Jump to content

Should We Move to a New Stadium?


Guest Brian M

Should We Get a New Stadium?  

40 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Yes - To be a 'big' club we really do need a 'big club' stadium
      15
    • No - We don't have the fan base for a bigger stadium
      20
    • Unsure
      5


Recommended Posts

Guest Brian M

So long as we stay within the same approximate geographic area, do you think Chelsea should move to a stadium that matches our new found status as a 'Big Club in Europe'?

(I'm talking an 80,000 + Wembley size stadium. The sort of stadium that Barca, Real etc would be happy to play in if they were here)

Pros: you'll never have to miss out on getting a ticket to a match again - even if you turn up on the day!

Pros: a home game atmosphere that would match any in the country.

Cons: we wouldn't be playing at our 'spiritual home'.

Cons: if we only get 50,000 to a home match, the ground would feel 'empty' and the atmosphere would suffer.

Pros: did I mention never having to miss out on a ticket ever again... icon_wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites


My preference would be to find a way one way or another to expand Stamford Bridge. Thats strongly my preference and I would only consider supporting a move to a new permanent home if it was so completely uneconomical to be a rediculous suggestion, and even then i'd still be hoping Roman would be prepared to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

icon_eek.gif No! The Bridge is our spiritual home for sure, and we have enough yuppy executives there already. With a bigger stadium, I have a feeling there would just be more, not adding to the atmosphere at all. Expanding would be a much better idea IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the changes we have seen at the club over the past 3 or 4 seasons, we have to be very careful to hang on to our identity and our history.

And a big part of that is the Bridge.

If the option is there to expand the bridge to 55,000, we should take it. A 50+ thousand seater stadium is a huge stadium, and there shoudn't be any problem with "atmosphere" if they do it right. Any of the Aussies who have been to Suncorp Stadium will agree with that.

And its not like we need the money generated from ticket sales either (which is a big reason why the Arse moved).

P.S. I voted no, but it has nothing to do with the fan base. I would imagine our current fan base is by far big enough to fill and 80,000 seater stadium, and if not, within 2 years it will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest Brian M
and if not, within 2 years it will be.

If that is the case, why do a short term up-grade to just 55,000 when by 2010 (when the 'new' Stamford Bridge would theoretically open) the stadium will already be too small?

Isn't it a bit like you or I putting up a single garage for the Jag when you already know the lady wife is going to be getting a company BMW with her new job in the summer, and will need somewhere to park it? - You know: kind of short sighted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No

I would rather we stayed at the Bridge with its current capacity forever than move to a new location irrrespective of what benefits that new location had to offer.

In football players, fans, manager's, programme sellers etc come and go, they move on, retire, lose interest, die etc.

The only thing that remains constant is the ground and its location. Move from that and we have surrender our link to the Chelsea we support. The Chelsea we have all watched, some of our fathers have watched and some of our grand athers have watched.

Move grounds and we may as well change our name (which last I heard we would still have to anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brian M

All valid - if syrupy and sentimental - points, Loz. But I have to disagree. A team is far, far more than a bit of real estate. No matter how many memories are invested in it. It's just bricks and mortar and a bit a grass, when it all boils down to it. Like the family home of your childhood that offers up so many wonderful memories. But the home you no longer live in.

Chelsea is something we carry inside us. For lack of a better way to describe it, let me say that, 'It's a knowing or sense of belonging'. And if you think that would leave ANY OF US just because the team moved a mile down the road, you are sorely mistaken.

You might just as well say that 'Chelsea' - the REAL Chelsea - is the 70s team of Osgood, Harris et all. And that this new incarnation isn't really Chelsea, because the players make the team (far more than the real estate). And those players are all gone. And this 'new' Chelsea will never be the same. After all, how many memories are invested in THAT Chelsea?

It's sentiment wrapped in filibuster, Loz. We have to move eventually. And we might as well do it now while we've got old money bags at the helm (and still excited about his new toy) and can do it WITHOUT going into debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might just as well say that 'Chelsea' - the REAL Chelsea - is the 70s team of Osgood, Harris et all. And that this new incarnation isn't really Chelsea, because the players make the team (far more than the real estate). And those players are all gone. And this 'new' Chelsea will never be the same. After all, how many memories are invested in THAT Chelsea?

Why might I just as well say that when I have already said quite clearly it isn't that.

Although I am referring to the ground itself (which, for me, is far more than 'real estate') I am referring to the location as well. When I go to the games I get off at Fulham Broadway, I turn left, I start to walk, I stop off at a pub or two, have a beer or six, etc etc - it actually means something to me that I am doing the same thing, on the same street as millions of Chelsea fans before me. Maybe it is 'syrupy and sentimental' but 'syrupy and sentimental' is what often makes things into something to cherish rather than an organisation with real estate.

We have to move eventually.

