Chelsea: New Home at Stamford Bridge Pt 1
By dixon9
November 1 2008
One of the most burning questions on the minds of Chelsea fans over recent seasons has been with regard to where we will be playing our home games in the future – our 103 year home and beloved Stamford Bridge or a new dwelling on a nearby site in SW London? Recent rumours spell good news for those of us who long for the former.
Apparently, "big moves on the construction front are to be announced by the end of the season which are going to be very well received by Chelsea fans."
"Agreements in principle with Network Rail and the local authority over the expansion have already been reached according to some. An extra tier on the Mathew Harding stand, with the condition that a bridge is built over the railway line, by the club will get the ok from the council."
Views of the MH Stand (and East Stand) where the exapansion will be affected
"They know we're effectively landlocked and with the current climate on high end domestic property, the Stamford Bridge land value wouldn´t yield as much as first envisaged – not the time to move on - It's the right time to allow it to happen as construction is on its backside and contract costs make it viable."
The safety issues which the local council has used to keep us in check (even going back to the days of Bates) have been overcome.
"A means of escape is resolved now via Brompton which the fire officers had never previously taken too."
Although we know just how some of these rumours work (…a mate of mine whose girlfriend knows the daughter of Ethel, the players tea lady, overheard this the day “blah blah blah…”) this particular one was in circulation some time ago and has resurfaced very recently – most importantly, it aligns with Kenyon’s declaration in an interview with BBC´s Mihir Bose that we are looking to stay at the Bridge and a further separate rumour a few months ago that the club had finally thawed out a stubborn local council.
Apparently the draft plans "look incredible and would put capacity at c.65k" - although I would seriously doubt this figure. Kenyon has already said that the most we could expand by is around 10,000 more giving us a capacity of around 52,000 – but not having seen the plans and with the possibility that the extra tier would include the MH wrap-arounds we shall see.
Clutching at too many rumours? Possibly (No, definitely! – Ed) but there seems to be just too much smoke on this one for there not to be any fire at all.
Kenyon from some months ago (around 8 mins 40 secs into the interview he comments on the Bridge)
http://uk.truveo.com/Indepth-interview-Chelseas-Peter-Kenyon/id/3006081829
Earlier renovation work at Stamford Bridge
At a fans forum some time ago the club were asked about a move or staying:
“We are continuing to look at the options, but are limited on all fronts. There are major issues regarding the first choice of increasing capacity at Stamford Bridge because the ground is hemmed in on all sides.
“A 60,000 seater stadium takes 20 acres and Stamford Bridge has a maximum of 13. The Club is currently at the maximum capacity for a site of this size. However, finding a 20 acre site nearby is extremely difficult. Negotiations would have to be conducted with the CPO as well.
“The Club has not exhausted the possibilities of Stamford Bridge. Moving to a new stadium from start to finish takes a minimum of 5 years anyway.” (In a straw poll of the Forum, fans were overwhelmingly against the idea of moving location, even within an arbitrary 5 mile radius).
Earls Court Exhibition Centre with their huge Seagrave Road car park has been mentioned in the press as a site for a move along with Stratford's Olympic Stadium, Battersea power station and White City in west London.
Of course, the reasons for a move or an extended Bridge are two-fold; an increase in match day revenue that will boost annual turnover figures and a current list of 65,000 members (besides 24,000 ST holders - the club restricts the amount to this figure) that could see more Chelsea matches at the Bridge.With the club confident of sustained success the members figure would increase further.
.
(continue to part 2)
LINK
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
LINK
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Up to 75,000 capacity - he is having a laugh - we reckon about 60,000 max.
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
No.
Can´t see us moving - and I prefer us stay in our spiritual home. Ok, if we did move, no doubt the stadium would be something spectacular - probably the best in the country BUT...no....it´s the Bridge for me. We have tradition to preserve.
A nice 50-55,000 capacity Bridge would be ideal - any bigger and you start to lose something...atmosphere.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
I don't wanna move - simple solution, just knock the bleeding hotels down.
The only correct point in that article was the pitch owners scheme which was set up to protect SB from developers.
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
The hotel is a problem given that Bates (for example) owns one of the apartments - and there´s no way he´ll give way to Roman (unless Roman makes him some rediculous offer to shift).
As you say transport is a problem and any tube station in the vincinity is a fair ol walk from Battersea power station.
Personally, I´ll be pleased when all this speculation is over and we know where we are.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
That won't happem cos the American Embassy is planning to move from Grosvenor Square to Wandsworth Road and their site is just up to road.
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
No ideal site to move to - yet obstacles to overcome with the council if we stay.
I feel reasonably confident that we will soften them (probably with some kind of incentive) and build an extra 10,000 at the Bridge - which I think, is what the majority of us want anyway.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
One HOK employee said: 'The presentation was very impressive and was common knowledge around the place. Everyone was talking about it and the pictures of the new stadium were stuck up on the walls at the Putney office.'
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:10:21:44:30 by dixon9.
A statement from Chelsea read: "This story is total nonsense. Chelsea is not actively considering moving to this site in Battersea.
"Chelsea has been linked with a whole host of high profile sites in London before, including this one.
"We are approached on a regular basis by developers and others with a commercial interest in driving up the price of property.
"The architects HOK have not been commissioned by Chelsea to build a stadium and do not work for the club. Their approach was unsolicited.
"Chelsea's position on stadium development is very clear. We will not be considering moving away from our present stadium until all possibilities of redeveloping Stamford Bridge are exhausted."
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Regarding talk of stadium moves etc and the
image posted by Onedalejasper earlier, there are plans for what is called "Crossrail 2". As the link to the article suggests, this won't be a priority until the East London line and Crossrail 1 are completed. However the plans do suggest a new station in Chelsea with links to Central London.
I don't know the exact location of the Gas Works near Chelsea, but there will also be a new station called "Imperial Wharf" which is due to open in 2010 as part of the London Overground network. I would assume the club are looking at potential sites in good locations with the necessary transport infrastructure to move 60K+ crowds in and out.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
The site is to the left of West Brompton, near the river and near the railway line where Imperial Wharf station is being built.
Don't Gamble, Bet Risk Free
Here´s a photo to back the map up:
IMPERIAL WHARF
So we could be near the river like Fulham!
Not too far from the Bridge either.
As I said before, any new stadium would surely be spectacular - but I still prefer to stay at the Bridge.
.
"It is born out of hypocrisy and fundamental insecurity. There have been two kids on the block for the past 12 years. Suddenly, there is a third and that one is threatening to be more successful than the others and they don’t like it." P Kenyon.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008:11:10:21:45:48 by dixon9.