On 29/08/2025 at 22:03, The Rising Sun said:

Lets face the truth. Our majority investors are connected to our club for one reason only. To make money. Do we really think they will borrow billions to invest in a new stadium sometime in the future? The value of our club has increased already to the point the Todd recently announced it's worth more now than the price it was bought for.

I'd love a new stadium at Earls Court or a probably impossible stand by stand rebuild of the Bridge. But broadcasting revenue dwarfs stadium revenue . It doesn't make sense to spend billions and then with loan repayments eating into revenue for years afterwards just to increase revenue by a few million a year ??

And who's to say that that extra revenue won't be syphoned away to our investors anyway. ?

I think Clearlake, the majority owners, happen to agree with your arguments, and that is why we have seen little development with regards to a stadium rebuild. It is telling to me that only Boehly and Wyss have talked publicly about the stadium, and the latter was somewhat critical of the current state of affairs suggesting that the board did not have anyone willing to solely champion the project. To me that points to differing opinions, likely between Clearlake and the minority group, and I have no doubt that Clearlake have run the numbers and can't find the evidence to support a clear investment case.

In America, private stadiums are often subsidised heavily by the taxpayer under the furphy of "economic benefits". I don't think that stupidity has crossed the pond as yet, but it's possible that they will wait for a political change (especially with the rise of nationalism) that will make state corporate welfare more likely.

As for revenue being siphoned away, I don't think that is the ownership group's intentions and may even be contrary to their interest. They are clearly more concerned with asset value rather than profitability and revenue, which are just means to an end. Essentially what they want is an asset valued at ~10bn within ten years time. Boehly's comments about the market's rising tide confirm that strategy.

On 17/07/2025 at 15:23, terraloon said:

My first game I stood under the old North Stand, what a strange stand that was !

It was an odd stand. The only stand/part of the ground that i havent sat or stood in. When i started watching Chelsea i am reminded that it was already empty or unused, in 1968-69 ish. (Im happy to be told otherwise and my dad isnt around to confirm it).

On second thoughts maybe i remember man city fans in that area for an evening kick off...

Edited September 23, 2025Sep 23 by OTL

Our new stadium... will never be built

4 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Our new stadium... will never be built

At the recent Chelsea Supporters Trust AGM it was announced that there was no update on redeveloping the ground. The way it's going I'll be in the great football ground in the sky by the time the Bridge is redeveloped.

1 hour ago, Boyne said:

At the recent Chelsea Supporters Trust AGM it was announced that there was no update on redeveloping the ground. The way it's going I'll be in the great football ground in the sky by the time the Bridge is redeveloped.

Don't think the Bridge ever will get redeveloped, too expensive for only a small increase. We either move, which I don't see us green lighting (CPO), or we stay as we are.

1 hour ago, Boyne said:

At the recent Chelsea Supporters Trust AGM it was announced that there was no update on redeveloping the ground. The way it's going I'll be in the great football ground in the sky by the time the Bridge is redeveloped.

Don't think the Bridge ever will get redeveloped, too expensive for only a small increase. We either move, which I don't see us green lighting (CPO), or we stay as we are.

Still mourning the loss of Roman’s masterpiece 💔

19 hours ago, Chelsea1985 said:

If we’re to move away from the Bridge the only viable site in West London(just about) is Old Oak Common. It wouldn’t shock me if they bring it up as an option while keeping Stamford Bridge for the women’s team, as Everton have done with Goodison.

All Clearlake would have to do is build HM Government a couple of nice shiny new prisons on some cheap land elsewhere in the country (a levelling up project in the North, near Liverpool ? LOL) and they could have the whole Wormwood Scrubs site for the new Stamford Bridge. Would only then require a relatively small part of the open space area.

An added bonus : the proximity to Hammersmith Hospital could be very useful for our usual squad sicknotes LOL

Football ground near a busy Hospital could be a no go

13 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

All Clearlake would have to do is build HM Government a couple of nice shiny new prisons on some cheap land elsewhere in the country (a levelling up project in the North, near Liverpool ? LOL) and they could have the whole Wormwood Scrubs site for the new Stamford Bridge. Would only then require a relatively small part of the open space area.

