51 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

in regards to room at Earl’s Court 

So it's pretty much got to go straight over the top of the railway line ... I'd imagine that's a huge complication ... huge additional cost just for starters.

 

I like the idea of building a new stadium for the Mens Team in Earls Court, but how about also retaining Stamford Bridge for the Ladies Team ?  Almost certainly a non-starter on cost grounds (selling off the land at Stamford Bridge is no doubt an essential part of any funding model for a new acquisition/build at Earls Court), but would be a huge statement of intent for Ladies Football ... might help with the CPO situation as well !

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by Sexyfootball

59 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

So it's pretty much got to go straight over the top of the railway line ... I'd imagine that's a huge complication ... huge additional cost just for starters.

 

I like the idea of building a new stadium for the Mens Team in Earls Court, but how about also retaining Stamford Bridge for the Ladies Team ?  Almost certainly a non-starter on cost grounds (selling off the land at Stamford Bridge is no doubt an essential part of any funding model for a new acquisition/build at Earls Court), but would be a huge statement of intent for Ladies Football ... might help with the CPO situation as well !

Its a nice idea but average attendances for a women's game is about 4k, would be crazy to keep Stamford Bridge for that. Not to mention the resale value like you said, which would subsidise some of the new stadium costs. 

1 hour ago, RIP Mourinho said:

in regards to room at Earl’s Court 

One thing I like about that is that there is a lot of land besides that required for a pitch and stands. Having seen the article about City's 'campus', they have a neat little stadium adjacent that hosts the womens, youth and academy sides. It's also used for some amateur cup finals that boosts community relations. They've also got a large shop, other buildings and a fan park area on site. The fan park is planned to be covered given the Manchester climate and a large indoor venue planned is planned for concerts etc that will have a 23'000 capacity.

That I am sure is what Todd and friends envisage. Not just a better stadium with more seats and more corporate, but also other revenue generating add-ons and things that can make match day more of day out.

 

Regarding the railway lines; perhaps that isn't a big issue as they are cut tracks that are below street level, and in fact the Earls Court Exhibition Centre happily lived above them for 80 years.

Anyway, whilst this is all very interesting, I fully expect that in 2033 we will still be playing at Stamford Bridge in its current guise. I reckon there's more chance of me catching a HS2 train from Manchester to Euston long before watching Chelsea play at home in a state of the art 60'000 plus seater stadium.

 

49 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Its a nice idea but average attendances for a women's game is about 4k, would be crazy to keep Stamford Bridge for that. Not to mention the resale value like you said, which would subsidise some of the new stadium costs. 

You're probably right, certainly some low crowds at Kingsmeadow, but they did get 38,300 for the home game against Tottenham ... the only ladies game this season that has been played at Stamford Bridge. Was there a reason that was so much higher than normal ?

Potential might be there to build on that for other games, who knows ... 

Along the same lines as SF, if it is feasible, it would be great for the Bridge to be kept for our women's side. Would mean all that history would be kept for us, for Chelsea. A great statement.

It makes too much sense for us to buy up earls court, develop it and stay at the bridge till it is ready. That alone saves us huge money in sharing a stadium or using wembely.

1 minute ago, Sexyfootball said:

You're probably right, certainly some low crowds at Kingsmeadow, but they did get 38,300 for the home game against Tottenham ... the only ladies game this season that has been played at Stamford Bridge. Was there a reason that was so much higher than normal ?

Potential might be there to build on that for other games, who knows ... 

Make it so season ticket holders at the new stadium can attend the women's games at the Bridge for free?

27 minutes ago, Snedger said:

One thing I like about that is that there is a lot of land besides that required for a pitch and stands. Having seen the article about City's 'campus', they have a neat little stadium adjacent that hosts the womens, youth and academy sides. It's also used for some amateur cup finals that boosts community relations. They've also got a large shop, other buildings and a fan park area on site. The fan park is planned to be covered given the Manchester climate and a large indoor venue planned is planned for concerts etc that will have a 23'000 capacity.

That I am sure is what Todd and friends envisage. Not just a better stadium with more seats and more corporate, but also other revenue generating add-ons and things that can make match day more of day out.

