Sorry state of affairs really when the official site has nothing whatsoever on this story and we need to rely on the fan sites to find out what's happening. Is the official site really only good for squeezing another few shillings out of us with whatever is the latest money spinning wheeze?

Sorry state of affairs really when the official site has nothing whatsoever on this story and we need to rely on the fan sites to find out what's happening. Is the official site really only good for squeezing another few shillings out of us with whatever is the latest money spinning wheeze?

 

To be fair, Chelsea haven't bid for the site. If they do, they will announce it. Sure, there may be discussions taking place behind the scenes, regarding this and other possibilities, but by their very nature these conversations can't be brought into the pubic domain until there is something more concrete to report.

 

It's the same with transfers. Things have to take place behind closed doors.

So it seems that this piece of land is indeed "awkward" in its narrowness to build a stadium on, however it is a VERY significant opened door to Earl's Court.

 

Anyone not following

@CFCTruth

should do so, they have been alluding to Lillie Bridge for months.

 

I've followed that blog for a long time and anyone interested in the stadium issue should do the same. Informed and reasonable IMO. By far the best source of information. Unfortunately updates are sporadic, but I guess there just isn't much to say most of the time.

The Samsung Arena

 

Sounds good to me.

The Samsung Arena. Well if they're going to put in a substantial amount into the project then they would have every right to expect their name in lights so to speak. People might not like the idea right now but if Arsenal fans can get used to The Emirates I'm sure we could get used to whatever ours would be called. The bottom line is it wouldn't be Stamford Bridge so it wouldn't be as if we were renaming our current home. 

 

The Samsung arena would be a stupid name. Samsung won't be our sponsers for ever and it would be really annoying to see the name of the sponser on our new stadium. Arsenal and City fans maybe happy with a stupid name for their stadiums but i don't think us Chelsea fans will be.

Bamford Stridge

Bamford Stridge

 

A mix of Sturridge and Patrick Bamford?

That site is too far the wrong way. Battersea was the best option if we had to do it.

It looks too narrow, although the area to the right hand side of the site doesn't look particularly notable, so could maybe be bought up.

 

All the better to build large single tier end seating stands!

So it seems that this piece of land is indeed "awkward" in its narrowness to build a stadium on, however it is a VERY significant opened door to Earl's Court.

 

I think you're correct, Fatty.

 

It's narrower than the current site, apparently narrower than the distance between the back of the East and West Stands, and that is way too narrow for our purposes.

 

However, if we acquire the site, the plans for the development of EC (the so called "masterplan") are affected, there are other reasons why they may be affected also, and this only enhances our chances of building a ground on the site, as eventually the developers may want to do a deal with us, and the borough may have no option but to agree.

 

The site as a whole (77 acres I believe) falls into both RBKC and RBHF boroughs, but I'm not sure which of the two boroughs the Lillie Bridge site falls into, I think Kensington & Chelsea but I could be wrong. 

 

RBHF don't want to lose us and, as things stand, RBKC don't want us anywhere near EC, but that may change if the plans for which they have granted permission can no longer go ahead, plans which involve kicking people out of their homes, and which have met with huge objection from those residents, who are fighting an ongoing battle.

 

I suspect, if we were to move borough, LBHF would suddenly become far more cooperative regarding expansion of SB. Currently we just don't have enough space, and there is nothing we can do to change that. Sure, we may be able to squeeze 8000 more seats in but it is totally unviable and fraught with problems, as anyone who has followed this issue will know. Some people suspect Chelsea have an agenda and could expand quite easily at SB if they so wished. They are entirely wrong, IMO, and it's a ludicrous accusation.

 

I truly believe the club would prefer to stay at SB but it isn't viable unless RBHF start putting their money where their mouth is, which they have never done before in our entire history. Chelsea want to move for good reason.

 

The other thing to note is this .. If we were to acquire Lillie Bridge it would cost a lot, obviously, particularly as we would be bidding on the open market. The sellers are trying to gain the most revenue, hence the auction. That would be a huge outlay (upwards of £200m) before we even get to work on a ground and all the huge costs that incurs (design, build, transport links, planning, surveys etc etc). Any purchase of Lillie Bridge would be offset of course by the eventual sale of SB, were we to move, and SB is worth a lot because it is a prime piece of real estate in a very desirable location ..

 

Edit: Either that or Roman will build his new residence on there.

Edited June 9, 201312 yr by Davey Baby

Sorry, last thing, and forgive me if it's been stated ..

 

Battersea Power Station (BPS) is not entirely dead in the water, as far as Chelsea are concerned, although the suspicion is Chelsea only bid for it as a warning to LBHF that they were prepared to leave the borough (BPS falls in the London Borough of Wandsworth I believe).

 

If Chelsea are serious about Battersea (which I personally doubt) they will have noted this from 2 weeks ago (look at the top of the page) ..

