I know the NS is a horribly outdated, but would a compromise be infilling the corners in that area to give an almost instant increase in capacity with minimal risk/cost?
Quote from: mr underhill on July 24, 2019, 08:54:41 AMI know the NS is a horribly outdated, but would a compromise be infilling the corners in that area to give an almost instant increase in capacity with minimal risk/cost?I can't think why, but you'll find people who are against that. Probably.
Chelsea? Smaller capacity than VP isn't it? And Roman doesn't look in a hurry to pump the billions in to move.
Quote from: mr underhill on July 24, 2019, 07:20:10 AMChelsea? Smaller capacity than VP isn't it? And Roman doesn't look in a hurry to pump the billions in to move.You're right, I wasn't aware that they were no longer going ahead with plans to expand the stadium. However, said plans are only "on hold". I'd be surprised if they were playing at a stadium with a sub-50,000 capacity in five years.
Apparently issue for Stamford Bridge is train/tube line round the back of one of the stands so can't develop past 50k.
I wonder, with the money nswe are chucking around, if there are big plans for the ground. What would people think of a 60k seat, state of the art stadium built close to the city centre?
Quote from: SoccerHQ on July 24, 2019, 07:23:15 PMApparently issue for Stamford Bridge is train/tube line round the back of one of the stands so can't develop past 50k.They got permission to redevelop it to 60k, so that can't be right.The problem is Roman's pulled the money because of his visa hold-back.