Don't Chelsea need to buy the current ground back from the fans before they can move?
If you can get that sorted probably Chelsea, if not Spurs.
what about Man Citys, to hold at least a 200,000 which will sell out four times over every home game.
Massive.
The New New Wembley will be built before the New Anfield.
to be honest L/pool & Everton should build a new ground between them & ground share.
Impossible to tell yet, I'm not that enlightened on the seriousness/progress of the Liverpool plan but our own has so many stumbling blocks to overcome before it can become a reality there's no way to tell.
only liverpool will fill theirs . the other two for big games only.
Liverpool can't even fill old Anfield
Liverpool never, Chelsea when they`ve bought off everybody they need to and Spurs in the not too distant future.... about to start building the supermarket which is part of the overall scheme I believe.
comment by Colin The Cabbage (U1623)
posted 30 minutes ago
only liverpool will fill theirs . the other two for big games only.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not keeping abreast of Liverpools current affairs over the last few years have we!
Liverpool have had gates up to 10k under capacity while spurs and Chelsea sell out all prem games
Don't Chelsea need to buy the current ground back from the fans before they can move?
----------------------------------
The CPO will sign up to this (as would I) in a second IMO, the reason the club failed last time is because they weren't transparent enough by refusing to divulge where we would be moving to. This is as clear as day and we would still get to keep the manor that we have all grown up with and loved.
Olympic Stadium = I would cease to be a Chelsea fan.
Earls Court = Ideal but never going to happen.
Battersea Power Station =
White City = No
Cobham or Milton Keynes or some such place = I would also cease to be a Chelsea fan.
Any Club needs to preserve it's identity - This solution does that.
69, I feel the same as you over the Olympic Stadium, White City or anyother such location - to me if we moved to those locations we wouldn't have the right to call ourselves Chelsea Football Club any longer.
BPS or Earls Court I'd accept, but I'd grieve for Stamford Bridge, I love the place - it's like I've grown up there!
Brummie, I also wish it was possible to stay at the Bridge and achieve our goals, but realistically we're going to have to move. The irony is that if Mears had succeeded with his ambitions in 1972, when obtaining planning permissions were far easier, we would now have a 60,000 all seater stadium on the site of Stamford Bridge.
Robbies army
I believe the situation with regard to Earls Court was that it was only sold fairly recently and the current owners have lucrative plans for the site that don't include us. Persuading them to change course by offering alternative financial inducements would even be prohibitive for Roman Abramovich.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Which stadium will get built first?
Page 1 of 1
posted on 4/5/12
Don't Chelsea need to buy the current ground back from the fans before they can move?
If you can get that sorted probably Chelsea, if not Spurs.
posted on 4/5/12
what about Man Citys, to hold at least a 200,000 which will sell out four times over every home game.
Massive.
posted on 4/5/12
The New New Wembley will be built before the New Anfield.
posted on 4/5/12
to be honest L/pool & Everton should build a new ground between them & ground share.
posted on 4/5/12
Impossible to tell yet, I'm not that enlightened on the seriousness/progress of the Liverpool plan but our own has so many stumbling blocks to overcome before it can become a reality there's no way to tell.
posted on 4/5/12
only liverpool will fill theirs . the other two for big games only.
posted on 4/5/12
Liverpool can't even fill old Anfield
posted on 4/5/12
Liverpool never, Chelsea when they`ve bought off everybody they need to and Spurs in the not too distant future.... about to start building the supermarket which is part of the overall scheme I believe.
posted on 4/5/12
comment by Colin The Cabbage (U1623)
posted 30 minutes ago
only liverpool will fill theirs . the other two for big games only.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not keeping abreast of Liverpools current affairs over the last few years have we!
posted on 4/5/12
35 mill
posted on 4/5/12
Liverpool have had gates up to 10k under capacity while spurs and Chelsea sell out all prem games
posted on 4/5/12
Don't Chelsea need to buy the current ground back from the fans before they can move?
----------------------------------
The CPO will sign up to this (as would I) in a second IMO, the reason the club failed last time is because they weren't transparent enough by refusing to divulge where we would be moving to. This is as clear as day and we would still get to keep the manor that we have all grown up with and loved.
Olympic Stadium = I would cease to be a Chelsea fan.
Earls Court = Ideal but never going to happen.
Battersea Power Station =
White City = No
Cobham or Milton Keynes or some such place = I would also cease to be a Chelsea fan.
Any Club needs to preserve it's identity - This solution does that.
posted on 4/5/12
Why is earls impossible?
posted on 4/5/12
69, I feel the same as you over the Olympic Stadium, White City or anyother such location - to me if we moved to those locations we wouldn't have the right to call ourselves Chelsea Football Club any longer.
BPS or Earls Court I'd accept, but I'd grieve for Stamford Bridge, I love the place - it's like I've grown up there!
posted on 5/5/12
Brummie, I also wish it was possible to stay at the Bridge and achieve our goals, but realistically we're going to have to move. The irony is that if Mears had succeeded with his ambitions in 1972, when obtaining planning permissions were far easier, we would now have a 60,000 all seater stadium on the site of Stamford Bridge.
Robbies army
I believe the situation with regard to Earls Court was that it was only sold fairly recently and the current owners have lucrative plans for the site that don't include us. Persuading them to change course by offering alternative financial inducements would even be prohibitive for Roman Abramovich.
Page 1 of 1