Craven Cottage

cam · Post by **cam** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:20 pm

It's great to see Fulham back at Craven Cottage in 2004/05. When Fulham were promoted to the Premier League, the FA gave the club one years grace to continue to play at their ground (as it has terraces behind each of the goals - which of course is banned now in England for the top flight). They then ground-shared for 2 seasons while looking for a location for a new stadium after they weren't allowed to re-build craven. They've now built 2 new stands behind the two goals, and put new seats in the existing 2 stands. Unfortunately the ground has lost a bit of its character with the removal of the 4 old light towers, replaced with poles.

The ground hosted its first game on the weekend, they only let 7,000 in for some reason. The venue now holds 22,000 i think, the lowest in the Premier League.

Photos from the weekend:

The old lights:

swede · Post by **swede** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 3:31 pm

It really is a sad story and they must have mixed feelings about returning home.
They knew the club couldnt stand to continue to ground-share after the plans for the cottage fell through so they did the bare minimum of work and moved back. They know they cant stay but they have nowhere to go. Years have passed,but they havent even identified a site where planning permission might be at least theoretically possible.

The best (only)solution would be to buy or long term lease Stamford Bridge, which could only happen if Chelsea either bought Twickenham with rugby moving to Wembley or Chelsea became tenants at Wembley.
English rugby will never accept the first solution even if they would make a ton of money from it(£ ½ billion bid wouldnt surprise me).
The other solution is far more likely with the FA believed to have softened its stance, though they must be aware that the loss of Wembley´s neutrality would be seriously unpopular.

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 1:29 am

Nice compact little ground though. I love it. would be great for a RL match. It used to hoast Fulham RLFC (now known as London Broncos RLFC).

The Al Fayed connection produced this gem for me. I was in Harrod's last year looking around their jersey section. It was wall to wall big clubs. Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Brazil, England, Italy, AC Milan, Real Madrid, FULHAM. I know the bloke own it but it was funny to see. It's like seeing a shirt that reads, "LONDON, PARIS, ROME, TOKYO, NEW YORK, WAGGA WAGGA.

Chelsea is dead close so Swede's suggestion is plausible. It would be a shame if they left. I hope they get a nice gound of their own in their own district.

marin · Post by **marin** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 12:51 am

One of the main reasons why Roman Abramovich baught Chelsea in the first place was because the football club owns a prime site real estate land. It owns all of the surroundings with the Chelsea Hotel and Marina near by.
I would have thought that these assets are for sale for the right price (perhaps Mr. Al Fayed has the right amount of money), which would mean that Chelsea relocates.
I just can't see them though renting the new Wembley..

yob · Post by **yob** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:12 am

Jeffles · Post by **Jeffles** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:23 am

Swede always has excellent comments here. Hope hecomes on soon and replies to you yob.

For what it's worth, English people are tied to their locality very much. They are very tribal and insular. It must come from living in such a crowded island with infinite cultural differences. A lad in North Manchester looking at a lawn would be able to tell you if a blade of grass grows in Oldham and casts a shadow in Rochdale. as a result, the ground and its locality becomes very important to a fan.

marin · Post by **marin** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 1:26 am

Well yob, I am Greek as mentioned in the Athens 2004 topic, but I share my time between Athens and London (mostly London really).
I too have an appreciation of how the English or even British keep their traditions in sport. The short answer to your question would be that it is almost impossible for a club to relocate to another club's ground as was the case with Wimbledon. But they had to share the gorund and in effect their club with QPR if I m not mistaken and that simply isn't done in these parts of the world.
If you were to relocate for example Arsenal (it is going to happen anyway) you would have to keep them in North London and obviously with a new gorund to theirselves. Otherwise it doesn't work.

Tonic · Post by **Tonic** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:58 am

yob, i think Wimbledon went broke becasue they had budgeted a huge amount of money based on an ITV Digital rights deal, which when ITV Digital went bust, there was a huge blackhole in Wimbledon's budget that sunk them...

swede · Post by **swede** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 10:58 am

Thanks for the compliment, jeffles.

Wimbledon really is an exception and I cant see such a move happening again.
There is a Football League rule banning clubs from moving more than X miles(cant remember the number, but its not many) away from their origins.
Wimbledon only got around this rule by presenting evidence that they would go bankrupt if they didnt move, (the approval definately helped by the fact that the club has by far the shortest history of all the 92 league clubs and a very very small support ) however given the general reaction I think the Football League have regretted their decision and its not going to happen again.

More generally moving to a new stadium is nowhere near as controversial as it used to be and accepted if there is no other choice. I dont think there was a single new stadium built from WW2 until the disasters in the 80´s now its quite normal.

What is not accepted is groundsharing. Its simply loathed, but the advantages are obviously enormous and some clubs have reportedly considered it, but I doubt anyone would dare do it and they shouldnt do it even if it can seem insane to build so many expensive venues right next to eachother. I think its felt that a club will lose its identity by sharing. Temporary arrangements have occured in London and are never a success as evidenced by Fulham moving back despite still seeking a new stadium

james_ · Post by **james_** » Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:24 am

I happened to come across this document on the web...

http://www.backtothecottage.co.uk/march2004.doc

I haven't read it, so I don't know if its relevant or up to date.

To be honest I haven't paid any attention to this thread, but its about Craven Cottage...

When I get a chance I might read both.

swede · Post by **swede** » Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:29 am

Well, I havent read the whole thing either, but its not out of date.

Its a look at Fulham´s current situation and urging caution regarding moving to a possible new White City stadium.

Its from "Back to the Cottage" which was a campaign started by the Fulham Supporters´ Trust to get Fulham back to their home.
They presented a study of how the Cottage could be developed on a smaller scale when the club didnt appear to know what to do after the original plans fell through.
Having achieved that, they now dont want to see the club move out again too soon.