main advertising sponsor - if you want to join in please contact us to discuss

Battersea Power Station-Chelsea's Destiny?

Share
Discussion started by Marc Sibbons , on Friday, 04 May 2012 13:45

Chelsea have officially bid for the Battersea Power Station Site that has been speculated in recent times. A new 60,000 seater venue is planned for the club where one stand will hold a reported 15,000 people, which will be the largest in football.

Whilst Chelsea risk the wrath of their loyal supporters, it seems they are ignoring these calls and pushing on with their proposals to move away from Stamford Bridge.

The huge 39 acre Battersea site wouldn't be short of space to potential suitors, so it will be particularly interesting to see if Chelsea's bid proves successful.

The official Chelsea F.C website read: "Battersea Power Station is one of London's most famous buildings and has the potential to become one of the most iconic football stadiums in the world.

"Our joint bid was submitted in accordance with the sales process established by the Joint Administrators for the site. The process could run for a number of months.

Before adding: "We must also stress that making an offer for the Battersea Power Station site does not mean the club has made a definitive decision to leave Stamford Bridge.

Following on from this news, do you think Chelsea’s decision to bid for the Battersea site was a right one? Will they be successful? What are the main reasons for leaving Stamford Bridge, and are they valid? Should the club properly consult the club’s fans before making key decisions like this in the future? How much power does the community hold in terms of plans for a new stadium?

Latest Discussion
Stephen Dunham
Stephen Dunham,
With the cost of any redevelopment at Stamford Bridge being prohibitively high, aside from the practical limitations, then a new stadium is the only sensible option if Chelsea are going to be able to significantly increase their matchday and commercial revenues. The Deloitte Football Money League report for 2010/11 had Chelsea with matchday revenues of £68m, significantly behind Arsenal (£103m) and Manchester United (£109m) so the financial implications are clear for all to see. With FFP, closing this gap will be crucial to Chelsea's continued development.
What they now have to do, with the big assumption that they can secure the site (there are reportedly 10 bidders in total), is to get the fans on board and secure the ownership of Stamford Bridge from the Chelsea Pitch Owners. My view is that they will achieve this and I think they have learnt from the failed attempt earlier in the year. Evidence can already be seen in today's press release with the comments made about what shape the new stadium will take.
386 days ago
 
Marc Sibbons
Marc Sibbons,
I agree with your view that Stamford Bridge is no longer able to hold the facilities that Chelsea demand Iain. They need to expand their capacity/revenue in order to keep up with the leading teams in the league. Man City and Arsenal can now boast amazing venues, with high capacity crowds and state of the art technology to attract the finances needed to compete.

I think the move to Battersea would be a good one for Chelsea, where the fans will gradually warm to a new stadium, given time. This was the case with Arsenal like you have mentioned, where many fans were sceptical about their move from Highbury, but now seem more than content at the clubs decision.

I also think they will be granted the move, and i can envisage a whole new era for Chelsea with the backing of a revolutionary new stadium. But we will have to wait and see like many things in life and time is on their side.
386 days ago
 
Iain Taker
Iain Taker,
I think the decision to bid for the site proves what many have thought for awhile namely that Stamford Bridge is no longer able to offer the facilities (and financial revenue) that Chelsea demand. This has been emphasised with the inability to obtain a stadium sponsor despite going out to the market for a second time. A significant problem that Chelsea still have to overcome is that in order to move they will need to buy back the freehold to Stamford Bridge which they failed to do at the first attempt.

While many Arsenal fans were not keen to move from Highbury to the Emirates there seems to be few that dont now believe the decision was a sensible (granted the difference being that they only moved just down the road for eg). Particularly with the potential effects of the FFP rules beginning it is a sensible decision to seek to move to a new stadia in my opinion.
386 days ago
 
Members (3)