Chelsea rumours 18116


Use our rumours form to send us chelsea transfer rumours.

09 Feb 2024 16:20:41

It's increasingly obvious that clubs are looking to increase capacity to assist with PSR.

In view of the countless problems we have with our location, do you feel that the best and quickest way forward would be to move and build a brand new stadium from scratch elsewhere.

I just feel that Roman drew a blank and our new owners are already having issues with locals and I also feel there is going to be massive media pressure on us buying the land from Stoll where most of the veterans would need to be re-housed which they are reluctant to happen as they are in a nice area.

{Ed002's Note - it is of that simple.}

Agree0 Disagree0

09 Feb 2024 23:08:45
Moving is the only option but the ever annoying cpo make that very impossible because If we move were no longer chelsea.

Spending 2 billion pounds to increase capacity by only 10000 seems very silly, I don't understand the finances in that but we really need to have the option to again extend that in the future.

10 Feb 2024 02:57:40
I feel very tired and very rough but I have to respond to the comment “the ever annoying CPO. ”

Actually, what’s the point, it just more unwanted drivel directed at anything Chelsea.

See you all later!

10 Feb 2024 08:53:44
I'm with Tom on this, I'm too young to remember it but my dad tells me about cpo and everything they did to help save the bridge and make sure its home to Chelsea, I don't want to move.
I would knock down the shed and hotels and build a bigger shed, stick the away fans in east upper.

10 Feb 2024 11:33:18
Steve and other posters who are really interested in the CPO and it’s updated understanding on any CFC stadium renovation or potential move, to look up the CPO minutes for January 2024.

If any poster is interested in its board members, current financials, future functions or a list of past players who are presidents (John Terry) or vice presidents, the likes of DW, JFH, MD any many others, I suggest you look on the CPO website. Some might find it interesting and educational.

10 Feb 2024 12:47:44
Thanks Tom, I understand a new stadium somewhere else will look amazing and bring in a lot of revenue but for me I'd rather be Chelsea football club playing at a 42 thousand bridge than the club in North London with a chicken standing on a tennis ball as a badge playing in a state of the art 60 thousand stadium with no trophies.

09 Feb 2024 19:53:18
Thank you Ed.

10 Feb 2024 10:17:36
Hope u are recovering Tom.

As Tom knows, for years the CPO have protected our clubs existence after a very dark time when we nearly lost our home with a potential ground share with Fulham which I believe would eventually have put us out of business.

Having said that it might be a good idea for both them and the CST to come out and let supporters know how they would feel if the owners wanted to move or indeed wanted to have the stadium re-named.

It would also be interesting to hear their thoughts on the struggles both Roman and our new owners are having with local people in trying to expand SB ( which is their right as they live there) . I'm pretty sure the local council are still in the mindset of helping us expand but maybe ED002 can confirm if this is true.

My original post is because I see other clubs being able to move a short distance or expand on the existing site without the serious issues Roman and our necowners face which is holding our club back financially.

10 Feb 2024 15:59:17
Sorry Bill, I wasn't dismissing your post.

10 Feb 2024 18:35:53
No worries Steve, I did not take it that way all is good.

10 Feb 2024 20:08:25
Bill, thanks for your concern, I’m ok thanks. I will take it easy for a few days and then await the results. Fingers crossed the new treatments work.

10 Feb 2024 20:58:48
The only fans that don't appreciate the CPO are overseas fans who have never set foot inside Stamford bridge.

10 Feb 2024 23:54:16
Fingers and toes crossed for you Tom, hope you are well and back with us soon.

11 Feb 2024 00:08:19
Sure they helped the club back in the day but with this whole stadium thing they are absolutely holding the club back. We can hold around 40000, very poor number for a club who has been the most successful club in the last 15 years.

An upgrade to 60000 is fine as long as tgere are capabilities to further expand that to 80000 in the future.

11 Feb 2024 07:28:27
How about “when your in a hole stop digging. ”

Again, it’s typical to use a word like “absolutely” when you have little clue about the CPO.

I’m personally not bothered about moving away from Stamford Bridge. Places like Battersea and Earls Court have been mentioned in the past. The former is not going to happen and the last report I saw in the CPO minutes was something like “the current owners/ developers have NO plans for a football stadium on the site” and “Hammersmith and Fulham council are COMPLETELY against a football stadium at Earls Court. ”

Of cousre things can change but I can’t see to many suitably sized plots of land becoming available in that area in the near future.

The club have said it is considering all options. It has also said it welcomes the opportunity to discuss all of the options with ALL of its partners. Those partners include the CPO.

Also, we are called Chelsea” for a reason!

11 Feb 2024 10:25:36
Im happy with staying at Stamford Bridge as well and surely there must be a way of extending with a bit of clever architecture.

I do wonder if the club considered or bid for the site being relocated to Imperial Wharf right next to Chelsea Harbour for those who don’t know. Over the last sort of 15 years there has been a huge amount of building work going on round there and surely would have been enough room for a new stadium.

11 Feb 2024 11:06:01
Whitey, it was reported that Roman was one of the under bidders for th Battersea power station site. I’m Tod that that redevelopment is spectacular.

The problem is that riverside sites are a premium for house builders. There seems to be more profit in building homes than football stadiums.

Most clubs are named because of there locality to a particular area. I remember some of my West Ham supporting mates saying it was wrong to have there name attached to a stadium in Stratford. I think that was more to do with them not wanting to leave Upton Park and the chicken run.