 

Regarding the railway lines; perhaps that isn't a big issue as they are cut tracks that are below street level, and in fact the Earls Court Exhibition Centre happily lived above them for 80 years.

Anyway, whilst this is all very interesting, I fully expect that in 2033 we will still be playing at Stamford Bridge in its current guise. I reckon there's more chance of me catching a HS2 train from Manchester to Euston long before watching Chelsea play at home in a state of the art 60'000 plus seater stadium.

 

An old pic of the Exhibition Centre, gives some idea of what a large structure might look like on what is now an empty lot ...  

Previous leisure usage as a venue for exhibitions, gigs etc surely ought to make it a lot easier to get approvals for non-football uses as well.  Doesn't look like they built extensively over the actual railway line though ... 

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by Sexyfootball

11 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

An old pic of the Exhibition Centre, gives some idea of what a large structure might look like on what is now an empty lot ...  

Previous leisure usage as a venue for exhibitions, gigs etc surely ought to make it a lot easier to get approvals for non-football uses as well.  Doesn't look like they built extensively over the actual railway line though ... 

If we paid for it maybe we could convince BR to drivert the railway around or dig down so it passes underneath the new stadium.

8 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

If we paid for it maybe we could convince BR to drivert the railway around or dig down so it passes underneath the new stadium.

I imagine there are already a whole load of plans drawn up as feasibility studies from when Roman was looking at Earl's Court as one of the options for a new stadium, together with Battersea Power Station. Roman probably spent a small fortune on architects and consultants.

3 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

You're probably right, certainly some low crowds at Kingsmeadow, but they did get 38,300 for the home game against Tottenham ... the only ladies game this season that has been played at Stamford Bridge. Was there a reason that was so much higher than normal ?

Potential might be there to build on that for other games, who knows ... 

You will never gate any major stadium selling out week in week out for women's football. When a club gets to a cup semi- final or final and sell 30,000 tickets it happens even at non league level their next home game then attracts the usual couple of thousand that's what happens regarding attendances at women's football. Happened to us back in the day 42,000 against Liverpool loads locked out great day few days later Cardiff at home 9,000 turned up. 

23 minutes ago, bluehaze said:

You will never gate any major stadium selling out week in week out for women's football. When a club gets to a cup semi- final or final and sell 30,000 tickets it happens even at non league level their next home game then attracts the usual couple of thousand that's what happens regarding attendances at women's football. Happened to us back in the day 42,000 against Liverpool loads locked out great day few days later Cardiff at home 9,000 turned up. 

And look where we are now ! 

It might happen ... the ladies game certainly has the media behind it, pushing it at every opportunity ... 

Anyway - don't want to de-rail the thread 🙂 

7 hours ago, bluehaze said:

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 ?.

I seem to remember a " Greenaway's" bar lower west stand concourse ? And dead right about that hatchet job, he lost his job with the rail company over that I believe..

I did a double take when he was behind the ticket counter at Norbury train station once !

Earls Court site was earmarked for housing, but I think that fell thru. The goods yard etc was mooted before.. You could see the train lines under the old building when.it was demolished.

There used to be a stadium just North of Stamford Bridge at West Brompton. ' Lillie Athletic stadium " or something like that . It was shut down after a riot , I think a stand was set on fire too during the trouble.

Earls Court would be ideal , and the sale of the land at the Bridge would go a long way to funding it

Earls Court site was earmarked for housing, but I think that fell thru. The goods yard etc was mooted before.. You could see the train lines under the old building when.it was demolished.

There used to be a stadium just North of Stamford Bridge at West Brompton. ' Lillie Athletic stadium " or something like that . It was shut down after a riot , I think a stand was set on fire too during the trouble. Below is an image of the riot. It's a great article " Lillie Bridge" stadium 

 

Earls Court would be ideal , and the sale of the land at the Bridge would go a long way to funding it

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

"Skip to content

Running Studies

 

Notes on the social science, history and culture of running

 

 

HISTORY SHORTS

Running Riot: The Forgotten Story of Lillie Bridge

 

Hooliganism is not something we associate with running today. The crowds at track meets and road races are some of the friendliest and best natured of any sport. Yet at the dawn of the era of modern athletics running had a serious problem with crowd violence. In fact, the emergence of the modern sport was driven in part by the desire to rid running of the unsavoury elements it seemed to attract.

