Soccer

CHELSEA previously failed in a bid to move away from Stamford Bridge back in 2012, ultimately losing out to a shopping centre development.The Blues are once again considering waving goodbye to the Bridge as they look to build a new stadium.Chelsea are looking to upgrade on Stamford BridgeCredit: APThe Blues’ stadium has a much smaller capacity than many of their rivals’ groundsCredit: GettyChelsea proposed plans to takeover Battersea Power Station back in 2012Credit: Chelsea FCTheir plans would have made a spectacular stadium, keeping the historic chimneys in placeCredit: Chelsea FCChelsea have been keen to increase their capacity for decades with the London giants currently only able to host 40,341 fans in their SW6 home.And they thought they might have found the perfect place to move into some 12 years ago, when they eyed up Battersea Power Station.Chelsea execs tried to buy the then derelict coal-fired power station with plans to convert it into a 60,000 seat stadium in the heart of Southwest London.The stadium plans looked to include the iconic chimneys that have stood as part of Battersea Power Station since its construction in the 1940s.READ MORE ON CHELSEAWhile the building’s exposed brick was also set to be kept in place according to mock-up plans that were released at the time.Their plan involved building one stand in the existing structure of the building and then creating a new stadium around it.However, things didn’t go to plan and the sensational blueprints were ditched when their bid was rejected by the powers at be.Instead, a Malaysian company turned the Grade II listed building into a shopping centre filled with high-end retail stores, restaurants, a cinema and a number of luxury apartments.Most read in FootballBEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERSThat development finally opened in 2022.That isn’t the only abandoned plans that Chelsea have had either with the club pitching a 60,000 seat redevelopment of Stamford Bridge just three years later.PREM RULE CHANGESThe club even received all the required planning permission from the local council and the Mayor of London to begin work on the plans.But that idea was ditched back in 2018 when the club released a shock statement announcing its decision to pull the development, citing the “unfavourable investment climate”.Any proposed move away from Stamford Bridge would be particularly difficult for Chelsea due to a fan group known as Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO).The CPO own both the pitch at Stamford Bridge and the name Chelsea Football Club Limited.That would mean that if Chelsea are to burn down the Bridge then they would likely have to change their club name to bypass the CPO group.Battersea Power Station was ultimately used in a different redevelopmentCredit: AlamyThe building is now filled with shops and restaurantsCredit: GettyChelsea will lose their soul by leaving Stamford BridgeBy Matt PennJUST what London needs – another £1billion bowl-shaped, soulless football stadium.No offence to Spurs, because theirs looks great, but it’s not like they had years of title-winning history to celebrate at White Hart Lane.Arsenal moved on from Highbury a couple of years after their last Premier League title win in 2004, and to no avail, they’ve been chasing that glory ever since.And the less said about West Ham’s move from Upton Park, the better. The Olympic Stadium pales in significance to Upton Park, where binoculars weren’t needed to see the pitch from Row Z.It’s no secret Chelsea fans have become disillusioned with the club since Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali took over from Roman Abramovich two years ago.The sacking of two full-time managers in that time, a 12th-place finish in the league, no European football, billions spent on Brazilian teenagers you’ve never heard of and civil war between the owners have turned the club into a laughing stock.Seems like the perfect time to revamp plans to leave Stamford Bridge, doesn’t it?According to The Guardian, Chelsea are in talks to move to a new 60,000-seater site in Earl’s Court, something they’ve attempted before.Chelsea are said to have made plans for the Lillie Bridge depot site as an area that could be developed in a move that could cost hundreds of millions.Forget that so much else still needs fixing on the pitch, that the results are still not going the way they should, that players still can’t seem to click on a consistent basis.The owners, who are said to be looking to buy each other out already, might not think it, and the seats might be a little rusty, but fans do value tradition.The Bridge has been a place supporters can call home every other Saturday. It’s raw, the stands are close to the pitch, it has four sides, and most importantly, it’s owned by the fans.For any deal to go through, Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), a group made up of over 14,000 fans, have to approve a move away from the 42,000-seater stadium.On the other hand, redvelopment of Stamford Bridge would see the team move away from the stadium for a number of years, likely double the three years Tottenham spent at Wembley.But why not overhaul each stand one-by-one? Both Liverpool and Fulham had stands refurbished and they were able to stay put. There are also plans for Crystal Palace to do the same.If Boehly and Eghbali are so desperate to put money at the forefront of their decision-making, then go about it in a way which will appease fans.Sadly, football isn’t really about fans anymore, and it’d be easy to say Chelsea will lose their soul if they leave Stamford Bridge.But you fear they already have. More

