Chelsea Bid For Battersea Power Station Site – Plan 60,000 Capacity Stadium With Four Chimneys Intact

By Chris Wright

Chelsea have confirmed via their official website that they have submitted a bid to acquire the Battersea Power Station site in order to build a new 60,000-seater stadium on said land.

The club have announced they along with their ‘property development partners’ Almacantar are hoping to acquire the 39 acres of land, which they plan to redevelop if, as and when they should decide to up-sticks and leave Stamford Bridge. We’re not sure if Pink Floyd are willing to throw in the inflatable pig.

Chelsea also set about outlining their intentions; retail outlets, accomodation, offices, yadda yadda yadda – though our inquisitive eye was immediately drawn to this particular excerpt from the statement:

“The four iconic chimneys and wash towers along with the Grade II listed west turbine hall and control room will be restored and retained in their original locations and provide a unique architectural backdrop to a world-class stadium with a capacity of around 60,000 seats.”

A chimney on each corner, pitch in the middle?¬†This needs to happen as, by our reckoning, it would look unbe-friggin’-awesomeable.

Names, names, names. We need names people. How about the ‘Battersea Drogs Home’?

The Beeb have further details should you require them.

Posted in Chelsea, Transfers & Rumours

Share this article: Email

20 Comments

  1. Al says:

    “Cunt Central” has a nice refreshing ring to it, ah sorry thats harsh, and in unofficial use by old trafford anyway

  2. Phiwe says:

    Shit Pit?

  3. plops says:

    This would be bleedin amazing, if they do it nicely. Nice to see someone actually thinking about it creatively instead of just slapping another identikit stadium down.

    Names: Stamford-over-the-Bridge. Les Battersby Arena. Roman’s Colluseum / Roman’s Amphitheatre. Abramovich Towers. The Very Rich Russian Jew’s Playpen.

  4. The Belgian says:

    haha, Abramovich Towers! My favorite yet

  5. Anonymous says:

    I think the Battersea Power Stadium is more than amazing.

  6. KingEric7 says:

    Why would they leave Stamford Bridge after 8 glorious years of history?

  7. Milkchew says:

    Erm, would I be right in saying they would have to change the name of the club due to a link in contract thingy ma bob with the stadium? I remember this popping up a few years back. Cant see this coming off tbh.

  8. Tom says:

    Don’t really like Chelsea but if they can combine this landmark with an all mod-cons stadium I think it would be fantastic!

    No doubt they couldnt destroy the listed architecture so it has the potential to look amazing. Possibly the greatest looking stadium in the world (from the outside anyway).

    Although, would the non-London based get it? Would future generations get it? Or would the iconic landmark, assimilated by a stadium, be lost on those who didn’t know of it before it became The Battersea Bridge Stadium?

  9. Steve K says:

    Milkchew, they would have to change the name of the club if the Chelsea Pitch Owners (fans who bought shares back in 90’s) refused to allow the club to move from Stamford Bridge.
    But if they built a frickin’ sweet stadium with towers on it, surely the majority of the CPO would vote to allow the move.
    Although I can see them being a pain, as Battersea isn’t currently as accessible as Fulham Broadway, but we’ll have to wait and see on that…

  10. usrick says:

    For those of us not from or familiar with West London, is the power station already closed or is this something several years down the road?

    Battersea Stadium or Battersea Park (except isn’t there a Battersea Park already) doesn’t sound bad to me.

  11. Vincent Cole says:

    still a lot of hate from West Ham fans on here I see

    jealous much?

  12. West End Blues says:

    @usrick The power station has been closed for a very long time, certainly all my life. Wikipedia has just informed me it closed in 1975. And yes there is a Battersea Park (Its next to the power plant).

    As a Chelsea fan it would be very sad to leave Stamford Bridge, as it has been our home for over 100 years. However with FFP rules looming on the horizon, this would be a very viable way for the club to generate greater match day revenue, especially considering renovating Stamford Bridge is not at all realistic. It is an amazing building and I personally think this could be a great way to celebrate the local heritage, if done tastefully of course. Its refreshing that the plans are not for another ‘IKEA’ stadium (cough Emirates cough).

    The extra capacity would also be very welcome, I know Chelsea Members who struggle to get tickets to big clashes. I also think this could help improve the atmosphere at games, as (with any luck) this could help bring prices down. Real Chelsea fans can barely afford to go to Stanford Bridge on match days atm and too many tickets (proportionally speaking) are corporate or go to tourists, etc.

    However another consideration would be how the CPO react to the plans. The CPO don’t only own the pitch at the Bridge but also the rights to the name Chelsea Football Club. If less than 75pc of the pitch owners vote in favor of the move then we’d get to read more hilarious suggestions on a new name for the club….

  13. Terry Shedingham says:

    @usrick

    It’s not been in use for years, maybe even decades. It’s basically just an empty shell now. It was just kept there, probably ’cause it’s interesting architecturally.

  14. Sam says:

    @usrick

    it’s not functioned since ’83, but is still used for events

  15. Patrick says:

    “The Huff-n-Puff Stadium”, just “Huff-n-Puff” for short.

  16. Mr. Sparkle says:

    Stamford Bridge is owned and operated by Chelsea Pitch Owners. Along with the naming rights of the Club itself. (In 1992, they bought the rights after the club went belly-up).

    Moving out of Stamford Bridge would mean that Chelsea would forfeit the name, since the Pitch Owners have threatened them with such. Considering that as of recently, the Club failed to gain enough votes to buy back the Stadium from the Pitch Owners (in 2011, 62% voted for it but they needed 75%), moving to Battersea Station is a bit hopeful that the Pitch Owners will even allow the club to be moved in the first place.

    Unless I’m mistaken.

    Than again, the Daily Mail says the same thing:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2139510/Chelsea-bid-Battersea-Power-Station-site.html

  17. James says:

    Chelsea, always trying to buy history in new and crazy ways

  18. Archbishop Betty Snagcock says:

    @plops: Stamford-Over-The-Bridge is best one so far by a mile

  19. werderbremen_rulez says:

    Bloody brilliant! I think i might actually like them a little if they’d play in such a remarkable non-plasticky stadium.

    That said, they will still lose to bayern in the cl no matter what their fancy-ass stadium is going to look like.

Leave a Reply