It looks as though the move to Battersea has collapsed now that BPS has been bought by a bunch from Malaysia; "Chelsea's hopes of moving to Battersea Power Station are over after a Malaysian consortium finished due diligence on a £400m deal to buy the site on the banks of the River Thames."
Thats the big question! Earls Courts out and I have the worst forboding that the board may be looking at Shepherds Bush around the old BBC--which is exactly where I personally dont want to go!
I don't want to go anywhere. SB is our home. Not Battersea, Earls Court or anywhere else. I'm a traditionalist and I feel that our traditions should be respected.
Why don't we knock over that waste of space Chelsea Harbour ???? Alternatively that huge paddock at Chelsea Bridge. It's only used once a year for the Chelsea Flower show, move that to Battersea Park.
That land is part of Chelsea Hospital and is deeded never to change use. I thought Sheperds Bush had gone too and was going to be a Uni Campus or some such thing. Perhaps for our traditionalist friends we can knock down the Shed and put up a corrugated iron hut and put portakabins back to piss in.
I cant see why we dont take Hammersmith & Fulham to their word and see how they can facilitate the increased capacity at SB. If we could get it to 50k, that seems good enough in my opinion!
This I wasn't averse to Battersea, wouldn't have minded Earls Court either as you can see SB from there, but we'd all rather stay at home if it can be worked out.
Apart from the club not seeing any value in adding 10k seats at such an enormous cost which would also mean moving for 3 years. No,apart from that it sounds easy.
Exactly. The cost of adding just a few thousand extra seats is simply costs prohibitive. The only other option I thought at S.B is whether there is any prospect of introducing a standing area. I read fairly recently that this could be considered again as had worked well in Germany. Maybe that would entail less stadium development but not really sure. Away from S.B I'd personally be willing to move a little further out if it meant getting a state of the art stadium, big enough and without the travel nightmares that 60k in Fulham presents. I know people from the area won't agree but all avenues should be explored.
ha ha i remember the portakabins, first time i went in there i thought there must be a leak as loads of water was running out the door, yeah right, little did i know !!
I don't mean to jump the gun or have a go here but nobody wants to leave the Bridge, but if push comes to shove we may have to. I respect that
United have re-developed Old Trafford several times in recent years and have never had to move out or even have large portions of the ground closed for any significant length of time, why would you have to move out for three years to add 10k seats?
Agree with this. Don't remember us moving out when the ground was developed. I just feel that the soul of the club is in SB.
The problem is with egress not re-development as such. There is only one exit route from the Bridge and that is the Fulham Road. There-in lies the problem.
You need to contact Chelsea FC mate because apparently they have wasted the best part of 2M on studies that you apparently can overcome. I'm sure they will be extremely grateful and wonder why the **** no one else but you could sort it out.
I can see that you want to move, which is fair enough, but why do you get so bloody aggresive when someone disagrees with your opinions? Who the hell do you think you are?
All he said was that they had redeveloped the ground and didn't have to move. As I also pointed out, we didn't move when we redeveloped. If CFC say that it ain't viable then fair enough. As long as all avenues have been explored.
The thing with standing is that everyone could do it and Chelsea in relative terms would be back to square one.
