54 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I'm fairly sure every sports fan gets interested by a shiny new stadium. I don't see how that's controversial and why you're so desperate to argue that point.

Every sports fan minus at least one: I couldn't care less.

Good to see the Wi-Fi being discussed, considering we are literally sponsored by a network provider 🤦‍♂️, signal is shocking not to mention it’s a a bit of a blind spot actual mobile signal (least for EE anyway).

 

1 hour ago, bluehaze said:

So if we get a new ground or the Bridge is redeveloped let's see if every sports fan in the country is as excited as you and your mates are about White Hart Lane.

Well...that's my point. They would be. Brilliant stadiums are exciting. And ours wouldn't be in a sh*t hole. 

Edited March 29, 20233 yr by bisright1

3 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Every fan I know wants to go. That's not a lie, I don't know you. 

Yes it's in a sh*t hole. Yes it's Tottenham. But it's the best thing about them. Imagine what a stadium like that would do for us, a club that has more about them and is in a nice area.

The entire point being, if it costs 1bn and generates an extra 25m a year in match day, that isn't the only sums that matters. We'd see more revenue generated in every other aspect of our club.

I know we don't tear up stadiums, it was a joke. 

I only want to go to new stadiums when  Chelsea play at their place , and not to admire the architecture, nice though it is.

So my visits are exactly the same as when they had the old stadiums , .

Nothing has changed at all.

 

 

2 hours ago, Valerie said:

Every sports fan minus at least one: I couldn't care less.

Make that two !

1 minute ago, The Rising Sun said:

I only want to go to new stadiums when  Chelsea play at their place , and not to admire the architecture, nice though it is.

So my visits are exactly the same as when they had the old stadiums , .

Nothing has changed at all.

I think what I'm thinking of though is the corporate money, the tv money, and then the additional money from concerts / special sports events etc. 

Not really the tribal fans looking for a stadium tour. 

16 hours ago, bisright1 said:

It's a bit too simplistic to think in terms of just the revenue per year on match day revenue. 

Take Tottenham for example. Their stadium and therefore their name is known around the world. The stadium itself has elevated them a notch, that impacts on players they can attract and commercial revenue. 

The longer we are at Stamford bridge, the more stark the comparison with Tottenham, arsenal and west hams stadiums become.

And when it comes to the value of the business, I think it will add at least a bn to the value of the club in 10 years time, thats before you even factor in all the other factors it elevates - which is ultimately all our owners care about. 

Tottenhams name is known around the world because of their never ending trophy dodging.

Not very image enhancing, and the stadium is known as the "Toilet Bowl " ...because it looks like one !

 

4 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I think what I'm thinking of though is the corporate money, the tv money, and then the additional money from concerts / special sports events etc. 

Not really the tribal fans looking for a stadium tour. 

Maybe.

All those concerts and sports events don't seem to happen on a regular basis at the newer stadiums? Might be wrong, anyway the residents and local council will put a limit on events.

We should have seized Battersea when it was available.

Is Earls Court still a possibility?

I can't stand the thought of moving away for years.

 

 

2 hours ago, Valerie said:

Every sports fan minus at least one: I couldn't care less.

It’s because you’re planning to come to Kingsmeadow though, right? That anticipation must be killing you!

——Free behind the scenes look at the creation of this post including a small typo and a strange correction!——

 

1 hour ago, Munkworth said:

It’s because you’re planning to come to Kingsmeadow though, right? That anticipation must be killing you!

——Free behind the scenes look at the creation of this post including a small typo and a strange correction!——

 

Mibbee....

The best thing I've seen at Spurs new ground was when we beat them 3-0 towards the end of the game when most of them had pissed off home was seeing that massive stand with thousands of empty black seats and a few fans with white Spurs tops on it looked like a massive dominoes game was going on 😂

Has the access issue been sorted by acquiring the building’s next to the Britannia entrance? Old plans stated couldn’t have everybody leaving onto Fulham Road.

7 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I think what I'm thinking of though is the corporate money, the tv money, and then the additional money from concerts / special sports events etc. 

Not really the tribal fans looking for a stadium tour. 

Stadiums don't really affect corporate money and they certainly don't affect TV money. Both are affected by results and popularity. The truth is that stadium revenue is dwarfed by other commercial interests, which are solely reflective of success and marketing.

Additional events can make money, but utility is limited. There is quite a bit of cost associated with pitch regeneration. A football pitch couldn't host LA Dodgers games, so there'd be limited cross-promotion opportunity.

The percieved benefits of a stadium upgrade are very airy-fairy, based on assumptions and projections. Arsenal's downturn after moving to the Emirates should not be underestimated.

