26 Mar 2025 10:52:32
If the latest rumour from so called "senior Chelsea sources" is to be believed there will be NO stand by stand redevelopment of SB.
So, that one choice of the table. We now have in my opinion three options left.
1) Do nothing.
2) Redevelop/ build new stadium on current SB site.
3) Move to a new site.
Obviously the first option is unlikely.
26 Mar 2025 14:43:12
The best thing is to move to another site Tom.
26 Mar 2025 16:28:11
Just move to another site. Further west if earl's court is too expensive and not feasible. Call us the west london blues lol.
31 Mar 2025 10:02:24
We missed out on Battersea, missing out on Earl’s Court would be monumental opportunity missed, wing so close to the bridge we could have a stadium to rival the best in the world and the sale of Stamford bridge and land around would go to paying for it, the revenue for home games and obviously shows / NFL would go along way, maybe hoesitmg future euros / champions league finals,
31 Mar 2025 10:53:34
Matt I totally agree.
31 Mar 2025 16:32:37
I think RA was the under bidder on Battersea and I can’t remember the reason why he didn’t press home the clubs initial interest in Earls Court.
Whatever the reason I now think it could be very problematic to acquire and get permission for a football stadium at EC. may well be wrong but I think that ship sailed a long time ago.
31 Mar 2025 17:58:34
Reading various news items Tom, there is still a window of opportunity to move on EC but that would mean the owners actually making a decision that suits both parties.
I think with RA, was the government poking it's nose into him, particularly the nasty Labour clown that is Chris Bryant.
31 Mar 2025 18:20:20
Bill, I do seem to remember that RA did have problems with I think his residence/ citizenship but I’m not sure if that wasn’t some time after the EC site initially became available.
There may well be a small chance of resurrecting a football stadium plan but I now have my doubts it will happen. The present owners seem a long way down the road on developing the site. Of course this could be a ploy to gain a premium price for the site.
The Chris Bryant issues were more about him using parliamentary privilege to constantly name RA. I’m not sure it had anything to do with a stadium rebuild.
01 Apr 2025 08:59:40
Tom
There is no way in he'll that the slimey Chris Bryant only mentioned RA in the corrupt Commons, I'm sure there was pressure behind the scenes as well.
I'm curious why you think the owners are well down the road to developing the site when no decision has been made and TB himself has said moving away is still an option.
01 Apr 2025 09:43:47
Bill, Chris Bryant only made his derogatory comments in the House of Commons because of parliamentary privilege. If he had made the comments in public he would have most likely been sued.
My historic belief was that the current owners would do a stand by stand redevelopment. That option now appears to be off the table. I think a new stadium rebuild on the current SB would prove to be very costly and also means moving away from SB fro approx five years. Any EC development will also be costly and remember plans for a housing development with NO football stadium has already been submitted by the current owners/ developers. In my opinion buying land for any EC would cost a substantial premium.
Of course we now await the report that is supposedly due this summer from the director charged with the responsibility of looking at all the options. I assume he will also make recommendations in that report.
Again, this is only me guessing but I think the club will move out of the area and closer to the M25. This will then bring about protracted discussions with the CPO. It should also be reservations the CPO cannot develop the current SB site and it can only be used for the playing of football/ sports. Yes it owns the CFC name as well. So, another guess would be that the CPO will find itself between a rock and a hard place.
I stress again this is only me guessing. The report in the summer will make interesting reading.
01 Apr 2025 10:27:12
Roman had a very good opportunity to aquire Earls Court long before his sanctions and issues but the CPO pretty much blocked it. That was the monumental missed opportunity. Ken Bates meant well when he assigned the freehold to the CPO but sadly that backfired. The new owners are determined to rebuild Stamford Bridge or move away and I believe it will be the former and not because of any disagreement between the owners but because of the almost impossible task of aquiring Earls Court.
01 Apr 2025 10:56:26
Anna, I was involved in the meting and vote about the CPO. It was very volatile.
