Chelsea Fc Bids For Battersea Power Station

i'm torn. i love the bridge, we all do. but i can see the need for a higher capacity stadium. i don't remember all the pros and cons, but i was thinking i liked the earls court option better, i don't believe it IS an option anymore though.

I'd be in favor of this move. First, we can use the added capacity. Second, this would arguably give us the most iconic football stadium in England, if not Europe. (Seriously, how many stadiums would you recognize from further away than that?) Third, we'd start using Pink Floyd songs Since we can't expand the Bridge, this particular proposal seems like a good one. It also suggests Roman's really in for the long haul - you don't build a huge new stadium because you kinda feel like it.

Being across the pond, i've been fortunate enough to see a game at the bridge only once. i don't remember the last time i felt such joy when turning the corner and seeing the entrance to the stadium. I was alight and walking up the stairs to a full view of the stadium was just marvelous. You can sense the history within the stadium. Although, you always want the club to grow and continue success, there comes a time when change is in the forecast.

I "know" where the battersea is on a map but location wise within a community i have no clue what to think. The idea of keeping the smoke stacks even sounds pretty cool and may give that sense of history but at what costs to the club. The question of longevity comes into play regarding RA as well since the last thing CFC would need is a owner that racks up debt and departs.

I'm in favor of the move. I've watched the Bridge transform over the years and the team has just reached a point where it needs to move to bigger capacity, more revenue producing stadium...and bigger seats! The Battersea Power Station would be a great location and those smoke stacks!! You can see a shadow from the smoke stacks on Google Earth doing a flyover of London.

Que sera, sera
Whatever will be, will be
We're moving to Battersea
Que Sera, sera.

Thinking of the Bridge now, I am reminded of the moment from Only Fools and Horses (Heroes and Villains episode - a classic by the way) where Trigger is awarded a medal. He is given a medal because he has saved the council a boatload of money by using the same broom for 20 years. He then went on to explain that he had taken care of his broom by giving it 17 new heads and 14 new handles.

Point is that Stamford Bridge is not any longer the stadium it historically used to be. Sure there is an old wall here and there, but gone are the Shed, gone is the Wooden West and gone is the concrete North (thank goodness too). Gone is the feel of the place that I had felt any attachment to and gone are the nutters who used to frequent the building every other Saturday to be replaced by a far more family friendly, corporate crowd.

I don't say this as a criticism, I say that this is just a sign of the times and we have moved along with them. But we have moved above our historical position and should be prepared to continue moving with the times relevant for a club of our current (and hoped for continued) standing. And that means, gulp, a bigger stadium and yes most likely naming rights, more boxes and all the other anti-blue collar consequences that I used to loathe, but now grudgingly accept as part of the game.

That said, I am not in favour of this if it saddles us with debt and restricts our ability to win trophies for several years (see Arsenal) and would hope that Roman is going to self fund (is that possible under FFP or does it have to be paid for out of football related income). Chelsea do not have the ground swell of traditional support that some other clubs have so a barren spell would be factors worse for us than it will prove for Arsenal so we have to be wary.

But we are looking to root ourselves amongst the elite for generations and with the current era I think that means that a stadium move is a reasonable if not essential process. It's a mobius strip of an issue where larger capacity allows more fans to go to games, allows us to increase the fan base and pump money back in. I don't think we sell out 60,000 every game now, but we would likely average 50,000 or so and importantly be able to build on that with the new income structure a stadium would afford.

I also love the thought of keeping the iconic chimneys as part of the structure - that would be very cool indeed. And in keeping with nice's suggestion of Pink Floyd, we should welcome back Dennis Wise and Frank Sinclair to random home games just so they can walk out to the lyrics "The lunatics are on the grass"

I'd prefer the club and bureaucrats found a way to expand in a feasible manner, (what has the world come to when you can't properly bribe a City official ??? ), but seems unlikely so the Battersea seems the coolest alternative

KDB, come on - nothing would beat singing Money at Roman. After all:

Money
Get away
You get a good job with good pay and you're okay
Money
It's a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I'll buy me a football team

As much as I always hated that song, yes, undeniably apt



Unfortunately this song could be apt in the eyes of a number of ex-managers of ours: Dogs. Not to mention that this is off of the Animals album which, of course features said Power Station.

And after a while, you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.

moneeeeeeeeeey, get awaaay!!! would be an awesome move as long as we keep the name Chelsea FC, which is owned by the CPO no? how will that work?

They could probably just pay them off for the rights to the name. That said, don't have any special attachment to the name or the stadium. I'd still root for them if they played in Battersea under the name FC Chelsea or something like that so long as it was the same team.

ahh why would they change the name? I can understand the stadium naming rights the be team name shouldn't have any effect

Sounds a good idea IMO. Did I mention my Grandad wired that place up when it was first built? Hmm.... yes, I think I may have

Keeping the chimneys would be a GREAT idea as they're very much a landmark in that part of London.

Seriously the thought of a state of the art super stadium nestled within the old brick walls of Battersea almost gave me an orgasm...I cannot overstate how awesome this would be. A wonderful idea!

More on where the investment might come from. Looks like Roman may not be the only one funding this dream project.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...per-rich-Qatari-Khalid-Al-Thani.html?ITO=1490

its a trophy factory

Don't want to spoil the party, but i'd like to share this though.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11661/7733539/Boris-vote-a-blow-to-Blues-move

He looks like He-Man, not quite as muscular, though.

Sorry, but this is south of the river we are a West London club not a South London club, the transport links are terrible. I am not against moving from the Bridge, Earls Court would have been ideal, but NOT Battersea.

Awesome pic! But I don't think it has the dimensions to fit an entire stadium. I don't even think the distance between the chimney pairs is the length of a soccer field....or is it? Can someone confirm?