Jump to content

Bovis Messroom

  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Bovis Messroom

  • Rank
    Youth Team

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    CFC naturally, visiting picturesque pubs, foreign travel, 60s/70's american muscle cars. all types of rock music, historic pubs, driving, birdwatching (oi, stop sniggering at the back), going to gigs, did I mention pubs ?.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,383 profile views
  1. Seems a lot of 'smart after the event' stuff being posted. In recent years, going back to 2013, the club has been complying with FFP. In short, they can't spend money that they haven't earned or have in hand to bring in talent from elsewhere. And between 2013 and 2016, there was a marked drop off in 'net' purchases. In the 2014-15 title winning season, the club actually made a profit on transfers. This actually shouldn't be the norm for any club trying to stay at the top. Because they would normally be paying higher prices for talented up and coming or established players whilst getting much smaller fees as they release players whose best days are behind them or found not to be good enough. Of course (and it's been stated elsewhere) net spending or indeed any spending has to married into consideration of that money being spent wisely. In between those years above, Chelsea were halfway down the PL in terms of 'net' spending. Just above Stoke City. Whether these recent years of frugality are down to a possible new stadium is another question. But back to spending wisely. Chelsea have done some very good deals in recent times. Cahill will have his critics but what the club and he have achieved together make his signing an absolute bargain. Azpilicueta for £7m looks a bigger steal with each passing season. Kante? In todays inflated market, another cracking signing for what was paid. Victor Moses is of variable quality and has had a chequered time at Chelsea but he was a big part of last seasons title win so on that alone, it makes his fee back in 2012 a snatch. And he's still just 27. There are others. Much of the current angst stems from what are considered poor signings for defending champions. And Yes, it simply cannot be disputed, when every man Jack said we would need a bigger, stronger squad for the greater demands of this season, that we incredibly appear to be weaker. A bizarre number of the new recruits have been more familiar to the medical department than the training pitches at the time of their signings. But undoubtedly of more concern are the more high profile imports, Morata, Bakayoko and Rudiger All talented, all with great potential for many years ahead and all struggling to one extent or another adapting to their new environment. At the moment, it looks disastrous. Well, as disastrous as a team in 5th place, one game from a Wembley semi-final and still in the Champions League can be, I suppose. The thing is football fans invariably judge everything on the here and now. Manchester City fans were likely scratching their heads over where their club was going wrong as we swept past them last season and how even when we had our former implosion two seasons ago, that they weren't able to take advantage then either. So now, they can do nothing wrong and it'll be years of domination ahead for them? Don't bet on it. Following Chelsea is an exercise on watching someone shoot themselves in the foot then somehow hop to another triumph over and over again. Some journo recently remarked that 'Chelsea are a club that thrives on instability'. Nothing is guaranteed in football. Play the long-term game, put a structure in place, get a good manager in and back him no matter what for the greater good of the legacy he's building instead of short term reward. And yet, in the modern game players don't want to hang around for the greater good and trophies that may never arrive. And nor do some top managers. They get itchy feet even when they are being successful. Will Pep soon decide he fancies a stint in Serie A as he, Jose and Carlo do the Euro league circuit? So I take talk of our imminent demise as a club with a large bucket of salt. And partly because we need to judge the wisdom of bringing in Morata, Bakayoko et al after more than one season. Which is why all the hindsight talk is premature. We were sitting in third place only a few short weeks ago with aspirations of overhauling Man Utd. So despite all the doom and gloom, it is still a pretty decent team that has lost it's form of late. They can regain it. The manager too needs to get his mojo back. And the support at Stamford Bridge can do their bit at the weekend. There is still plenty to play for this season and the biggest addition to any team is not a player at all but confidence.
