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...

22 hours ago, dkw said:

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.

21 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 ??

2 minutes ago, OTL said:

and also the west stand, if thats possible?

@dkw Like you I'm no architect but I know a few people in the building trade and I've been involved in building refurbishment projects. In addition to the impact on the railway lines and neighbouring buildings I wonder if there could be an impact on Brompton Cemetery. Also not sure what is under the ground. I know that there is the Under the Bridge venue but not sure what else. Possibly the car park extends under the ground. I guess that those could be closed down. There may also be a water table.

@The Rising Sun I guess the Shed End could be knocked down and built higher but I wonder what the impact on the Fulham Road from a construction perspective be. There could also be the impact of loss of light on houses on Fulham Road and roads off it. When plans were drawn up a few years ago someone (at the bottom of Seagrave Road?) commented about the loss of light. The old Shed End Wall may else have to be demolished. I'll check on the English Heritage website but I think the wall may be listed

@OTL If problems about loadings and foundations could be circumvented the West Stand - and also the East Stand - couldn't be made higher due to the old bye-law which states that there has to a be a clear view of St. Paul's Cathedral from a spot in Richmond Park. The line of sight runs through Stamford Bridge. Can't see that bye-law being repealed.

It has been suggested that the pitch goes below street level i.e. like the Camp Nou in Barcelona and the top of the lower tier is level with ground level. Then again because of the impact on railway lines, neighbouring buildings would that be feasible.

I guess that time will tell but a decision one way or another would be good.

The underground car park is large and must go under a lot the pitch and hotels

15 hours ago, Boyne said:

@dkw Like you I'm no architect but I know a few people in the building trade and I've been involved in building refurbishment projects. In addition to the impact on the railway lines and neighbouring buildings I wonder if there could be an impact on Brompton Cemetery. Also not sure what is under the ground. I know that there is the Under the Bridge venue but not sure what else. Possibly the car park extends under the ground. I guess that those could be closed down. There may also be a water table.

@The Rising Sun I guess the Shed End could be knocked down and built higher but I wonder what the impact on the Fulham Road from a construction perspective be. There could also be the impact of loss of light on houses on Fulham Road and roads off it. When plans were drawn up a few years ago someone (at the bottom of Seagrave Road?) commented about the loss of light. The old Shed End Wall may else have to be demolished. I'll check on the English Heritage website but I think the wall may be listed

@OTL If problems about loadings and foundations could be circumvented the West Stand - and also the East Stand - couldn't be made higher due to the old bye-law which states that there has to a be a clear view of St. Paul's Cathedral from a spot in Richmond Park. The line of sight runs through Stamford Bridge. Can't see that bye-law being repealed.

It has been suggested that the pitch goes below street level i.e. like the Camp Nou in Barcelona and the top of the lower tier is level with ground level. Then again because of the impact on railway lines, neighbouring buildings would that be feasible.

I guess that time will tell but a decision one way or another would be good.

1) ask the residents if the cemetery if they object….if no response, then assume they agree.

2) make the new stadium transparent….. you can then still see the cathedral through it. Or simply paint the cathedral in the outside…. From that distance people would never know .

2 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

1) ask the residents if the cemetery if they object….if no response, then assume they agree.

You’re undermining the popularity of the cemetery there Jim, I’ve heard people are dying to get in there.

This is the protected view from King Henry's mound in Richmond Park

3 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

1) ask the residents if the cemetery if they object….if no response, then assume they agree.

2) make the new stadium transparent….. you can then still see the cathedral through it. Or simply paint the cathedral in the outside…. From that distance people would never know .

This is the 'can do' attitude that won you Brits an empire!

This is the line of sight passing through Fulham/Chelsea

31 minutes ago, Valerie said:

This is the 'can do' attitude that won you Brits an empire!

It's the same "can do" attitude that landed them with the paedo's chum Duke of c**t.

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

This is the protected view from King Henry's mound in Richmond Park

Not an accurate view... These days its more like this:

1 hour ago, dermott said:

It's the same "can do" attitude that landed them with the paedo's chum Duke of c**t.

They lost the empire, but still have the one that so movingly volunteered to relinquish his titles 😄

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

This is the line of sight passing through Fulham/Chelsea

A quick zoom in via Google Earth highlights the issue !

Whatever happened to rights to views being irrelevant when it came to UK planning law LOL

Maybe BlueCo have some clever lawyers who can challenge this "sticking point" ?

Can't we buy St Paul's or Richmond and relocate them to Dakota or Idaho?

29 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

A quick zoom in via Google Earth highlights the issue !

Whatever happened to rights to views being irrelevant when it came to UK planning law LOL

Maybe BlueCo have some clever lawyers who can challenge this "sticking point" ?

26 minutes ago, RMH said:

Can't we buy St Paul's or Richmond and relocate them to Dakota or Idaho?

Alas, even with the cleverest lawyers Blue Co wouldn't stand a chance against the U.K. Government the City of London and the Church of England.

Perhaps St. Paul's Cathedral could be struck by lightning as the old one was in the late 16th century and then burnt down in the 2nd Great Fire of London of 1666 and replaced with the current one.

2 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Alas, even with the cleverest lawyers Blue Co wouldn't stand a chance against the U.K. Government the City of London and the Church of England.

Perhaps St. Paul's Cathedral could be struck by lightning as the old one was in the late 16th century and then burnt down in the 2nd Great Fire of London of 1666 and replaced with the current one.

A few large bribes it is then !

And looking at the sightline, I suppose they could still develop the Matthew Harding and Shed End, with the sightline over the top of the West and East stands unaffected by any further development on those ?