Romans case wasn’t helped when it bacame obvious to a lot of CPO members that a third party have bought a significant amount of CPO memberships pre the vote. The assumption from many was that it had been orchestrated by RA to meet his own ends.
I actually voted with RA. If I remember correctly the CPO chairman recommended that the members voted for the RA proposal. After the result of the vote he was forced to resign.
To say it as a bit of a farce would be an understatement. Unfortunately in my opinion within the CPO there is a continued mistrust of football owners.
01 Apr 2025 11:33:14
Tom
I would also add that within the fan base, there is a mistrust with the CPO and that it has held the club back for far too long.
Tom, what exactly would happen to the Bridge if TB and co decided to move out of the area and say called themselves Chelsea USA, for example?
01 Apr 2025 11:36:01
I too remember it well Tom and that vote against Roman was the day the dream of moving away from Stamford Bridge ended. That was the monumental day in our history. If the CPO had backed Roman that day we would have that shiny big stadium right now. I always felt Roman lost enthusiasm for a new stadium after the CPO turned against him.
01 Apr 2025 11:47:17
Bill and Anna, it would be easy to blame the CPO but Roman didn’t do his cause any good pre that vote. It made it look to a majority of CPO’s that there was something going on in the background.
I think Roman losing so called enthusiasm for a stadium redevelopment was about the same time as his citizenship/ uk business issues. That was a few years after the Battersea and EC proposal.
As far as I am aware there would be no issues with the current owners renaming the club subject to Premiership/ FA approval. What would happen to Stamford Bridge if a move away did happen would be interesting. I am 100% convinced that the CPO could NOT finance the safety upkeep of the site. That is another reason why I think the CPO could find itself in a difficult position if the owners decided to move away from the bridge.
01 Apr 2025 12:41:18
Tom
If qw moved away against the CPO's 'wishes' and renamed ourselves, could the CPO sell the land and pocket the money,
01 Apr 2025 14:47:39
I can’t exactly remember the articles of the CPO but I very much doubt it. As far as I remember it can only ensure that football is played on the site it has no power to develop the SB site for any other purpose. Also, I’m not sure if it’s allowed to make a profit.
The last time I looked there were about 13k CPO’s. Putting aside how many of those shares may be owned by proxy, I would guess that the majority would only consider staying on the SB site.
I personally have very little attachment to SB and would be happy to see us move away. I would very much like us to keep the name CFC so I guess I want the CPO to agree with any new development proposal.
01 Apr 2025 15:14:23
Another question if you don't mind Tom.
If thexland is only for a football club, if we moved away to a new stadium againt the CPO's wishes, would the site remain derelict, I ask this as it is in the heart of London and I'm sure nobody in the area would like unused land around them.
01 Apr 2025 16:19:47
Bill, as I’ve said before I can’t remember all the “articles” of the CPO but I assume that the CPO could let another club play football on the site. If it wasn’t used for football very quickly my guess is the ground would quickly fall into disrepair. The upkeep and safety of the site could be left in the hands of the CPO and in my opinion they could NEVER afford that as a continuous expense. As I have said the cards are not all held by the CPO.
01 Apr 2025 19:39:26
Thank you Tom.
02 Apr 2025 16:11:27
I hope we don't move, I love SB, I would knock down the shed and hotels and build a much bigger shed end to match the height of the east and west, that could get 50,000/ 55,000 capacity, put the away fans in the top corner of the east and just upgrad the rest of the stands. sounds easy enough x.
02 Apr 2025 17:34:35
Was better with a dog track and no away supporters in the shed end. ?.
05 Apr 2025 12:56:38
Tom, I have always said that rebuilding a new stadium at SB was not feasible; the cost would be astronomical. Also, I doubt whether we would get planning permission. So, if the CPO blocked a move away “doing nothing “ is an option. I think the proposed Football Regular might have powers to veto owners changing a club’s name.
05 Apr 2025 13:04:30
Steve, increasingly the capacity to 50/ 55 K will still cost a lot of money. There would be no point in revenue terms. If you are going to spend money on stadium development it needs to be fit for the 21st century and have potential for hosting events.