2017 UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE FINAL HOTELS, CARDIFF June 3RD & KIEV 2018 - CLICK HERE to BOOK HOTELS PACKAGES Blues Not Giving Up Yet On Battersea

Blues Not Giving Up Yet On Battersea

The reigning European Champions had officially made a bid last month for one of the most iconic sites in West London. Unfortuntately the owners of the Battersea Power Station chose Malaysian consortium as their preffered bidders.In the latest step forward, Chelsea have produced a selection of images with the help of development partner Almacantar and architects Kohn Pedersen Fox as a way of seemingly applying pressure on the current preferred bidders.
The following was published on the club’s official website-

View of the West Stand integrated on the Power Station. The single tier “shed end” is to the left (south) and the image shows the stadium is rectangular in shape and not elliptical. (source: Dailymail)

Artist’s impressions of the stadium Chelsea FC would propose for the Battersea Power Station site have appeared in the online property press today. These images were jointly produced by Chelsea FC, our development partner Almacantar and architects Kohn Pedersen Fox.It is important that our fans understand that Chelsea Football Club is not currently in discussions with the sellers of the site. The sellers have selected a Malaysian consortium as their preferred bidders, and we understand negotiations are continuing.

We do not know if those negotiations will be successful or not.As per our previous statement, and as these images show, we believe the prospect of developing a new stadium on the site could be very attractive for the club, and would have the potential to become one of the most iconic stadiums in the world, offering many benefits for Wandsworth, for London, and, of course, for Chelsea fans. We firmly believe our proposals could address the unique challenges presented by the site.
View looking southwest to the single-tier stand (source:Dailymail)

The design would integrate the stadium with the power station in a sensitive, unique and powerful way, with all significant historical aspects of the power station to be retained. In creating an iconic world-class stadium we would preserve the four chimneys and wash towers along with the historically significant west turbine hall and control room, all to be restored and retained in their original locations.As previously stated, it is not appropriate to give further details at this stage of the process but we will keep our fans advised of any further material developments as appropriate.

Here is how the proceedings happened-

On 4 May 2012, Chelsea announced they had submitted a bid to acquire the 39-acre site, with the club’s property development partner, Almacantar, with a view to build a 60,000-seater stadium, on their Official website. With the club also saying they would restore the Power Station’s four iconic chimneys and wash towers, and also the west turbine hall. On 7 June 2012, Knight Frank announced that administrators Ernst & Young had entered into an exclusive agreement with Malaysian developers SP Setia and Sime Darby, who were given 28 days to conduct due diligence and agree the final terms of the deal.

Chelsea stated via their website after being informed of this: “We are disappointed not to be selected as the preferred bidder for Battersea Power Station, as we believe we can create an iconic and architecturally significant stadium on the site in a scheme which is commercially viable and of great benefit to the Wandsworth community and London generally.” On 11 June 2012, Chief executive of SP Setia, Liew Kee Sin, told: “We don’t know what will happen over the next 28 days.”

Chelsea have the smallest stadiums out of the so called big four and surely need a new stadium for cementing their position in Europe’s elite. The vision the Club has in mind for the Battersea Power Station is really a profound one and the images prove that. If acquired the site would really benefit Chelsea FC in every manner financially,on the basis of competing with other clubs and increasing the club’s over all fanbase.

The club had a meeting with the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) some time ago about the possible expansion of the Bridge but their were more cons than pros.

You can read the full extensive report here

Expansion of the Bridge is not a viable option for the club.

Conclusions of the report-

It is clear to the Board of Chelsea Football Club that a complete new build of a 60,000 seat stadium at Stamford Bridge has little chance of acceptability. We believe that, after our discussions with the council they have come to the same conclusion. A 60,000 new-build would cost over £600 million and require the club to play away for at least three seasons and, even if the economics were acceptable, the planning risks would likely be insurmountable.

Expanding Stamford Bridge to 55,000 also has a number of challenges. The cost per seat of expanding the stands is very high. The incremental revenues provide an unsatisfactory level of return, would not even cover the hypothetical financing costs, and the planning risks are significant. We believe the council recognises these challenges.

The club’s exercise over the years has been to analyse a large spectrum of possible expansion options, even some which would appear to be unworkable. The Board recognises that our work will not satisfy every fan, but the Board also believes its work has been thorough, appropriate and in the best interests of the club and all of our fans.To reiterate what was said at the beginning of this summary, the club are not in any way stating we have made a decision on the need to move.

Till then let’s hope the Blue God’s  help Chelsea in mariculously securing the bid for Battersea Power Station.

KTBFFH till then as always….

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,”script”,”twitter-wjs”); Follow @CFC360Official!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,”script”,”twitter-wjs”);

(function(d){ var js, id = ‘facebook-jssdk’; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(‘script’); js.id = id; js.async = true; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; d.getElementsByTagName(‘head’)[0].appendChild(js); }(document));

Comments

  1. By Anonymous

  2. By Anonymous

  3. By Murphy

  4. By Murphy

  5. By Sam

  6. By Sam

  7. By Anonymous

  8. By Anonymous

  9. By Anonymous

  10. By Anonymous