817 replies to this topic

[Barn]

I don't understand why the club are denying it.  If Buck hadn't admitted to buying shares then fair enough, but he didn't buy the shares years ago, he bought them just before they closed the sales of the shares.  That's not really on.

It's a shame because I think if the club had handled things like this better they'd have a big supporter in me (not big in size but in the level of my backing for what they're trying to do), as it is they're making me nervous about trusting them.

[Spiller86]

Seems there was even more trouble at the AGM recently, with some now starting to question whether or not they deserve increased value for their shares.

Lipton is probably exaggerating to some extent, given he is a Spurs supporter, but it's still a bit concerning that personal interest has come into it.

http://www.mirrorfoo...icle856723.html

Anyone go, or here anything about the meeting? Noticed there wasn't a thread elsewhere.

[abigsmurf]

There's probably big heapings of embellishment in that story.

The whole '£100 shares should be worth £30,000' thing is pretty troubling. These weren't supposed to be that kind of investment, they were supposed to be about fans protecting the club.

[Silvia]

abigsmurf, on 25 January 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

There's probably big heapings of embellishment in that story.

The whole '£100 shares should be worth £30,000' thing is pretty troubling. These weren't supposed to be that kind of investment, they were supposed to be about fans protecting the club.

I'm glad there having all this trouble, makes it harder for us to move (Y)

[Spiller86]

And the true argument reveals itself.

We don't want to move even if it is illogical to stay, which I think moving forward it probably is.

[dkw]

Spiller86, on 25 January 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

Seems there was even more trouble at the AGM recently, with some now starting to question whether or not they deserve increased value for their shares.

Lipton is probably exaggerating to some extent, given he is a Spurs supporter, but it's still a bit concerning that personal interest has come into it.

http://www.mirrorfoo...icle856723.html

Anyone go, or here anything about the meeting? Noticed there wasn't a thread elsewhere.

Frankly, if any of them want to make money on this then their shares should be stripped from them and given to people who know the true reasoning behind them. If any of them demand money way beyond their value at purchase then they can go f**k themselves.

[Killbill]

Just for the sake of argument, if Chelsea went bust, for example Roman sells the club to an average business man who tries to keep things the same but does not manage to generate enough revenue and not having the same financial clout is unable to pay the debts and the club goes into administration.  If no-one is interested in buying the club the assets are sold separately.  Stamford Bridge gets sold for a mediocre amount of money as is a leasehold estate.  The new owner knocks down the stadium and builds some amusement park of some sort.  What can the CPO do to stop this happening?

Edited by Killbill, 27 January 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[RobinXe]

Killbill, on 27 January 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Just for the sake of argument, if Chelsea went bust, for example Roman sells the club to an average business man who tries to keep things the same but does not manage to generate enough revenue and not having the same financial clout is unable to pay the debts and the club goes into administration.  If no-one is interested in buying the club the assets are sold separately.  Stamford Bridge gets sold for a mediocre amount of money as is a leasehold estate.  The new owner knocks down the stadium and builds some amusement park of some sort.  What can the CPO do to stop this happening?

As the freehold owner, we can stop the stadium being knocked down for a start.

I'm not sure, but I'd imagine that if the club as a business ceased to be a football-playing entity then the lease would no longer be valid, so there would be no asset to sell. When a lease expires then the freeholder regains posession of the asset.

[Killbill]

RobinXe, on 28 January 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

As the freehold owner, we can stop the stadium being knocked down for a start.

You are probably right on this one, “knocking it down” was the wrong example.  However, I presume the CPO can stop you doing things to the stadium if the CPO own the stadium and the land and leased the stadium to the club, but if the CPO own just the land and leased the use of the land to the club then the club probably has got more of a say to what happens to the building.

RobinXe, on 28 January 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

I'm not sure, but I'd imagine that if the club as a business ceased to be a football-playing entity then the lease would no longer be valid, so there would be no asset to sell. When a lease expires then the freeholder regains posession of the asset.

I am not sure about this one.  Leasehold can be bought and sold and they are deemed assets in every way.  

Amongst other reason as why this doesn’t sound right, is also the fact as I understand it, but I could be wrong here, that if you have provided something to someone under an agreement that says in case of bankruptcy that something will revert back to you, you will have a really hard time in trying to get it back if the other does go bankrupt as the first job of the liquidator is to sell all existing assets to pay the creditors.  And if the lease of the land says that it can be used only for footballing purposes we could end up with QPR playing at the Bridge.

