Ever since Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea Football Club in June 2003, one rumour has persistently risen and fallen as regularly as the tide; that Chelsea will leave Stamford Bridge.
Many reports have, over the years, linked us with a move just up the road to the Earls Court site.
However a recent story in the Daily Telegraph put those rumours to rest once and for all, stating that the site owners had revealed a plan to build 7,500 new homes as part of the regeneration of the 77-acre plot.
This of course leaves very little room for any stadium on the Earls Court site, not even one as laughable as Loftus Road, and more importantly for us means that Earls Court is no longer a viable facet in this story.
Now, leaving aside all the well documented potential issues with the Chelsea Pitch Owners, what we’re going to look at is what’s been said, what’s happened, is happening, and how the situation has changed in recent months.
When Ken Bates unveiled his vision for Stamford Bridge it seemed an unrealistic target and one that was a million miles away. Those of us still contributing our hard earned to the blue buckets of the ‘Save The Bridge’ campaign were simply happy to still have a team and a stadium to call our own.
The modern ground and 42,000 capacity was way beyond what many of us could have ever dreamed of some ten years earlier, and having been almost bankrupted by building the East Stand, many were sceptical.
With all due credit to Bates, not only did he foresee it, his drive, determination and at times his sheer bloody mindedness saw the project through many fights with local councils, planners, residents and more, to deliver on his promise of a top class stadium, with a little help from Matthew Harding, of course.
The difficulty in expanding Stamford Bridge has however, been a thorn in the side for the Abramovich regime ever since the day he bought the club.
With a limited site area, only one exit way from the ground, and due to the ever increasing reach of the health and safety brigade, regulations have put paid to any expansion and has actually decreased the capacity by a few hundred over the years.
With United having a capacity of 76,000 at Old Trafford, and Arsenal now able to seat 60,000 at the Cameldome, Chelsea are lagging behind by over 18,000 on Arsenal, and 34,000 on United.
In financial terms, averaging out at £40 per ticket, Chelsea are earning £720,000 less than Arsenal, and £1,360,000 behind United. Over the course of a season calculating league games alone, this works out to £12,960,000 extra revenue to Arsenal, and £24,480,000 for United. That’s the cost of a new Didier Drogba, every season.
With this in mind, and the fact Chelsea need to generate more funds as part of UEFA’s financial fair play initiative, something has got to give. Naming rights are a short term financial shot in the arm, but will only go a very short way in addressing the disparity between the incomes of our club, and those classed as our primary challengers for silverware at the end of the season.
Now this isn’t just the opinion of your average two bit blogging hack, even our Chief Exec agrees; “The difficulty the club’s got is that we’re competing against Manchester United and other clubs who operate from larger stadiums than ourselves” said Ron Gourlay at the tail end of last year.
“There are three revenue channels: broadcasting, where we compare well with our competitors; commercial, which is sponsorship, where if you look at the last figures posted Manchester United were about £66 million, we were £61 million and I think Liverpool were about £54 million.”
“The biggest challenge is match-day revenue and we’re limited with a capacity of 41,800″ noted Gourlay; “It’s very important that if there was ever a move for the club, it would have to be in a close location and that’s never really opened up. I’d prefer to stay at Stamford Bridge, although we could fill a 55,000 or 60,000-seater stadium on a regular basis.”
Now the key point here is that there has never been a viable location for our ‘new’ stadium. With Earls Court now out of the equation, Imperial Wharf, Chelsea Barracks and also Battersea Power Station all previously considered, but ultimately turned down for various reasons, options for the move were dwindling.
However that all changed, and we have been led to believe that the club are looking at two sites that have recently been earmarked for total redevelopment and regeneration, that could comfortably house a new stadium.
The first is White City (adjacent to the A40) as rumoured by Telegraph recently. The local regeneration and development plan can be viewed on the Hammersmith & Fulham website. We’ve taken a Google Map of the area to show how it compares in size to our current stadium, and that of Wembley too.
Clearly the site is large enough to house a new stadium, albeit a slightly tight squeeze if the new stadium is to be larger than our current one, and the area benefits from good transport links with White City (central line) & Wood Lane (Metro/circle lines) tube stations nearby, this also neighbours the Westfield Shopping Centre which has itself only recently opened after a massive redevelopment.
The second area, and the one we’ve heard is the more likely candidate for the new site, is at Old Oak Common, just north of the neighbouring Wormwood Scrubs Park , between Old Oak Common Lane and Scrubs Lane. The redevelopment plan for this area can also be viewed on the Hammersmith & Fulham website too.
