The enormous complexity of the challenges Chelsea face building a new stadium at Stamford Bridge can be encapsulated in a piece of legislation put in place by Henry VIII almost five centuries ago.
Legend has it that the infamous Tudor king stood on a mound six miles away in Richmond Park on 19 May, 1536, awaiting word from the Tower of London that his second wife Anne Boleyn had been beheaded, so that he could marry Jane Seymour.
The “King Henry VIII Mound to St Paul’s Cathedral” sightline was afforded protected status and means, among other things, that a new stadium must be kept within a certain height, to avoid blocking the view.
The story might not even be true – it is disputed by historians. But the mound was nonetheless a place where royal hunts were observed, popular with Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, and there exists a map dated 1630 where it is labelled “Kings Standinge”, so it has retained its status.
This is one of the many, exhausting hurdles the Blues must consider when weighing up how to build a new home.
When Jason Gannon took over as Chelsea president last September, the stadium was a key priority.
He had been the managing director who oversaw the development of the LA Rams’ and LA Chargers’ 70,000-seater SoFi Stadium, the $5.5bn (£4.3bn) arena that has hosted a Super Bowl, was chosen as a 2026 World Cup venue and will stage the opening ceremony of the 2028 Olympics. Few are more experienced to oversee Chelsea’s plans.
Chelsea’s ownership are aware they need a bigger stadium to compete — in the last three years they have earned almost £100m less in matchday revenue than Tottenham Hotspur, and in an era of spending restrictions it all counts.
But there is also recognition that decisions they make now will form a significant chapter in the club’s history for the next 50 to 100 years.
Stamford Bridge, built in 1877, has been Chelsea’s stadium for 120 years. They are determined to get the club’s next home right and are analysing and exploring all options, The i Paper understands.
As well as remaining where they are, one source believes they are looking at three alternative sites.
Knocking down Stamford Bridge and building a new arena had been the master plan of former owner Roman Abramovich and it has been almost a decade since Chelsea invited people to a small room beneath the East Stand to view their proposal for a new 60,000-seater stadium on the site.
Reading the many planning applications and documents for that project, codenamed Project Neptune, it reveals quite how challenging a prospect it was – and is – for the current ownership to build a home suitable and sizeable enough for an elite Premier League club.
Alongside not spoiling Henry VIII’s five-centuries-old view, is the not insignificant matter of the stadium resting up against Brompton Cemetery, a Grade 1 Listed Park.
Abramovich’s plan was striking looking, to put it mildly. Neither ugly nor beautiful, it had a kind of jarring, gothic quality. For a start, its brick façade was unusual for a football stadium: it had jagged brick arches, like Victorian railway viaducts, a sweeping brick bridge, and giant swirling brick staircases.
Even the architects described it as “beyond beauty or ugliness”. Jacques Herzog, of architects Herzog & de Meuron who designed the stadium, likened it to a castle or a medieval walled village. “Something you wouldn’t find anywhere else,” Herzog told The Guardian.
The distinctive brickwork had been another factor in fitting it with the overall aesthetic of the area – something council officials approved of. Proposals also included constructing huge concrete decks that were to be placed over the public transport lines to create attractive plazas.
It had required two separate planning applications – one for the stadium itself and one for the bridge.
In one two-hour meeting in Room 4.1E at City Hall on August 13, 2015, attended by Chelsea officials working on the project, strategic planners, energy consultants and Transport for London officials, the club were asked to create a strategy on energy and water efficiency, waste, surface run off, urban heat island effect, biodiversity, living roofs and walls.
They had explored the idea of placing solar panels on the roof, but the design restricted it and instead considered a closed loop ground source heat pump.
The Stamford Bridge area is within Flood Zone 3a, they were told, and while largely protected from tidal flooding by Thames tidal defences the north area can be a flood risk. They had to mitigate the risk if disaster struck while tens of thousands of fans were in the stadium.
Abramovich shelved his plans in 2018 after being denied a visa by the British Government. Planning permission elapsed, but the same problems have been passed on to the current ownership.
Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital made building a world-leading sports venue one of the priorities of a £4.2bn takeover in 2022, but three years later have little to publicly show for it.
The idea of creating a new Chelsea home is an alluring one: the club is based in swanky, affluent west London and it is believed it can be a glitzy and glamorous go-to venue for celebrities and stars, in the same way Paris Saint-Germain attracts them to the Parc des Princes. But the task of turning that idea into a stadium is monumental.
As Boehly put it in rare public comments on the subject at Bloomberg’s Qatar Economic Forum last year: “The good news is you’re in the middle of London. But the bad news is you’re in the middle of London.”
At the recent Chelsea Pitch Owners Annual General Meeting, held in January, the new stadium plans were a hot topic. Fans wait on tenterhooks for news on the stadium and Gannon had agreed to attend and answer questions. Around 100 were there – roughly twice as many as usual.
For the uninitiated, Chelsea Pitch Owners are key players in all this. Established in 1997 by Ken Bates, the former chairman, they own Stamford Bridge and the club’s name, meaning they have to give a seal of approval to any changes.
“I reported a year ago on the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge and the lack of any progress,” Chris Isitt, the CPO chair, said in his opening statement. “There has been much discussion in the intervening 12 months on whether the club will redevelop the stadium, and it is clear Earls Court has been considered as a possible development site.
“There has been speculation about a divergence of opinion within the ownership group itself over which is the best way forward, and it has been reported that the Earls Court Development Company has submitted its planning application for their site without a stadium in place.
“Whichever outcome is eventually proposed, the timeline for the redevelopment project will stretch well into the future. The board meets regularly with senior officers at the club. We understand that no decision has yet been made and that a decision is not imminent, however we continue to ensure that the company and its shareholders have a voice and play a full part in the next steps.”
Then Gannon took to the stage. But if fans had come hoping for answers, they left disappointed.
“Gannon turning up may have ticked a club box but fans left none-the-wiser,” Tim Rolls, a CPO shareholder who was in attendance, told The i Paper.
“He was affable, but didn’t really reveal anything. I wish he or the club had said something: we’ll have news for you by this date. Something to hang our hat on.”
It is believed that the average age of a Chelsea season ticket holder is 59 – and many want to know if they will get to watch their football club in a new stadium in their lifetime. Some predict it will take at least a decade.
When the takeover was confirmed on 7 May, 2002, a short statement released by the club said that “the proposed new owners will commit £1.75bn in further investment for the benefit of the club. This includes investments in Stamford Bridge, the academy, the women’s team and Kingsmeadow and continued funding for the Chelsea Foundation.”
In the near three years since, the owners have spent billions on ripping up Chelsea from top to bottom, replacing managers, executives, staff and players. But progress on the stadium remains slow.
A site on nearby Earls Court represents the strongest opportunity if they do move, but the Earls Court Development Company has submitted plans for a £6bn redevelopment, including 4,000 homes, landmark venues, green open spaces, but not a football stadium. The plans will be discussed before the end of March with a decision announced in the summer. But Chelsea have not given up on the site, The i Paper understands.
Buying the 1.2-acre Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions site, adjacent to Stamford Bridge, for £80m last year has given plenty of scope to work where they are.
Figures familiar with stadium projects believe the club will be carefully weighing up the benefits of remaining at a site packed with history and heritage, and all of the challenges that entails, with the opportunity to build afresh elsewhere.
This may take a while, but the intention is to build a stadium fit for a king.
from Football - The i Paper https://ift.tt/HIjtEOh
Post a Comment
EmoticonClick to see the code!
To insert emoticon you must added at least one space before the code.