All moot, as BlueCo clearly aren't gong to do anything at all LOL

Edited October 21, 2025Oct 21 by Sexyfootball

2 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

A few large bribes it is then !

With the U.K. Budget coming up a lot of bribes would come in handy to the Government! Saying that the bribe would have to be several billion pounds. So no more buying players. Back to playing the youth team!

Im not opposed to bribery and corruption but looking at the overheads the Matthew Harding could be increased considerably, theres plenty of space behind it , surely it could take a large third tier and the shed end too to an extent, knock down the hotels etc and start again?

I dont know how wide the sight line needs to be but the east and west stands could perhaps be extended upwards with a funky gap in the middle of each! Some fancy shmancy designer artichect could sort that. 😎

Edited October 21, 2025Oct 21 by OTL

36 minutes ago, OTL said:

Im not opposed to bribery and corruption but looking at the overheads the Matthew Harding could be increased considerably, theres plenty of space behind it , surely it could take a large third tier and the shed end too to an extent, knock down the hotels etc and start again?

I dont know how wide the sight line needs to be but the east and west stands could perhaps be extended upwards with a funky gap in the middle of each! Some fancy shmancy designer artichect could sort that. 😎

Funnily enough, I already added another pair of lines to widen the "sightline" so you could see all of St Pauls :

Still looks like there would be options ...

Why don't we just put the whole new stadium on 100 foot high stilts....

Would need an escalator for me though, can't do that many stairs...

Apparently the view was destroyed by the large building behind it at Stratford !

Conservation and protection charity, Friends of Richmond Park, is saddened and outraged that one of London's most cherished and historic protected views – from King Henry's Mound in Richmond Park to St Paul's Cathedral – has been destroyed by the construction of a large, new development adjacent to the Olympic Park in Stratford, East London.

Before and after: left, the pristine, protected view of St Paul's from Richmond Park as it was. Right, St Paul's with the massive Manhattan Loft Gardens building under construction behind.

2 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Apparently the view was destroyed by the large building behind it at Stratford !

Conservation and protection charity, Friends of Richmond Park, is saddened and outraged that one of London's most cherished and historic protected views – from King Henry's Mound in Richmond Park to St Paul's Cathedral – has been destroyed by the construction of a large, new development adjacent to the Olympic Park in Stratford, East London.

Before and after: left, the pristine, protected view of St Paul's from Richmond Park as it was. Right, St Paul's with the massive Manhattan Loft Gardens building under construction behind.

I'd forgotten about that. I remember the London Borough of Newham being rebuked for allowing the building to go ahead without considering the impact on the view. Can't remember what happened subsequently. The same London Borough that was involved in West Ham paying a pittance in rent for the London Stadium.

6 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

This is the protected view from King Henry's mound in Richmond Park

Btw, can anyone see any part of our stadium in that view ? I think people probably go to the Mount to see Stamford Bridge and not St. Paul's.

I'd forgotten about that. I remember the London Borough of Newham being rebuked for allowing the building to go ahead without considering the impact on the view. Can't remember what happened subsequently. The same London Borough that was involved in West Ham paying a pittance in rent for the London Stadium.

17 minutes ago, Boyne said:

The taxpayer pays for the maintenance of the pitch, heating, electric, security, goalposts, corner flags etc.

West Ham get to keep all match day ticket revenue and a portion of catering revenue.

" 2024.. London Stadium cost the taxpayer more than

£50million last year — according to the firm that runs the Olympic landmark.

E20 LLP, the company that controls the stadium’s running, lost £51.3m in 2024 — the equivalent of almost £1m-a-week.

2 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I'd forgotten about that. I remember the London Borough of Newham being rebuked for allowing the building to go ahead without considering the impact on the view. Can't remember what happened subsequently. The same London Borough that was involved in West Ham paying a pittance in rent for the London Stadium.

The taxpayer pays for the maintenance of the pitch, heating, electric, security, goalposts, corner flags etc.

West Ham get to keep all match day ticket revenue and a portion of catering revenue.

" 2024.. London Stadium cost the taxpayer more than

£50million last year — according to the firm that runs the Olympic landmark.

E20 LLP, the company that controls the stadium’s running, lost £51.3m in 2024 — the equivalent of almost £1m-a-week.

Yes, the taxpayer has been well and truly shafted over the London Stadium. A joke that the taxpayer is subsiding a club which should be able to fund itself and pay all costs. As West Ham is supported by the London taxpayer perhaps other London clubs can have their flags flown on top of the London Stadium. Having the Millwall flag flown would cause riots!

32 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Btw, can anyone see any part of our stadium in that view ? I think people probably go to the Mount to see Stamford Bridge and not St. Paul's.

I'm tempted to visit Richmond Park with a pair of binoculars and a long lens camera to see what the view looks like.

3 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Yes, the taxpayer has been well and truly shafted over the London Stadium. A joke that the taxpayer is subsiding a club which should be able to fund itself and pay all costs. As West Ham is supported by the London taxpayer perhaps other London clubs can have their flags flown on top of the London Stadium. Having the Millwall flag flown would cause riots!

Taxpayer even had to pay for their failed naming rights deal. ..It's totally wrong that a PL club owned by millionaires should get any taxpayer money.

'The search for a naming rights sponsor for Premier League club West Ham United’s London Stadium has cost UK taxpayers nearly UK£450,000.

The 66,000-seater venue’s owner, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC), has been criticised for wasting money in the process, with two agencies reportedly having been paid a total of UK£447,000 to try and source a naming rights partner.

IMG netted UK£260,000 after being hired by the LLDC in 2013, while ESP was paid UK£187,000 when it was retained by LLDC’s subsidiary E20 for 16 months from March 2015."