  2. Well first and foremost, I totally and vehemently disagree that we have played 'negative, boring' football for the most part of the Abramovich era. There really is a culture of footballing 'snobbery' prevalent these days. As if the only way to win games is by playing a certain way. One day, Manchester City will come up against Barcelona. Maybe they'll both somehow enjoy 75% possession. The thing is it DOES cost megabucks to play a high pressing and possession dominating game. Everybody would be attempting it otherwise. Some have and come an absolute cropper at it, (Arsenal) simply because they didn't have the quality of player to do it properly. Andre Vilas Boas tried to enforce it on a Chelsea team that was already defensively strong and used to playing a certain way, with disastrous results. I suggest the OP looks at the 'net spend' over the last five or six seasons. City's net spend 'per season' is almost £70m more than ours. Each season !! No matter how you dress it up, that is going to have an effect sooner or later. Manchester City have left us and everyone else for dead on recruitment. One could say that Man City have actually hugely under-achieved given the investment, particularly in Europe with one CL semi-final appearance. It could also be said that Chelsea have probably exceeded themselves in winning these last two titles. I also don't accept that we were blessed with unnatural fortune in doing so. Any team that wins a PL title with a record number of wins, including thirteen on the bounce, has fully deserved to do so. There is endless bemoaning of players who have left Chelsea and Yes, a few can be counted as mistakes but it is abundantly clear that the club has had to comply with FFP, which means all to often we've had to sell in order to buy. Manchester City have circumnavigated the ruling by somehow lumping their accounts in with their worldwide network of sister clubs under the City Group. Chelsea's turnover has doubled in the last decade. City's has increased more than fivefold. Conte's team CAN and have played the sort of football any so-called 'purist' would enjoy. That 5-0 win over Everton? John Motson claimed it was the best sustained 90 minutes from any team he could recall. And in most games, Chelsea do at least have most possession if not dominating. We're going through a rough patch but I don't judge a managers reign on a select number of games, whether he got it badly wrong in one or tactically spot on in another. http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons
  3. It may be thought that cramming in as many fans as possible is the over-riding consideration way above all else. But the actual plans and proposals don't bear that out. Yes, it's true the legroom will not match the Emirates and Wembley. But many would say that those stadiums went over the top, resulting in a lower tier that is to shallow, especially at Arsenal and effecting the atmosphere. But the legroom and seat widths will be larger and in certain areas much larger than in the present Stamford Bridge. The pitch will be marginally bigger as will the surrounds. Much of what is present at Stamford Bridge just wouldn't be built now with the current regulations and guidelines. Remember, there are other failings beyond a need for a bigger capacity. The swathes of seated areas with 'restricted views'. The shortfall of spaces and choice for disabled fans. The parking space issue for multiple media trucks resulting in restricted capacity's for CL knockout phase matches. So it's not just a case of simply being able to tack another tier on top of the existing stands. There is a height issue which is why the proposed new stadium would have the pitch and lower tiers below ground level. You need additional circulation space and exit points with an increased capacity so the decking over the railway lines would need to be done anyway. As regards comparisons with other clubs and their experiences as well as our own in the early 1970's. There are differences. Arsenal apparently had this so-called 'war-chest' for years before they finally spent big on Ozil then Sanchez. Gooner fans started getting riled in the first place because they reckoned Wenger was in cahoots with the shareholders by just doing enough to earn CL qualification and the monetary rewards but not actually competing for the title as they once did. Are folk on here really trying to suggest our fanbase is so much smaller than Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham, if at all? The latter may have cheapo season tickets but they are, by and large, filling that stadium with all it's problems and a poor team as well. I find it hard to believe that a club that historically has the sixth (and up until recently fifth) highest All Time Average Attendances in England and on top of 20 years of pretty good times is not worthy of a stadium to match the best. I don't know how much the building of a new stadium would adversely effect team rebuilding. Spurs (and I hate to say this) may have won bugger all of late but they have somehow remained a competitive outfit with one of the lowest net spends in the PL over the last decade. It's been about minimising the transfer mistakes and also putting some faith in their own academy. I think the club should continue to import real quality signings but look to the excellent youth products a bit more rather than the middling, journeyman transfers they have been involved in as of late. By doing that, they could actually have more funds to compete for the real top signings. As I said in a earlier post, this stadium and it's costing's / viability doesn't really follow the normal trend. Because Stamford Bridge doesn't sit on a normal site. In fact, if no stadium was already in place on that plot of land, there'd be a cold day in hell's chance that one could be built there now, given the nature of the neighbourhood. So while there is a need for a bigger capacity ground and other possible sites have gone by the way, it's all become about both necessity and legacy. Roman wants a grand stage for his club to call home. That doesn't mean there is little consideration to it paying for itself at all. Of course it will in time. Think I read somewhere that the current West Stand earns more revenue on a match-day than the other three stands combined. That's hospitality for you and another reason why they want an upgrade all over.
