[pawel19-87]

Chelsea FC

6x League:
1955, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2015,
2017

8x Cup:
1970, 1997, 2000, 2007, 2009,
2010, 2012, 2018

4x Supercup:
1955, 2000, 2005, 2009

1x UEFA Champions League:
2012

2x UEFA Europa League:
2013, 2019

2x UEFA Cup Winners' Cup:
1971, 1998

1x UEFA Super Cup:
1998

http://www.flickr.com/photos/entropy1138/1399083524/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2405405780/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stewied/318938753/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ambrosianaglobal/4064346729/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ambrosianaglobal/4065096714/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ambrosianaglobal/4064347941/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2405406948/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan_noctor/360493747/

 

[pawel19-87]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3836328811/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonrisaeterna/3136859702/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inetfox/489038367/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/epltalk/304418138/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/epltalk/304419654/

 

[pamirez]

is 42000 enough for Chelsea in these days? Are there any plans to increase capacity? I mean they're quite successful right now

 

[bigbossman]

^^It hasn't been enough for years, especially if we're talking about sustainability which they are far from.

The problem is abramovich has no desire to fund an expansion or a new stadium. They could probably fill 60,000, and contrary to popular belief they've always been one of England's biggest clubs!

 

[cfc_dunc]

lack of access means everyone has to go back out of two main exits onto the fulham road, this is already very congested after the matches now. talk of putting in a rear exit over the railway line back towards west brompton station has been mentioned. although club said they have been looking into this options without any luck.

hammersmith and fulham council supposedly not too keen on any extensions, when chelsea chairman did an interview on chelsea tv, he said the council would really only allow a extension 4000ish seats, and the cost of doing this for such few seats meant it wasnt worth it.

new stadium? club said it was to look into every possible option of expanding stamford bridge before looking at options of new stadiums. problem of new stadium is location, new stadium would have to remain close to the current one. i imagine there is a lack of 20 acre sites around sw6. maybe moving to earls court exhibition centre would be a option

 

[www.sercan.de]

ontrary to popular belief they've always been one of England's biggest clubs!

Irony?

 

[plasticterminator]

Was one of my favourites about 25 years ago before stadium development went :nuts:

I loved the fact it was one of the few remaining oval shaped stadia in English football. I loved the amazing east stand towering above the shed and terraces.

Unlike Aston Villa , villa park (and for no logical reason i can explain just my feeling) the redevelopment of stamford bridge over the years has not excited me. Maybe because that famous old east stand was so radical for its time that once the stadium grew it just swallowed the awe of that stand.

As for modern day stamford bridge the main thing is that the stands behind the two goals are just two small for a club of this size. They should be twice the size and full of ultras but when at the bridge the atmosphere on the kop is like qpr (loftus road) stands and not much diference in the sizes either.

 

[bigbossman]

Irony?

No seriously, only Arsenal, Spurs, Man U and Liverpool are bigger than Chelsea, maybe Everton were...

Chelsea got ruined by trying to rebuild their stadium in the 1970s, they built the east stand then they ran out of money and got relegated, it took them until the 1990s to recover...

 

[www.sercan.de]

But looking at the trophies it looks like they became one of the Bigs after 2000.

What about Aston Villa FC or Newcastle United FC.?
But Arsenal - Spurs is still the biggest derby in London?!!

 

[cfc_dunc]

we did win a few trophies pre 200. won a cup winners cup and european super cup in 98, few other trophies fa cups (97, 2000) and league cup(98).

took 20 years to rebuild the team to where they where in the 70s, winning fa cup, cup winners cup and super cup. after going bankrupt building the current east stand and proposed other stands.

i've got a few pics in a book somewhere of how the 70s redevelopment was going to look if it was all finished. it was going to be like the east stand all the round, 3 tier bowl with something like 60000 seats.

 

[kerouac1848]

new stadium? club said it was to look into every possible option of expanding stamford bridge before looking at options of new stadiums. problem of new stadium is location, new stadium would have to remain close to the current one. i imagine there is a lack of 20 acre sites around sw6. maybe moving to earls court exhibition centre would be a option

That's going to be a problem for you guys though. The Earls Court site has already, I believe, been designated for residential redevelopment. Battersea, another area that Chelsea were supposedly interested in, is also targeted for residential development (skyscrapers in vauxhall), as well as the new US embassy and a expanded Covent Garden Market. The problem is that with Central and inner London land being such a premium, developers can make far more money with residential developments than a stadium. I think you might have to look at going further West than where you are if want a new ground (The nearest place geographically that I think might be available would Wandsworth Town around the station. But it isn't that easy to get to if you're not on the rail network coming out of waterloo plus I’d doubt the council would want to use that site for a stadium; it isn’t that big).

The best thing would be a complete new-build of SB, but that would cost shit loads and you'd be away for probably at least 3 full seasons.

 

[Mr. Fitz]

The reason we haven't moved to make a new stadium is because of naming issues with the club, like we wouldn't be allowed to call ourselves Chelsea FC if we left the Bridge, something to do with who exactly owns the land. It would be tough to expand for obvious reasons, so we're not in a great situation here. Apparently it's 12 acres of land, which is worth around £1bn in its location, we'd easily be able to build a new amazing stadium elsewhere with that cash, but there wouldn't be much other places where we could do it in near enough the same location.

