28 Oct 2025 07:58:57
According to reports from respected journalists this morning, the delay in the SB development report concerns a 44 acre plot potentially being available North of Stamford Bridge. I assume that is Earls Court but I'm not sure.
28 Oct 2025 09:00:49
Tom
First and foremost the ownersxneed to decide what they want to do with SB.
There will always be land somewhere, personally I would move away from the Bridge, it's far to9 restrictive in many ways.
28 Oct 2025 10:00:49
Bill, I assume the the theory is they can’t make a decision about SB until they can see what’s happening with this supposed 44 acre site.
That sounds reasonable to me.
I would prefer a move away from SB but I just think our current owners will choose to redevelop SB.
28 Oct 2025 11:24:46
If that's what they are looking to do, why worry about land elsewhere.
It just seems to me that they want to put this into the long grass.
Next we will hear that they are looking for Andy's housrle to be knocked down once he has left.
28 Oct 2025 11:47:03
Because they have to at least be seen to be looking carefully at all the options.
28 Oct 2025 12:37:28
I just think that the owners have been in charge long enough now to be in a position to ar least tell us where they are along their thought process.
28 Oct 2025 13:12:56
Tom, I'm sure you are aware that the last possible piece of land available for development to accomodate a project of this size is Earls Court, there is simply nothing else available. The current owners of that site will have the answer to their submitted planning application, which does NOT contain a stadium, later this year, if it is granted that will end any hope of us moving away from Stamford Bridge. The hope from
BlueCo is that planning will be rejected and a potential deal to buy that site could be made which would include extensive housing as well as a stadium, the london mayor is in support of this so there is a chance it could happen. That said, even if Blue. Co were able to buy the land and gain planning permission for a stadium it would then have to go to the Chelsea Pitch Owners to decide if they would allow it to happen and after Roman wanted to buy Battersea power station only for the CPO to object to everything I wouldn't be over confident in that happening! This planning decision from the current owners of Earls Court is a monumental moment in our history because if it is granted we, Chelsea FC, will have no choice other than to stay at Stamford Bridge.
It is very easy to critisise Blue. Co but what else can they do but wait for that planning decision? In fact they have, in the meantime, been very proactive in buying the land next to Stamford Bridge which is currently home to a number of war vets as a contingency plan with a view to redeveloping Stamford Bridge. Either way this whole matter is going to take upwards of 7 or 8 years and probably closer to 15 years to come to fruition as Roman found out when he first looked at developing the ground/ moving some 20 years ago. I hope this all helps.
28 Oct 2025 15:42:05
RPD, as I said I assume the reference to a 44 acre site is Earls Court but then why not just say “Earle’s Court? ”
RPD, that’s not what happened to the proposed Battersea Power station development. Roman just got outbid.
I also understand why RA wanted the CPO to agree to any potential move but one thing stopped it, someone bought loads of CPO shares just before the vote and that cause accusations of vote rigging and understandably begged the question why would someone want to rig a vote. The meeting was a farce and if remember correctly the chairman resigned.
Blue Co can be a new stadium for football with the permission of the CPO but it can’t without approval use the name CFC. Of course that’s never going to happen. I would have a large fortune on the CPO agreeing to a move to a nearby site.
29 Oct 2025 07:49:24
Tom, the CPO issues were at the same time as Roman was bidding on Battersea, he got totally pissed of with them and withdrew his interest.
29 Oct 2025 09:13:57
I thought that the CPO was originally set up by KB to protect the club from ever losing the ground again. Not sure where protecting the name of the club should owners wish to move out if SB or indeed stopping naming rights on the stadium.
It seems that the CPO over time has evolved into being a barrier for owners trying to move the club forward and are turning themselves into an enemy rather than a protector.
Also if we do move away from SB, who owns the land?
29 Oct 2025 10:51:52
Let’s just correct a few things about RA, Battersea and the CPO.
RA was outbid for the Battersea site by I believe a Malaysian entity. It was some time after that when RA asked the CPO to give up its rights that were set up by KB protect the club name and location plus any development on the SB site other than a Football Club.
It was assumed by many CPO members that an attempt was being made by “some persons” rig a vote that would give back the ground and naming rights to RA. The argument put forward by many was that the CPO were not given sufficient assurances that either RA or anyone person or company be might sell the club to wouldn’t redevelop a valuable site for housing.
That meeting turned into a farce in my opinion with the chairman resigning (having been a RA proposal supporter) and the vote going against RA. In reflection and with the benefit of hindsight I do not understand to this day why RA and his team could not give the necessary assurances to satisfy an element of the CPO.
The CPO in my opinion have generally been nothing more than concerned that either football continues to be played at SB or somewhere nearby. They will not allow the clubs name to be used if owners want to move the club (like Wimbledon) to a completely different area of the country.
29 Oct 2025 18:42:38
Tom
We we did move to Earls Court, would the CPO want the same protection also if we did move, who gets the SB funds from the sale?
29 Oct 2025 20:36:53
Bill, I can’t remember the exact articles of the CPO but if I remember correctly those articles would cease when they agree to move to another ground. They only apply to the SB site. I’m sure the same would apply to the CFC name.
29 Oct 2025 20:39:30
Sorry, as far as any funds due from the sale would remain with the club as part of any agreement. If I remember correctly the CPO are a not for profit organisation.
My guess is the club would have to buy back the CPO shares at an agreed price.
30 Oct 2025 16:56:40
Thank you Tom.