1 hour ago, Mod said:

We are not moving to Earls Court MoSki!

I was reading up again about The Cathedral (the design that was approved back in 2017) it doesn't look that bad to me tbh. Yeah it's a 60,000 capacity stadium which I guess in this day and age isn't enough! But if that's the best that space can take then wouldn't you look at moving as an option?

 

"The Cathedral"

 

 

 

 

If not earls Court then how about the old gas works (I didn't know that was an option till I searched online btw).

 

Edited September 13, 20241 yr by Simplymo

It might be tight once This is completed.

Nvm, ignore the gas works. Cheers Scott.

Oh well, not many options then.

3 hours ago, Scott said:

It might be tight once This is completed.

 

few of us do remember save the bridge ..from property developers.  im astounded that some fans on here are suggesting a move to earls court ( never going to happen already been ruled out)  as long as some form of cpo is arranged there.  the point of CPO  was to stop developers selling THE BRIDGE  and moving CHELSEA.  but to suggest that would be ok if we move CPO with it . whats the point lolol.  THE BRIDGE can be redeveloped to hold 60k  as i said b4  roman got planning but let it lapse as he saw what was going to happen . THE BRIDGE is CHELSEA FC  it is 100 yrs of history.  KTBFFH.

9 hours ago, Simplymo said:

Isn't the cpo also a potential barrier for Chelsea to play PL games abroad. That 38th game that's made its rounds again in the media not too long ago. Can't use the name "chelsea" if playing a PL game abroad or something.

 

CPO Owns the freehold and footprint of the Bridge, you can see where that ends with the brick colour changing outside. They dont own any of the actual infrastructure.

They do also own the name Chelsea FC, no matter what club plays here or there.

28 minutes ago, alwayshopeful said:

few of us do remember save the bridge ..from property developers.  im astounded that some fans on here are suggesting a move to earls court ( never going to happen already been ruled out)  as long as some form of cpo is arranged there.  the point of CPO  was to stop developers selling THE BRIDGE  and moving CHELSEA.  but to suggest that would be ok if we move CPO with it . whats the point lolol.  THE BRIDGE can be redeveloped to hold 60k  as i said b4  roman got planning but let it lapse as he saw what was going to happen . THE BRIDGE is CHELSEA FC  it is 100 yrs of history.  KTBFFH.

The point is unfortunately the Bridge is holding us back financially, its almost impossible for us to develop it to compete. So the choice is we lose ground as a club on the pitch with the top clubs, dont compete for trophies anymore (other than the domestic cups) or move to somewhere we can build to continue to compete at the top level. Its sh*t we would have to leave the Bridge to do this, but thats the reality.

10 hours ago, dkw said:

The point is unfortunately the Bridge is holding us back financially, its almost impossible for us to develop it to compete. So the choice is we lose ground as a club on the pitch with the top clubs, dont compete for trophies anymore (other than the domestic cups) or move to somewhere we can build to continue to compete at the top level. Its sh*t we would have to leave the Bridge to do this, but thats the reality.

but as i said if roman had a design to build a stadium AT THE BRIDGE with planning given .its not the reality we have to leave bridge . its money grabbing sell bridge develop stadium elsewhere.

10 hours ago, dkw said:

CPO Owns the freehold and footprint of the Bridge, you can see where that ends with the brick colour changing outside. They dont own any of the actual infrastructure.

They do also own the name Chelsea FC, no matter what club plays here or there.

Yeah, it's the name part. There's a caveat that they can't use the Chelsea FC name in an official PL match abroad or something. Let me dig for the last article I read about it, its been done a few times. I'll post it up.

 

10 hours ago, dkw said:

The point is unfortunately the Bridge is holding us back financially, its almost impossible for us to develop it to compete. So the choice is we lose ground as a club on the pitch with the top clubs, dont compete for trophies anymore (other than the domestic cups) or move to somewhere we can build to continue to compete at the top level. Its sh*t we would have to leave the Bridge to do this, but thats the reality.

