawn no such conclusion.

Why do we need to completely knock down the whole stadium....just knock down the shed and hotel and build a big kop like stand...then build a bigger modern east stand....will be much cheaper and cuts out the choice of a move away from the bridge.

I just realised why this plan failed this year.

It's our 113th year of formation.

11 hours ago, Devil Dog said:

Why do we need to completely knock down the whole stadium....just knock down the shed and hotel and build a big kop like stand...then build a bigger modern east stand....will be much cheaper and cuts out the choice of a move away from the bridge.

This!!!

There was a 'financial expert' on the radio saying the plans, cost and time away from the Bridge never added up to make sense. He was certain new plans could be drawn up to build a bigger stadium at a much lower cost and with no need to move away. A 50-52,000 capacity would be fine imho.

However, I would like to see us have a bigger pitch. 

The pitch is pretty much the same size as any other pitch in the league.

Wembley  is 105m x 68 m, that is the recommended size for pitches and they tried to standardize that pitch size back in the late 2000's.

The Bridge is 103m x 67m.

The Camp Nou, which people think is massive because of the TV camera position is, 105m x 68, same as Wembley and slightly bigger than the Bridge.

 

 

As has been discussed, why can't we just stick another tier on an end the same way Liverpool have done with Anfield? 

Edited June 7, 20188 yr by Total-Football

24 minutes ago, Total-Football said:

As has been discussed, why can't we just stick another tier on an end the same way Liverpool have done with Anfield? 

That won't be a 60k stadium. I also don't think we can fit another end anywhere. 

I think the only way to expand the current stadium would be to dig down, thats what the new stadium was going to do, so I dont think we can expand what we have at all on the current site.

We cant go up, over the "right to light" issue.

Also, you cant just start adding on tiers either as you need more exits and the planning was approved partly as we were covering the train tracks and adding more exits to be able to deal with the extra fans and get them in and out much quicker if needs be.

At the moment, the plan is dead in the water and we're going to be financially left behind by all of the current top 6 and another half a dozen PL sides with bigger stadiums.

 

Clearly the club has reached its maximum earning potential given its location.

Quote

Just to say before I carry on that unless Roman's visa situation is worked out to everyone's satisfaction - to the extent that he can secure investment for a large-scale development scheme - then none of what follows is feasible. And who knows how close he is to be able to get to that point? British-Russian relations continue to seem very frosty as things stand.

Anyway, I know this was discussed a few months ago but I've been struck in recent days that some long standing Chelsea fans have once again been speculating about the possibility of the club scrapping the hugely expensive, hugely complex SB scheme and instead revisiting Earls Court as an alternative. 

The Earls Court development has reached a state of limbo with the demolition of the Exhibition Centre having taken place but no sign that building is due to start anytime soon on the main site (the Lillie Square development on Seagrave Road is proceeding but is only selling very slowly). The developer Capco was trying to relaunch the scheme with a new more intensive development (increasing the number of flats by a third) but this has seemingly been rejected by the council. The local council is also trying to get Capco to sell the local housing estates back that the developer secured in controversial fashion a number of years ago. All of this has served to reduce the current valuation of the scheme from £1.4bn in 2015 to half that amount early in 2018. We can see where this is heading and the signals suggest that Capco may well be looking for a way out.



The point discussed by the Chelsea fans is as follows: rather than Roman spending £1bn+ to build a somewhat restricted (albeit beautiful) stadium at Stamford Bridge necessitating a four year exile at Wembley, why not build a great new stadium at Earls Court on a larger, less restricted site? This would mean that the club could play at SB while the building was taking place and then the site could be sold to developers once the club had moved into Earls Court thereby largely financing the overall scheme. 

Obviously, Earls Court was seriously discussed as an option in the past. Some Chelsea fans supported it at the time feeling that EC was close enough to SB for it to feel like home. Some supporters were adamant that it was Stamford Bridge or nowhere. What struck me in this recent discussion was that people who may have been in the second camp previously had seemingly rethought their stance after being confronted with the reality of a four year exile at Wembley (which was dreaded by all matchgoing fans). I think any such scheme would get the support of Chelsea fans and, crucially, the CPO to an extent that it wouldn't have a few years ago.

So now we just need those pesky visa issues to be ironed out in quite a timely way. 

p.s. I notice from the previous discussion that there was a question about whether the housing estates would still need to be demolished for there to be space for a stadium. Do we know this for sure because I think any plans that would mean the loss of the estates would mean that a plan like this would be politically unacceptable (and therefore a non-starter)?

 

 

Quote

When a possible inclusion of a stadium on the Earls Court development was imagined before, it was generally thought it would be placed in the north west of the site. This was the old railway depot, TfL land and also what came under Hammersmith & Fulham Council property, the two housing estates. 

As this concept posted earlier shows a likely placement without having to build over the Overground and tube tracks whilst keeping new tower blocks away from the lower rise housing alongside North End Road. Unfortunately, with this particular plan, the stadium itself takes out the Gibbs Green Estate and a portion of the West Kensington one too. But if the circumstances have changed then maybe a new stadium could be shifted nearer the Empress State Tower and over where Earls Court Two used to stand.




Approx, Stadium footprint with (1) West Kensington Estate and (2) Gibbs Green Estate 

 

Sounds like a solid plan. 42k isn't going to cut it anymore, plus there's money to be made with whatever the club decide to do with SB after a move

Thanks for posting mate. Looks great to me and might give us a 60k plus ground, close to SB. May be the best idea so far. I keep my fingers crossed.

So what happens to the club name if we move to Earls Court?  To use the club name would need a 75% CPO vote to allow it. 

I'm sure this makes great commercial sense in the long run, for the extra 18k seats, but when it involves moving away from SB, i kind of hope it happens after i've gone and i'm 50 so hopefully it will be a few years yet.

22 minutes ago, Carshalton Blue said:

So what happens to the club name if we move to Earls Court?  To use the club name would need a 75% CPO vote to allow it. 

Get the votes or propse that if they don’t get it the club will be known as Athletic Football Club Chelsea (or some other nonsense variation and just colloquially continue to be known as Chelsea (or maybe they’d remove “football club” from the name?).

Where there’s a will there’s a way.

Or how about EC Dons Blues. Urgh

Seems like from that reporting CPO members have come around to the idea of moving as an eventual necessity