Edited by Killbill, 28 January 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[RobinXe]

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's for the use of Chelsea FC to play football, but I'll check the terms and get back to you.

[Fast Eddie]

Does anyone know the current status of this? A bigger stadium is utmost for future revenue in my mind, but at the moment we're having trouble selling tickets for Birmingham FA Cup and whether we like it or not success sells tickets.  Anyway last I heard there was a review for East and Shed End extensions and a move is on the backburner...??

[Scooby Blue]

http://www.costar.co...ls-Court-plans/

It appears we have filed an objection to the planned housing development at Earls Court.

Quote

   Chelsea Hoping To Block Earls Court Development


Chelsea Football Club is attempting to block consent for Capital & Counties’ first phase plans for the Earls Court development tonight as it lobbies for the overall regeneration to include a new stadium, CoStar News can reveal.




In December CapCo confirmed it was to create a £130m 50:50 joint venture with the Far East’s Kwok family to develop the first phase of homes at the 77-acre project.
Detailed plans for the 7.5-acre Seagrave Road site, which is principally home to a car park, were lodged in June alongside two other outline applications for a Sir Terry Farrell-designed 11.4m sq ft scheme that in total proposes demolishing the Earls Court One and Two exhibition centres and building up to 7,500 homes and 2m sq ft of offices, retail and leisure including two hotels.
The plans for Seagrave Road go in front of Hammersmith & Fulham this evening.
They propose demolition of all existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site to provide 808 residential units, comprising eight residential blocks (Blocks A-H) ranging from 4-storeys (plus basement) to 16-storeys (plus basement) and including 30 townhouses.
In a written submission ahead of the meeting Chelsea FC calls for any decision to be deferred until a Supplementary Planning Document for the area is adopted taking into account its preference for the overall development to include a new stadium with conference and exhibition spaces.
It writes with regards to the application relating to the Seagrave Road site and the application relating to the main site: “The current applications fail to take advantage of the potential for a new strategic leisure, cultural and visitor attraction, such as might be provided by a new stadium with conference and exhibition spaces. (We) therefore consider the applications premature in advance of the EC&WKOA SPD and have requested that any decisions on the applications are deferred until the SPD has been adopted.”
Chelsea, owned by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, has been linked on several occasions to the site alongside other nearby major development sites including the BBC’s White City site and Battersea Power Station.
At the end of last year it appointed  Mike Hussey’s Almacantar to look at options for a development of Battersera Power Station that would include a major new football stadium.
However, the club, advised by CBRE, is understood to favour a site at the north of the Earls Court project as it is closest to its current home and is well served by transport.
It is known to want to build a stadium that can accommodate closer to 60,000 fans than the 41,000 that it can fit into its current home at Stamford Bridge.
In November 2010 Chelsea denied reports in The Guardian that it had entered talks with CapCo to leave Stamford Bridge for a new purpose-built stadium at Earls Court and CapCo has also played down the idea that a major football stadium could form part of a principally high-value residential project.
Hammersmith & Fulham planners have recommended the “high quality” Seagrave Road development for approval tonight.
The 200 affordable housing units at the scheme would be provided on the basis of two alternative scenarios given that discussions over whether redevelopment of the council-owned West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates are included are ongoing.
If the residential accommodation is required for estate redevelopment purposes then the Seagrave Road scheme would provide the first phase of new affordable housing units in the Opportunity Area as part of a re-housing strategy for the existing residents of these estates. The 200 units would be provided for the council as social rented units, although the final "mix" would reflect the requirements of the families being re-housed, and the development has been designed to accommodate this flexibility.
In the event that the 200 residential units are not required as part of a re-housing strategy for existing residents, the “fallback position” is that the affordable housing could be provided as intermediate tenure, as part of a standalone scheme. CapCo has stated that this “fallback position safeguards its position in the event that estate redevelopment does not happen”.

Edited by Scooby Blue, 16 February 2012 - 10:08 PM.

[Fast Eddie]

Nice one, when it all goes quite over there you wonder but appears we still on the case whatever the outcome... edit: bar White City

Edited by Fast Eddie, 16 February 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[Scooby Blue]

Earls Court is definately the best option.

White City is a no no on and I can never see that happening. Too many objections and not only from us.

The big question is whether CPO share holders would be happy to sell if, big if, Earls Court became a reality?

