24 Mar 2025 13:28:07
I see that TB has confirmed that the joint ownership is still in dispute over the SB development and that it may eventually lead to one of the joint owners selling up.
I personally think this would azgood thing having a single owner rather than two who don't agree on what is a particular important issue that is SB.
24 Mar 2025 14:45:53
Bill, I thought I had read all of TB presentation and from what I’ve read my takeaway is different from yours Bill.
Sky are somehow suggesting Earlscourt as an alternative for any SB development and again that was not my takeaway from the passages I have read.
The so called board room disagreements were also addressed as something of the past and anyway I didn’t see them as being anything unusual.
I’m always happy to have our owners communicate all things Chelsea.
24 Mar 2025 15:45:16
Tom
He did say that they either align over the SB project or go their separate ways.
To be that means if they can't agree, one will have to sell.
He did ssa though that they agree on all aspects of the business.
24 Mar 2025 16:20:37
Bill, yes TB seemed to hint that SB being redeveloped on our present site or a new site “may” cause a parting of the ways. My guess is that if a sound business case is made for one or other then all parties will eventually agree. After all that should be what they both want.
I would suggest that the guy who is running with the project will put forward his case and recommendations and then it will become interesting.
24 Mar 2025 17:32:24
Totally agree Tom, I just hope some is sorted out soon with them rather than it dragging on.
24 Mar 2025 18:26:57
Bill, I think a Matt Law article suggests that the guy running the project will make his recommendations this summer.
Of course what we don’t know is if we stay at the Stamford Bridge site will it require a new design? If it’s decided to try for Earlscourt then we have to negotiate with the new owners of that site.
24 Mar 2025 21:11:20
It is well known that Clearlake want to rebuild stand by stand which increases capacity to just 55k. A cheap option to fit their agenda of making billions of pounds over a 10 year period. Todd is the one we want but he has a very small ownership percentage, less than 20%. He wants a rebuild or new ground elsewhere. The fanbase is split between staying at our roots or moving. Either way it will be a minimum of 10 years before a new stadium or reworked stadium happens. Roman tried for 15 years to sort this but couldn't. Not an easy issue and best to not put your blood pressure up worrying about these things.
24 Mar 2025 22:02:37
Anna, I have to say that your post is the time that I’ve read that Clearlake only want to extend our current stadium. Although it wouldn’t be preferred choice I have said several times that I think it’s the most likely outcome.
Supposedly the proposal is being presented to the club in the summer. I will be very interested in its findings but I think I will be going to the bridge for a few more years yet.
25 Mar 2025 08:06:42
We have 4 joint owners with Clearlake being the largest so unless one of them buy out the other 3, which is unlikely, we shall remain a club with more than one opinion but that is fine. If Clearlake do succeed with their plan then Stamford Bridge will be extended stand by stand but will only give us that 55k seats which I mentioned earlier. I would much prefer Todd, Mark and the other chap to buy out Clearlake and push on with building a new stadium either at Earls court if possible or on our existing site. Do you have any other information Tom?
25 Mar 2025 08:51:45
I'm with you Anna on moving away from the Bridge. I'm fed up with residents, graveyards and tube stations hindering our development as a club.
I would also say that if atB and associates bought out Clearlake, it would probably be with the help of new investors coming on board.
25 Mar 2025 09:02:34
Anna, I don’t have any further information but the owners have been good in attending CPO meetings and giving updates about SB. Although I can’t see there being much more to say until the recommendation is made, apparently in the summer.
I would much prefer a new ground and I hope I am wrong but I just think they will expand the existing SB. The rumoured extra capacity is 55k ish probably isn’t enough. It’s probably just me but I just don’t see part of ownership (Clearlake) being interested in an investment that is about long term returns. I think if there is ever a buyout it will require a different type of owner. Of course a move would be made a lot easier if our wonderful London Mayor declared the Earls Court project a regeneration area and then we might get some government funding.
25 Mar 2025 10:04:07
Thanks Tom, it is good to hear that the owners are communicating with the CPO.
25 Mar 2025 11:05:54
Anna, it’s me being an old cynic but I think we can guess the reason why.
25 Mar 2025 12:27:07
The trouble staying at the Bridge will be what extra revenue we can gain without a hindrance from the residents such as concerts.
25 Mar 2025 12:58:34
There are residents in Earls Court but apparently not in Tottenham.
26 Mar 2025 09:00:42
Maybe our residents don't like concerts Tom.