Inside abandoned Chelsea 60,000-seater stadium plan with iconic chimneys which was rejected for shops
CHELSEA previously failed in a bid to move away from Stamford Bridge back in 2012, ultimately losing out to a shopping centre development.
The Blues are once again considering waving goodbye to the Bridge as they look to build a new stadium.
APChelsea are looking to upgrade on Stamford Bridge[/caption]
GettyThe Blues’ stadium has a much smaller capacity than many of their rivals’ grounds[/caption]
Chelsea FCChelsea proposed plans to takeover Battersea Power Station back in 2012[/caption]
Chelsea FCTheir plans would have made a spectacular stadium, keeping the historic chimneys in place[/caption]
Chelsea have been keen to increase their capacity for decades with the London giants currently only able to host 40,341 fans in their SW6 home.
And they thought they might have found the perfect place to move into some 12 years ago, when they eyed up Battersea Power Station.
Chelsea execs tried to buy the then derelict coal-fired power station with plans to convert it into a 60,000 seat stadium in the heart of Southwest London.
The stadium plans looked to include the iconic chimneys that have stood as part of Battersea Power Station since its construction in the 1940s.
While the building’s exposed brick was also set to be kept in place according to mock-up plans that were released at the time.
Their plan involved building one stand in the existing structure of the building and then creating a new stadium around it.
However, things didn’t go to plan and the sensational blueprints were ditched when their bid was rejected by the powers at be.
Instead, a Malaysian company turned the Grade II listed building into a shopping centre filled with high-end retail stores, restaurants, a cinema and a number of luxury apartments.
BEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERS
That development finally opened in 2022.
That isn’t the only abandoned plans that Chelsea have had either with the club pitching a 60,000 seat redevelopment of Stamford Bridge just three years later.
The club even received all the required planning permission from the local council and the Mayor of London to begin work on the plans.
But that idea was ditched back in 2018 when the club released a shock statement announcing its decision to pull the development, citing the “unfavourable investment climate”.
Any proposed move away from Stamford Bridge would be particularly difficult for Chelsea due to a fan group known as Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO).
The CPO own both the pitch at Stamford Bridge and the name Chelsea Football Club Limited.
That would mean that if Chelsea are to burn down the Bridge then they would likely have to change their club name to bypass the CPO group.
AlamyBattersea Power Station was ultimately used in a different redevelopment[/caption]
GettyThe building is now filled with shops and restaurants[/caption]
Chelsea will lose their soul by leaving Stamford Bridge
By Matt Penn
JUST what London needs – another £1billion bowl-shaped, soulless football stadium.
No offence to Spurs, because theirs looks great, but it’s not like they had years of title-winning history to celebrate at White Hart Lane.
Arsenal moved on from Highbury a couple of years after their last Premier League title win in 2004, and to no avail, they’ve been chasing that glory ever since.
And the less said about West Ham‘s move from Upton Park, the better. The Olympic Stadium pales in significance to Upton Park, where binoculars weren’t needed to see the pitch from Row Z.
It’s no secret Chelsea fans have become disillusioned with the club since Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali took over from Roman Abramovich two years ago.
The sacking of two full-time managers in that time, a 12th-place finish in the league, no European football, billions spent on Brazilian teenagers you’ve never heard of and civil war between the owners have turned the club into a laughing stock.
Seems like the perfect time to revamp plans to leave Stamford Bridge, doesn’t it?
According to The Guardian, Chelsea are in talks to move to a new 60,000-seater site in Earl’s Court, something they’ve attempted before.
Chelsea are said to have made plans for the Lillie Bridge depot site as an area that could be developed in a move that could cost hundreds of millions.
Forget that so much else still needs fixing on the pitch, that the results are still not going the way they should, that players still can’t seem to click on a consistent basis.
The owners, who are said to be looking to buy each other out already, might not think it, and the seats might be a little rusty, but fans do value tradition.
The Bridge has been a place supporters can call home every other Saturday. It’s raw, the stands are close to the pitch, it has four sides, and most importantly, it’s owned by the fans.
For any deal to go through, Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), a group made up of over 14,000 fans, have to approve a move away from the 42,000-seater stadium.
On the other hand, redvelopment of Stamford Bridge would see the team move away from the stadium for a number of years, likely double the three years Tottenham spent at Wembley.
But why not overhaul each stand one-by-one? Both Liverpool and Fulham had stands refurbished and they were able to stay put. There are also plans for Crystal Palace to do the same.
If Boehly and Eghbali are so desperate to put money at the forefront of their decision-making, then go about it in a way which will appease fans.
Sadly, football isn’t really about fans anymore, and it’d be easy to say Chelsea will lose their soul if they leave Stamford Bridge.
But you fear they already have.