The design they had for Stamford Bridge can only take 60,000 which I think is fine now and for the immediate future. But I agree, if we want to be at the top then the current site isn't enough. It's really hard to accept but we can get more, do more and be more if we had the space, and unfortunately that's not the case at the current site. 

10 hours ago, dkw said:

The point is unfortunately the Bridge is holding us back financially, its almost impossible for us to develop it to compete. So the choice is we lose ground as a club on the pitch with the top clubs, dont compete for trophies anymore (other than the domestic cups) or move to somewhere we can build to continue to compete at the top level. Its sh*t we would have to leave the Bridge to do this, but thats the reality.

Trouble is, we're no longer owned by Roman, do we have the ability to win silverware as we did, will chelsea sell out a +60 seater stadium, and under the current ownership model, we're currently a long way off league titles, also whats the point of Chelsea if it isnt in Chelsea. All avenues were explored under Roman for the surrounding area so unless we move somewhere West, not many options available. Here we are again going around in another circle with different owners. Stadium Groundhog Day. 

 

Edited September 13, 20241 yr by bluetrooper

3 minutes ago, alwayshopeful said:

but as i said if roman had a design to build a stadium AT THE BRIDGE with planning given .its not the reality we have to leave bridge . its money grabbing sell bridge develop stadium elsewhere.

It's only 60,000 and limited to the space obviously. We will be back in the same spot in 10yrs time trying to figure out what to do. Why waste money on building twice..

5 minutes ago, bluetrooper said:

Trouble is, we're no longer owned by Roman, do we have the ability to win silverware as we did, will chelsea sell out a +60 seater stadium, and under the current ownership model, we're currently a long way off league titles, also whats the point of Chelsea if it isnt in Chelsea. All avenues were explored under Roman for the surrounding area so unless we move somewhere West, not many options available. Here we are again going around in another circle with different owners. Stadium Groundhog Day. 

 

And we will be back here again in the not too distant future if we only have a 60k seater.

Yes we may be far from silverware atm buy I dont think that matters rgdn this.

60k is nothing when it comes to concerts or other entertainment and other sports. 

I can see an NFL sellout especially with the connections our owners have. Or baseball or whatever they have else.

End of the day, it's all revenue. We will get more if we have the space. And the stadium design Roman had was good, very good but its still limited. In 10-20 yrs we will be back here again if we don't plan for further ahead from now. 

11 hours ago, dkw said:

CPO Owns the freehold and footprint of the Bridge, you can see where that ends with the brick colour changing outside. They dont own any of the actual infrastructure.

They do also own the name Chelsea FC, no matter what club plays here or there.

I can't find the article I read recently in the guardian about it...but found another link just now and some text too.

https://clutchpoints.com/chelsea-rumors-blues-to-change-their-club-name-to-play-premier-league-games-outside-uk

And...

While Prem bosses insist there are “no plans” to even consider playing matches in the US or anywhere else, there is now a majority of top flight clubs with significant American-based financial stakes.

But although Chelsea fans have frequently been on the wrong end of stick by rival supporters, the Blues’ most fervent base may be the saviours of the national game.

And it is all down to... Ken Bates.

Share

CHELSEA fans could play a key role in blocking any plans to play Prem games outside the UK.

Fifa last week paved the way for domestic matches being played “out of territory”.

Advertisement

Chelsea fans could block plans to play Premier League games abroadCredit: Getty

World chiefs agreed to set up a working group charged with establishing criteria for league and cup games to be played anywhere.

While Prem bosses insist there are “no plans” to even consider playing matches in the US or anywhere else, there is now a majority of top flight clubs with significant American-based financial stakes.

But although Chelsea fans have frequently been on the wrong end of stick by rival supporters, the Blues’ most fervent base may be the saviours of the national game.

And it is all down to... Ken Bates.

Advertisement

READ MORE ON CHELSEA

ALL FOUR ONE

 McKenna offered QUADRUPLE-your-money contract to fight off Man Utd and Chelsea

DOUBLE UP

 Win a Porsche 911 and a BMW M4 or £150k cash from just 45p with our discount

Back in 1993, after winning a drawn-out legal battle for control of the Stamford Bridge site from developers Marler Estates, Bates came up with a plan.

