LONDON | New Chelsea FC Stadium | 65,000 | Pre-planning

Starscraper · January 20th, 2006, 11:49 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ea/4630618.stm

Chelsea are reportedly interested in buying Earls Court Exhibition Centre in a £400m deal so they can build a new stadium to replace Stamford Bridge.

Blues owner Roman Abramovich is believed to be keen on the switch so he can fund a new 65,000-seater stadium, replacing their current 42,000 home.

A lack of space has prevented Chelsea increasing Stamford Bridge's capacity.

The Earls Court and Olympia complex are owned by St James Capital and they have "received approaches" said a spokesman.

Abramovich has grown increasingly frustrated at Stamford Bridge as there is not enough room around it to make it any bigger.

Yet Premiership rivals Manchester United will soon be playing in front of 75,000 at Old Trafford and Arsenal move into their new 60,000 stadium at Ashburton Grove next season.

St James' entrepreneurs put the Earls Court and Olympia site up for sale in December for £400m.

The entire site takes up around 36 acres, with Abramovich looking for 13 acres on which to build any potential new ground for Chelsea.

The Blues could then sell Stamford Bridge, which may be worth up to £500m.

Interesting, would they have to build a new arena to replace EC or would London be able to manage with Wembley Arena and the new one at the Dome?

Sparks · January 20th, 2006, 01:09 PM

There are major issues with trying to build a ground on the earls court site.

A) The site itself doesn't have approval for sport, music only.
B) Local residents might not be to keen on the idea
C) The railway lines that run under earls court 2, what happens to them?
D) Traffic issues, the place is already terribly overcrowded.
E) Is the site even big enough for a 60/70k stadium? If you look on google earth earls court 1 is about the size of a football pitch, could they build a stadium around something that size on that plot of land.

There is a large gas works a mile south of stamford bridge that is a better option imo, but I am sure they already know that.

TheFly · January 20th, 2006, 01:29 PM

Why move to a bigger ground, they are not a big club, fan wise. How many times have they failed to sell the capacity, even in a European Cup match.

Money does not make you a big club.

Bob · January 20th, 2006, 01:38 PM

I think the Chelsea fan base is ever growing. I don't see the rail lines to be a problem, especially as they are already covered to some extent.

sparks - I looked on google earth too! I think there is plenty of space if a bit of creativity is used.
Are there any reasons the heritage lobby would come out to 'save' Earls Court?

Noostairz · January 20th, 2006, 01:45 PM

well they're denying it now - instead they say they're planning to redevelop stamford bridge to make it a 50,000+ capacity stadium. how, who knows...

Sparks · January 20th, 2006, 01:47 PM

Seeing the back of earls court would be a plus though the place is a dump, it a disgrace that it is considered the only large music venue in the capital at the moment.

TheFly · January 20th, 2006, 01:49 PM

If they stayed, couldn't see how they could extend without rebuilding a stand...meaning capacity down to 30,000 for a season....

maybe Roman would rent a ground for half a year to speed up the build work, who would be skint in London, with a ground big enough....Arsenal! Could borrow Highbury for a year..all the facilities in... daft as a brush idea but when a guy has about 5 super yachts...stupid spending does not seem a problem

Noostairz · January 20th, 2006, 01:52 PM

hmm... isn't there a railway line behind one stand, hotels behind another... could be tricky...

potto · January 20th, 2006, 02:04 PM

bloody hell that hotel development was a pretty short-sighted one! Look where they built it!!!

Im suprised Earls Court isnt listed already. The place needs a clean up and some decent planning but the buildings are quite unique

andysimo123 · January 20th, 2006, 03:22 PM

From that pic it just looks a mess.

JDRS · January 20th, 2006, 04:13 PM

I'm sure Abromovich could afford to knock it down and rebuild a new stadium at Stamford Bridge, buying out the hotels if neccesary. The fan base of Chelsea is growing, no doubt. Still it would also help if their ticket prices fell a bit.

andysimo123 · January 20th, 2006, 04:50 PM

Abromovichs £13+ billion could buy Chelsea abit more than a new ground. He could buy 15 Wembleys.

