Davey Baby

No-one has said the club are hellbent on moving beyond 3 miles. Of course they want to stay within 3 miles. That has been established many times. Q. What happens if they can't stay within 3 miles? A. Read the proposal. I believe what's in the proposal. After all, that's what we're voting on, isn't it?

I'm openly opposed to the proposal. The club say lovely things like, "We won't move to OOC." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDAXGXGiEw

You should have said something yesterday. You can't change kick-off on the day of the game.

Make of this what you will .. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/8828473/Chelsea-want-to-stay-at-Stamford-Bridge-but-keep-their-options-open.html

Oh, and a couple more possible obstacles which I can't verify .. 1. Gas wastage under the site. 2. Objection from US Embassy. One thing in our favour if we were looking to go there, would be any possible finance from Roman regarding the Northern Line extension and any other transport links. Edit: From what I can tell online, there seems to be some division as to whether we will have enough room to build there.

Westway, this might help you, and you may be able to make more sense of it than me. The Power Station is not necessarily situated on Nine Elms, there are lots of plots, and the US Embassy is earmarked for one, thus ruling that plot out for us, whichever it is. The one thing we can safely say about Battersea, if our ground is built there, it will become a London landmark, far more than any other ground including Wembley. You will see it from everywhere and it will dominate the cityscape. Any film set in London will have it. It will piss off every Spammer, Spud and Gooner in town. Quite right too considering we are the only club which can rightfully claim to be the pride of London .. Anyway have a look .. 2011_02_18_OAPF_All_sites_Final_Illustration.pdf

I would be up for it as well as Earl's Court and Imperial Wharf (both of which seem very unlikely). Battersea: All I can tell you is what I've read online, and none of it has any authority attached so possibly bollocks .. 1. Site too small, not in actual acreage (do you know the acres?) but in terms of width or obstacles provided by building/s that can't come down. The general consensus is that it's a tight squeeze. You may be able to shed some light on this. 2. Transport links. Terrible. Very important consideration. I think there's a Northern Line extension proposed but that's about it. Major finance required in terms of transport. 3. Planning consent. Notoriously difficult and time-consuming at the best of times. This is not a brownfield site to the best of my knowledge (you may be able to shed some light). There will be loads of objections (though not half as many as Earl's Court I imagine). Also, the Power Station (an incredible and beautiful building, listed obviously): There will be objections to any design that incorporates it or stands alone beside it. 4. Purchase price. Not cheap. Though probably cheaper than Earl's Court, and anyway, as we know, Roman puts his hand in his pocket when needs must ..

I hope it is very much part of the picture, but I also suspect it is a lot less viable than other (less-desired) sites. I'm no expert however and could be completely wrong.

I said "aren't necessarily". Of course there are CPOs who don't want to move. I wouldn't say it's "far more likely". I would say it's "certain". It's what happens if he doesn't get what he wants that is causing the issue. The proposal makes it quite clear what might happen, and people are voting on the proposal, not on anything else.

I can't think of a single club that doesn't play on its own patch.* White City, Scrubs Lane, OOC .. These are not Chelsea manors. Battersea is, hence the reason fans are more open to it. *Okay Man Utd play in Manchester, I'll give you that.

Those that vote no aren't neccessarily opposed to a move. They're opposed to the proposal. Which is what many are hoping for, hence their reasons for being against the proposal. The truth is, if the club dig their heels in on the proposal, it suggests one thing and one thing alone: They are prepared, in a worse case scenario, to move the club somewhere like White City, Scrubs Lane, OOC etc. You will never hear JT, Chopper, Giles Smith etc say it, but it's true. The club won't say it specifically, because the vote will only go one way, but that's what the proposal quite clearly suggests, and there's no other interpretation. None that I can see anyway. Of course they want to stay in Chelsea, or Battersea, but it's very unlikely to happen in my view, unfortunately. I would love EC or NE, but there are so many obstacles it's untrue. Planning permission alone would be a minefield. So, it boils down to a choice for CPOs when they vote on this proposal .. Would you accept a move to any of the less desired sites mentioned above, if so, vote yes, if no, and you'd rather stay at SB than move to any of those sites, vote no. It's a tough call. I don't think any fair-minded fan doubts Roman has the best interest of the club at heart, but location is a very important issue to lots of fans, our identity is wrapped up in it for lots of them, and if we move out of a Chelsea manor, that will be just too much for them to stomach. That's the choice the club are asking fans to make. It could all go well and we move within spitting distance, but it could not, and the proposal makes quite clear what might happen in that case. Let's not be under any illusions about that. It would be good if the club just came out and said it in those terms .. It might focus a few minds.

Terry to meet CPOs, or at least those with a few votes .. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/terry-to-meet-fans-as-blues-launch-charm-offensive-2370200.html

I wonder if anyone will be allowed to ask him about his 100 shares. At the very least, it should drum up a bit of interest for the station. At the very least, the strong reaction this has caused, will have alerted the club to the fact that location is a major issue to supporters and cannot be taken lightly, which is a good thing. Imagine everyone had just accepted the club's proposal without questioning. Not sure that would have given the club the right message, in terms of looking for a site.

