A non Chelsea supporting friend, who is usually fairly reliable, reckons we are announcing the ground move on thur. I really hope we don't, what a sh*t hole it is up there.

Breaking News:

Chelsea Football Club has written to shareholders of Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC (CPO) with a proposal for the club to acquire the freehold of the land on which the stadium at Stamford Bridge is built, and with an invitation to attend a general meeting of CPO.

Below are an open letter [see link] from Chelsea FC chairman Bruce Buck, a brochure outlining the proposal, a notice of the general meeting and a letter from the directors of CPO, all of which have been sent to CPO shareholders.

LINK

That would fit well with this announcement on the official site:-

http://www.chelseafc...2471443,00.html

Oh bugger off Hutch, far too fast for me.

This bit is the most interesting part in my opinion.

he club will enter into a legal commitment to CPO that no relocation will take place before 2020 unless it is within a three-mile radius of our current home.

That commitment will also set a new stadium capacity at a minimum of 55,000, and at least 10 per cent of those seats will be made available exclusively to families and supporters under 21 years of age.

Edited October 3, 201114 yr by dkw

Why do they want a bigger a stadium when they are pricing fans out of going as it is now. Plus I doubt the Sloaney Poneys will be up for pimms'o'clock in the pubs bordering Harlsdon, etc.

Here's the whole thing:

An open letter to the Directors of Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC

from Bruce M. Buck, Chairman of Chelsea Football Club

Mr. Richard King (Chairman)

Mr. Richard J. Glanvill

Mr. Robert J. Sewell

(together, the Directors)

Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC 22 September 2011

First Floor Unit 7

Waterside

Hamm Moor Lane

Addlestone Surrey

KT15 2SN

Gentlemen

Re: Stamford Bridge

Background

As you may know, Chelsea Football Club (the Club) has been concerned for some time that the

limited capacity of the stadium at Stamford Bridge may have an adverse impact on the Club’s

ability to increase its revenues and continue competing at the highest level of world football.

These concerns will only increase with the implementation of the “Financial Fair Play”

regulations adopted by UEFA.

Most of our major competitors in England and in Europe have, or are planning, substantially

larger stadia than Stamford Bridge, which will allow them to generate additional revenue and

thereby enable them to attract and retain world class players. The Club will only be able to

continue to do this if it can increase its own revenues. As an example, when Arsenal moved to

the Emirates Stadium, its match day revenue more than doubled. A similar increase in seating

capacity at the Club's stadium would generate around £35 million of additional income each

year for the Club.

The Club has, over the last eight years, investigated numerous options to increase the

capacity at Stamford Bridge. Although these efforts continue, it is likely that we will come to

the conclusion that planning, health and safety and construction requirements, combined with

the physical constraints of the site, will prevent further development at Stamford Bridge from

being a financially viable option.

From time to time, since Mr. Abramovich purchased the Club in 2003, landowners and

developers have approached the Club with development ideas relating to a new larger stadium.

The Club has listened to proposals from bona fide third parties and continues to have general

discussions regarding various sites.

22 September 2011

The Club and Mr. Abramovich appreciate that South West London is Chelsea’s ancestral home

and neither the Club nor Mr. Abramovich has any wish to sever that link. In considering

potential alternative sites the Club has not seriously considered sites outside South or West

London. It is the wish of both Mr. Abramovich and the Club that if the Club was to relocate it

would do so to a site as close to Stamford Bridge as the circumstances at such time allow.

Any move to a new stadium would require substantial funding and the Club could only

undertake such a financial commitment if as part of the proposal it included the sale and/or

redevelopment of the whole of the current Stamford Bridge site. The Club’s ability to do this is

currently restricted by the Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC (CPO) structure.

CPO was set up in 1993 in a very different era for the Club. Under assault from property

developers, and after a bitter battle with Cabra Estates plc, the Club only secured its tenure of

Stamford Bridge in 1992 and the costs of that battle left the Club in a very vulnerable

financial state.

CPO was set up to acquire the freehold land upon which the football stadium was constructed

(the Stadium Site). It was not intended to make profits or pay dividends but, as Mr. Ken Bates

said in his letter to potential investors in CPO in 1993, its aim was “to prevent the next

generation of property speculators… getting another planning consent to build flats and

houses in the stadium itself in a fresh attempt to throw the Club out of Stamford Bridge”.

From its launch in 1993 to December 1997, CPO raised funds but without raising a sufficient

amount to acquire the Stadium Site. However, in December 1997, the Club's holding company,

then called Chelsea Village PLC, now called Chelsea FC PLC (Chelsea), provided CPO with a

loan (the Loan) to enable it to acquire Chelsea Stadium Limited (CSL), the company that was

the freeholder of the Stadium Site, and therefore indirectly to acquire the Stadium Site itself.

CSL then granted Chelsea Football Club Limited a 199-year lease to use the Stadium Site at a

peppercorn rent (the Lease). To date, CPO has raised circa £1.5 million from circa 12,000

shareholders and CPO has fulfilled its objective of protecting the Stadium Site.