Reading the comments above, the general consensus seems to be that there is no benefit to a new bigger and modern stadium. Nobody cares what your stadium looks like, it has negligible effect on revenue and costs a fortune to do. I guess nobody told that to Real Madrid, Spurs, Arsenal, Man City (who are adding another 7700 seats) Bayern Munich, the two Lisbon clubs, Juventus, Ajax and probably a good few others.

Speculation that Boehly wants the new stadium in Earls Court and having weighed everything up I'm for it. Apparently the choices are move for up to 4 years probably Wembley or stay at the Bridge till Earls Court is built that for me is the most sensible option. Wembley would be a disaster apathy would soon set in if we keep having seasons like we are now on top of extra travel for most fans and the atmosphere won't be great anyone who went to England games at Wembley in the 80's 30,000 in a massive stadium makes for a terrible atmosphere.

The CPO will have a massive say on what occurs and I and all fans especially my age thank them for what they did but they can't hold everyone else to ransom over this if they dig their heels in I'll probably be brown bread by the time any move happens. I will be in my 60's if everything is settled in say 2028 and it's time for young fans to have their say it's only fair yes it would be a massive wrench to leave the Bridge but things move on you can't be chained to sentimentality forever and 10 years ago I would never have said we should leave Stamford Bridge but priorities change. And hopefully there will be a decent atmosphere in a new stadium so young people start making some noise like we did in the 80's and 90's in a crumbling bowl of a ground but we made Chelsea an intimidating place to visit especially in the early to mid 80's with Gate 13 and the West Stand in full voice.

It's only two stops whatever way you are travelling on the district line two less if you're coming from Paddington etc so can't see a massive problem or objections there, I haven't walked down the whole of the North End Road for years but there's still a few pubs about certainly as many as Fulham Broadway, West Kensington is a five minute walk away High Street Kensington not much further so again nothing that can put peoples backs up for facilities, transport etc.

Is the potential Earl's Court site the area I've outlined below in red ?

If it is, is there even room for a football ground ?

There are loads of railway lines, tube lines, crescents of houses, etc etc that look highly inconvenient in terms of the area needed for a stadium of any size ? It's a big plot, but the railway line goes right through the middle of it. To the A3220 side of the railway line, it doesn't look wide enough for a stadium regardless of how it is oriented.

17 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

the stadium is known as the "Toilet Bowl " ...because it looks like one !

Brilliant ! And very obvious when you see the aerial view LOL

Pretty crude, but it would sort of fit, but only if it bridged the railway line in some way. And that I imagine is quite unlikely.

Kind of in two minds about the move. Obvious sentiment is we stay at Stamford Bridge and stay true to our roots but the more it goes on the more unfeasible it seems to redevelop and we're clearly lacking behind every other 'big' club in terms of home ground. I've certainly softened to the idea of moving elsewhere over the last few years and Earl's court is only a 15-20 minute walk from our current home. Being able to play at the Bridge whilst it is built is huge too, certainly don't want to be at Wembley for 4 years while we redevelop in the current location. 

4 minutes ago, Snedger said:

Pretty crude, but it would sort of fit, but only if it bridged the railway line in some way. And that I imagine is quite unlikely.

Yes that was my conclusion as well ... that building over the railway line is pretty much the only way to site a stadium with the sort of capacity increase that would make sense.

I had the same idea in terms of a mock up as you, but I went with Dortmund's stadium superimposed LOL. May as well go big (81,365) or go home !

Must admit I really like the idea of having something similar to Dortmund's Yellow Wall at one end of our new ground ("The New Shed" I'm calling it LOL). Or maybe even both ends ("The North Shed and The South Shed")  🙂 

 

 

1 hour ago, bluehaze said:

Speculation that Boehly wants the new stadium in Earls Court and having weighed everything up I'm for it. Apparently the choices are move for up to 4 years probably Wembley or stay at the Bridge till Earls Court is built that for me is the most sensible option. Wembley would be a disaster apathy would soon set in if we keep having seasons like we are now on top of extra travel for most fans and the atmosphere won't be great anyone who went to England games at Wembley in the 80's 30,000 in a massive stadium makes for a terrible atmosphere.

The CPO will have a massive say on what occurs and I and all fans especially my age thank them for what they did but they can't hold everyone else to ransom over this if they dig their heels in I'll probably be brown bread by the time any move happens. I will be in my 60's if everything is settled in say 2028 and it's time for young fans to have their say it's only fair yes it would be a massive wrench to leave the Bridge but things move on you can't be chained to sentimentality forever and 10 years ago I would never have said we should leave Stamford Bridge but priorities change. And hopefully there will be a decent atmosphere in a new stadium so young people start making some noise like we did in the 80's and 90's in a crumbling bowl of a ground but we made Chelsea an intimidating place to visit especially in the early to mid 80's with Gate 13 and the West Stand in full voice.

