Ashley Posted 5 May 2012 Posted 5 May 2012 Take a look at Juventus. They've downsized their stadium last year from 69,000 to 41,000. They just couldn't fill it. Juventus old Stadium had structural problems so they could only use certain areas on the ground.
Langston Posted 5 May 2012 Posted 5 May 2012 Yeah deffo when I heard 60000 seater initially first thing I imagined was another Benfica/Arsenal/New Spurs stadium Both Benfica's ground and the Emirates are hardly 'boring bowls' though, are they?
Voll Blau Posted 5 May 2012 Posted 5 May 2012 Done well, it could easily look sensational. I take it moving south of the river wouldn't be as important to a club like Chelsea as to say, Arsenal or Spurs? (and yes I know Arsenal were originally a south London club, but that was a long time ago!) Not as much of an issue given Battersea is a bit of a Chelsea heartland, as this map shows...
Jace Posted 5 May 2012 Posted 5 May 2012 Both Benfica's ground and the Emirates are hardly 'boring bowls' though, are they? They are both developed on the exact same blueprint, the same as us and St Mary's Southampton. Surely a ground with its own design is more unique?
Mack Posted 5 May 2012 Posted 5 May 2012 By golly that map is bollocks! There have been scores of planning applications for the Battersea Power Station site, all have come unstuck because of rigid planning restrictions and astronomical costs of turning the place around. Mind you, seeing as QVC is just around the corner I can see Roman pulling out all the stops! Julia Roberts... MILF!
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 May 2012 Posted 5 May 2012 Are you sure he's no just planning on turning it into a James Bond style evil genius' lair? I can just see him sitting in a big leather chair stroking a cat. I'm surprised to say the least, mainly cos I thought Battersea Power Station was a listed building. Obviously not.
Jace Posted 5 May 2012 Posted 5 May 2012 Are you sure he's no just planning on turning it into a James Bond style evil genius' lair? I can just see him sitting in a big leather chair stroking a cat. I'm surprised to say the least, mainly cos I thought Battersea Power Station was a listed building. Obviously not. Yeah it is listed any redevelopment would require the existing towers to remain most of the building would need to be demolished for a football stadium though so that may go against their bid I've done a quick 5 minute cut and paste edit on paint to show what I mean!
Darkon84 Posted 7 June 2012 Posted 7 June 2012 Chelsea fail in their bid to redevelop Battersea power station. Im a little disappointed by this, I think the stadium itself could have become an iconic landmark in its own right, by keeping the towers, but I guess we will never know. End of the day, money talks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/07/battersea-power-station-chelsea-malaysia Boats sail in front of Battersea Power Station. Two Malaysian companies have won the right to develop the London landmark. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images Malaysia's SP Setia and Sime Darby have won the right to redevelop Battersea Power Station, beating a rival bid from Chelsea Football Club looking to move its stadium to the London landmark. About 15 bidders including Chelsea, owned by the Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, submitted plans last month to buy the protected 15-hectare site on the south bank of the river Thames, the subject of repeated failed redevelopment attempts in the three decades since it shut. The Malaysian property companies have inked an exclusivity agreement with Alan Bloom and Alan Hudson of Ernst & Young, the joint administrators and receivers, to acquire the site for £400m, SP Setia and Sime Darby said in a joint statement on Thursday. The deal marks SP Setia's first foray into Europe and adds to its residential schemes in Vietnam, Singapore and Malaysia. The Malaysian companies said the redevelopment of the site would revive south-west central London. SP Setia and Sime Darby will build a new underground train station as part of the proposed extension of the northern line of the London network, according to the filing. The crumbling riverside edifice – Europe's largest brick structure – and its quartet of art-deco white chimneys have been a recognisable silhouette on the London skyline for 80 years. The site came on to the market after a £5.5bn plan by the Irish developer Treasury Holdings for homes, shops and offices collapsed in December
Jordan Posted 7 June 2012 Posted 7 June 2012 Had Chelsea been successful, they would not have been able to use the name, "Chelsea Football Club" without 75% approval from the Chelsea Pitch Owners. While I think the votes would have fallen in line, and the CPO's mission may be obsolete, it would be funny if the CPO insisted that Chelsea had to change its name upon moving.
purpleronnie Posted 7 June 2012 Posted 7 June 2012 Knew it wouldn't happen, had little to no chance in the first place...they'll need a piece of land a million miles away from any nimby's, or newts or rare weeds, then and only then they might get a new stadium.
goose2010 Posted 7 June 2012 Posted 7 June 2012 I hear one of the major problems with them moving there was that it very close to the American embassy and they were concerned with having 60k plus walking past their doors every other week, it may be absolute rubbish im not sure I haven't looked into it much, but i guess it makes sense with potential attacks etc.
purpleronnie Posted 7 June 2012 Posted 7 June 2012 Yeah I'm sure the embassy is scared of chelsea fans, whats the wrost that could happen? Someone might have caviar thrown at them.
goose2010 Posted 7 June 2012 Posted 7 June 2012 Yeah I'm sure the embassy is scared of chelsea fans, whats the wrost that could happen? Someone might have caviar thrown at them. yeah I don't think they meant Chelsea fans I think the fact that you could easily disguise your self amongst the volume of people around was their concern.
Jon the Hat Posted 8 June 2012 Posted 8 June 2012 Yeah I'm sure the embassy is scared of chelsea fans, whats the wrost that could happen? Someone might have caviar thrown at them. Yes that's right! Chelsea fans all eat caviar. Numpty. The Chelsea Pitch Owners would approve the move if there was a concrete plan to move to a new site, and that saw them get similar rights at the new stadium.
21st Century Fox Posted 22 June 2012 Posted 22 June 2012 Chelsea have just released an image of the proposed stadium at Battersea, despite not currently being the preferred bidders. Interesting incorporation of the Power Station.
Guest Bilo Posted 22 June 2012 Posted 22 June 2012 Chelsea have just released an image of the proposed stadium at Battersea, despite not currently being the preferred bidders. Interesting incorporation of the Power Station. That looks a lot like a modern version of Ibrox. Pleasant though, nice to see a bit of imagination going into the design.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.