Jump to content

Our New Stadium


junio_oscarSY
 Share

Recommended Posts


Earls Court & Battersea both had fantastic potential as sites as far as I am concerned. I can't help but think we should have gone all out to secure one of these whilst we had the chance.

As much as I love the idea of staying on the current site at SB, the restrictions (and resulting insane costs) combined with the need to play at a temporary home (for what would probably end up being 5 years) makes it seem nearly impossible to see it ever being an attractive all round proposition.

The idea of the club relocating somewhere further afield is grim, and will presumably (hopefully) always be blocked by the CPO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


16 minutes ago, mclovin83 said:

Earls Court & Battersea both had fantastic potential as sites as far as I am concerned. I can't help but think we should have gone all out to secure one of these whilst we had the chance.

As much as I love the idea of staying on the current site at SB, the restrictions (and resulting insane costs) combined with the need to play at a temporary home (for what would probably end up being 5 years) makes it seem nearly impossible to see it ever being an attractive all round proposition.

The idea of the club relocating somewhere further afield is grim, and will presumably (hopefully) always be blocked by the CPO.

 

I'm pretty sure BoJo was adamantly against Chelsea having one of those sites. Maybe we should have greased his hand a bit more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

Is a staggered redevelopment out of the question? I know the west stand would be difficult to touch but both of the ends are only 2 tiered, putting a 3rd on top of each could get us to around 50k no?

You'd rather that over a complete redesign....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mclovin83 said:

Earls Court & Battersea both had fantastic potential as sites as far as I am concerned. I can't help but think we should have gone all out to secure one of these whilst we had the chance.

As much as I love the idea of staying on the current site at SB, the restrictions (and resulting insane costs) combined with the need to play at a temporary home (for what would probably end up being 5 years) makes it seem nearly impossible to see it ever being an attractive all round proposition.

The idea of the club relocating somewhere further afield is grim, and will presumably (hopefully) always be blocked by the CPO.

Isn't there a chance of Earl's Court being available again? 

I thought I read something awhile back that said that the proposed redevelopment there had fallen through? 

I agree with you that a redevelopment away from the current site would have been a better solution but I think the CPO put up a lot of resistance that the club were left with little choice but to bend over backwards to try and figure out a way to use Stamford Bridge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tone of the article suggests a cheaper version ('value engineered') of the scheme that currently has planning permission. So it would still be on the Stamford Bridge site but a budget reduction of "£500 million" would mean a serious scaling down of ambition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I wonder where this would leave Chelsea's stature as a club going forward; it is no surprise that Everton are looking to expand their stadium and grow as a club. We know how large the stadiums in the Bundesliga are already. Real Madrid and Barcelona, regardless if they are the biggest clubs in the world, are looking to expand to 100k

 

The CPO are adamant on rejecting any move outside of Fulham (rightly or wrongly) which leaves us with a constraint to build here. But even then, a 60k capacity is a stretch; there simply would not be any space, and even then, Earl's Court is only 10-15 mins by trying to walk and that was rejected. So where does that leave us? If the club are continue to grow and maintain a strong status without Roman's influence in the future then it is surely a necessity to realise that a large stadium facilitates this. With all the money in the game now and how the likes of Spurs have sponsorship deals with the NFL etc. the gap in wealth available will surely close.

But shoehorning 60k, or trying to scaledown costs (which will likely be accompanied by fewer facilities being made) and then disallowing any room for further expansion would be a bit of a knock-down to wanting to maintain our level in the upper echelons of football. 

It's all a bit of a conundrum with the weird investment climate for Roman, potentially having to play away and having a transfer ban during a critical period.