It's only two stops whatever way you are travelling on the district line two less if you're coming from Paddington etc so can't see a massive problem or objections there, I haven't walked down the whole of the North End Road for years but there's still a few pubs about certainly as many as Fulham Broadway, West Kensington is a five minute walk away High Street Kensington not much further so again nothing that can put peoples backs up for facilities, transport etc.

+1

Theres going to be a divide whatever is decided here but we need more seats!
 

Im early 30s and a regular attender via membership and would love a season ticket but I have no chance whilst at Stamford bridge (I got 140+ loyalty points last year which is attending above 80% of games home, away and abroad) and I still didn’t get one) 

 

1 hour ago, bluehaze said:

Speculation that Boehly wants the new stadium in Earls Court and having weighed everything up I'm for it. Apparently the choices are move for up to 4 years probably Wembley or stay at the Bridge till Earls Court is built that for me is the most sensible option. Wembley would be a disaster apathy would soon set in if we keep having seasons like we are now on top of extra travel for most fans and the atmosphere won't be great anyone who went to England games at Wembley in the 80's 30,000 in a massive stadium makes for a terrible atmosphere.

The CPO will have a massive say on what occurs and I and all fans especially my age thank them for what they did but they can't hold everyone else to ransom over this if they dig their heels in I'll probably be brown bread by the time any move happens. I will be in my 60's if everything is settled in say 2028 and it's time for young fans to have their say it's only fair yes it would be a massive wrench to leave the Bridge but things move on you can't be chained to sentimentality forever and 10 years ago I would never have said we should leave Stamford Bridge but priorities change. And hopefully there will be a decent atmosphere in a new stadium so young people start making some noise like we did in the 80's and 90's in a crumbling bowl of a ground but we made Chelsea an intimidating place to visit especially in the early to mid 80's with Gate 13 and the West Stand in full voice.

It's only two stops whatever way you are travelling on the district line two less if you're coming from Paddington etc so can't see a massive problem or objections there, I haven't walked down the whole of the North End Road for years but there's still a few pubs about certainly as many as Fulham Broadway, West Kensington is a five minute walk away High Street Kensington not much further so again nothing that can put peoples backs up for facilities, transport etc.

Agree completely about Wembley and apathy would set in. I may be wrong but when Spurs played there they couldn't use all the seats due to restrictions imposed by the local council. If wrong, please correct. Staying at the Bridge until a stadium is built at Earl's Court would, as you say, be the sensible option. The Earl's Court area covers a wide area. It's easy to get to and there are a few pubs nearby and pubs near the Bridge e.g. the Chelsea Pensioner are within walking distance especially if you cut through Brompton Cemetery. I would be in my late sixties come 2028 and a couple of the building I go to the games with would be in their mid-seventies so the sooner the redevelopment started the better.

As mentioned before I'm a CPO shareholder and they have done a wonderful job but has its time come. Most CPO shareholders are of a certain age. I was at the CPO AGM in January and I don't think there was anyone there under the age of 50. The CPO board has tried selling shares to younger members but am not sure if there has been a great uptake. The CPO has a long-term loan from the club and I'm sure that if the club offered shareholders good money for their shares a good number would especially given the current circumstances.

If we did move to Earl's Court what about names of stands for the new ground. I appreciate it's subjective and we will all have suggestions. Would we have a Matthew Harding Stand? As we know Harding put a lot of money into the club and it was great to name a stand after him but should a stand in the new ground be named after him. I'm not sure and that's not meant to be a criticism of Matthew. It would be nice to keep The Shed End given it's history. If we have one of the stands named after Matthew Harding and keep The Shed End can I suggest a couple of names: John Neal and Richard Attenborough. John Neal for being the manager of that great side of the eighties and did so much for Chelsea. Attenborough never played for or managed the club but when so many back in the day were selling their shares he kept his. Perhaps a stand named after Roman. As I said, it's subjective. If I may make a comparison to Ibrox. The Main Stand was renamed the Bill Struth Stand after one of Rangers greatest ever managers. The Govan Stand was renamed the Sandy Jardine Stand. Sandy was one of Rangers finest players and a great stalwart of the club.

in regards to room at Earl’s Court 

13 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Agree completely about Wembley and apathy would set in. I may be wrong but when Spurs played there they couldn't use all the seats due to restrictions imposed by the local council. If wrong, please correct. Staying at the Bridge until a stadium is built at Earl's Court would, as you say, be the sensible option. The Earl's Court area covers a wide area. It's easy to get to and there are a few pubs nearby and pubs near the Bridge e.g. the Chelsea Pensioner are within walking distance especially if you cut through Brompton Cemetery. I would be in my late sixties come 2028 and a couple of the building I go to the games with would be in their mid-seventies so the sooner the redevelopment started the better.

