Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chelsea' started by Eddie26, May 4, 2012.
Boris is easy. It's called negotiation. That's his opening move.
This if done would be the iconic stadium of London.
Might as well call us Gotham City FC.
Er... and what's WRONG with south of the river??? I'm from south of the river.
Well, OK! Answered my own question, didn't I
Anyway, according to google maps it's about 2 miles and I walk about twice that far on my daily constitutional. It's not like it's on the other side of the moon and, as someone has said, they've offered to contribute towards the new transport links.
Also, still an SW post code.
Is that right? Hmm... hadn't really thought of it but it sounds correct.
Oh well, in that case, get on with it fellas. What are we waiting for?!
This would be the most awesome-looking stadium in the world. I love the new Juventus stadium but this trumps that. The big question is: Would some words have to be changed in our song?
and the plot thickens
There will always be someone who will create problems. They have not given any details on how they came to a lot of conclusions.
I would guess that it would take at least 10 years to extend the Northrn line going on past performance. Actually the transport links would be ok for me as I am on the line into Waterloo and there is a stop at Queen's Town Road Battersea. I just object to going south of the river on principle. It would be like the Cubs playing on the South side.
Not just of London.
the site is actually farther north than SB as the crow flies...
It would be the most iconic stadium in the world, imo. But I can't find any dimensions of the interior so don't know how big the pitch would be. Good luck to Roman and his vision.
If they built at Earl's Court instead, I can't find where they would be able to build, without displacing residents. Wouldn't that be a bigger problem for LBHF than Battersea.
I'm sure those against Battersea, are against it purely because it'd be affecting an "iconic building".
Er... yeah! it doesn't really work like that mate.
There's north of the river and south of the river. I'm a chels fan DESPITE it being north of the river, not because of it.
I measured on Google Maps, the dimensions of the inner yard in between the buildings is around 60x130 m, so it should be big enough to fit a footie field in there.
1) The Earls Court site is not a residential site, it is an exhibition centre. The site is more than large enough for the stadium without knocking down any houses.
2) Battersea is in Wansdworth not Hammersmith and Fulham
would be so good. about as good as we'll get
but it wont happen
enjoy wormwood scrubs
not sure about that mate
quite a significant move and would really take us past the 3 mile radius which would cause no end of headaches
I suspect that Battersea and Earls Court will be the final two options as despite what some may say we are not getting the proper approval to expand the ground
i bloody hope so.
from what i've read whitehall are dead against battersea. and boris has just been re-elected.
earls court also seems a no-go.
this will draaaaaag.
I suspect it will, although when the funding dries up after the Olympics, I suspect many of these greedy politicians will be looking for a hand out
I think the problem with Earls Court is that the current owners have advanced planning permission for a large development of Houses/Offices/Entertainment. I wonder if they would be interested in building at Stamford Bridge instead? Although SB is a smaller site.
The scrubs is still in LBHF, but is a long way from SB, the transport links are poor, but at least with the prison next door it would be handy for trouble makers
and several of our fans would not have a long commute to the games