Chelsea want the White City site.

[silvercue]

there just are not enough suitable sites in West London for Chelsea and QPR to build big new stadiums. So it may be ground share or lose out to Chelsea who seem to have got a step ahead.

[MYU]

One of the things we need to do is charge for parking like they do at Ricoh Arena, £10 each car but ST and members free.

[Felt]

there just are not enough suitable sites in West London for Chelsea and QPR to build big new stadiums. So it may be ground share or lose out to Chelsea who seem to have got a step ahead.

Agreed mate. As much as we don't like it, a ground share might be the only viable option. Also, as a little food for thought, Chelsea's average attendance was 18,000 in 1992-93. If we have a bit of success we could see attendances rise (although there will still probably be plenty of empty seats) and there should be a few cross-marketing opportunities to be had with Westfield.

[Mellowhoop]

They do not need a new stadium...

[Del]

Chelsea would only ever fill a 60k stadium for a select few games as they don't have anything like the support of other top clubs, such as UTD, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs etc. They have countless Champions League games with plenty of empty seats which says it all.

As for us, groundshare doesn't suit. We need a new stadium to maximise growth in commercial and revenue generating means to help establish the club, provide the funds to develop the team and win new fans etc etc... If we share, we immediately restrict any options we have.

Lets hope the franchise rules are relaxed and Roman can fu$k off to Russia with his club.

As for us and financing a ground, perhaps we should tell Mittal if he digs out some spare change to fund it we'll all forget we saw anything of that documentary last night about his factory and won't tell the authorities.... Iamgine having that over your back fence....Shocking!

[Del]

Maybe the club were testing the water with the "Mug Share" we saw the other day.... that one went down well anyway!

[Gtleighsr3]

I like the idea, I also like us to move into the bridge if they **** off

[QPRDave]

Maybe the club were testing the water with the "Mug Share" we saw the other day.... that one went down well anyway!

F**kin ell didn't it just

[stainrodisalegend]

So let me get this straight. Most fans (at a guess) want a new stadium because Loftus Rd is too small/ cramped/ old fashioned and they don't like rival fans making rude comments about our ground because it makes their willies feel small. But nor do they want to share because they don't like Chelsea. Nor do they want a ground anywhere further out because that would be a mild inconvenience. Oh, and they don't want to pay any more money to sit in the new ground but they do want better players to watch. All of this should be funded by the owners, even though a new ground in central London ony to be used once a fortnight (and not at all in summer) would cost several hundred million pounds (ie the entire wealth of our majority shareholder).

In short, fans want it all. In short, I have seen more maturity in the sandpit at my kids primary school. Personally I think sharing with Fulham could make more sense as - despite the evidence of last weekend - we are better matched, but if the owners decide it makes sense to go with Chelsea, then get over yourselves and start backing them like they have backed QPR.

[QPRDave]

I like the idea, I also like us to move into the bridge if they **** off

Are there still blasphemy laws!

[QPRDave]

[QUOTE=stainrodisalegend;720647]So let me get this straight. Most fans (at a guess) want a new stadium because Loftus Rd is too small/ cramped/ old fashioned and they don't like rival fans making rude comments about our ground because it makes their willies feel small. But nor do they want to share because they don't like Chelsea. Nor do they want a ground anywhere further out because that would be a mild inconvenience. Oh, and they don't want to pay any more money to sit in the new ground but they do want better players to watch. All of this should be funded by the owners, even though a new ground in central London ony to be used once a fortnight (and not at all in summer) would cost several hundred million pounds (ie the entire wealth of our majority shareholder).

Thats about the size of it yeah!!!


In short, fans want it all. In short, I have seen more maturity in the sandpit at my kids primary school. Personally I think sharing with Fulham could make more sense as - despite the evidence of last weekend - we are better matched, but if the owners decide it makes sense to go with Chelsea, then get over yourselves and start backing them like they have backed QPR.[/QUOTE]

[Del]

So let me get this straight. Most fans (at a guess) want a new stadium because Loftus Rd is too small/ cramped/ old fashioned and they don't like rival fans making rude comments about our ground because it makes their willies feel small. But nor do they want to share because they don't like Chelsea. Nor do they want a ground anywhere further out because that would be a mild inconvenience. Oh, and they don't want to pay any more money to sit in the new ground but they do want better players to watch. All of this should be funded by the owners, even though a new ground in central London ony to be used once a fortnight (and not at all in summer) would cost several hundred million pounds (ie the entire wealth of our majority shareholder).

In short, fans want it all. In short, I have seen more maturity in the sandpit at my kids primary school. Personally I think sharing with Fulham could make more sense as - despite the evidence of last weekend - we are better matched, but if the owners decide it makes sense to go with Chelsea, then get over yourselves and start backing them like they have backed QPR.

And your point is...

Seriously though, the part highlighted is a key reason why most clubs move so they can develope a complex which also generates money the other 346 days a year aside from matchdays, be it hotels, function suites, hospitality, restaurant whatever.... that will be key for us, and given the circles our wealthy owners move in there must be massive opportunities to maximise such offerings, hence i don't see them wanting to restrict their options by a ground share.

Of course whatever they decide is right we should support, but they will want the fans in unisen as the legacy will last 100 years, long after they will go.

[HoopHappy]

Bringing 20,000 to a 60,000 seater stadium will still not look as bad as Queens Park who bring 500 to a 50,000 seater stadium!

[The Merry Ploughboy]

Personally, I don't mind sharing with them as long as we stay in our manor, which White city is..Would just make sure I had all my jabs up to date

[LoftusRoadLad]

The Olympia site would suit both of us...about half way each. (thats if we are gonna share with em). Dont want the muppets invading the Bush every other week !