No we don't. Moving stadiums is still not the norm in football, it is the exception. Why do we have to move eventually? Because we are successful now? More popular now? We have been this way for a mere two seasons, that is a fraction of the lifespan of the club. Making strategic decisions based on two years of data is folly of the highest order.

And we might as well do it now while we've got old money bags at the helm (and still excited about his new toy) and can do it WITHOUT going into debt.

To be honest if Roman wanted to buy a 80,000 capacity stadium to move his toy into I would rather he found a new toy and left this one alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew Harding had it right and we should have built a 55,000 seater stadium when we had the chance. I do not think we would fill an 80,000 seater stadium we have to much competition in London. Barca are competing with 1 other club Madrid compete with 2 other clubs Newcastle have no competition and Manchester only have City which is why they have such big crowds.

We need to expand we have out grown 42,000 but we should look at possible ways of expanding at the Bridge. I personal think we will build a new stadium on the old gas works site at Lots Road

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x ... newmap.srf

This could easily accommodate a 65,000 seater stadium . So yes we should move

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest Brian M

Careful TBB - you don't want us to move there. That'll make Loz have to walk another couple of blocks (his major argument for not moving, apparently...) !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might just as well say that 'Chelsea' - the REAL Chelsea - is the 70s team of Osgood, Harris et all. And that this new incarnation isn't really Chelsea, because the players make the team (far more than the real estate). And those players are all gone. And this 'new' Chelsea will never be the same. After all, how many memories are invested in THAT Chelsea?

Why might I just as well say that when I have already said quite clearly it isn't that.

Although I am referring to the ground itself (which, for me, is far more than 'real estate') I am referring to the location as well. When I go to the games I get off at Fulham Broadway, I turn left, I start to walk, I stop off at a pub or two, have a beer or six, etc etc - it actually means something to me that I am doing the same thing, on the same street as millions of Chelsea fans before me. Maybe it is 'syrupy and sentimental' but 'syrupy and sentimental' is what often makes things into something to cherish rather than an organisation with real estate.

We have to move eventually.

No we don't. Moving stadiums is still not the norm in football, it is the exception. Why do we have to move eventually? Because we are successful now? More popular now? We have been this way for a mere two seasons, that is a fraction of the lifespan of the club. Making strategic decisions based on two years of data is folly of the highest order.

And we might as well do it now while we've got old money bags at the helm (and still excited about his new toy) and can do it WITHOUT going into debt.

To be honest if Roman wanted to buy a 80,000 capacity stadium to move his toy into I would rather he found a new toy and left this one alone.

My sentiments exactly Loz. The stadium, its name and the name Chelsea Football Club are the only constante in the fickle, everchanging world of football. The fact that players, managers, club employees, supporters, success and failure come and go, is in my humble opinion exactly the reason why we should hold on our stadium in the location where it is. It's been our home since we started. Everytime I walk past the wall that was part of the original Shed End, I think of the supporters before me who have been standing there cheering or moaning ages ago, and it makes me feel part of history. It's part of how we carry Chelsea inside, as Brian M puts it.

I'd love some more capacity at the Bridge, but within reason. I don't want to move into some overlarge, concrete, hollow building, that lacks the character and the 'ghosts of matches past'. I'm not entirely sure it would improve the atmosphere either. Over time I've read numerous complaints on this forum how subdued some supporters can be, no singing, no bantering, only the salmon sandwiche crowd. I fear that will only get worse if we get a 55,000+ stadium: more of those so-called gold diggers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="

The stadium' date=' its name and the name Chelsea Football Club are the only constante in the fickle, everchanging world of football. The fact that players, managers, club employees, supporters, success and failure come and go, is in my humble opinion exactly the reason why we should hold on our stadium in the location where it is. [/quote]

Okay compare Stamford Bridge today in 2006 to Stamford Bridge in 1986 the only thing you would recognize is the East Stand . Take it back another 20 years to 1966 and you would not recognize anything from that stadium today ? the only constant is the name of the club and the name of the ground everything else has evolved and changed.Which is why I don't buy into the misty eyed myopia which stops us moving on.

If moving and building a new ground a mile away lays the foundations for another 100 years of history that must be for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote=

The stadium' date=' its name and the name Chelsea Football Club are the only constante in the fickle, everchanging world of football. The fact that players, managers, club employees, supporters, success and failure come and go, is in my humble opinion exactly the reason why we should hold on our stadium in the location where it is. [/quote]

Okay compare Stamford Bridge today in 2006 to Stamford Bridge in 1986 the only thing you would recognize is the East Stand . Take it back another 20 years to 1966 and you would not recognize anything from that stadium today ? the only constant is the name of the club and the name of the ground everything else has evolved and changed.Which is why I don't buy into the misty eyed myopia which stops us moving on.

If moving and building a new ground a mile away lays the foundations for another 100 years of history that must be for the better.

Yes, much has changed in and around Stamford Bridge, and they were improvements. They are allowed in a home, aren't they?

But why must a new ground be for the better? What's better? I haven't read any argument, apart from more seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, much has changed in and around Stamford Bridge, and they were improvements. They are allowed in a home, aren't they?