 

One of the most vivid examples of the violence connected with running in the nineteenth century is the riot at Lillie Bridge, in 1887. Lillie Bridge was the headquarters of the Amateur Athletics Club (forerunner of today’s Amateur Athletics Association), and the venue for the national championships. With a capacity of over 12,000 set around a third of a mile cinder track, it was state of the art when it was built in 1866.

 

Battle of the Bridges

 

At the end of the 1870s the pre-eminence of both Lillie Bridge and the Amateur Athletics Club was under threat from the powerful London Athletics Club, which opened its own stadium close by at Stamford Bridge. In a bid to take control of the sport the London AC also inaugurated a rival national championship hosted at the new track. The result was that two competing national championships took place in 1879.

 

In order to ensure its survival in this competitive environment the Amateur Athletics Club needed to maximise the income it received from Lillie Bridge. So the track was rented out to organisers of professional running events, which attracted large crowds and meant high gate receipts, but also brought the gambling and rowdy working-class crowds that many of the privileged founders of amateur athletics wanted to exclude.

 

The burning of the Bridge

 

In 1887 a professional race between Harry Gent and Harry Hutchens attracted large crowds to Lillie Bridge, and big stakes were bet on both runners. Things started to unravel shortly before the start when a rumour swept through the stadium that the race had been fixed. One of the runners was not fit, and it seemed gangsters had pressed for the contest to go ahead anyway so that they could make a killing betting against him. The bookies called for the race to be cancelled, and angry spectators demanded their ticket money back. And when the managers of Lillie Bridge failed to provide refunds, the crowd erupted into violence.

 

The rampaging mob pulled down the wooden structure of the stadium and surrounding buildings, smashed seating and set the wreckage ablaze. The police that were present were beaten up after trying to resist them, and one man died in the chaos. Further police arrived on the scene and eventually managed to restore order, but not before Lillie Bridge was put beyond repair. The venue was closed the following year, never to host a running event again.

 

The destruction of Lillie Bridge seemed to confirm the belief already held by many, that professional running was corrupted by criminality and cheating, and that only by adhering to principles of strict amateurism could spectators’ confidence be restored. In the decades that followed the administrators of amateur athletics worked tirelessly to marginalise professionalism, ensuring that prestigious events like the national championships and the Olympics were open to amateurs only. With money out of the equation there was little incentive for athletes to throw races or for criminals to get involved. As a result, amateur running quickly achieved a reputation for honesty and gentility that helped it become the definitive form of the sport for much of the following century.

 

← The fastest man in the British EmpireA brief history of timing →

Similar Posts

 HISTORY SHORTS PEDESTRIANISM

King of the roads

 GENDER HISTORY SHORTS RACING

The first marathon woman

 HISTORY SHORTS RACING

History’s forgotten 4-minute milers

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 

Topics

Topics

Select Category

About

I am Dr. Neil Baxter, an independent sociologist and writer based in Cambridge.

 

This website contains articles, ideas, stories and statistics drawn from my research into the sociology and history of running.

 

You can follow me on Twitter.

Powered By: WordPress | Theme: MagazineBook By OdieThemes

"

http://runningstudies.co.uk/running-riot-the-forgotten-story-of-lillie-bridge#:~:text=Skip to content,MagazineBook By OdieThemes

I was reading early today that Ealling council or local business groups do not want a football club in their area so think it is looking more likely like the Wembley option with a rebuild at SB. 

28 minutes ago, strider6004 said:

I was reading early today that Ealling council or local business groups do not want a football club in their area so think it is looking more likely like the Wembley option with a rebuild at SB. 

Would Ealing Council and its residents and businesses have much say in it given that Stamford Bridge is in the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Only right and proper and to follow planning rules that businesses and residents in Hammersmith and Fulham have their say and even those who live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea given the proximity to Stamford Bridge.

Looking at online maps, the Earls Court site is mainly in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, with some of it in Hammersmith and Fulham (the boundary goes down the railway line)

So those are the two Boroughs that would have to be ok with having a football club on that site, and surely nothing to do with Ealing ?