[TrojanMan]

I think Roman and company would have much higher odds of getting CPO on board with the plan if there was....you know.....a specific plan.  I know Stamford Bridge is, and always will be, a special place for Chelsea fans.  But I got the impression that most people would be okay with moving elsewhere for a bigger stadium.......provided we know exactly where 'elsewhere' is, and it's not terribly far from the Bridge.

In other words, it was the unknown that had so many CPO share holders pissed off.....not the idea of moving in and of itself.

[Snedger]

I could live with a 50-55'000 seater in Earls Court. The Earls Court Arena (ECA) has a reasonable ring to it. As much as we all love the Bridge, it would be great to have a stadium where we don't need to fence half of it off for European games and where you can get a decent view from all areas of the ground. And all but the most traditionalist amongst us would surely see EC as being within an acceptable distance from our birthplace, wouldn't they?

[Spiller86]

It's a good option, lets hope that the H & F agree to it. They were carrying on about not wanting us to leave, so here you go prove it.

[Barn]

the more this has dragged on and the more I see of the sickening Bruce "I'm a real Chelsea fan" Buck the more I would like the club to transfer the CPO shares to the new stadium, and put a block on any more shares being bought.
But yes I would be happy with a move to Earls Court.

Edited by Barn, 17 February 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[Zola]

Quote

Bird's-eye view of the Earls Court exhibition centre which is to be redeveloped. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

Roman Abramovich is stepping up his campaign to relocate Chelsea football club to a new 65,000-capacity stadium on the site of the Earls Court exhibition centre in west London.

Agents for the Russian billionaire have lodged objections to alternative plans to turn over part of the 77-acre site to housing, claiming that not to include a stadium would be a missed opportunity.

The housing plans, promoted by current owner Capital and Counties, are due to be approved on Thursday evening by the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

But Chelsea have made a detailed case that the plans should be put on hold and the overall strategy for replacing the historic exhibition venue rewritten to create a new Chelsea-branded enclave that would draw "visitors and media from across the world".
In submissions to the local authority, reported by the commercial property service CoStar news, the club say a new arena could "stitch together" a fragmented area – as they claim the Olympic stadium in east London and Arsenal's Emirates stadium in north London have both done. They also indicate that allowing Abramovich to invest his cash in a stadium and transport improvements on the site would make the overall development plan more viable.

Earls Court will host the Olympics volleyball tournament before being demolished, bringing to an end 73 years in which it has hosted gigs by the likes of Led Zeppelin, Oasis and Madonna. Chelsea are thought to be willing to spend more than £450m on a new arena.

"The provision of a world-class sporting venue attracting visitors and media from across the world to Earl's Court and west Kensington should be clearly included in the [planning] principles and policies," said the club's property adviser, Stuart Robinson of agents CBRE.

"Whilst these activities are different from the shows and exhibitions that have been held in the area, such a world-class sporting facility would build in the legacy of the Earls Court 'brand' in combination with the national and international 'brand' of [Chelsea Football Club]".

The club also held out the possibility that they would help fund major improvements to the area and "ensure that some of the key public transport and other infrastructure are secured and provided early in the regeneration programme so that they are overcome as constraints on regeneration capacity".

The Guardian revealed in November 2010 that Chelsea had reopened talks about moving to the site from their 105-year-old home at Stamford Bridge. At the time, the club chairman, Bruce Buck, said "it's not at the front of our agenda", but the club now appear to be intensifying their interest in the site.

Stamford Bridge only holds 41,000 spectators while Manchester United's Old Trafford has room for 76,000, Manchester City's stadium 48,000 and Arsenal's 60,000, which leaves the west London club facing a deficit in ticket income against their major rivals.

The move could also help Abramovich recoup some of the £800m he has invested in the club, because the site of Chelsea's stadium at Stamford Bridge is in one of London's most exclusive neighbourhoods and could be worth more turned into housing than the cost of moving to Earls Court, according to property industry sources familiar with the negotiations.

Chelsea believe they have the support of London mayor Boris Johnson and said in their submission to planners that he had "recognised the power of sporting events to deliver major regeneration benefits".

A spokesman for Capital and Counties declined to comment on Chelsea's interest. It emerged in November that Chelsea had also appointed a developer to explore the feasibility of building a stadium beside the derelict Battersea power station, which they said was an exercise in keeping their options open.

Edited by Zola, 17 February 2012 - 02:02 PM.

[andy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-17159188

Roman has a good record of buying things off governments on the cheap.. all I am saying