This is close to the existing Linford Christie stadium, also has good transport links surrounding it in Willesden Juntion, North & East Acton stations, and as the area will be undergoing wholesale regeneration, it’s expected there may be more stations in the pipeline as the area is surrounded by existing railway track. Crossrail is also likely to place a station there.
Both locations are roughly 4 miles (as the crow flies) from current Stamford Bridge location, yet are closer to Wembley than Stamford Bridge, and not far at all from QPR’s ground; Loftus Road, prompting some fears about an eventual ground share should it happen. The NW10 postcode for the Old Oak Common site could itself be a sticky point for supporters.
Now with the areas of land being relatively cheap in comparision to Stamford Bridge, and Old Oak Common especially inviting investment rather than being sold as prime real estate, and with the land value in SW6 among the most valuable in UK, the affordability of the project starts to become very viable.
There is a very real possibility that the sale of land in SW6 could itself generate the funds required to not only buy the land in new location, but also got a long way in funding the build of the new stadium too. From a financial perspective, and remember that is Gourlay’s prime outlook, a new stadium looks not only possible, but cost effective.
Even if the net outlay is something approaching £200million once the sale of Stamford Bridge is completed and the new stadium built, then this cost could feasibly be recouped within only eight years, and as UEFA allows spending on stadium development and it doesn’t count against a club in their new financial rules, there aren’t many barriers in the way of this project.
The whispers we have also heard about the move is that the club have commissioned Lord Norman Foster of Fosters & Partners to design the new stadium, his experience includes Wembley, and he is also down to redesign Barcelona’s Camp Nou, as well as building the flagship stadium for Qatar 2022.
We’ve heard that the club will look to announce this news once the season has ended. If this is to happen, what’s vitally important is that the supporters are consulted and we get to have a sufficient input in the design of the new stadium.
Roman and the board need to understand that leaving Stamford Bridge is a highly sensitive issue for many supporters, we don’t want an identikit stadium to those at Wembley and Emirates, soulless arenas where people spectate rather take part in the match and its atmosphere.
If we are to move, it MUST be to a stadium that meets not only ambitions of Roman and the board of directors, but also that supporters will be happy to call their home for the next 100 years.
Related articles:
- Damage Is Done, But We Need To Move On Well, that was embarrassing wasn’t it? All the teams around us dropped points last night and we fail to even get a point against rock...
- Chelsea & The CPO – Survey Results A few days ago we ran a survey and asked as many Chelsea supporters as possible to give us their opinions on the proposed buy...
- Chelsea Pitch Owners – Grounds for Concern? The Facts: On Friday I attended the AGM of Chelsea Pitch Owners, which was held in the Vialli Suite at Stamford Bridge. Despite the company...
- Mašek Closer To Chelsea Move After months of summer speculation it appears that 16 year-old Czech striker Dominik Mašek is finally set to complete a move to London and join...
- Swedish Teen Claims Chelsea Move In youth football, it’s currently the time of year when plans are being finalised for next season’s squads. This, in many cases, can mean securing...
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Great article.
I have been going to the Bridge for over 30 years, but have known since Arsenal and Man U expanded to 60K plus that the Chelse need to follow suit to compete. If this means moving from SB then so be it. Lots of memories, not all good, but lots that are. We should, though, be more concerned with the future than the past.
As for any risk to the name of our beloved Chelsea, didn’t the Arsenal move from way over the other side of the river and retain their name?
I am ready to follow the Chelsea, wherever that takes us, ‘over land and sea, and….’
Why would Chelsea’s name change anyway. SB is in Fulham, not Chelsea, so why aren’t we called Fulham Athletic or United or something. So no need to worry about a name change mate, its all good.
Why chelsea did’nt renovationing the SB ?? Then chelsea just moved to London city stadium for a while ? After SB renovation completed , Chlesea just simply go home to SB … I can’t wait to see the design ! Im a big fan of CHELSEA ! Bye
did you not read the article? its not financially viable and lets face it if its not financially viable for abramovich it must be expensive
Why not just buy the london olympics stadium. Plus its in London fits perfectly. More logical to buy. I dont see why spurs trying to buy it and waste their effort. They are a small club.
The olympic stadium is on the other side of the city, and we want a new stadium not 2nd hand 1
Well, the plans to re-position the pitch was either unworkable or to expensive… Mind you the space around the Bridge is not so abundant any more.
Its about time to start a new history. We are tired of lagging in the shadows of Arsenal and Man Utd and new and modern stadium is a perfect fit for a large and historical team like Chelsea.
Now only did Abramovich change the face of EPL but he also put more cash in every teams confer via the new TV deal. By bringing the best players to Chelsea he started a revolution that turned the EPL into the premium league in the whole of Europe. Man City has since taken the baton and moved further up.