An added bonus : the proximity to Hammersmith Hospital could be very useful for our usual squad sicknotes LOL

And if the CPO didn't let them use the Chelsea name, they could rebrand to QPRCFC LDN.

14 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Don't think the Bridge ever will get redeveloped, too expensive for only a small increase. We either move, which I don't see us green lighting (CPO), or we stay as we are.

Never really been about the capacity increase though, it's the prawn sandwich brigade we need the expansion for.

I'm concerned that without a new stadium we're one (genuinely) bad ownership away from becoming Leeds.

Tottenham will always sit at the big boy table because of their stadium. They'll consistently bring in double what we can on commercial+match day revenue combined.

This is never going to happen

Delete the thread

On 24/09/2025 at 09:23, bisright1 said:

On 24/09/2025 at 09:23, bisright1 said:

Never really been about the capacity increase though, it's the prawn sandwich brigade we need the expansion for.

I'm concerned that without a new stadium we're one (genuinely) bad ownership away from becoming Leeds.

Tottenham will always sit at the big boy table because of their stadium. They'll consistently bring in double what we can on commercial+match day revenue combined.

.

Tottenham bought a "one trophy only" cabinet with the extra money.

On 23/09/2025 at 18:22, axman2526 said:

Don't think the Bridge ever wIll get redeveloped, too expensive for only a small increase. We either move, which I don't see us green lighting (CPO), or we stay as we are.

I think you're right. At the CPO AGM in January one of the club's board, James Gannon commented on increased capacity and it could depend on circumstances. I interpret that as being if the club can increase revenue without making too many changes to capacity they will. As for the CPO I'm a CPO shareholder and it wouldn't surprise me if the club called in the loan to the CPO or bought out shareholders.

8 minutes ago, Boyne said:

I think you're right. At the CPO AGM in January one of the club's board, James Gannon commented on increased capacity and it could depend on circumstances. I interpret that as being if the club can increase revenue without making too many changes to capacity they will. As for the CPO I'm a CPO shareholder and it wouldn't surprise me if the club called in the loan to the CPO or bought out shareholders.

How do the CPO feel about today's supporters trust statement re ticket prices for the benfica game?

Just now, axman2526 said:

How do the CPO feel about today's supporters trust statement re ticket prices for the benfica game?

Haven't seen anything from the CPO board. Will have a look and post if I find anything. As the Supporters Trust and the CPO board work closely together I suspect the CPO board will agree with the CST. As was pointed out at the CST AGM - see my posts in the Boehly thread - there was a lot of frustration about the Benfica and the rest of the CL tickets due to the increase in costs and at short notice. As I mentioned in my last post in the Boehly thread I think that the club is trying to force out season ticket holders especially those who've been around for ages and don't spend too much money in the ground. I left it too late to buy tickets for the CL games which were sold as a package. One of the reasons was because I wasn't sure if I could to all the games. Strangely for the women's three CL games at the Bridge I could buy those on an individual basis. I only bought one for the Paris game as can't go to the other two.

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Tottenham bought a "one trophy only" cabinet with the extra money.

Sure but if they were still at whl and had the season they did last year, I think that would be them done for a decade

Instead they were able to sign players, get a top manager in and stay relevant.

Because of the stadium.

18 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Sure but if they were still at whl and had the season they did last year, I think that would be them done for a decade

Instead they were able to sign players, get a top manager in and stay relevant.

Because of the stadium.

We spend FAR more than them even with our smaller stadium and no shirt sponsor !

I think Solanke is still their record signing at £60 odd million .?

id love us to have a new stadium at preferably Earls Court, but it's not happening with our American investors, they're in enough debt as it is, I can't see em borrowing a billion more ?

11 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

We spend FAR more than them even with our smaller stadium and no shirt sponsor !

I think Solanke is still their record signing at £60 odd million .?

id love us to have a new stadium at preferably Earls Court, but it's not happening with our American investors, they're in enough debt as it is, I can't see em borrowing a billion more ?

I know we spend more now.

My worry is if we end up with a worse ownership group.

If Ratcliffe was our owner for example and we went 4-5 years with no trophies. I think we'd be done for a generation.