 

http://www.batterseapowerstation.org.uk/news/latest_news.html

 

The Malaysians who succeeded with their bid don't appear to have the necessary funds, and this potentially lets Chelsea in.

 

The reason I suspect we're not serious about Battersea is that I can't imagine Roman would have allowed himself to be outbid by the Malaysians if he really wanted the site, but I could be wrong.

 

The reason Roman wouldn't be serious? Either because it's unviable (don't forget there will be a lot of protest whatever we do) or because he has his eyes on something else.

 

Edit: When I say "protest" I'm not talking about CPO, I'm talking about other outside objections.

Edited June 9, 201312 yr by Davey Baby

Doubt they would fill a 60,000 stadium.Anywhere else just wouldn't feel the same.

At current prices we would fill if v UnitedWestHamLiverpool + Arsenal/Spurs and maybe City at a stretch but not anybody else.

They need a ticket pricing strategy in place before they can think about moving.

At current prices we would fill if v UnitedWestHamLiverpool + Arsenal/Spurs and maybe City at a stretch but not anybody else.

They need a ticket pricing strategy in place before they can think about moving.

Exactly,5 games per season, and that's if they are on a weekend. I can only see the ticket prices increasing, although logic would say to introduce a strategic ticketing policy.

At current prices we would fill if v UnitedWestHamLiverpool + Arsenal/Spurs and maybe City at a stretch but not anybody else.

They need a ticket pricing strategy in place before they can think about moving.

I bet one of the reasons for the high prices is the fairly small capacity of Stamford Bridge. Bigger stadiums tend to have more reasonably priced tickets available as well as the expensive ones. Now just about every seat is premium priced, because of the small capacity.

Edited June 9, 201312 yr by Maksimov

I bet one of the reasons for the high prices is the fairly small capacity of Stamford Bridge. Bigger stadiums tend to have more reasonably priced tickets available as well as the expensive ones. Now just about every seat is premium priced, because of the small capacity.

 

To be honest, Bayern are a good example of something we could emulate. The Allianz Arena has a capacity of 71,000, and most tickets are around 10 euros from what I've heard. In theory we could surely do something similar, as it means the stadium gets filled, there's still a large amount of money coming in, the new generations of fans can actually afford to go to games and fans like the ones Carlashton Blue was mentioning can also still afford it. Of course it all sounds simple to us, but it could be and probably is more complicated than that.

Edited June 9, 201312 yr by omnidroid70

Arsenal didn't get any cheaper and I can see us being in the same boat. The supporters always loose out.

Arsenal didn't get any cheaper and I can see us being in the same boat. The supporters always loose out.

I bet some of it depends on how much loaned money is used in building the stadium and what are the running costs of the stadium.

Edited June 9, 201312 yr by Maksimov

If samsung remain i fancy 'Samsung Colliseum',in homage to Emperor Roman!

Super Frank Arena.

Sumsang Arena, a bloody apt name for us, up there with The Library.

Sorry, last thing, and forgive me if it's been stated ..

 

Battersea Power Station (BPS) is not entirely dead in the water, as far as Chelsea are concerned, although the suspicion is Chelsea only bid for it as a warning to LBHF that they were prepared to leave the borough (BPS falls in the London Borough of Wandsworth I believe).

 

If Chelsea are serious about Battersea (which I personally doubt) they will have noted this from 2 weeks ago (look at the top of the page) ..

 

http://www.batterseapowerstation.org.uk/news/latest_news.html

 

The Malaysians who succeeded with their bid don't appear to have the necessary funds, and this potentially lets Chelsea in.

 

The reason I suspect we're not serious about Battersea is that I can't imagine Roman would have allowed himself to be outbid by the Malaysians if he really wanted the site, but I could be wrong.

 

The reason Roman wouldn't be serious? Either because it's unviable (don't forget there will be a lot of protest whatever we do) or because he has his eyes on something else.

 

Edit: When I say "protest" I'm not talking about CPO, I'm talking about other outside objections.

I heard it was a blind auction, therefore Roman wouldn't have known what they bid.

To be honest, Bayern are a good example of something we could emulate. The Allianz Arena has a capacity of 71,000, and most tickets are around 10 euros from what I've heard. In theory we could surely do something similar, as it means the stadium gets filled, there's still a large amount of money coming in, the new generations of fans can actually afford to go to games and fans like the ones Carlashton Blue was mentioning can also still afford it. Of course it all sounds simple to us, but it could be and probably is more complicated than that.

 

If you can build a new stadium and still include reasonable pricing that would be great.  Allow younger fans into the stadium and hopefully as those fans earn more they can move up to the better seating as they make more money in life.  As long as that supports the clubs long term goal. 

I'm sorry to be so blunt but anyone thinking ticket prices could go down if we move to new, larger stadium is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I think you're correct, Fatty.

 

You may not be fond of him, Davey, but come on...

Edited June 10, 201312 yr by Teritus