Gherkin · January 20th, 2006, 08:15 PM

^ yeah or 39 billion mars bars..and i know which i'd rather buy!

Philip Cronin · January 21st, 2006, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFly

Why move to a bigger ground, they are not a big club, fan wise. How many times have they failed to sell the capacity, even in a European Cup match.

Money does not make you a big club.

How many times have Juventus failed to sell even a quarter of their capacity? How many clubs are there in Europe which always sell out? Rounded to the nearest whole number, one. All Chelsea's tickets would sell if the prices were a bit lower.

Philip Cronin · January 21st, 2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparks

There are major issues with trying to build a ground on the earls court site.

A) The site itself doesn't have approval for sport, music only.
B) Local residents might not be to keen on the idea
C) The railway lines that run under earls court 2, what happens to them?
D) Traffic issues, the place is already terribly overcrowded.
E) Is the site even big enough for a 60/70k stadium? If you look on google earth earls court 1 is about the size of a football pitch, could they build a stadium around something that size on that plot of land.

There is a large gas works a mile south of stamford bridge that is a better option imo, but I am sure they already know that.

Imperial Wharf 2 will cover that soon. Imperial Wharf 1 by the river is well on its way to completion. There is an aerial view here: http://www.imperialwharf.com/PDF/IW%...0for%20Web.pdf

The number of potential sites for a new Chelsea stadium in west London, taking into account acreage required, the shape it has to be and level of transport access that will be required to get planning permission, is heading towards zero fast.

Sparks · January 21st, 2006, 10:42 AM

Does that cover all three sites?

Toadboy · January 21st, 2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by potto

bloody hell that hotel development was a pretty short-sighted one! Look where they built it!!!

Im suprised Earls Court isnt listed already. The place needs a clean up and some decent planning but the buildings are quite unique

Short sighted? Without that hotel Chelsea wouldn't have 42,000 seats, in fact they'd probably be playing League 1 football.

johnnypd · January 21st, 2006, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philip Cronin

How many times have Juventus failed to sell even a quarter of their capacity? How many clubs are there in Europe which always sell out? Rounded to the nearest whole number, one. All Chelsea's tickets would sell if the prices were a bit lower.

who's that then? NUFC have the highest percentage of filled seats in the premiership...

Born in the North · January 22nd, 2006, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnypd

who's that then? NUFC have the highest percentage of filled seats in the premiership...

Johnny replace that letter N in NUFC to a big letter M for a much bigger club and city - Manchester !

johnnypd · January 22nd, 2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Born in the North

Johnny replace that letter N in NUFC to a big letter M for a much bigger club and city - Manchester !

no, newcastle fill a higher percentage of their ground than man utd.

January 20th, 2006, 11:49 AM	#1
Starscraper Ouch Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Poole/Croydon Posts: 438 Likes (Received): 1	LONDON \| New Chelsea FC Stadium \| 65,000 \| Pre-planning http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ea/4630618.stm Chelsea are reportedly interested in buying Earls Court Exhibition Centre in a £400m deal so they can build a new stadium to replace Stamford Bridge. Blues owner Roman Abramovich is believed to be keen on the switch so he can fund a new 65,000-seater stadium, replacing their current 42,000 home. A lack of space has prevented Chelsea increasing Stamford Bridge's capacity. The Earls Court and Olympia complex are owned by St James Capital and they have "received approaches" said a spokesman. Abramovich has grown increasingly frustrated at Stamford Bridge as there is not enough room around it to make it any bigger. Yet Premiership rivals Manchester United will soon be playing in front of 75,000 at Old Trafford and Arsenal move into their new 60,000 stadium at Ashburton Grove next season. St James' entrepreneurs put the Earls Court and Olympia site up for sale in December for £400m. The entire site takes up around 36 acres, with Abramovich looking for 13 acres on which to build any potential new ground for Chelsea. The Blues could then sell Stamford Bridge, which may be worth up to £500m. Interesting, would they have to build a new arena to replace EC or would London be able to manage with Wembley Arena and the new one at the Dome?