But why must a new ground be for the better? What's better? I haven't read any clear argument, apart from more seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


("Valerie

Yes @ much has changed in and around Stamford Bridge, and they were improvements. They are allowed in a home, aren't they?

But why [:)

must[/b] a new ground be for the better? What's better? I haven't read any argument, apart from more seats.

Where do you keep the 3rd kid in the family home you don't keep him in the garden you move to find the extra room if you can't make the old home bigger ?

A new home would be much better in my mind IF built properly.

We would have more seats as already stated.

Better views (Ask anyone who has the misfortune to sit in the back row of the East Stand lower /Upper and the back row of the Matthew Harding Lower)

Better playing surface

Better facilities in the ground

Easier access to and from the stadium.

Better atmosphere with the return of partial terracing

Possibility of cheaper match day tickets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fun icon_lol.gif

I wouldn't move for the 3rd kid: with a lot less money and some inspired architectural design, extra room can as easily be created.

I grant you the better views and the better facilities in the ground, although a lot can be done towards the latter around the Bridge now.

- Better playing surface: no guarantees for that! In a reasonably new ground like the Amsterdam Arena, the surface has to be re-laid as many times as in the Bridge.

- Easier access to and from the stadium: solvable at Stamford Bridge, if you get planning permission to do something with the area where now the railroad is. I've read about the possibilities that offers, but forgot the details; I remember it was a very viable option.

- Better atmosphere with the return of partial terracing: again no guarantee. If (and that is a big if I'm afraid) those many extra seats are populated, it's entirely possible they are filled with tourists who have done Westminster Abbey in the morning, and now "do a football match" in the afternoon. And what if/when Chelsea slip back to mid-table? Who will fill all those seats then? Not the so-called gold diggers, not the occasional visitor, only the faithful. Not a bad word about them, but with many empty seats the atmosphere would suffer.

- Possibility of cheaper match day tickets? Yeah right :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we place a twist on this and ask a different question.

If we were to move stadiums AND this meant we had to surrender the Chelsea Football Club Name AND some dissident fans decided to keep the Chelsea name alive much the same way as AFC Wimbledon have by creating a team that plays in non-league football under the name of Chelsea FOotball Club which team would you support?

Chelsea Football Club in the non league or Earls Court FC at the top of the Premiership?

(I accept this is a slightly daft question as there are too many ANDs, IFs and BUTs that can be thrown into the equation.

Personally I would have no hesitation in supporting CHelsea Football CLub in non league football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we place a twist on this and ask a different question.

If we were to move stadiums AND this meant we had to surrender the Chelsea Football Club Name AND some dissident fans decided to keep the Chelsea name alive much the same way as AFC Wimbledon have by creating a team that plays in non-league football under the name of Chelsea FOotball Club which team would you support?

Chelsea Football Club in the non league or Earls Court FC at the top of the Premiership?

(I accept this is a slightly daft question as there are too many ANDs, IFs and BUTs that can be thrown into the equation.

Personally I would have no hesitation in supporting CHelsea Football CLub in non league football.

Earl's Court FC aint Chelsea! No connection to Harris,Tambling,Zola,Terry,Dixon,Ossie,Greaves,Bonetti.....well you get my meaning If they kept the Chelsea FC name and stayed in SW London and called the new stadium (New) Stanford Bridge then I wouldn't have a problem with a move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest Brian M
How about we place a twist on this and ask a different question.

Are you a magician, Loz? Because you seem very quick at the old, 'Bait and Switch'. One minute you're arguing your point that we can't move because of X or Y. And then when your argument is shot down by some good old fashioned common sense - instead of admitting you were wrong, or even defending your point of view with a counter argument that holds any water - you do the old, 'bait and switch' shuffle to try to change the subject; and hope nobody will notice!

(Kenn, if you're reading this, take note at young Loz's sneaky debating tactics. It may come in handy next time you're mono-a-mono with him!) icon_wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i feel it should be noted that Arsenal are and were one of the world's biggest clubs having a 36k seater as their home for decades upon decades

Stamford Bridge is a hallowed and revered ground not only for us, but around English football. We dont need a new, super seater simply to hang with the crowds of the other top teams when we are so well financed as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Brian M
Stamford Bridge is a hallowed and revered ground not only for us, but around English football.

No it's not. Aside from Chelsea fans, nobody gives a rat's a*se about Stamford Bridge. Same for most of the grounds in the country (with the possible exception of Anfield and maybe, Old Trafford - and I mention those only because of the amount of 'Big European Nights' those grounds have seen compared to everyone else).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. Aside from Chelsea fans, nobody gives a rat's a*se about Stamford Bridge.

Doesn't matter if they don't, what matters is that we do (we being Chelsea fans).

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see us play in a 100,000 odd seater stadium one day. But i'd much prefer it to be a redeveloped Stamford Bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

Alright already, It's off!