Sign In
Create Account
3
I think its almost inevitable we will need to move to grow financially, as there is almost no chance of redeveloping the Bridge.The only good thing that comes out of this at the moment is it shows Roman is still 100% behind making us as big a club as possible and is still massively in love with the club.
Back to top
#42
Posted 04 October 2011 - 11:34 AM
-
- Members
-
New Signing
Honestly, thank god that not many of you lot are CPO shareholders.
SB Is our home! Always has been and always should be!!!
We would be selling our souls to leave it.
I am aware that there is no loyalty left in modern football but I think this is somthing that we Chelsea supporters should fight for.
SB Is our home! Always has been and always should be!!!
We would be selling our souls to leave it.
I am aware that there is no loyalty left in modern football but I think this is somthing that we Chelsea supporters should fight for.
#43
Posted 04 October 2011 - 12:24 PM
-
- Members
-
On the Bench
timetowaste, on 04 October 2011 - 10:39 AM, said:
I'd like a bigger stadium, although it would be a shame to move away from the bridge. I think the only way we would fill the stadium of around 65/70 thousand would be to drop the price of admission. I'm going to watch Chelsea vs Genk in a couple of weeks and that's £40, not terrible, but a few weeks ago when I checked the site to see if any tickets were on general admission and the game vs SWANSEA was £70! and I looked today and the CARLING CUP game vs Everton is £75!
Now, I'm sorry, but this is taking the piss.
Now, I'm sorry, but this is taking the piss.
I'm sure the Carling cup game is away so not sure how that price is the clubs fault..Especially as I thought that both clubs had to mutually agree the ticket prices after the draw...
Anyway with regard to the move my heart says no, but I could accept a move to somewhere within the 3 mile radius..preferably Earls Court
#44
Posted 04 October 2011 - 12:52 PM
-
- Members
-
Epic.
Silvia, on 04 October 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:
Honestly, thank god that not many of you lot are CPO shareholders.
SB Is our home! Always has been and always should be!!!
We would be selling our souls to leave it.
I am aware that there is no loyalty left in modern football but I think this is somthing that we Chelsea supporters should fight for.
SB Is our home! Always has been and always should be!!!
We would be selling our souls to leave it.
I am aware that there is no loyalty left in modern football but I think this is somthing that we Chelsea supporters should fight for.
We cant extend Stamford Bridge, other clubs below us are looking to extend. West Ham, Spurs etc.
So what do you propose then?
#45
Posted 04 October 2011 - 12:59 PM
-
- Members
-
On the Bench
Abramovich has done a lot for us and appears to love football...my main worry would be if there ever comes a day when he has to sell (I know he is in the middle of a big court case at the moment) Peoples fortunes can and do change, and he might not always be in a position to own the club...
Perhaps if there was a disclaimer that should the club ever change hands, the shares would revert back to the cpo until such time as any new owners intentions become clear...
Not sure how that would play out legally mind...
Perhaps if there was a disclaimer that should the club ever change hands, the shares would revert back to the cpo until such time as any new owners intentions become clear...
Not sure how that would play out legally mind...
#46
Posted 04 October 2011 - 01:10 PM
-
- Members
-
ΞΆ Ori
Don't want a boring, atmosphere-less, plastic stadium like the Emirates. Don't really care about the capacity, just want to stay at Stamford Bridge.
#47
Posted 04 October 2011 - 01:16 PM
-
- Members
-
Have you ever seen Chelsea win the CL? That'll be a yes.
This is the single most important issue concerning the club ..
I fear we will be left behind if we don't move. Obviously redevloping the Bridge would be the ideal solution but it looks unviable, which is a real shame.
I've been going to the Bridge since 77 and still go. I would say the best thing about it is its location. Walking up the Fulham Road, you can't beat it. As far as football stadiums go, none are better located. That's not to say I'm against a move, I'm not, I'm all for it, however location is everything in such a discussion, and that's why I have huge reservations about the club's proposal to CPO shareholders ..
Unlike other clubs, for us to remain "Chelsea", we have to stay within a very small vicinity. Okay, we might not technically be in Chelsea, in so far as we are in the borough of H&F, but for all intents and purposes we are in Chelsea: A stone's throw from the King's Road, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, Kensington, Knightsbridge, Earl's Court, the bright lights of London. This is what our club is synonymous with, and we cannot lose that, under any circumstances. Our whole identity is wrapped up in it. We are not Sunderland, or any other club for that matter, who can just move from one part of the city to another without it compromising what we stand for.
