Just a thought on what everyone thinks about where our temporary home away from home should be during the building of the new stadium?

Think this has been done before. Wembley seems to be the only real option, but i personally hate the idea of being there for 3 years.

Edited April 27, 20188 yr by Kev56

3 years.........

3 years is a bloody long time. 3 years ago we were winning the league with Mourinho.

Help redevelope Craven Cottage with Fulham and stay there please. I can’t be doing with this traipsing to Wembley lark thanks. 

6 minutes ago, dansubrosa said:

3 years is a bloody long time. 3 years ago we were winning the league with Mourinho.

And that feels like last week  Three years will be over before we know it.

1 minute ago, Valerie said:

And that feels like last week  Three years will be over before we know it.

It’s alright for you armchair fans! 

1 minute ago, Munkworth said:

It’s alright for you armchair fans! 

It's not my experience that  Wembley's seats are more cushy and comfy than those at Stamford Bridge 

2 minutes ago, Valerie said:

It's not my experience that  Wembley's seats are more cushy and comfy than those at Stamford Bridge 

It’s not the seats it’s the traveling to the sh*t side of London. I’m a naughty stander anyway!

No option is very appealing really is it? Wembley, apart from being far away is possibly a threat to the teams performances as Spurs found out in their early period of playing there. Craven Cottage is fine if the club is happy with banishing some season ticket holders and the all their club members from getting to a game for three years. And the added risk that in that time some may choose not to return regularly or at all. Imagine a 60'000 seater stadium with even more tourists and JCL's filling it - or if we don't get over this current malaise with only 50% occupied. And the 'other' option is at present nothing isn't it?

I guess there's even a new question mark over Wembley with the possible sale to this Fulham/NFL fella.

I know Twickenham had been mentioned before but I haven't heard it mentioned much recently. Never been there so don't know anything about it really... what are the thoughts on it from the folks that have been there compared to Wembley and as a possible home? Craven Cottage just seems like a bad idea to me but I don't know sh*t 

21 minutes ago, chiefBlueCFC said:

I know Twickenham had been mentioned before but I haven't heard it mentioned much recently. Never been there so don't know anything about it really... what are the thoughts on it from the folks that have been there compared to Wembley and as a possible home? Craven Cottage just seems like a bad idea to me but I don't know sh*t 

I’ve been there a few times but that was always for the Army Navy Rugby match so my archives are incomplete 

People complain about getting to Wembley, but Twickenham is far worse. At least with Wembley there are different realistic transport options. Plus it’s closer to me 

2 hours ago, Munkworth said:

Help redevelope Craven Cottage with Fulham and stay there please. I can’t be doing with this traipsing to Wembley lark thanks. 

Mate if we go to Craven Cottage then members like us won't even get to go anymore!

At a recent fans forum it was announced that the club  are currently looking at 9 locations all within the M25 . It is also highly likely that we will be away from SB for at least 4 years and that it could well be that more than one venue could be used.

1 hour ago, chiefBlueCFC said:

I know Twickenham had been mentioned before but I haven't heard it mentioned much recently. Never been there so don't know anything about it really... what are the thoughts on it from the folks that have been there compared to Wembley and as a possible home? Craven Cottage just seems like a bad idea to me but I don't know sh*t 

We are not welcome there. Us the unwashed would not be aloud to sully their hollowed turf.

4 hours ago, boomerdog said:

Mate if we go to Craven Cottage then members like us won't even get to go anymore!

The idea floating around was we’d help them increase their capacity so I’d still hold out hope. 

Would Craven Cottage still be an option if they are promoted to the PL which looks very likely? Their owned is also buying Wembley which might make things interesting.

26 minutes ago, ducavis said:

Would Craven Cottage still be an option if they are promoted to the PL which looks very likely? Their owned is also buying Wembley which might make things interesting.

We have more season tickets than they have seats

20 hours ago, Munkworth said:

Help redevelope Craven Cottage with Fulham and stay there please. I can’t be doing with this traipsing to Wembley lark thanks. 

I don't think they will need any help, their owner is royaly minted.

I see Wembley as the only realistic option.

Fulham is too small under 30k from a business perspective that does not make sense.

Twickenham has the capacity yet can't see Rugby doing football a favour and is also tricky to get to for many.

 

17 hours ago, Kev56 said:

We are not welcome there. Us the unwashed would not be aloud to sully their hollowed turf.

I think they might for 3 years of rent money, I seem to remember the locals kicking up a fuss about the thought of having football fans going there every week/2 weeks. Maybe the council didn't allow it.

Also depending on where you live Twickenham can be a real bitch to get to

Shame because Twickenham is just down the road from me.

Could be the Olympic stadium now, better than Wembley just?

The Cottage and Wembley being potentially owned by the same person makes it possible that we'd get neither ground to use.

Logistically speaking, the Cottage shouldn't even be on the table, we shouldn't be attempting to re-develop the Bridge and helping out a guy whos willing to spend some 800m on buying Wembley, o do up the Cottage either.

Best case scenario is we end up at Wembley, its probably the best of the options available to Chelsea.