Temporary Home?

Where would be the best temporary/most likely home for us?

  • Total voters

Yorkville Spur

Active Member
Aug 31, 2012
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but the FA now says it's open to Tottenham and Chelsea using Wembley while they build stadiums. We'd have to spend the entire season there if we did it--per the Premier League--but it looks like it's an option now. The best one, in my opinion.


Twisting a Melon with the Rev. Black Grape
Apr 13, 2006
although Wembley would be great, I have an errant fear that the FA will hold us to ransom on it and ask for far too much money, and I can see Chelsea paying up (effectively seeing a market rate that we won't follow) just to spurs us, especially as the cost would be outside of FFP.

Wine Gum

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2007

FA happy for Chelsea and Tottenham to use Wembley as temporary home
• Chelsea and Tottenham will need to leave their stadiums during rebuilding
• FA chief executive says Hodgson happy to go to Euro 2016 with future unclear

Chelsea and Tottenham contest the 2015 Capital One Cup final at Wembley, which could be used by both clubs as a temporary home. Tom Jenkins for the Guardian
Jamie Jackson

Wednesday 9 September 2015 18.00 BSTLast modified on Wednesday 9 September 201520.40 BS

The Football Association has cleared the way for Chelsea and Tottenham to play at Wembley while their grounds are under development. The FA’s chief executive, Martin Glenn, said he would support clubs using the 90,000-seat arena in those circumstances.

Chelsea may have to vacate Stamford Bridge for at least two seasons if their£500m plan to increase capacity to 60,000 comes to fruition. Tottenham expect to spend the 2017-18 campaign away from White Hart Lane as they build a ground that will also host NFL games. Both clubs are interested in a temporary relocation to Wembley.

“I won’t comment on clubs but if that’s an opportunity then we will follow it,” Glenn said. “We are there to provide help. We can run the FA for less costs and we can raise more. There’s a range of things. It’s primarily a football stadium, football matches are more profitable to run than concerts and other things.

“We are the national stadium and seeking to use it more is what we are all about. We have an obligation to football. I’m not talking specific clubs but it’s in our interest as an association for clubs to redevelop their grounds, make superb facilities and if it’s possible to help them in that transition by using Wembley, we are absolutely supportive of that.”

The Premier League would give the go-ahead for Chelsea and Spurs to share Wembley for a season but would not allow a club to play home league matches at more than one stadium in a season.


"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Jan 23, 2006


Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2013
If already posted apologies. But likely timescale for Chelsea is 2020 which should leave 17/18 season free for us a Wembley.
That's the most realistic timescale I have seen for Chelsea, I never thought the 17/18 dates were true, they've hardly started the process, I am not even sure they'll get that monstrosity through planning.
But they want to use Wembley for 3
seasons apparently.


Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2005
The FA comments are that they are in the business of helping associated clubs and that the stadium is prioritised for football use.

I don't think it could be much clearer that we would be able to use it.
And even if we could only use half the tiers it would still be 40,000, a 10% increase on WHL. This would generate around £4 million extra for the whole season which should cover any extra rent/charges incurred by Wembley.

The FA/Wembley want it, the fans want it, we shouldn't be any worse off financially so the club should be happy, I really can't see any excuse for not using Wembley.
Sep 1, 2012
Wembley cannot accommodate two football clubs AND all the other events they are contracted into for season 2017/18 (NFL, Concerts, Rugby, Internationals etc) - just logistically can't happen. They'll make nice soothing noises to draw the pretence that they're not biased, but in the end they'll go for the most money, ie Chelsea. Who, btw, won't even need it for that season but are intent on locking us out of a bigger stadium with easy access for hospitality and corporate clients who they fear will stay with us when we go into our shiny new home.

With the OS stuff now making Boris and David Gold and Robin Wales look very compromised, I'd bet a pound to a penny we end up at the OS to calm the whole thing down and show an illusion that the stadium is paying its way to the taxpayer.


Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2013

FA eye £55million for sharing Wembley as talks with Chelsea and Tottenham continue
  • FA revenues would be boosted by a Premier League side using the ground
  • Wembley board are under pressure to allow a club to use the stadium
  • Chelsea need at least three seasons to build a 60,000 capacity stadium
  • Tottenham will need a temporary home for a minimum of one campaign
The Football Association expect to pull off a £55million cash bonanza by negotiating deals that would see Chelsea and Tottenham ground share Wembley from 2017-18.

Negotiations with the clubs continue, with sources close to the FA reporting that they are looking to find a way for both to make the temporary move.

The Wembley board are under pressure from the Premier League to allow at least one of the clubs to use the stadium, a move that would boost FA’s revenues.

Chelsea would require the stadium for a minimum of three seasons while they build a 60,000 capacity stadium costing £500m. Tottenham will need to relocate for at least one season — possibly two — while they build their new 61,000 multi-purpose stadium that will also host NFL.

The FA could expect to bank about £11m a year from each club, bringing in a total of £55m to FA coffers.

It is understood Tottenham are prepared to share Wembley with their Premier League rivals but Chelsea are less receptive. As such, the FA’s hopes of maximising their cash windfall hinge on persuading them that the ground share can work.

If not, the FA would miss out on additional revenue, with Spurs also considering Milton Keynes and the Olympic Stadium as alternatives.

FA chief executive Martin Glenn admits it is possible both clubs could play at Wembley without overlapping and there are no restrictions to how often the stadium is used when the capacity is restricted to 50,000.

A £50m windfall from the two clubs would soften the blow if there are shortfalls from the sale of the 17,500 corporate seats, which expire in 2017. Speaking at Soccerex recently, Glenn said: ‘We are there to provide help. We can run the FA for less costs and we can raise more. There’s a range of things. Wembley is primarily a football stadium; football matches are more profitable to run than concerts and other things.

‘It’s in our interest for clubs to redevelop their grounds, make superb facilities and if it’s possible to help them in that transition by using Wembley, we are absolutely supportive of that.’


Well-Known Member
Jul 6, 2011
I think Chelsea are dreaming if they think they will be needing use of Wembley as early as 17/18 season. Their whole approach suggests they see playing at Wembley as some kind of kudos thing and something to look forward to. For us it's an unwanted necessity, hence why we are only looking at the single season away so we can spend as little time away from home as possible.

Wherever we end up I'll be counting the days until we are out of the place and playing our games at our new home which will more than likely be the best football stadium in the country. All this posturing and chat from other clubs, notably Chelsea and West Ham, will stand for nothing in the grand scheme of things. Once everyone is in their new homes we will be the smug bar stewards looking down on everyone else in a stadium that pishes all over theirs.