Therefore, the proposal that we will remain within 3 miles should we relocate before 2020 is totally, utterly, and unequivocably unsatisfactory in my opinion. If I were a CPO shareholder, I would be asking the club to change the wording.
Firstly, there are locations within that 3 mile radius that just do not tick the boxes. Locations such as White City, which has nothing to do with Chelsea and what we stand for. White City is a firm "no" from me, as it should be for all Chelsea fans.
Instead of the 3 mile radius provision, why don't the club just approach the CPO when and if they have a firm location in mind? That way, the CPO can make an informed decision, a decision based on exact location rather than radius.
The club tell us it's because, should a viable site become available, they would have to act fast, and any restriction upon their ability to do so would impede them, hence their request for the CPO to hand over the authority. That my friends is balderdash, hence the reason I would tread carefully were I a shareholder.
If a viable site became available, the process would be so long and drawn out, with so many obstacles, that a delay of one month to get the CPO's consent would not provide a major stumbling block. Remember, the club have called this general meeting within the month, so that's all they need: One month.
Simply put, if Nine Elms (for example) were to appeal to the club, all they would have to do is ask the CPO to convene within the month and give their approval (which they'd probably get). They have to be location specific. At the moment it is too vague.
Secondly, the way the proposal stands, beyond 2020, the club would be allowed to do what they want, which begs the question, why mention 2020 at all? If, beyond 2020, the club want to move beyond the 3 mile radius, and find a suitable site, all they would have to do is ask the CPO. What's so difficult about that? I would be very wary about giving them carte blanche to move anywhere they want, and I feel very uneasy about the wording.
If it said, we will move within 3 miles, but if we can't, and we find a suitable site, we will come back to the CPO and ask their approval, that would make me more comfortable. I see absolutely no reason for them to ask for carte blanche beyond 2020. I see no reason for them to mention 2020 at all. Their reasons do not stack up. Very fishy indeed.
Personally, the idea of a move appeals, because SB is very cramped, is not a great ground by modern standards, and is restricted in its capacity. Sentiment is all well and good, but it impedes progress. I know someone whose dad's ashes are scattered on SB. His opinion is that that's where Osgood scored his goals, regardless of what happens to the site, therefore his father (rest his soul) is in the right place and would not want his presence there to restrict the club's ability to move on.
We have Roman's money, the best thing he could do with it is buy us a state-of-the-art stadium that would be the envy of every other club in England. That would please me no end. Imagine, an intimidating ampi-theatre in the heart of London, an architectural landmark, with the Chelsea crest projected above it into the night sky above the Thames ..
Let's f**king make it spectacular. Money no object.
We currently have the 8th largest ground in the Prem, but that will change, and soon we will be even lower than that, as other clubs look to expand. I want us to be the biggest and the best, or at least to aspire to that. Currently we have no room for growth. We cannot attract more people, hence prices remain steep, kids are prevented from coming, and we lose a whole new generation of fans. There's nothing like your first trip to make you a punter for life.
Earl's Court would be great and would meet with most of our approval, but I can't see it happening. Too complicated, in terms of planning. Earl's Court is Chelsea, it's within the borough of K&C, it's a stone's throw from the bright lights, and a stone's throw from SB.
Nine Elms Battersea is the one: Viable, attractive, on the river, a stone's throw from the ground, and in staunch Chelsea country. Also the boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth (unlike K&C) would welcome the regeneration. We would retain our SW postcode. Some would dismay at being south of the river, but who cares? We would be on the river, in a beautiful location, in the heart of the city. Unlike Earl's Court, Battersea isn't Chelsea, that's the only sticking point for me, but I could live with it.
If the club came along and said we've targeted Nine Elms, we need your approval, the CPO could be tempted, of that I'm sure. However the wording at the moment is a far cry from that.
It's perfectly simple, when you have a location, come and ask us, therefore the vote will be informed. Please don't say a delay of one month while the club ask for CPO shareholders' approval will make-or break a deal, as one month is nothing compared to the length of time a survey, negotiation, aquisition, design, planning application, planning approval etc needs to complete. It's just dishonest of the club to pretend otherwise.
Building a new ground in central London will take years, and that's before a brick has even been laid. The only reason the club want a complete mandate to do what they want is because it might not meet with the CPO shareholders's approval, and that's something all shareholders might want to contemplate before they vote.
I fear we will be left behind if we don't move. Obviously redevloping the Bridge would be the ideal solution but it looks unviable, which is a real shame.
I've been going to the Bridge since 77 and still go. I would say the best thing about it is its location. Walking up the Fulham Road, you can't beat it. As far as football stadiums go, none are better located. That's not to say I'm against a move, I'm not, I'm all for it, however location is everything in such a discussion, and that's why I have huge reservations about the club's proposal to CPO shareholders ..