The need for this protection, however, disappeared following the acquisition of the Club by

Mr. Abramovich in 2003. Ironically, the CPO structure could now actually hinder rather than

enhance the future of the Club as restrictions in the Lease inhibit relocation to a larger

stadium. One day, we may need to move quickly to secure a suitable site if it becomes

available and, with the CPO structure in place, we cannot plan with certainty.

Proposed Transaction

In light of the above, the Club would like to acquire the ownership of the freehold interest of

the Stadium Site so that it can take advantage if an appropriate opportunity arises to relocate

to a new site, where we can construct a larger stadium which makes good sense for the Club

and its supporters. The Club would like to achieve this aim through Chelsea acquiring CSL, and

thus the Stadium Site (the Transaction).

As I mentioned above, CPO has been unsuccessful in its efforts to raise the sums required to

purchase the Stadium Site and it was only able to acquire CSL as a result of Chelsea

advancing the Loan. The sum currently outstanding from CPO to Chelsea under the Loan is

£8,562,094 and there is intercompany debt of £10,041,943 owed by CSL to CPO

(the Intercompany Debt). The respected land agent, CBRE, has valued the freehold with the

Lease in place at £20,000.

Chelsea proposes that as part of the Transaction, it pays £8,562,094 to CPO (in consideration

of CPO assigning to Chelsea £8,562,094 of the Intercompany Debt) and procures that CSL

repays the balance of the Intercompany Debt (being £1,479,849). CPO would repay the Loan

(using the £8,562,094 from Chelsea) and would retain the balance of the Intercompany Debt

(£1,479,849). CPO would be debt-free and there would be no debt outstanding between CSL

and CPO.

No one can know how football will develop in the future, but recognising the potential concerns

of CPO shareholders regarding the size and location of any new stadium and as a sign of its

commitment to keeping the Club close to Stamford Bridge, Chelsea is prepared, if the

Transaction is approved by CPO, to enter into a legal commitment to CPO that the Club will not

complete any move to a new location prior to 2020 unless:

• that location is within a 3-mile radius of Stamford Bridge;

• that location provides a stadium with at least 55,000 seats. It is hoped that

any new stadium will comprise between 60,000 and 65,000 seats but that would

obviously be dependent on the size of the site and the appropriate planning

consent; and

• at least 10% of the seating capacity of the new stadium is made available

exclusively to families and supporters under 21 years of age.

The CPO shareholders have made an extraordinary contribution to the Club by protecting the

Stadium Site since 1993. I know everyone at the Club would like to thank them. Indeed, the

Club wants to recognise that contribution by proposing that if the Transaction is approved:

• all CPO shareholders who vote in favour of the Transaction be named in a “roll of

honour” or “walk of honour” at any new stadium to which the Club moves; and

• all CPO shareholders listed on the Register of Members as at 3 October 2011

who vote in favour of the Transaction will be given a non-assignable priority right

to purchase, subject to normal terms and conditions, one season ticket for each

share held (subject to such right being exercised in respect of a

maximum of 2 tickets per shareholder) in any new stadium to which the Club

moves, for the first season that such new stadium is used as the home ground

of Chelsea Football Club, and such right will rank generally above existing season

ticket holders of the Club.

The Club has been advised that a sale of the Stadium Site, even an indirect one, requires the

consent of the shareholders of CPO. We therefore invite the Board of CPO to convene a

general meeting of the shareholders of CPO to consider the Transaction, which will involve

amending CPO’s Articles of Association.

I must emphasise that if the shareholders of CPO reject the Transaction, then the Club would

have no option but to remain at Stamford Bridge. In that case, however, the Club would not be

in a position to finance a new stadium and would not be able to obtain the benefits a new

stadium would bring. Accordingly, I would hope that CPO shareholders, when making their

choice, will bear in mind the financial restrictions that the inability to move would impose on

the Club in the future.

Finally, it is worth reminding everyone that this proposal is a very visible statement of intent by

the Club and Mr. Abramovich that they are determined to ensure that the Club continues to

compete at the highest level of world football in the future.

Yours sincerely,

BRUCE M. BUCK

CHAIRMAN

LINK

Think it's inevitable that we'll be moving sometime soon.

There's more on the official site, including this:

Chief Executive Ron Gourlay adds: 'I am sure all Chelsea fans have enjoyed the football and success we have witnessed at Stamford Bridge since 2003 and Chelsea Football Club and Mr Abramovich are determined to ensure that the club continues to compete at the highest level of world football.

'We continue to look at options for expanding the Bridge and I should be clear that we have not identified a site for a new stadium elsewhere.'

LINK

Edited October 3, 201114 yr by Hutch

That's pretty much the club rolling the ball for a move then!

Any ideas where? Earls Court? Battersea PS? maybe Putney Heath?

I hear there's a vacant lot near Geezers place.

There's quite a big park a stone's throw from my house. It's a bit far from London, but it'd do the trick.

Exploring alternative sites would be a bit pointless if the club didn't own the rights to redevelop the Bridge, so I'm not surprised they're making the offer to the CPO. Expanding the current site has to be the number one option, but the difficulties with that are obvious.