  4. The club have stated there will be approximately 11,000 hospitality seats, about 18% of capacity. There are also a number of the 'Club' seats and it's a bit vague what that entails. The legroom of these seats looks the same as 'General Admission' on the plans so maybe they just get their own designated lounges and cash bar in a sort of semi-corporate arrangement. Interesting too, this latest development where Chelsea are negotiating with the neighbouring Stoll Foundation to purchase some two acres of their property. This of course has some potential major benefits for the proposed new stadium. It could result in a revision of the western side of the ground with likely an increased capacity. It would also create a much larger circulation space and frontage on that side of the stadium with possibly an additional access/egress point next to Wansdown Place. https://www.stoll.org.uk/news-post/proposal-provide-new-homes-support-services-homeless-vulnerable-veterans-across-country/ As regards finance. I think it's blatantly obvious that Roman seems to be on a mission with this. If there were major worries over the costs, a far less extravagant or landmark design would have been settled on. So this isn't your normal scenario where £ per seat is worked out and dismissed if not viable. Likewise, the amount of years for the stadium to have paid for itself would appear to be far less a consideration that with venues elsewhere. The 2012 feasibility report the club commissioned basically said the difficulties with the site made a 60,000 stadium un-economic (as well as unattainable). But the alternative options have melted away and so here we are. Funny how the impossible becomes a possible when you want it badly enough. Of course, if outside backers are being looked at, then a schedule of a return on their investment has to be serious but I get the feeling Abramovich wants to leave a lasting legacy for the club. And this particular design is something that has a longevity about it as well as being a stadium quite unlike any other.
  5. Linking the debates on pubs and the 3,000 tickets for locals, I think some people, even Chelsea fans are not quite aware just how many council and housing association estates there are in the vicinity of the stadium. It's often thought as a 'well to do' area and sure enough, there has been much gentrification over the years exemplified by the aforementioned gastro-pub. We do mourn the loss or change of many a once favourite boozer. But when you visit other clubs, you realise we are still very well catered for, compared to others. Some pubs and bars have shut but others have opened. If looking for what might be a no frills but 'proper football pub' there are still ones located near those housing estates. Haven't been there for a while but 'Rileys' on the King's Road was always decked out in blue. There's the 'Queen Elizabeth' down Bagley's Lane which is the Pearscroft Estate's local. £3.60 for a pint of Carling in there and in a proper glass too. 'The Goose' up North End Road as well. 'The Chelsea Pensioner' is nicely festooned with CFC flags on matchdays. I think it's a good idea to offer up a certain amount of tickets to locals. Stamford Bridge must be one of the worst for not having a partisan home club supporting population surrounding it. Gentrification and the amount of non Fulham and Chelsea natives who have moved into the area over the years has seen to that. Your more likely to find a pub that gets full to watch Rugby Union internationals, not even involving England. Fulham have been very successful in offering discounted tickets for local youngsters and a bigger capacity stadium would give Chelsea much more scope to do likewise. Of course, more of the match-going support coming from the locality also eases the traffic and parking situation as well as the pressure on public transport, especially post match. And that may have been a sweetener for the council to help the planning application through.
  6. It's all about maximising every bit of space available. They could build stands without the slants but the capacity would be cut too. Colour schemes amongst the seats and underside of the roof can make it not so noticeable as well as the positioning of big screens, banners, signage, etc.