Unlike other clubs, for us to remain "Chelsea", we have to stay within a very small vicinity. Okay, we might not technically be in Chelsea, in so far as we are in the borough of H&F, but for all intents and purposes we are in Chelsea: A stone's throw from the King's Road, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, Kensington, Knightsbridge, Earl's Court, the bright lights of London. This is what our club is synonymous with, and we cannot lose that, under any circumstances. Our whole identity is wrapped up in it. We are not Sunderland, or any other club for that matter, who can just move from one part of the city to another without it compromising what we stand for.
Therefore, the proposal that we will remain within 3 miles should we relocate before 2020 is totally, utterly, and unequivocably unsatisfactory in my opinion. If I were a CPO shareholder, I would be asking the club to change the wording.
Firstly, there are locations within that 3 mile radius that just do not tick the boxes. Locations such as White City, which has nothing to do with Chelsea and what we stand for. White City is a firm "no" from me, as it should be for all Chelsea fans.
Instead of the 3 mile radius provision, why don't the club just approach the CPO when and if they have a firm location in mind? That way, the CPO can make an informed decision, a decision based on exact location rather than radius.
The club tell us it's because, should a viable site become available, they would have to act fast, and any restriction upon their ability to do so would impede them, hence their request for the CPO to hand over the authority. That my friends is balderdash, hence the reason I would tread carefully were I a shareholder.
If a viable site became available, the process would be so long and drawn out, with so many obstacles, that a delay of one month to get the CPO's consent would not provide a major stumbling block. Remember, the club have called this general meeting within the month, so that's all they need: One month.
Simply put, if Nine Elms (for example) were to appeal to the club, all they would have to do is ask the CPO to convene within the month and give their approval (which they'd probably get). They have to be location specific. At the moment it is too vague.
Secondly, the way the proposal stands, beyond 2020, the club would be allowed to do what they want, which begs the question, why mention 2020 at all? If, beyond 2020, the club want to move beyond the 3 mile radius, and find a suitable site, all they would have to do is ask the CPO. What's so difficult about that? I would be very wary about giving them carte blanche to move anywhere they want, and I feel very uneasy about the wording.
If it said, we will move within 3 miles, but if we can't, and we find a suitable site, we will come back to the CPO and ask their approval, that would make me more comfortable. I see absolutely no reason for them to ask for carte blanche beyond 2020. I see no reason for them to mention 2020 at all. Their reasons do not stack up. Very fishy indeed.
Personally, the idea of a move appeals, because SB is very cramped, is not a great ground by modern standards, and is restricted in its capacity. Sentiment is all well and good, but it impedes progress. I know someone whose dad's ashes are scattered on SB. His opinion is that that's where Osgood scored his goals, regardless of what happens to the site, therefore his father (rest his soul) is in the right place and would not want his presence there to restrict the club's ability to move on.
We have Roman's money, the best thing he could do with it is buy us a state-of-the-art stadium that would be the envy of every other club in England. That would please me no end. Imagine, an intimidating ampi-theatre in the heart of London, an architectural landmark, with the Chelsea crest projected above it into the night sky above the Thames ..
Let's f**king make it spectacular. Money no object.
We currently have the 8th largest ground in the Prem, but that will change, and soon we will be even lower than that, as other clubs look to expand. I want us to be the biggest and the best, or at least to aspire to that. Currently we have no room for growth. We cannot attract more people, hence prices remain steep, kids are prevented from coming, and we lose a whole new generation of fans. There's nothing like your first trip to make you a punter for life.
Earl's Court would be great and would meet with most of our approval, but I can't see it happening. Too complicated, in terms of planning. Earl's Court is Chelsea, it's within the borough of K&C, it's a stone's throw from the bright lights, and a stone's throw from SB.
Nine Elms Battersea is the one: Viable, attractive, on the river, a stone's throw from the ground, and in staunch Chelsea country. Also the boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth (unlike K&C) would welcome the regeneration. We would retain our SW postcode. Some would dismay at being south of the river, but who cares? We would be on the river, in a beautiful location, in the heart of the city. Unlike Earl's Court, Battersea isn't Chelsea, that's the only sticking point for me, but I could live with it.
If the club came along and said we've targeted Nine Elms, we need your approval, the CPO could be tempted, of that I'm sure. However the wording at the moment is a far cry from that.
