Bovis Messroom

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
 

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
 

FFS how about we just show some faith in, and respect for our current manager ?
I admit I do have some concerns about him this season but nonsense like this should be left to the gutter press.
 
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

So what?
We don't have a right to be in the champions league every season, although it would be nice we need capital investment money for the stadium, so top drawer players just wont be coming football isn't all sunshine and rainbows, it goes in cycles  

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

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
 

Great ovation at half time for Zola, Vialli and Flo at the West Brom game.   Hopefully get a good crowd and money raised for good causes too.

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.

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.

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.

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.