January 20th, 2006, 01:09 PM	#2
Sparks Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne / Bournemouth, UK Posts: 1,070 Likes (Received): 0	There are major issues with trying to build a ground on the earls court site. A) The site itself doesn't have approval for sport, music only. B) Local residents might not be to keen on the idea C) The railway lines that run under earls court 2, what happens to them? D) Traffic issues, the place is already terribly overcrowded. E) Is the site even big enough for a 60/70k stadium? If you look on google earth earls court 1 is about the size of a football pitch, could they build a stadium around something that size on that plot of land. There is a large gas works a mile south of stamford bridge that is a better option imo, but I am sure they already know that. __________________ "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." Sir Winston Churchill Last edited by Sparks; December 6th, 2007 at 09:19 PM.

January 20th, 2006, 01:47 PM	#6
Sparks Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne / Bournemouth, UK Posts: 1,070 Likes (Received): 0	Seeing the back of earls court would be a plus though the place is a dump, it a disgrace that it is considered the only large music venue in the capital at the moment. __________________ "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." Sir Winston Churchill

January 21st, 2006, 10:42 AM	#16
Sparks Registered User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne / Bournemouth, UK Posts: 1,070 Likes (Received): 0	Does that cover all three sites? __________________ "The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter." Sir Winston Churchill

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

January 20th, 2006, 01:29 PM	#3
TheFly BANNED Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Manchester Posts: 6,279 Likes (Received): 0	Why move to a bigger ground, they are not a big club, fan wise. How many times have they failed to sell the capacity, even in a European Cup match. Money does not make you a big club.

January 20th, 2006, 01:38 PM	#4
Bob Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 2,321 Likes (Received): 3	I think the Chelsea fan base is ever growing. I don't see the rail lines to be a problem, especially as they are already covered to some extent. sparks - I looked on google earth too! I think there is plenty of space if a bit of creativity is used. Are there any reasons the heritage lobby would come out to 'save' Earls Court?

January 20th, 2006, 01:45 PM	#5
Noostairz Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Transatlantic Posts: 10,012 Likes (Received): 1	well they're denying it now - instead they say they're planning to redevelop stamford bridge to make it a 50,000+ capacity stadium. how, who knows...

January 20th, 2006, 01:49 PM	#7
TheFly BANNED Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Manchester Posts: 6,279 Likes (Received): 0	If they stayed, couldn't see how they could extend without rebuilding a stand...meaning capacity down to 30,000 for a season.... maybe Roman would rent a ground for half a year to speed up the build work, who would be skint in London, with a ground big enough....Arsenal! Could borrow Highbury for a year..all the facilities in... daft as a brush idea but when a guy has about 5 super yachts...stupid spending does not seem a problem

January 20th, 2006, 01:52 PM	#8
Noostairz Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Transatlantic Posts: 10,012 Likes (Received): 1	hmm... isn't there a railway line behind one stand, hotels behind another... could be tricky...

January 20th, 2006, 02:04 PM	#9
potto Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: London Posts: 13,496 Likes (Received): 250	bloody hell that hotel development was a pretty short-sighted one! Look where they built it!!! Im suprised Earls Court isnt listed already. The place needs a clean up and some decent planning but the buildings are quite unique

January 20th, 2006, 03:22 PM	#10
andysimo123 wind-up merchant Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,877 Likes (Received): 8	From that pic it just looks a mess.

January 20th, 2006, 04:13 PM	#11
JDRS Against ID Cards Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Manchester Posts: 9,823 Likes (Received): 0	I'm sure Abromovich could afford to knock it down and rebuild a new stadium at Stamford Bridge, buying out the hotels if neccesary. The fan base of Chelsea is growing, no doubt. Still it would also help if their ticket prices fell a bit.

January 20th, 2006, 04:50 PM	#12
andysimo123 wind-up merchant Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,877 Likes (Received): 8	Abromovichs £13+ billion could buy Chelsea abit more than a new ground. He could buy 15 Wembleys.

January 20th, 2006, 08:15 PM	#13
Gherkin actual gherkin Join Date: May 2005 Location: Leeds Posts: 13,728 Likes (Received): 158	^ yeah or 39 billion mars bars..and i know which i'd rather buy!