It's perfectly simple, when you have a location, come and ask us, therefore the vote will be informed. Please don't say a delay of one month while the club ask for CPO shareholders' approval will make-or break a deal, as one month is nothing compared to the length of time a survey, negotiation, aquisition, design, planning application, planning approval etc needs to complete. It's just dishonest of the club to pretend otherwise.
Building a new ground in central London will take years, and that's before a brick has even been laid. The only reason the club want a complete mandate to do what they want is because it might not meet with the CPO shareholders's approval, and that's something all shareholders might want to contemplate before they vote.
Edited by Davey Baby, 04 October 2011 - 01:26 PM.
#48
Posted 04 October 2011 - 01:27 PM
-
- Members
-
On the Bench
I agree its the ambiguity that makes me uneasy...
#49
Posted 04 October 2011 - 01:37 PM
-
- Members
-
Have you ever seen Chelsea win the CL? That'll be a yes.
In our specific case (different from Arsenal's, due to their larger fanbase) a bigger ground will mean more affordable seating, meaning more passion at the ground, something we all want to see. It's basic economics: Supply and demand. We can easily fill 60,000, and the club will ensure we do so long as they get their pricing structure right.
There will of course also be more expensive seating, meaning the club will make more from corporate packages, as all hospitality facilities will probably be the envy of the world. Currently, our hospitality does not compare to Arsenal's, and that's where we lose out on a lot of potential income.
I just wanted to add this point to my post above.
There will of course also be more expensive seating, meaning the club will make more from corporate packages, as all hospitality facilities will probably be the envy of the world. Currently, our hospitality does not compare to Arsenal's, and that's where we lose out on a lot of potential income.
I just wanted to add this point to my post above.
#50
Posted 04 October 2011 - 01:43 PM
Davey Baby, on 04 October 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:
We have Roman's money, the best thing he could do with it is buy us a state-of-the-art stadium that would be the envy of every other club in England. That would please me no end. Imagine, an intimidating ampi-theatre in the heart of London, an architectural landmark, with the Chelsea crest projected above it into the night sky above the Thames ..
Let's f**king make it spectacular. Money no object.
I agree with this part of your statement whole heartedly!
My only concern is that we build a stadium with too high a capacity, as I dont think we would fill it for the 'Joe Average' games in the prem CL group games or domestic cup games.
I really think that at a push a 55k capacity would be enough for us with maybe a push up to 60k if, and I'm not sure this is possible, a percentage of tickets went on general sale for every game, maybe right up until the morning of the game! As I said not sure this is possible under current PL rules, the problem with not always selling out now is that casual fans can't get tickets in an easy way.
We probably do need to move as much as it pains me to say, and if we do I would be pushing for Earls Court at least we would be maintaining everything we stand for! I know we have massive support south of the river (I'm from there originally) but we are Chelsea and should remain in Chelsea if possible, also the transport links into Earls Court are already in place, I don't think we need to worry too much about parking as most people know its madness to drive to a Chelsea game anyway!
As far as the CPO are concerned I agree with Daveys comments, they need so much more information given to them before making any decisions!
#51
Posted 04 October 2011 - 02:31 PM
-
- Members
-
In the Ressies
SHELLY, on 04 October 2011 - 12:24 PM, said:
I'm sure the Carling cup game is away so not sure how that price is the clubs fault..Especially as I thought that both clubs had to mutually agree the ticket prices after the draw...
Anyway with regard to the move my heart says no, but I could accept a move to somewhere within the 3 mile radius..preferably Earls Court
The carling cup game is at the bridge
#52
Posted 04 October 2011 - 02:33 PM
-
- Members
-
Youth Team
shedpensioner, on 04 October 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:
The truth is we only need about another 5000 seats, anything more and we'll be playing to a 2/3 full stadium most of the time, why cant we develop the shed end into a 3 tier stand? maybe with a standing section like they have in Germany, it would be priced at less for standing and that would bring more fans to the games, or am I just dreaming about the good old days??
Even as a foreign fan, I'd hate to see Chelsea leave the Bridge. If it's inevitable, a stadium similar to SB in an SW location would be the only option, but I fear people are looking to ruin football with another soulless pice of s*** stadium like the Emirates. Things were better back in the day...
#53
Posted 04 October 2011 - 02:42 PM
timetowaste, on 04 October 2011 - 02:31 PM, said:
The carling cup game is at the bridge
#54
Posted 04 October 2011 - 02:55 PM
-
- Members
-
In the Ressies
shedpensioner, on 04 October 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:
no its not its away at Everton
Aaah the game there are tickets for is for the home prem game against Everton, my bad. Either way, 75 quid is shocking.