Give us this stadium we need it. Every team in EPL needs to acquire large stadia to compete under new conditions in EUFA.
Well written up article, good job.
Great article!!, looks like your right about the club announcing plans this year, and I agree that the design of Wembley looks like a mound of concrete walking up wembley way.
I would expect the stadium to have naming rights sold up, this is ok if the ticket prices are as they are now if not cheaper and the atmosphere is epic!!
On the plus sides we could really go to town on the new ground and the transport links can hardly be any worse.
A stadium move is something that NEEDS to happen, Although I would be gutted to wave goodbye to SB, I would welcome the extra revenue and level playing field it would put us on, I fully understand the worries of the new SB becoming like The Emirates, but let us remember Highbury wasn’t always the most of “pumping” places anyway, If we can somehow manage to design and build a stadium that is 60,000 plus, with the fans being as close to the pitch as possible and still manage to have the intensity then I don’t see it being a problem, My only reservation would be having a sponsor named stadium, Again I understand the need’s of this because of the money is makes BUT I feel this takes away any “ownership” the fans can feel towards a ground, The biggest problem a team can have is adapting to a new “home”..If we were to overcome this in a short period I can see us pushing on even further and I don’t see the larger capacity affecting us as I would be brave enough to say that we’ve done alright at Wembley
And remember this 60,000 Chelsea fan’s singing “Care Free” is better then 42,000 fan’s,
It is possible to build a large stadium up close to the pitch. I’d like to imagine a la bombonera’esque stadium with 4 sides (instead of 3) with a roof. That would produce some awesome atmosphere
I like this
use the new rugby stadium in Dunedin, NZ as a model but make it bigger and better. The atmosphere in there is awesome
Yeah man, that stadium is awesome. I was thinking a stadium like la bombonera, except with 4 sides and a roof
Yes Chelsea need to move if we are going to challenege for the forseable future, Roman wont be around for ever and to compete on a regular basis we need the extra income. As for the name it’s owned by the pitch owners association or something which is why it’s an issue if we move without there approval. I’m sure this is something that n=can be sorted out quite simply. At the end of the day there supporters themselves so why would they stand in the way of progress if they love the club like we do…. It seams a shame to move so far away, Earls Court would have been great for me but thats never going to happen and a ground share is out of the question for any supporter….
That’s a great idea ! Go on chelsea . It would be more successful in financial also titles………..
chelsea have always had stamford bridge and dont get me wrong it will be sad not to be able to go there anymore i have been going chelsea as much as i could since i was a kid and i am 17 now and go every home game now its a huge part of my life but i am a chelsea fan till i die i will follow them where ever they go and will go and cheer for them forever and day its not the stadium chelsea football club is a family and stamford bridge is there home but its time to find a new home, it would bring more fans, more money so all round better for the club its the past if we want the champions leauge we have to look towards the future
KTBFFH
Vote NO. To sell the shares back to the club with ZERO guarantee that in 2021 the club won’t move to “Carlisle” is crazy. The club should come to us with a concrete plan to move to x then we vote if we want to move there or not.
SAVE THE BRIDGE
Abramovich wont sanction a move outside sw/nw/c London we have to make sure we dont miss out on all the tourists for tickets/merchandising aswell. IMO Battersea is the likely location
I think you all need to realise why the CPO was set up in the 1st place. It was to guarantee that Chelsea FC had a football ground to play on. Idealy in the present location. This was to prevent what happened to Brighton and Wimbledon, where the fans found the grounds were sold from underneath them. Whilst I do not doubt Roman’s intentions, at the moment the fans DO have a say if we move and where we move. No other group of fans in the UK have this power to influence this decision like we do.
The Club have put nothing on the table at this time. Other than they would like us to give them our shares, just in case they decide to move location. That is a not a viable offer. If they made an offer to TFR to CPO’s to the new ground, in order to guarantee that future owners of the Club would not throw the FC out, then that would at least be a start.
If the Club are not in a hurry to move, why are they asking the CPO to rush the vote through? You would have thought they would have at the very least have put forward details/potential cost of redeveloping the present site. Or details of the proposed site.
At the moment the land that Stamford Bridge is valueless to Roman because of the CPO. If the CPO shares are handed over then that land is worth many hundreds of millions, to him or a future owner. There is no guarantee that, if sold, those monies would be used to build another stadium in another location.
WITH THE CPO IN PLACE WE HAVE A STADIUM AND WE HAVE A VOICE IF WE MOVE!!!
will miss the bridge born a short walk away in pimlico
but battersea will be great.