17 minutes ago, dkw said:

It wasnt a cover, it was an actual fact that prices rocketed at that time and the project simply wasnt viable, its a main tenet of Project management to stop a project in these situations. He wanted the club to be self sustainable at that point, and this project meant it had no chance of accomplishing that.

It's not a fact at all. It's widely understood it was the visa issues (which underpins the worsening relations between UK and Russia) were the cause. You have inferred that the costs were the reason which no one really thinks is the cause. Even the statement itself didn't say that, it referred to worsening investment situation. A statement released days after he withdrew his visa application.

I have no doubt if Roman though he and his son could continue to sit in that stadium for the rest of his life, he'd have built it.

The price of the stadium would have been maybe 1-2bn, which is nothing for him. My expectations, not a fact but what I think, is he was planning to swallow the cost himself and then hand over the club to his son with no debt.

Edited October 16, 2025Oct 16 by bisright1

2 hours ago, bisright1 said:

It's not a fact at all. It's widely understood it was the visa issues (which underpins the worsening relations between UK and Russia) were the cause. You have inferred that the costs were the reason which no one really thinks is the cause. Even the statement itself didn't say that, it referred to worsening investment situation. A statement released days after he withdrew his visa application.

I have no doubt if Roman though he and his son could continue to sit in that stadium for the rest of his life, he'd have built it.

The price of the stadium would have been maybe 1-2bn, which is nothing for him. My expectations, not a fact but what I think, is he was planning to swallow the cost himself and then hand over the club to his son with no debt.

New Civil Engineer

Chelsea stadium planning permission expires today | New C...

Planning permission to transform Stamford Bridge into a 60,000-seater stadium will expire today, three years after it was first granted. Work never got

It is a fact. Covid rose construction/industry costs significantly.

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

It is a fact. Covid rose construction/industry costs significantly.

A huge amount of projects were shelved, I was on a couple of £2m plus ones that we're stopped entirely due to material costs. Steel rocketed up to a ridiculous price.

22 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

This was the stadium redevelopment plan from 1970 under the Mears ownership. A 60,000 stadium. There was no doubt a lot of standing terrace in the plan.

The East Stand was the first part to be completed before the club ran into massive financial difficulties and the project abandoned

What a shame the construction was never completed. It had a walkway to the station, under seat heating and 🎖there was scope to include extra spectator capacity within the developed footprint The Mears carried out a survey on what the fans actually wanted, listened and incorporated results into the design.

12 hours ago, dkw said:

It wasnt entirely down to the visa issue, it was also the current economic situation, prices for materials had risen astronomically, construction costs were ridiculous and the viability of the project was called in.

12 hours ago, dkw said:

It wasnt entirely down to the visa issue, it was also the current economic situation, prices for materials had risen astronomically, construction costs were ridiculous and the viability of the project was called in.

I know the costs increased, but the reference to "an unfavourable investment climate" didn't refer to the rising costs as being the issue that halted the redevelopment, but instead were related to his Visa renewal. He got an Israeli visa eventually that limited his ability to visit or work in the UK

"The decision was made due to the current unfavourable investment climate.”

That is a direct link to Abramovich’s problems in entering the UK with the 51-year-old thought to see no point in committing a £1bn investment into the capital city of a nation where the government does not want to give him a visa.

While Chelsea insist there will be no change to Abramovich’s long-term intentions towards the club, it was initially reported in Israel that Rom would stop any future investments in the UK.

Background on Abramovich's Stadium Decision

Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea FC, decided to halt plans for the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge, which was projected to cost around £1 billion. This decision was primarily influenced by complications surrounding the renewal of his UK investor visa, rather than financial issues related to the club.

Impact on Stadium Plans

Chelsea FC announced that no further pre-construction work would occur due to the "unfavourable investment climate."

The club's statement indicated that the decision was not a reflection of financial instability but rather a direct response to Abramovich's visa situation.

Edited October 16, 2025Oct 16 by The Rising Sun
Information

6 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

It is a fact. Covid rose construction/industry costs significantly.

7 hours ago, dkw said:

New Civil Engineer

Chelsea stadium planning permission expires today | New C...

Planning permission to transform Stamford Bridge into a 60,000-seater stadium will expire today, three years after it was first granted. Work never got

That's great but we literally pulled the plug 3 days after Romans visa was withdrawn and stated at that time it was due to unfavourable investment conditions. The economic stuff was motioned later.

There hasn't been a stadium built that I can remember that didn't go massively over budget. Particularly the three built in London that were all double the original budget. Ours would always have been 1bn.

It's a fudge for the board to retrospectively claim "economic conditions".

But above all I don't even understand the foundations of the argument being it was just finances. Why on earth would Roman spend a penny on a stadium he can't sit in?

Edited October 16, 2025Oct 16 by bisright1

12 hours ago, Nitro said:

What a shame the construction was never completed. It had a walkway to the station, under seat heating and 🎖there was scope to include extra spectator capacity within the developed footprint The Mears carried out a survey on what the fans actually wanted, listened and incorporated results into the design.

I tihnk in years to come when we end up in a soulless, beige basic stadium we will look back on the missed opportunity at Battersea, what a stadium that would have been.

I tihnk in years to come when we end up in a soulless, beige basic stadium we will look back on the missed opportunity at Battersea, what a stadium tha would have been I

7 hours ago, dkw said:

7 hours ago, dkw said:

I

7 hours ago, dkw said:

.

I agree, we missed the chance of a lifetime with the opportunity of building that stadium at Battersea. Now that WOULD have been an iconic stadium..