No doubt Chels are fine at the moment

Edited by MANoWAR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really isn't a viable site close to Stamford Bridge where buying up a huge plot of land would be a 'cheaper' option, even with the sale of Stamford Bridge to offset the costs. Certainly not to the tune of £500 mil. Earls Court, Sands End Gas Works etc will all be more lucrative to developers as residential schemes so why would they sell? All the old industrial Brownfield sites along the river have been snapped up. Plus the days of dropping a large stadium into tight residential streets are long gone, the opposition would be enormous. If we want to stay in Fulham it HAS to be Stamford Bridge, I think we'll see a resubmitted application 'no-frills' stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about the size for me, but the quality. At the moment the bridge is very tired. It feels old. Something more modern is needed to help us stand out. Or at least fit in as at the moment we are standing out as a big club with a crap ground. 

Id rather that though than moving out of the near area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, DannyBoy said:

You'd rather that over a complete redesign....?

I'd rather see something get done than nothing which looks like where we are currently headed. At least this way the money could be managed and we wouldn't have to see the team play somewhere temporarily for 2 years. 

It would be nice to have a great looking new stadium but I see this as a ticket/$ issue. If we can't increase matchday revenue then we are in trouble. Anything that can be done to get our capacity up should be looked at, especially if we are not interested in splashing out a boatload of cash at once. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/05/2019 at 17:57, TheChelseaBlues said:

I'd rather see something get done than nothing which looks like where we are currently headed. At least this way the money could be managed and we wouldn't have to see the team play somewhere temporarily for 2 years. 

It would be nice to have a great looking new stadium but I see this as a ticket/$ issue. If we can't increase matchday revenue then we are in trouble. Anything that can be done to get our capacity up should be looked at, especially if we are not interested in splashing out a boatload of cash at once. 

To a large degree investing in a complete stadium re build or indeed splashing out too much is as about ego the dilemma is that ego often comes with a heavy price.

Arsenal stadium does indeed  generate extra match day revenue but 13 years on they still owe around £200 million and in today’s terms that’s not a lot( can’t believe I just said that) but to get the  annual extra £30 ish million they get in match day revenue there are hidden amounts that bring that £30 million down . For instance the Business rates at SB are around a million at Arsenal its 3x that. Add the extra stewarding costs, the extra insurances ,the extra in terms of electric and a so on.That 30 million is soon eroded 

Why your thinking of the numbers don’t forget that cost of Arsenal tickets , the fact that the Arsenal season ticket holders have to buy 7 additional tickets even if they don’t intend to go to any of those games. 

Spurs have built a fabulous facility. It would be churlish to say otherwise but until they played the first game they haven’t had to start paying back the debt all they have been doing is service borrowings.Unless they can generate vast sums through stadium naming rights etc it’s questionable just how much net extra will be added to their cash flow. Guess we will see come the next transfer window

In reality gate receipts are no longer the most important income stream .Commercial , TV money and CL payments are far more important. 

I personally would love to see the Shed End and Mathew Harding  re developed to  generate around an extra 12 k capacity mainly at the Shed  ( current capacity there is only 6500) that would boost the  ground capacity to 53k that would be just about right. The issue has always been about egress and I struggle to see why the solution that was worked up for the  new stadium  , namely decking over the railway lines, couldn’t be taken forward as a matter of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, terraloon said:

To a large degree investing in a complete stadium re build or indeed splashing out too much is as about ego the dilemma is that ego often comes with a heavy price.

Arsenal stadium does indeed  generate extra match day revenue but 13 years on they still owe around £200 million and in today’s terms that’s not a lot( can’t believe I just said that) but to get the  annual extra £30 ish million they get in match day revenue there are hidden amounts that bring that £30 million down . For instance the Business rates at SB are around a million at Arsenal its 3x that. Add the extra stewarding costs, the extra insurances ,the extra in terms of electric and a so on.That 30 million is soon eroded 

Why your thinking of the numbers don’t forget that cost of Arsenal tickets , the fact that the Arsenal season ticket holders have to buy 7 additional tickets even if they don’t intend to go to any of those games. 