Maybe this is what he's thinking .. 1. 23 days. 2. Offering CPOs who vote in favour perks, while depriving those that say no of them. There's gratitude for you. They shouldn't differentiate, nor should they care how individuals vote, they should care only for the result. All CPOs should be given equal treatment, regardless of where they fall on this issue. 3. The proposal. Have you read it? Break it down in plain English and it says, "In return for your shares we shall have permission to move wherever we want as soon as is humanly possible". Is it any wonder fans are reluctant to give them that permission, and, given they haven't said it in plain English, is it any wonder they're suspicious? "Responsible" seems to be the operative word here. For your information, Roman may be dead tomorrow, as may we all. He may be in jail. He may have his assets stripped. If you don't think things can happen fast in football, let me cast your mind back to when Roman bought us. Question, did you see that one coming? 4. Getting big hitters who are (to differing degrees) in Roman's pocket to tells us to trust Roman without ever addressing the specific issue of the proposal, the very issue which is stopping countless fans who do trust Roman and who want a move from giving him their consent. How's that for genius? 5. Offering no scope for negotiation. On the proposal. Thereby only increasing suspicion. If we vote no, that's it they say, we're stuck at the Bridge and they'll never raise the issue again. A hardline stance. Hardly designed to appease the fans. I think they could certainly have done things better, and that's coming from someone who's in favour of a move and who believes Roman wants the same things we do, i.e. a big stadium, a grand stadium, as close to Chelsea as possible, and success.

Worth a read .. http://www.bluetinted.com/Site/Articles/Articles.aspx?articleid=166

Might be wrong, but I'd imagine Earl's Court would be far more expensive than Battersea.

It is hard to disagree with anything JT says, apart from this line .. "When Roman says that if we do move, he wants it to be within a three-mile radius, we have to trust him, and the people underneath him." It's not about trust John. It's about acting responsibly and protecting the future of the club. The club can quite easily change the wording if they want us to trust them. There has to be a reason why they won't. The reason is it would stop them being able to do what they want regardless of what the fans feel.

Welcome. I agree with you. While I believe JT is being sincere and I agree with what he says, nothing he says addresses the specific issues the fans have with the proposal, i.e. that it allows the club to move anywhere they want almost as soon as is humanly possible.

That just doesn't sound like Terry talking. It sounds like someone telling him what to say. While I agree with him, I'm not sure he had to mention Stoke, especially as he's England captain. The press will lap this up. And at a time when Liverpool are getting in the neck too. Completely unnecessary to mention them in my opinion. No-one is questioning JT's allegiance to Chelsea.

What's the record for the longest thread on this site .. ?

Protest planned .. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23997361-chelsea-facing-stamford-bridge-protest.do Like others, I think the club could have handled this differently, and I wouldn't be surprised if they amend their proposal before the vote, or even delay the vote for amendments and consultations to be made. Their proposal was always going to cause a great deal of paranoia, from people who love the club. Saying they won't move beyond 3 miles before 2020 for instance, when everyone knows it takes a good few years to move anyway, rendering the date meaningless, giving the impression the club are quite willing to relocate to a place which wouldn't sit easily with the fans, and that that place could quite easily be agreed upon pretty soon. The proposal allows for this, and while it does, what other reaction did they expect .. ? I suspect most CPOs would be receptive to a move, if they were consulted over sites, and that's something the club should consider, in my opinion. Voting no does not mean no to a move. It's voting to safeguard our future against a move to Honolulu, a future that goes beyond Roman it's worth remembering. I have a tiny suspicion the club knew what kind of reaction their proposal would create. They would have been stupid not to, given its wording. Maybe, just maybe, they have a site in mind (say Nine Elms) and this proposal was designed with getting this site through, because once they come back with the site everyone will be so relieved they'll vote yes, as opposed to if the club had immediately come out with the site, in which case there may have been a negative reaction to leaving SB, our spiritual home with which so many people have emotional ties. Just a thought, and a pleasant one at that, in my opinion. If they're so stupid they didn't know what kind of reaction they'd create, I despair.

I'm not suggesting they're lying. I am however suggesting they're being economical with the truth. No surprise there, all clubs are. Lots of supporters have problems with their boards, and I'm not suggesting we have been dealt a bad hand with Roman & Co. There are far worse out there. Regading their FAQs, the word "propoganda" sprang to mind, to me at least, I know you feel differently. Firstly, many of them won't vote, for various reasons, not least because some will be dead, and most that have moved cannot vote by proxy, etc etc. Secondly, certain people, of a certain wealth, with a certain agenda, may have purchased 100 shares each. As already stated, 10 such people is the equal of 1,000 ordinary fans voting no. That power you describe is the ability to have some say over where the club locates to, price strategy, design etc. Those are pretty important things (location is the be-all-and-end-all for me). Fan representation is a good thing. Those fans love the club, they do not want to hold it back, they have its best interests at heart. Why should the club ride roughshod over their feelings, as we've seen with other clubs? I'm not sayng the club will, but I'm saying this proposal suggests, quite clearly, that they might.

As usual I admire your optimism. I do believe the club are capable of risking upsetting fans over location, if they felt a move was necessary, and they had exhausted other options. I would understand the club's position, but I would disagree with it, as would Matthew Harding (I imagine).

Barn, I think it comes down to this .. Would I rather be in a situation which Tottenham may find themselves in, i.e. winning prizes and residing in alien territory, or would I rather be languishing in the lower reaches while playing in Chelsea territory, even if Roman left? I'm in the latter category. The club win the vote, and we may well be moving to a location that doesn't sit right with me, a location (I acknowledge) that wouldn't be the club's first choice. I truly think, that should the club win the vote (as I expect them to do), by the time 2020 comes around, fans will have reconciled the fact we are moving further afield, and it won't be as big a blow as it is to many right now. I may even be one of those fans, I don't know, I can't predict the future, but I do know that if the club win the vote the prospect of moving out of Chelsea country is a very real possibility, and that fills with me sadness. Knowing me, I'll still probably support them, and the club know that.

I knew you'd get there in the end ;) Respect your opinions mate. Disagree with most, obviously.