  7. Man City's stadium evolvement has always struck me as the opposite to Chelsea. They have increased capacity when it is clear the demand is not always there. For instance they got a crowd of just 30,000 for one of their CL Group games this season and 10,000 below capacity for their FA Cup replay with Huddersfield (who had 6,000 fans in the attendance). Each and every PL game including what should be one of their biggest home matches vs Liverpool and we see empty seats all over the stadium. Whoever they have doled season tickets out to at cut prices are clearly not that committed. Not as yet anyway. Yet they plan to extend their North Stand to further expand capacity to 61,000. Their strategy appears to be having the big stadium already in place as their fanbase grows. Chelsea by contrast have long needed a bigger stadium because the demand is already there.
  8. The Stamford Bridge crowd usually gets it right. There were moans and groans after each desperate performance last season but the crowd didn't turn on the team as a whole during that time. So the sacking of Mourinho, rightly or wrongly, was like a pressure release for all the frustration built up. I guess much of the crowd needed the players to know that they had to take their share of the responsibility too. They made their point, it didn't carry over into the following games and everyone moved on. This is not a 'Payet' situation. There has never been any suggestion that the player doesn't want to play for the team. But a difference in opinion in how to manage an injury and prepare for the next game. Honestly, I haven't a problem if a move to China interested him especially given the incredible sums involved. Who knows? Maybe it's all been a ploy to get a better deal with Chelsea. It's a well beaten track for a player and his agent to use another clubs interest to do so. The main thing is he puts in a shift and does the business for Chelsea and nobody could question that this season. His name got chanted away at Leicester last week so it'll be 'welcome back' for sure.
  9. The pitch is planned to be only marginally bigger than the present one. Two metres longer and half a metre wider. That would give pitch dimensions of 105m x 68m, the unofficial standard size that most top stadiums now have.
  10. Snooty mare. The immediate area around Stamford Bridge is more well to do than Twickenham and I'm almost certain that the place is as desirable place to live as it's ever been. But it's alright for the egg chasers to hire football grounds including Wembley.
  11. This meeting involved a presentation by the Football Association as part of the consultation process. Brent Council expects them to make a formal application in the next week or two. What with Spurs moving in next season, they seem to have left this quite late.
  12. Just some of the things the architects had to contend with. Various Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings and Monuments, Nature Conservation Sites, Buildings of Local Merit and protected views from Richmond Park to St.Paul's Cathedral. Add to that a high number of well heeled local residents. you've got to say they did an exceptional job.
  13. Coincidently, there is another significant meeting being held tonight. Councillors representing the London Borough of Brent wards surrounding Wembley Stadium are discussing a proposal by the Football Association to increase full capacity events at the stadium to 57 per year. This is surely with both Spurs and likely Chelsea playing there in mind.
  14. Yes. Reckon the police and safety people will have had their say and had a preference that visiting fans are at the Fulham Road end of the stadium. Can remember when they experimented with giving West Ham the MHL for a cup game. Wow, that didn't go well and seemed a mad decision even before the match. As Essex blue above says, the away fans will be over three tiers in a narrower strip so even with a full 3,000 allocation they will only have about a quarter of the stand instead of half the present Shed. I guess for clubs who have smaller followings, they'll only get a corner of the lower tier. Hopefully the club will work with the fans to get like minded singing supporters grouped together at both Wembley (if that's where we decamp to) and a new Stamford Bridge. They have mentioned atmosphere in the planning documents with regard to the stadium design so are well aware of its importance.
  15. I believe legislation is coming in that a proportion of the away fans seating must be pitch-side. The visitors section in the new stadium will be located in the SW corner (equivalent to the opposite side of The Shed) and split over the three tiers. A very similar arrangement to The Etihad. As a regular away fan, I totally disagree about visiting supporters being shunted up in the gods. These are the loyalist of fans and it's like an admission of defeat by the home support that they cannot out-sing them. We should be better than that

  • Create New...