Chelsea as a location is in my opinion prestigious and should be a fantastic marketing factor for our club. If I remember correctly we are about 3 miles from Buckingham Pacace and not much more from Westminster Abbey. Also only a step or two away from the “trendy” Kings Rd. These things are all promotional positives for our “unique club and its location. ”.

12 Feb 2024 09:07:19
Standard, please stop embarrassing yourself.

12 Feb 2024 19:23:21
Tom, the owners have a really difficult problem about Stamford Bridge. A lot of top clubs are redeveloping their grounds to compete to increase capacity and generate more revenue particularly because of the ever changing financial sustainability regulations. Stamford Bridge is outdated and certainly cannot be described as a 21st century stadium. What to do about it is the issue. I have always believed that building a 60,000 seater stadium on the current site is practically and financially infeasible. Personally, I don’t have a problem with moving or re- naming the stadium if it benefits the club.
As for” there is a reason we are called Chelsea” that is open to debate; technically we are not talking n Chelsea. The main reason we are called Chelsea is that Fulham FC had already been founded and admitted to the Football League many years before we joined. Apparently other options for our name would included Kensington FC and London FC.
I don’t believe that our prestigious location is significantly helpful in generating revenue. I believe it is actually a hindrance to redevelopment. Along with the site line issues the increasing affluence around the ground will make planning applications more difficult and protracted.
Finally, I hope you make a full and speedy recovery from your treatment.

{Ed002's Note - The issue with the stadium is related to something else entirely.}

12 Feb 2024 21:15:27
Jimbo, thanks I am recovering from a new treatment that has knocked me a bit sideways.

Like you I have never felt emotionally attached to Stamford Bridge. I am attached to the name Chelsea and whatever the history was about how our club got its name it is the name Chelsea and what it stands for that I support.

I’ve always considered the name and the club’s location in London to be a positive. If I had a marketing hat to put on I would be licking my lips at the thought of selling the club in general and particularly its up market location.

If I remember correctly the stadium proposal Roman put forward was for a 60k capacity. I attended the meeting that took place about 10 years ago. It wasn’t the best meeting I have attended but I voted with Roman/ club. If I remember correctly I think the vote was 60/ 40 but a 75% majority was required. I also seem to remember the then chairman of the CPO resigned. The new owners have stated that they want a constructive dialogue with all of its partners and that includes the CPO.

12 Feb 2024 23:15:56
I don’t know everything about the issues surrounding the stadium perfectly but upgrading it like Liverpool stand by stand would barely add 10,000 seats and I believe it was said to cost roughly £30,000/ seat.

Even if we could get planning permission from surrounding neighbours (who at the moment seem to be against the re-build), can acquire the needed land, can overcome the fact that the land is surrounded by a train track and 2 roads, we still have the issue of egress. There’s not the infrastructure to have more than 55k people leaving the stadium.

Abramovich had people working on the idea for near on 10 years and just about managed to come up with a plan to dig down in order to facilitate a stadium at 58k? The cost was around 1.4bn which was 2 years ago now so undoubtedly would be much higher given how prices have changed since. Not to mention it would require us to find another home for 3-4 years. I believe Wembley said no at the time (maybe they’d change their mind as it would have been back to back with spuds sharing at the time, and perhaps since it’ll have been a few years they might be open to it again) or sharing either with Fulham or palace I believe were the other options.

Ultimately we have 3 choices. Stay at 42k with an outdated stadium. Spend an exorbitant amount on a rebuild to get to 55-60k and have no further chance for expansion in the future, or relocate to a nearby location where we can build a stadium at whatever capacity we need (within reason) at a lower price than a rebuild, with the potential of future expansion, whilst allowing for the redevelopment of Stamford bridge into apartments or w/ e to fund the new stadium.

If a suitable nearby location comes up I think we need to grab it with both hands.

13 Feb 2024 06:44:53
Just on financial and time scale agreements I agree with you Fuser although if we left I'm not quite sure who would profit from the sale if SB, the club or the CPO's, perhaps Tom could help with this question if he is upto to it at the moment with his health issue.

Tom, hope your health is improving day by day.

13 Feb 2024 08:15:00
Bill, it will be a few days yet before I’m firing on all cylinders.

The CPO wasn’t set up as a for profit organisation. In fact the annual budget is usually set at break even. It’s raises funds by selling shares and a few functions each year that are usually open to non shareholders.

It was set up to protect the name and the Chelsea estate. I’m not going to talk for the other shareholders but I think if the new owners put forward a proposal that means security for the club and its name the CPO shareholders would be happy enough. Remember the CPO is a democratic organisation run by its members.

13 Feb 2024 09:50:28
Does anyone know what the issue is with redeveloping the stadium?
Also, are there any sites available that could house a new stadium?

{Ed002's Note - The issue was where the team would play with Earls Court no longer an option.}

13 Feb 2024 11:19:42
Just to tack on to Tom's excellent and informative post above re the CPO - until the club presents an option for the CPO to vote on, the CPO has absolutely no input into the stadium discussions. There literally isn't a proposal to vote on so what exactly could the CPO even be in opposition to?

Further to this, and sorry for repeating myself, but if you are still unhappy at the CPO despite all the above, you can just buy a share and have your say. You aren't restricted to moaning about it.

But again, there is nothing at the moment for you to have your say on, so you will be shouting into the wind against your perceived adversaries.

13 Feb 2024 13:06:21
RBD, spot on mate.

I say again, the new owners have said they will continue to communicate with all the stakeholders and that includes the CPO.

The CPO provides the minutes to its meetings in a regular basis for all fans to read.



Log In or Register to post

Remember me

Forgot Pass