Edited March 31, 20233 yr by Sexyfootball

47 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Would Ealing Council and its residents and businesses have much say in it given that Stamford Bridge is in the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Only right and proper and to follow planning rules that businesses and residents in Hammersmith and Fulham have their say and even those who live in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea given the proximity to Stamford Bridge.

Forget Ealing not sure where that came from, though do have family coming over soon to stay near there.

I'll recheck.

No mention of us here

https://theearlscourtdevelopmentcompany.com/news/bringing-the-wonder-back-to-earls-court-the-earls-court-development-company-reveals-plans-for-transformation-of-40-acre-largely-derelict-site

Revealing plans to deliver up to 4,500 homes (targeting 35% affordable across all tenures), all set within a landscape-led development which aims to go beyond net zero and become a climate-positive neighbourhood, Rob Heasman, CEO of ECDC commented

The aspiration is for the development to incorporate the first large scale Zero Carbon energy sharing network in the UK, enabling local people to benefit from cost effective heat networks. Up to 15,000 jobs will be created with the development becoming a research and development hub for green tech, attracting businesses which have a role in transforming our future by responding to the climate crisis.

Only 40% of the land has buildings on it, to genuinely prioritise the streetscape and public open spaces. Landscaped piazzas, play space and public gardens at the entrances will connect through a network of pedestrianised streets and spaces to a park at the heart of the site. The central ‘Table’ park will be a unique destination repurposing part of the former Exhibition Centre structure, connecting those who live, work and visit Earls Court.

 

2 hours ago, strider6004 said:

I was reading early today that Ealling council or local business groups do not want a football club in their area so think it is looking more likely like the Wembley option with a rebuild at SB. 

Ealing is nowhere near Earls Court the council boundary finishes at Acton which is 5 miles away. Earls Court is Kensington and Chelsea.

1 hour ago, strider6004 said:

No mention of us here

https://theearlscourtdevelopmentcompany.com/news/bringing-the-wonder-back-to-earls-court-the-earls-court-development-company-reveals-plans-for-transformation-of-40-acre-largely-derelict-site

Revealing plans to deliver up to 4,500 homes (targeting 35% affordable across all tenures), all set within a landscape-led development which aims to go beyond net zero and become a climate-positive neighbourhood, Rob Heasman, CEO of ECDC commented

The aspiration is for the development to incorporate the first large scale Zero Carbon energy sharing network in the UK, enabling local people to benefit from cost effective heat networks. Up to 15,000 jobs will be created with the development becoming a research and development hub for green tech, attracting businesses which have a role in transforming our future by responding to the climate crisis.

Only 40% of the land has buildings on it, to genuinely prioritise the streetscape and public open spaces. Landscaped piazzas, play space and public gardens at the entrances will connect through a network of pedestrianised streets and spaces to a park at the heart of the site. The central ‘Table’ park will be a unique destination repurposing part of the former Exhibition Centre structure, connecting those who live, work and visit Earls Court.

 

Wouldn’t make business sense for the owners of the site to publicly admit they don’t have plans and would welcome offers. Especially when you have a couple of multi billionaires nosing about for land down the road 

8 minutes ago, Blueboys said:

Wouldn’t make business sense for the owners of the site to publicly admit they don’t have plans and would welcome offers. Especially when you have a couple of multi billionaires nosing about for land down the road 

I think the current owners paid £425m for the site in November 2019.

I wonder what they would want for it now, and if they are even amenable to a sale ?

2 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

I think the current owners paid £425m for the site in November 2019.

I wonder what they would want for it now, and if they are even amenable to a sale ?

If they get an offer that makes them a good profit in 3 years of ownership of the site without doing much work you’d think they’d be open to that. 
 

I can even see a deal that involves the Stamford bridge site

On 30/03/2023 at 17:47, bluehaze said:

You will never gate any major stadium selling out week in week out for women's football. When a club gets to a cup semi- final or final and sell 30,000 tickets it happens even at non league level their next home game then attracts the usual couple of thousand that's what happens regarding attendances at women's football. Happened to us back in the day 42,000 against Liverpool loads locked out great day few days later Cardiff at home 9,000 turned up. 

Went to both of those!