THE Blade still cuts deep when Kevin McCabe recalls the Carlos Tevez Affair.The ex-Sheffield United chairman has released a warts-and-all story of his two decades in charge at Bramall Lane.Former Sheffield United chairman Kevin McCabe has recalled how Carlos Tevez’s transfer to West Ham helped Sheffield United lose their place in the Premier LeagueCredit: PA:Empics SportTevez’s Hammers switch was shrouded in controversyCredit: GettyAnd the 17 years since the Argentine striker kept West Ham up at the expense of his beloved Blades have not healed the wounds of a saga McCabe calls an “absolute disgrace”.Tevez stuck the knife in with the goal in a 1-0 win at Manchester United on the final day of the 2006-07 season, his sixth goal in nine games, to keep the Hammers in the Premier League.That was hugely controversial as West Ham had already been found guilty of breaking transfer rules in signing Tevez and fellow countryman Javier Mascherano in August 2006.They were part-owned by agent Kia Joorabchian’s company Media Sports Investment — even though rules banned a third party from holding a stake in a Prem player.READ MORE IN FOOTBALLRather than issuing the points deduction demanded by McCabe and other relegation rivals, West Ham were fined £5.5million — before Tevez’s goal sent Sheffield United down.McCabe told SunSport: “We recognised West Ham were never going to be deducted points.“All the way through the process it was the gossip of all club chairmen.BEST FREE BET SIGN UP OFFERS FOR UK BOOKMAKERS“Everyone knew West Ham had cheated and had admitted cheating.Most read in Football“But at no stage did the Premier League in discussions with the tribunal ever indicate points should be deducted — which was the norm.Carlos Tevez, 38, lands first job in management as ex-Man Utd and City star is named boss of Rosario Central “They took a chance that West Ham were going to be relegated anyway.“They were seven points behind the likes of Sheffield United with four or five games to go and still had to play Manchester United at Old Trafford.”The Blades were later awarded £20m compensation by a tribunal — but the damage had been done.Four seasons in the Championship and SIX even more miserable campaigns in League One ­followed before a return to the second tier.And McCabe claims the affair ultimately forced him out of the club he loves after a bitter battle with co-owner Prince Abdullah in 2019.McCabe invited the Saudi prince into Bramall Lane in 2013 — selling 50 per cent of his shares for £1 in exchange for £10m of vital player investment.But McCabe, who had put £100m into the Blades since the mid-1990s, was stung by a contract that kicked in after the pair fell out — allowing each side to counter-offer for control.Inside West Ham’s Tevez controversyBy Martin LiptonIT was the SALE of midfielder Javier Mascherano to Liverpool in January 2007 that opened up one of the Premier League’s biggest scandals.Argentina ace Mascherano and fellow countryman Carlos Tevez had been unveiled by West Ham in a shock “undisclosed” double deal on deadline day five months earlier.But when Mascherano moved to Anfield, it emerged that a large percentage of the “economic rights” to both players were actually owned by agent Kia Joorabchian through his company MSI – a blatant breach of Prem rules.That began a Prem investigation and despite the appointment of Alan Curbishley to replace Alan Pardew, the Hammers appeared to be certain of relegation when they were charged with breaching League rules in March.Incredibly, having been bottom after Tevez scored his first of the season in a 4-3 home defeat by Spurs, the Argentine sparked a remarkable turnaround.Even so, when West Ham admitted to having misled the Prem over the signings – former chairman Terry Brown and his managing director Paul Aldridge were found to have hidden documents from League chiefs – and pleaded guilty, they still seemed doomed.While relegation rivals were demanding points being docked, the commission instead fined the club a record £5.5m, with panel head Simon Bourne-Arton QC arguing that any deduction would have “condemned” them to the drop whereas such a punishment in January “would have been easier to bear”.But West Ham then won their final three matches – making it seven wins in nine – including a final day victory at Old Trafford secured by Tevez’ winner, to send Sheffield United into the Championship alongside Charlton and Watford.League bosses opted not to appeal against the Commission verdict, a decision unsuccessfully challenged by the Blades, who then announced their intention to sue West Ham for compensation.In April 2009, almost two years later, the Hammers agreed to pay a £20m settlement.Meanwhile, Tevez was coming to the end of a two year “loan” at United, where he won back to back Prem crowns, the Champions League and League Cup before a contentious move to Manchester City that summer.A court ultimately forced McCabe to sell his 50 per cent stake to the Prince for £5m — at a point when his shareholding was worth £52m.And yet McCabe is convinced that without the Tevez Affair, the club he supported from childhood would still be flourishing in his hands.The 76-year-old has told his side of the story in a new book “Mucky Boots: Triumphs, Trials and Tragedies of a Football Club Owner”.He said: “The impact of us being ‘illegally’ relegated was massive.“It saw the break–up of the team and manager Neil Warnock leaving.“All of the energy around Sheffield United, on and off the field,  was sapped because everybody knew what an injustice it all was.“It was such a distressing time — and later for me in what would follow later with Prince Abdullah.READ MORE SUN STORIES“Mucky Boots? I would call it all mucky dealings.”Mucky Boots: Triumphs, Trials and Tragedies of a Football Club Owner — by Kevin McCabe with Peter Beeby — is out now from Pitch PublishingWest Ham were ultimately fined £5.5m for breaking the rules to sign Carlos Tevez and Javier MascheranoCredit: GettyKevin McCabe’s tell-all book is out now More