It saw him establish Chelsea Pitch Owners, issuing shares in the club’s playing surface.

Priced at £100 per share, and a maximum individual allocation of 100 shares, it allowed Blues fans to own a small but highly significant stake in the club’s present - and future.

As part of the Bates model - which was aimed at ensuring private developers could never get their hands on the Bridge - the CPO was also given ownership of the name Chelsea Football Club Limited.That was licensed back to the club on the condition that ALL first team matches are played at Stamford Bridge.

It also ensures that if the club does move to another stadium in the future, it can only use the name Chelsea FC with permission of 75 per cent of CPO shareholders.And it means that even if Prem club chiefs were to vote in favour of playing games in other countries, the CPO - Blues legend and former skipper John Terry is the current President - would be able to prevent Chelsea from being one of the clubs that “lost” a home match.

 

37 minutes ago, bluetrooper said:

Trouble is, we're no longer owned by Roman, do we have the ability to win silverware as we did, will chelsea sell out a +60 seater stadium, and under the current ownership model, we're currently a long way off league titles, also whats the point of Chelsea if it isnt in Chelsea. All avenues were explored under Roman for the surrounding area so unless we move somewhere West, not many options available. Here we are again going around in another circle with different owners. Stadium Groundhog Day. 

 

I should be happy about a possible 60k stadium bringing in more revenue.

But it depends what happens to that extra revenue. The way things are looking it'll be rewarding our Clearlake Capital investors with dividend payouts and possibly management fees too.

Let's face it, that's the only objective for Clearlake Capital, it exists to make money for investors.

 

I would vote against moving away from the bridge

my daughter would love to move to Earl’s Court.

exactly this older people remember save the bridge

we was so close to losing the ground.

do we trust these owners not to rent a piece of ground

and sell the bridge.

we have massive security at the moment(cpo)

i really hope we stay at the bridge and I would go for stand by stand rebuild

starting with the shed.

4 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

I can't find the article I read recently in the guardian about it...but found another link just now and some text too.

https://clutchpoints.com/chelsea-rumors-blues-to-change-their-club-name-to-play-premier-league-games-outside-uk

And...

While Prem bosses insist there are “no plans” to even consider playing matches in the US or anywhere else, there is now a majority of top flight clubs with significant American-based financial stakes.

But although Chelsea fans have frequently been on the wrong end of stick by rival supporters, the Blues’ most fervent base may be the saviours of the national game.

And it is all down to... Ken Bates.

Share

CHELSEA fans could play a key role in blocking any plans to play Prem games outside the UK.

Fifa last week paved the way for domestic matches being played “out of territory”.

Advertisement

Chelsea fans could block plans to play Premier League games abroadCredit: Getty

World chiefs agreed to set up a working group charged with establishing criteria for league and cup games to be played anywhere.

While Prem bosses insist there are “no plans” to even consider playing matches in the US or anywhere else, there is now a majority of top flight clubs with significant American-based financial stakes.

But although Chelsea fans have frequently been on the wrong end of stick by rival supporters, the Blues’ most fervent base may be the saviours of the national game.

And it is all down to... Ken Bates.

Advertisement

READ MORE ON CHELSEA

ALL FOUR ONE

 McKenna offered QUADRUPLE-your-money contract to fight off Man Utd and Chelsea

DOUBLE UP

 Win a Porsche 911 and a BMW M4 or £150k cash from just 45p with our discount

Back in 1993, after winning a drawn-out legal battle for control of the Stamford Bridge site from developers Marler Estates, Bates came up with a plan.

It saw him establish Chelsea Pitch Owners, issuing shares in the club’s playing surface.

Priced at £100 per share, and a maximum individual allocation of 100 shares, it allowed Blues fans to own a small but highly significant stake in the club’s present - and future.

As part of the Bates model - which was aimed at ensuring private developers could never get their hands on the Bridge - the CPO was also given ownership of the name Chelsea Football Club Limited.That was licensed back to the club on the condition that ALL first team matches are played at Stamford Bridge.