Here's a detailed article - sorry if already posted;

http://thechels.net/2011/03/the-chelsea-stadium-move/

Notification of an extraordinary general meeting, to be held on 27 October, has been issued to the 12,000 CPO shareholders. The club will need to secure the support of 50% of those in attendance if their offer is to be accepted. There remains, therefore, potential for the plans to be blocked at an early stage. The fact that shareholders are seeing no return on their investment – the shares cost £100 each in 1997 – could prompt further opposition.

I know the CPO's were never in this to make a profit on their investment, but this is interesting.

From here: http://www.guardian....ridge-new-home.

More here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/03/revenues-chelsea-stamford-bridge-move

Edited October 3, 201114 yr by Backbiter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/03/chelsea-stamford-bridge-new-home

Of the sites mentioned so far the only one I'd be against is White City, just the mention of it officially will send the supa hoops Rumpoles into a feeding frenzy and would in all likelihood cost the club millions in legal fees. All the rest have a SW London postcode, so if we do have to move from the Bridge I could live with any of them. I'd also be concerned at a move away from SW London because I think it could have a negative effect on our support south of the river, I've mentioned it on here before that we're unique, London wise, in having a very large percentage of our support living on the opposite side of the Thames from the club, but having said that I appreciate that we're not a South London club, come to that we're not a West London club either, so please keep it SW Mr Roman.

Edited October 3, 201114 yr by MKBlue

buying the shares is a small but significant move, looks likes the wheels are moving slowly but the objective seems to be clear.

An article on Soccernet makes it clear that CFC are looking at building a new stadium elsewhere with an offer to buy back the freehold land for the surprisingly low price of around sterling 12 m.

i've only been to the bridge twice in person, ironically the second time was the match against Swanse just recently.

I though myself that compared to modern Australian stadiums the Stands and facilities were a bit outdated, but the atmosphere with all the banners flying was terrific and the location quite convenient.

A 60K stadium assuming it could be filled provides an extra 20K people per match. Assuming 25 matches per year at an average ticket price of 50K. The incremental revenue is an exttra 25 m per year.

Thoughts?

Can't see us moving from or remodelling the Bridge anytime too soon. Knowing us there'll be complications with this CPO thing with someone putting a spanner in the works by refusing to sell.

Besides, I've always felt that we couldn't pull in many more than we do now (bar the 4 big games) and the cost of building a new stadium for a couple of thousand extra punters probably doesn't add up. I suppose it could be a success if the club were to speculate to accumulate by offering 10'000 tickets at £20 a head to ensure a full house and get people hooked ready for future price hikes. But I can't see that happening.

My other strong feeling about a possible new stadium is that wherever it ended up being built it must be designed to have some character. Arsenal's, City's and numerous others are so dull and you can't tell one stand from another. I'd more or less design it as a bigger version of the existing Bridge.

Anyway, like I said, not holding my breath for any big developments for a few years.

Is anyone here in the CPO? Seems a bit of a slap in the face to get given your same money back so many years after, just so the club gets more revenue to inflate players wages in the long term.

Is anyone here in the CPO? Seems a bit of a slap in the face to get given your same money back so many years after, just so the club gets more revenue to inflate players wages in the long term.

But wasn't it done 'for the club' not for personal gain? Doesn't everyone want the same thing; a competive team trying to win things? I can't see too many people feeling cheated or robbed. Would it take just one person to stop it happening?

Seems a bit of a slap in the face to get given your same money back so many years after, just so the club gets more revenue to inflate players wages in the long term.

The club can afford to give shareholders a bigger return on their investment, and would probably like to, as it would influence shareholders to vote the way they want them to, but that would be buying votes, and that would compromise the outcome.

I can't see a full vote in favour, though I might be wrong. I know it was in the interests of the club at the time, but we've come so far since then, so it wouldn't hurt the club to thank those personally by at least giving a little more back. Would you rather own a bit of Chelsea or have a spare ton in your wallet?

I can't see a full vote in favour,

They only need 50% of the people who tun up.

It seems pretty clear that Chelsea need a larger ground in order to remain competitive. So this initial attempt to set their affairs in order makes perfect sense.

That letter is a bit cold, for my taste. And none of its promises needs to be kept after 2020.

Things I would hate to see: a move away from Chelsea's historic roots; a soulless stadium with the stands miles from the pitch; a big stadium that they can't fill.

If they can eventually fill a big new stadium that has character and atmosphere and is somewhere in SW London, then it would be a huge win.

Edited October 4, 201114 yr by wxwax

There is nothing wrong with buying votes, provided all shareholders are treated equally. it isn't a election but a contractual decision. I wonder what the market value of the land at Stamford Bridge actually is?

Our big rivals, the two Man C clubs and Arsenal all have larger stadiums as does Newcastle.

Emirates cost around 0.5 bn pounds construction cost. At an interest rate of 5% the interest cost is 25 m pounds which is close to the 20 m pounds of extra revenue per year from another 20K spectators.

To make the deal financially attractive Stamford Bridge as a redevelopment site would have to be worth quite a lot (50-100 m)

Wouldn't want to move, but I could handle Earls Court or Putney, but moving to Scrubs Lane would be awful (but prob the cheapest option for the club).