#55
Posted 04 October 2011 - 03:03 PM
-
- Members
-
In the Ressies
BlueSkies, on 04 October 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:
Don't want a boring, atmosphere-less, plastic stadium like the Emirates. Don't really care about the capacity, just want to stay at Stamford Bridge.
#56
Posted 04 October 2011 - 03:32 PM
-
- Members
-
a warm glow oozing all over, the joy of reconciliation
£75 is for the West Stand Upper -probably the most expensive seats in the ground. You should have bought your tickets earlier :)
#57
Posted 04 October 2011 - 03:33 PM
-
- Members
-
Youth Team
Anders, on 04 October 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:
I'm sure we all would like that, but the fact is we're currently loosing millions every season to clubs like Arsenal and Man Utd because our stadium doesn't take 60-70 000 people. And with the FIFA fair-play regulations these losses will be extra significant.
e. A 60 000 stadium isn't repaying itself just by being built. It has to be sold out, as well. If the reality is going to be a new, bigger stadium with even more expensive tickets than now, it won't be anything else than a crap copy of the Emirates. An amusement park for tourists, soulless, cold... Like a football version of Disney Land.
That would be the end of Chelsea, just like the Emirates killed that Arsenal feel.
Edited by Eagle Owl, 04 October 2011 - 03:45 PM.
#58
Posted 04 October 2011 - 03:48 PM
-
- Members
-
CAMPIONE D'EUROPA
Davey Baby, on 04 October 2011 - 01:16 PM, said:
Nine Elms Battersea is the one: Viable, attractive, on the river, a stone's throw from the ground, and in staunch Chelsea country. Also the boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth (unlike K&C) would welcome the regeneration. We would retain our SW postcode. Some would dismay at being south of the river, but who cares? We would be on the river, in a beautiful location, in the heart of the city. Unlike Earl's Court, Battersea isn't Chelsea, that's the only sticking point for me, but I could live with it.
If the club came along and said we've targeted Nine Elms, we need your approval, the CPO could be tempted, of that I'm sure. However the wording at the moment is a far cry from that.
If the club came along and said we've targeted Nine Elms, we need your approval, the CPO could be tempted, of that I'm sure. However the wording at the moment is a far cry from that.
This is the one thing that leaves me hopeful for the future. The possibility of all that open land is tantalizing enough on its own. But to locate a new stadium on the banks of the Thames, in the shadow of an archetectural icon like Battersea power station (I would hope there are plans to keep the edifice even if we move) would be unreal.
I even entertained the idea of working the edifice of this iconic structure into the shape of any new stadium, considering the dimensions would be about the same. But that would probably be damn near impossible.
On the issue of moving itself, I am wary. If the club really feels this is the only way to compete, so be it, and they have been far from forceful in their approach. At all costs, we need to keep the name the same, and preferrably retain the same name for our ground. But I dont thinkthis needs toi happen any time soon. Part of the reason the Emirates has raked in so much cash is the fact that Highbury was small there was a long list of fans waiting for season tickets. The demand was built up before the move was made, so they waltzed into the new staidum they had no problem filling the seats. If fans arent filling the Bridge for weekday games right now, regardless of how high ticket prices are, then we are not in the same boat.
Edited by TheWestwayWonder, 04 October 2011 - 03:51 PM.
#59
Posted 04 October 2011 - 04:20 PM
Eagle Owl, on 04 October 2011 - 02:33 PM, said:
Standing sections are prohibited, so that's not going to happen unless The FA and UEFA change their legislation regarding them. This is not the case in Germany, which is why they're able to build non-all seater stadia there.
I believe there is a government think tank has been set up to look into having some standing sections re-introduced into British grounds, taking the German system into account!
The problem with the Taylor report was that it took into account holliganism as well and really was based on the failings of one police officer!
#60
Posted 04 October 2011 - 04:33 PM
-
- Members
-
Youth Team
Basically, the only way I can see a move as acceptable is if
- the stadium is built keeping the Bridge and Chelsea feel
- fans are taken into account with proper stands behind the nets
- ticket prices don't rise, preferrably are lowered.
Otherwise it would seem like a very bad idea.
e. But like said here too, one needs to figure out which sacrifices are worth making for success. I wouldn't sell my mom for a million quid, some people would.
- the stadium is built keeping the Bridge and Chelsea feel
- fans are taken into account with proper stands behind the nets
- ticket prices don't rise, preferrably are lowered.
Otherwise it would seem like a very bad idea.
e. But like said here too, one needs to figure out which sacrifices are worth making for success. I wouldn't sell my mom for a million quid, some people would.
Edited by Eagle Owl, 04 October 2011 - 04:37 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
