Jump to content

£500 million plan for new Stamford Bridge


hudsonalan

Recommended Posts


For me its very sad. Like many here I watched the bridge getting built to the ground we know today from the benches to the bucket sits in the shed it was a struggle for the club to keep the ground and develop it. I remember when the west upper opened and I was in the upper tier looking around and thinking we finally have a completed home. Watching the bridge get built was a big part of my childhood but on the plus side we will be still on the property we fought so hard to keep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly every club is moving their stadium these days, i don't see the big deal. Old Trafford is the only ground that is fortunate enough to be located where it is, whereas at least we can still stay put in the exact same location and still have our name to it. It would be interesting to see what the architecture's plans are, because with Roman being Russian and having a taste for the finer things, you can be sure he'll want state of the art design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad because while it's on the same spot, it's not the same stadium. However, being on the same spot is preferable to moving.

 

I think it's necessary to increase our capacity and this is the best and most realistic way to go about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I wonder is where this £500 million is going to come from. I hope it's Roman who foots that bill, as I don't want us to do an Arsenal for 15 years while we wait for it to pay off.

 

Otherwise this is great news - we need a bigger stadium to compete with the major clubs out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Of course it's sad, it's sad that the first stadium with a 100k+ capacity is long gone, but it's also exciting, a new chapter in our history is unfolding, and fingers crossed, we'll be here to see it happen.

 

This will be the first time in our history that we have had a complete new stadium erected, rather than a new stand or two.

 

Am I right in thinking, if it's a complete new layout of the site, then we can only do a 60k stadium if we gain extra land, or we dig down ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad because while it's on the same spot, it's not the same stadium. However, being on the same spot is preferable to moving.

 

I think it's necessary to increase our capacity and this is the best and most realistic way to go about it.

 

But then Stamford Bridge already isn't the same stadium it was 25 years ago. Staying at Stamford Bridge, even in a new format, is much better than moving elsewhere. Chelsea just wouldn't be the same without the Bridge, and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see not having the bridge for 3 years causing problems to our chances of winning silverware.

 

Think it'll be weird for a while, playing at a 'neutral venue' but after a while we might get used to it. Three years is a long time though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Playing at Twickenham or Wembley should help with the ticket demands at least. Wonder if the club will lower the ticket prices to ensure it sells out

 

Think they might have to because travel costs for some might increase. Can't imagine they'd use the whole stadium on matchdays though.

 

Would have been a million times better to just move.

 

Easier, yes. Better? I'm not sure. After it's done we're going to have a brand new stadium in the same place.

 

But in those three years we're going to have a whole different arena, a lack of home advantage for a while and I reckon some real issues with the pitch. Short-term pain for long-term gain and generations to come have a great stadium that more of them can visit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think they might have to because travel costs for some might increase. Can't imagine they'd use the whole stadium on matchdays though.

 

 

Easier, yes. Better? I'm not sure. After it's done we're going to have a brand new stadium in the same place.

 

But in those three years we're going to have a whole different arena, a lack of home advantage for a while and I reckon some real issues with the pitch. Short-term pain for long-term gain and generations to come have a great stadium that more of them can visit.

With a still-cramped pitch that teams can park the bus easily against us on and a stadium design we probably wouldn't have plumped for had we had a more grandiose land area available to us with a capacity we'll probably revisit the same old expansion problems for in a decade's time or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


With a still-cramped pitch that teams can park the bus easily against us on and a stadium design we probably wouldn't have plumped for had we had a more grandiose land area available to us with a capacity we'll probably revisit the same old expansion problems for in a decade's time or so.

 

Isn't our 'cramped pitch' like one yard shorter than Arsenal's? Apparently it's only two yards shorter than Wembley's. Is it that big a deal?

 

Expansion problems in the future will exist though you'd assume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't our 'cramped pitch' like one yard shorter than Arsenal's? Apparently it's only two yards shorter than Wembley's. Is it that big a deal?

 

Expansion problems in the future will exist though you'd assume.

 

And the SB pitch is actually only marginally smaller than the Nou Camp's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannot say I am a fan of the two possible temporary venues being mentioned, but I guess there is little other choice. Not like any of our near neighbors would want to share with us lol.

 

Essentially though it means 3 years of no "home" games. 19 neutral ones in the league and however many in the cups. I know Wembely is like a second home to us, but I personally do not think the national stadium, either national stadium, should be used regularly by a club side. It is just wrong.

 

I want us to get a bigger capacity but part of me hopes the FA, and the RFU, turn down our requests to use those stadiums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hard to believe this will be a complete demolition and rebuild. The Hotel and Flats behind the Shed End will be one obstruction unless Roman buys that out (unlikely) it will probably be staying. I'm fairly sure I remember the Oswald Stoll residents being very touchy about anything too high on the West Stand side as well when that was being redeveloped due to rights of light etc. Those sort of issues can hold up any planning permission let alone a high-profile one like this would be. I imagine the redevelopment will focus on the Matthew Harding and East Stands with additional pedestrian access out of the ground? But that's just a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then Stamford Bridge already isn't the same stadium it was 25 years ago. Staying at Stamford Bridge, even in a new format, is much better than moving elsewhere. Chelsea just wouldn't be the same without the Bridge, and vice versa.

 

That's what I meant mate. I never want us to move from SW6.

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...

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!