How to deal with anyone holding up your stadium redevelopment. If I remember correctly, Tottenham had a meeting with the sheet metal works just a week previously and issued a statement that wasn't very complimentary about the company ! ..vvv

"London: Tottenham’s uncomfortable neighbours up in flames

26.11.2014 06:19 source: Standard.co.uk / London24.com / StadiumDB.com; author: michał

London: Tottenham’s uncomfortable neighbours up in flames .It’s the single company that refused to sell and has been effectively blocking Tottenham’s new stadium for a decade. Last night it went up in flames."

On 16/10/2025 at 15:12, Sconnie Blue said:

It is a fact. Covid rose construction/industry costs significantly.

Roman pulled out of the project in June 2018 when he had to get an Israeli passport which severely limited the time he could spend or work in the UK . This was well before the COVID pandemic.

The hotels etc severely limited the size of the Shed End when it was rebuilt. Dunno if the cost to maybe rebuild it with the hotels demolished would be worth it ??

The board of the CPO will be at the Tea Bar at the Bridge from 1pm on Saturday 25 October i.e. before the game against Sunderland. It will be interesting to hear if they have anything to say about the redevelopment. Or they may just be there to sell shares in the CPO.

18 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

The hotels etc severely limited the size of the Shed End when it was rebuilt. Dunno if the cost to maybe rebuild it with the hotels demolished would be worth it ??

I think a major issue is the need to go down in order to go up: adding tiers to the existing stands involves beefing up the existing foundations to support the extra weight.

6 hours ago, dermott said:

I think a major issue is the need to go down in order to go up: adding tiers to the existing stands involves beefing up the existing foundations to support the extra weight.

As a rule of thumb foundation loading spreadsheet at 45 degrees, so basically in this situation you have to account for the loading to go under existing buildings, rather than just vertically straight down. That's where the problems occur as it weakens tge ground below the houses, railway line etc...

We got in over 80k in 1935.....

Safe standing is now allowed..... Just knock it all down and go back to how it was. Job done.

22 hours ago, dkw said:

As a rule of thumb foundation loading spreadsheet at 45 degrees, so basically in this situation you have to account for the loading to go under existing buildings, rather than just vertically straight down. That's where the problems occur as it weakens tge ground below the houses, railway line etc...

How did Roman’s plan overcome this? If I remember correctly, the plan was to dig in and place the pitch and stands below surface level, but I’m no architect or civil engineer so I have no clue how what you say was accounted for in the approved project.

22 minutes ago, RMH said:

How did Roman’s plan overcome this? If I remember correctly, the plan was to dig in and place the pitch and stands below surface level, but I’m no architect or civil engineer so I have no clue how what you say was accounted for in the approved project.

No idea, I'm not a civil engineer either but have bern involved in projects where this caused problems. There's obviously ways round it, but they are usually incredibly expensive, creating massive concrete "walls" round the foundation area is a way using piling, try and block the loads in. But as I said, huge costs for that.

There's just so many things to take into account, soil type, water table level, it all effects what you can actually do.

On 18/10/2025 at 18:04, dkw said:

As a rule of thumb foundation loading spreadsheet at 45 degrees, so basically in this situation you have to account for the loading to go under existing buildings, rather than just vertically straight down. That's where the problems occur as it weakens tge ground below the houses, railway line etc...

Does that mean we would have to build foundations under the buildings near the stadium and under existing tube and rail lines ? What do you reckon to knocking down MH and shed stands and rebuilding both to larger capacity ? But I suppose to get close to 60,000 both would have to be unfeasibly enormous ??

Edited October 20, 2025Oct 20 by The Rising Sun
Info

18 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Does that mean we would have to build foundations under the buildings near the stadium and under existing tube and rail lines ? What do you reckon to knocking down MH and shed stands and rebuilding both to larger capacity ? But I suppose to get close to 60,000 both would have to be unfeasibly enormous ??

and also the west stand, if thats possible?

Sadiq Khan in April..

"We have worked closely with all seven of our Premier League clubs but I'm sure Chelsea look with some envy at the stadiums some of their rivals in London have. We're really keen to make sure that Chelsea, as we are with all our clubs, continue to flourish and thrive, so we're open to talking to Chelsea about what plans they have."

In June...

This comes after reports that Chelsea were considering a site at Earl's Court in west London, with shareholder Hansjorg Wyss indicating it would likely suit the club best. However, a spokesperson for the Mayor confirmed no formal proposals have been presented.

8 minutes ago, OTL said:

and also the west stand, if thats possible?

The East Stand is the oldest. But both East and West are enormous anyway. Plus the West Upper is now for the more wealthy corporate fans in the renamed " West View" .

I know Bates used to moan that although the East had a large capacity, it was short on corporate places. The middle tier though has "Captain's Bar " padded seating high priced seats priced according to the opposition.

Priced at over £600 for a single seat for the Liverpool game !!

I can see Blue co. getting what they can for the club in a few years time and leaving this project to the next crowd.☹️

57 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Does that mean we would have to build foundations under the buildings near the stadium and under existing tube and rail lines ? What do you reckon to knocking down MH and shed stands and rebuilding both to larger capacity ? But I suppose to get close to 60,000 both would have to be unfeasibly enormous ??

Depends on the calculations basically. When I say 45 degrees I mean down mainly, so at the end of the foundations the loads spread at 45 degrees, weakening as it goes. If that load looks like to weaken any buildings then groundwork would be needed.