It also ensures that if the club does move to another stadium in the future, it can only use the name Chelsea FC with permission of 75 per cent of CPO shareholders.And it means that even if Prem club chiefs were to vote in favour of playing games in other countries, the CPO - Blues legend and former skipper John Terry is the current President - would be able to prevent Chelsea from being one of the clubs that “lost” a home match.

 

Sadly I can see ways to get round it.

Just a change of name . They did it to Wimbledon by changing their name to MK Dons and moving the club to Milton Keynes. But reading your piece it might be different for us ?

Anyway, how much MORE money does the PL need ? Pure Greed 

Could they call the team BlueCo FC ?

1 minute ago, Vin1968 said:

I would vote against moving away from the bridge

my daughter would love to move to Earl’s Court.

exactly this older people remember save the bridge

we was so close to losing the ground.

do we trust these owners not to rent a piece of ground

and sell the bridge.

we have massive security at the moment(cpo)

i really hope we stay at the bridge and I would go for stand by stand rebuild

starting with the shed.

True mate 

Don't forget the current owners can sell us in nearly 7 and half years now.

The CPO is vital 

Does the position in the premier league belong to Chelsea.fc

or blue co?

Just now, The Rising Sun said:

Sadly I can see ways to get round it.

Just a change of name . They did it to Wimbledon by changing their name to MK Dons and moving the club to Milton Keynes. But reading your piece it might be different for us ?

Anyway, how much MORE money does the PL need ? Pure Greed 

Could they call the team BlueCo FC ?

I don't think it will be that drastic as MK Don's tbh. Lol

I honestly don't know what this means in the long run. Will chelsea be left out if PL do go for game 39 abroad? (sry I posted 38 earlier)

Will PL accept a name change for game 39? And if they do how much can the CPO get from suing them, lol? 

It's just another saga that will involve Chelsea and the media later down the line and why its never boring being a fan of Chels. 

Oh, this is why I posted earlier that if we do move then the cpo needs to move too and continue there (wherever there may be). Even if they can sometimes be seen as an obstacle for the owners and a hindrance, the cpo can also be the "saviour" of the club.

It's vital that the cpo continues to own the pitch and the name, even if the pitch is a brand new one at a different location.

I just don’t trust these owners.

maybe they’re the sort of people to just look after themselves.

the Earl’s Court news is just talk by people getting massive wages

waste of the clubs and our money.

Romans architects planned a 60,000 stadium before we purchased stoll 

decent architects can solve this problem.

on a selfish note I got tickets for the massive barrow game,

also got the massive Brighton match

then the huge gent game

i just as well move into the hotel.

Always wondered why the pitch facing side of the hotel wasn’t converted to

executive boxes instead of investment in west view.

 

 

The other option I guess is a revision of The Cathedral.

1) designs were done in 2016. In 8 years new tech, building materials, etc are available now. 

2) an extra 1.2acres from stoll mansions was acquired.

 

If they can do a redesign and fit maybe 80k in then that may be enough. 

I honestly don't know...

41 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

I don't think it will be that drastic as MK Don's tbh. Lol

I honestly don't know what this means in the long run. Will chelsea be left out if PL do go for game 39 abroad? (sry I posted 38 earlier)

Will PL accept a name change for game 39? And if they do how much can the CPO get from suing them, lol? 

It's just another saga that will involve Chelsea and the media later down the line and why its never boring being a fan of Chels. 

Hey Mo !

Don't American teams move from one location to another hundreds of miles away on a yearly basis and no one cares ?

🤣

44 minutes ago, Simplymo said:

I don't think it will be that drastic as MK Don's tbh. Lol

I honestly don't know what this means in the long run. Will chelsea be left out if PL do go for game 39 abroad? (sry I posted 38 earlier)

Will PL accept a name change for game 39? And if they do how much can the CPO get from suing them, lol? 

It's just another saga that will involve Chelsea and the media later down the line and why its never boring being a fan of Chels. 

Yeah Premium League clubs are the poorest in Europe and need any extra cash they can get , even if they have to play in America.