 

[plasticterminator]

No seriously, only Arsenal, Spurs, Man U and Liverpool are bigger than Chelsea, maybe Everton were...

Chelsea got ruined by trying to rebuild their stadium in the 1970s, they built the east stand then they ran out of money and got relegated, it took them until the 1990s to recover...

UK statistically playing record competitions won
1 Liverpool
2 Manchester United
3 Arsenal
4 Aston Villa
5 Tottenham Hotspur
6 Everton
7 Chelsea
8 Newcastle United
9 Blackburn Rovers
10 Manchester City
11 Nottingham Forest
12 Wolverhampton Wanderers

In my interpretation of UK public opinion if were asked to rank 'big clubs' over entire existence Chelsea would rank 7th.

1 Liverpool
2 Manchester United
3 Arsenal
4 Leeds utd
5 Tottenham Hotspur
6 Everton
7 Chelsea

 

[kerouac1848]

The reason we haven't moved to make a new stadium is because of naming issues with the club, like we wouldn't be allowed to call ourselves Chelsea FC if we left the Bridge, something to do with who exactly owns the land. It would be tough to expand for obvious reasons, so we're not in a great situation here. Apparently it's 12 acres of land, which is worth around £1bn in its location, we'd easily be able to build a new amazing stadium elsewhere with that cash, but there wouldn't be much other places where we could do it in near enough the same location.

Exactly. I think if Chelsea are serious about moving to a new ground then they'll have to leave their borough and go further West and maybe even slightly north. Off the top of my head there is a large industrial site in Gunnersbury, near a bunch of train and tube stations (Chiswick park and a few Acton stations) as well as the start of the M4. That's in Ealing borough i think.

About the naming rights, a Chelsea fan i use to work with told me that the club could get away with something like FC Chelsea or Chelsea Blues FC, or something.

 

[Mr. Fitz]

It wouldn't be the same as Chelsea FC but I'd take it, because we'd easily fill say, 65,000, in my opinion.

 

[ccfc-4-life]

UK statistically playing record competitions won
1 Liverpool
2 Manchester United
3 Arsenal
4 Aston Villa
5 Tottenham Hotspur
6 Everton
7 Chelsea
8 Newcastle United
9 Blackburn Rovers
10 Manchester City
11 Nottingham Forest
12 Wolverhampton Wanderers

In my interpretation of UK public opinion if were asked to rank 'big clubs' over entire existence Chelsea would rank 7th.

1 Liverpool
2 Manchester United
3 Arsenal
4 Leeds utd
5 Tottenham Hotspur
6 Everton
7 Chelsea

I wouldnt even put them 7th to be honest...

My version - top 15 clubs in England (not based on trophies, but on support, overall history etc.) :

1. Manchester United
2. Liverpool
3. Arsenal
4. Tottenham
5. Newcastle
6. Aston Villa
7. Everton
8. Leeds
9. Chelsea
10. West Ham
11. Sheff Wed
12. Forest
13. Sunderland
14. West Brom
15. Wolves

 

[kerouac1848]

Wolves and West Brom before Man City? Don't think Newcastle are bigger than Everton or Villa in terms of both history and support tbh.

 

[ccfc-4-life]

Wolves and West Brom before Man City? Don't think Newcastle are bigger than Everton or Villa in terms of both history and support tbh.

Appologies, completely forgot Man City...

Newcastle has greater support than villa IMO, not too sure about everton because they also have a large fanbase. But as a club I think Newcastle are bigger than both, only just though. On my list Id say there isnt much difference in the size of the clubs from 4th to 10th

 

[clnense]

I think this is the new rank:

Man U
Arsenal
Liverpool
Chelsea

In terms of money i'd say.

By the way i hated the reds of Liverpool for playing such pathetics games against Chelsea on Semis UCL from 04-05 and 06-07.

Is "like we score some incredible goal and then we stay in our camp the other 89 minutes".

I think Stamford Bridge is another proof that London could host a World Cup on its own.

 

[topalex]

This debate around who/what is a big club and who/what isnt always amuses me as it is usually very subjective. Maybe if we could agree on set criteria then a more accurate list of big clubs could be drawn up. Im not saying the lists above are far from accurate but there will always be dissenting voices from fans of clubs who think they should be included. For example if you base being big purely on finances then surely you could not include Man Utd who owe half a billion £!
Perhaps the main criteria should be trophies won, size of fanbase, history.
Size of stadium and finances would not be in my list of criteria unless we have to seperate 2 very similar clubs.

As for Chelsea, I would say they qualify for the tag of 'big' club in England based on my criteria.
On the subject of a slight name change in order to move I would be against that idea. Perhaps I am living in the past and need to move with the times but I would be outraged if my beloved club 'Tottenham Hotspurs FC' were forced to change names. Its a major part of our identity that has been embraced by generations of fans...these things should not be toyed with by petty bureaucracy.