As mentioned before I'm a CPO shareholder and they have done a wonderful job but has its time come. Most CPO shareholders are of a certain age. I was at the CPO AGM in January and I don't think there was anyone there under the age of 50. The CPO board has tried selling shares to younger members but am not sure if there has been a great uptake. The CPO has a long-term loan from the club and I'm sure that if the club offered shareholders good money for their shares a good number would especially given the current circumstances.

If we did move to Earl's Court what about names of stands for the new ground. I appreciate it's subjective and we will all have suggestions. Would we have a Matthew Harding Stand? As we know Harding put a lot of money into the club and it was great to name a stand after him but should a stand in the new ground be named after him. I'm not sure and that's not meant to be a criticism of Matthew. It would be nice to keep The Shed End given it's history. If we have one of the stands named after Matthew Harding and keep The Shed End can I suggest a couple of names: John Neal and Richard Attenborough. John Neal for being the manager of that great side of the eighties and did so much for Chelsea. Attenborough never played for or managed the club but when so many back in the day were selling their shares he kept his. Perhaps a stand named after Roman. As I said, it's subjective. If I may make a comparison to Ibrox. The Main Stand was renamed the Bill Struth Stand after one of Rangers greatest ever managers. The Govan Stand was renamed the Sandy Jardine Stand. Sandy was one of Rangers finest players and a great stalwart of the club.

You are right about Spurs their crowds fluctuated from 40,000 to near capacity at Wembley. As regards Matthew Harding it's hard to say because his money wouldn't have gone into a new stand like it did at the Bridge but I'm sure something could and should be in his honour.  Richard Attenborough was a famous fan but that's about it regardless of him keeping his shares, as for Roman that will never happen Boehly will see this as his vision and it would be a political powder keg to name a stand after him. 

The amount of stick we got for naming the Spackman entrance back in 95 good solid player but hardly a legend now we have countless players who could have stands, bars etc named after them but one they should definitely have something for there's a picture of him in the Shed is for Mickey Greenaway true legend and despite the hatchet job that was done on him by the Sunday People never a hooligan just a Chelsea fanatic. My first ever job when I left school in 1982 my boss was a Chelsea fan about late 30's first thing he asked me was does Greenaway still go ?.

32 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Agree completely about Wembley and apathy would set in. I may be wrong but when Spurs played there they couldn't use all the seats due to restrictions imposed by the local council. If wrong, please correct. Staying at the Bridge until a stadium is built at Earl's Court would, as you say, be the sensible option. The Earl's Court area covers a wide area. It's easy to get to and there are a few pubs nearby and pubs near the Bridge e.g. the Chelsea Pensioner are within walking distance especially if you cut through Brompton Cemetery. I would be in my late sixties come 2028 and a couple of the building I go to the games with would be in their mid-seventies so the sooner the redevelopment started the better.

As mentioned before I'm a CPO shareholder and they have done a wonderful job but has its time come. Most CPO shareholders are of a certain age. I was at the CPO AGM in January and I don't think there was anyone there under the age of 50. The CPO board has tried selling shares to younger members but am not sure if there has been a great uptake. The CPO has a long-term loan from the club and I'm sure that if the club offered shareholders good money for their shares a good number would especially given the current circumstances.

If we did move to Earl's Court what about names of stands for the new ground. I appreciate it's subjective and we will all have suggestions. Would we have a Matthew Harding Stand? As we know Harding put a lot of money into the club and it was great to name a stand after him but should a stand in the new ground be named after him. I'm not sure and that's not meant to be a criticism of Matthew. It would be nice to keep The Shed End given it's history. If we have one of the stands named after Matthew Harding and keep The Shed End can I suggest a couple of names: John Neal and Richard Attenborough. John Neal for being the manager of that great side of the eighties and did so much for Chelsea. Attenborough never played for or managed the club but when so many back in the day were selling their shares he kept his. Perhaps a stand named after Roman. As I said, it's subjective. If I may make a comparison to Ibrox. The Main Stand was renamed the Bill Struth Stand after one of Rangers greatest ever managers. The Govan Stand was renamed the Sandy Jardine Stand. Sandy was one of Rangers finest players and a great stalwart of the club.

DP.

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by bluehaze