Spurs have built a fabulous facility. It would be churlish to say otherwise but until they played the first game they haven’t had to start paying back the debt all they have been doing is service borrowings.Unless they can generate vast sums through stadium naming rights etc it’s questionable just how much net extra will be added to their cash flow. Guess we will see come the next transfer window

In reality gate receipts are no longer the most important income stream .Commercial , TV money and CL payments are far more important. 

I personally would love to see the Shed End and Mathew Harding  re developed to  generate around an extra 12 k capacity mainly at the Shed  ( current capacity there is only 6500) that would boost the  ground capacity to 53k that would be just about right. The issue has always been about egress and I struggle to see why the solution that was worked up for the  new stadium  , namely decking over the railway lines, couldn’t be taken forward as a matter of course.

I agree gate receipts aren't that important anymore

For me it's about how modern the stadium facilities are. I doubt anyone on the continent relishes playing at Stamford bridge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, terraloon said:

To a large degree investing in a complete stadium re build or indeed splashing out too much is as about ego the dilemma is that ego often comes with a heavy price.

Arsenal stadium does indeed  generate extra match day revenue but 13 years on they still owe around £200 million and in today’s terms that’s not a lot( can’t believe I just said that) but to get the  annual extra £30 ish million they get in match day revenue there are hidden amounts that bring that £30 million down . For instance the Business rates at SB are around a million at Arsenal its 3x that. Add the extra stewarding costs, the extra insurances ,the extra in terms of electric and a so on.That 30 million is soon eroded 

Why your thinking of the numbers don’t forget that cost of Arsenal tickets , the fact that the Arsenal season ticket holders have to buy 7 additional tickets even if they don’t intend to go to any of those games. 

Spurs have built a fabulous facility. It would be churlish to say otherwise but until they played the first game they haven’t had to start paying back the debt all they have been doing is service borrowings.Unless they can generate vast sums through stadium naming rights etc it’s questionable just how much net extra will be added to their cash flow. Guess we will see come the next transfer window

In reality gate receipts are no longer the most important income stream .Commercial , TV money and CL payments are far more important. 

I personally would love to see the Shed End and Mathew Harding  re developed to  generate around an extra 12 k capacity mainly at the Shed  ( current capacity there is only 6500) that would boost the  ground capacity to 53k that would be just about right. The issue has always been about egress and I struggle to see why the solution that was worked up for the  new stadium  , namely decking over the railway lines, couldn’t be taken forward as a matter of course.

I agree gate receipts aren't that important anymore

For me it's about how modern the stadium facilities are. I doubt anyone on the continent relishes playing at Stamford bridge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


25 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

For me it's about how modern the stadium facilities are. I doubt anyone on the continent relishes playing at Stamford bridge. 

You really think we don't have state of the art facilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No change in the communication from Chelsea:

 

Quote

Chelsea FC is aware of the media speculation relating to the new stadium, however can confirm that the Club’s position remains unchanged since May 2018. The stadium project has been put on hold due to the current unfavourable investment climate. There is no time frame set for reconsidering this position, but when we do all relevant parties including the CPO and fans will be informed.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2019/05/10/chelsea-statement-on-stadium?cardIndex=0-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/05/2019 at 17:01, fitz said:

There really isn't a viable site close to Stamford Bridge where buying up a huge plot of land would be a 'cheaper' option, even with the sale of Stamford Bridge to offset the costs. Certainly not to the tune of £500 mil. Earls Court, Sands End Gas Works etc will all be more lucrative to developers as residential schemes so why would they sell? All the old industrial Brownfield sites along the river have been snapped up. Plus the days of dropping a large stadium into tight residential streets are long gone, the opposition would be enormous. If we want to stay in Fulham it HAS to be Stamford Bridge, I think we'll see a resubmitted application 'no-frills' stadium.

Not certain about land being more valuable for residential development right now- most zone 2 projects are struggling to sell units due to reduced foreign investment. Other major sites are being temporarily mothballled. Sands End Gasworks would have been great, however I’m not sure there’s enough land left there now to accommodate a stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!