We have no foundations without a stadium that brings us significant revenue.

9 hours ago, bisright1 said:

9 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I know we spend more now.

My worry is if we end up with a worse ownership group.

If Ratcliffe was our owner for example and we went 4-5 years with no trophies. I think we'd be done for a generation.

We have no foundations without a stadium that brings us significant revenue.

I know what you are saying, bisright1 , a bigger stadium comes with bigger revenue, but not necessarily a larger , or any profit at all. Broadcasting revenue is the main source of every PL club's income these days, it's double the Bundsligia broadcasting revenue. My personal belief is that instead of loading up with more debt and debt repayments for extra income from a stadium about 10 years into the future, we need to manage that income better. . And get a shirt sponsor.

I wouldn't say no to a new stadium at Earls court though !!

This article below from somewhere, not AI generated! Spurs made profits 4 seasons in a row at WHL , and losses ever since moving to new stadium

"The long-held notion has been that Spurs are a profitable football club. Indeed, the club made a profit every year between 2015 and 2019, with cumulative profits of £328m. Since then, however, there have been five years of losses that have amounted to a combined £300m. The net profit for the last decade has been £28m, and no profitable season has been posted since the club moved to their new stadium."

Edited September 26, 2025Sep 26 by The Rising Sun
Info

I was searching my computer the other day, and I found a bunch of renders I made 2 years ago. I never got round to sharing them.

On 22/09/2025 at 23:53, SydneyChelsea said:

I think Clearlake, the majority owners, happen to agree with your arguments, and that is why we have seen little development with regards to a stadium rebuild. It is telling to me that only Boehly and Wyss have talked publicly about the stadium, and the latter was somewhat critical of the current state of affairs suggesting that the board did not have anyone willing to solely champion the project. To me that points to differing opinions, likely between Clearlake and the minority group, and I have no doubt that Clearlake have run the numbers and can't find the evidence to support a clear investment case.

In America, private stadiums are often subsidised heavily by the taxpayer under the furphy of "economic benefits". I don't think that stupidity has crossed the pond as yet, but it's possible that they will wait for a political change (especially with the rise of nationalism) that will make state corporate welfare more likely.

As for revenue being siphoned away, I don't think that is the ownership group's intentions and may even be contrary to their interest. They are clearly more concerned with asset value rather than profitability and revenue, which are just means to an end. Essentially what they want is an asset valued at ~10bn within ten years time. Boehly's comments about the market's rising tide confirm that strategy.

Hi Sydney, thanks for your reply mate.I reckon you're the one to maybe shed light on this..? When I was looking at the stuff about Spurs not making a profit despite the new stadium, one article said that without the "depreciation of assets PSR calculation mainly for the Stadium build they would have been in profit. What I don't understand is that spending on infrastructure doesn't count as spending for PSR . Is it true then, that once the stadium is built PSR will calculate a "depreciation of assets" cost every year for the stadium? 

Cheers mate 👍 

On 25/09/2025 at 19:34, Boyne said:

I think you're right. At the CPO AGM in January one of the club's board, James Gannon commented on increased capacity and it could depend on circumstances. I interpret that as being if the club can increase revenue without making too many changes to capacity they will. As for the CPO I'm a CPO shareholder and it wouldn't surprise me if the club called in the loan to the CPO or bought out shareholders.

Hi Boyne. I know CPO had a loan when Bates set it up , but what was the loan actually used for ? I believe it was quite substantial and it's still to be repaid ? It was an absolutely vital enterprise back then , and still is if these or any other owners get any daft ideas .

On 22/09/2025 at 23:16, Chelsea1985 said:

If we’re to move away from the Bridge the only viable site in West London(just about) is Old Oak Common. It wouldn’t shock me if they bring it up as an option while keeping Stamford Bridge for the women’s team, as Everton have done with Goodison.

Isn't old Oak common going to be the terminus station for HS2 ?? I don't know how large it will be , but handy for away fans travelling down from oop north to stadium ! Not much use to me unfortunately

On 22/09/2025 at 23:16, Chelsea1985 said:

4 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

I know what you are saying, bisright1 , a bigger stadium comes with bigger revenue, but not necessarily a larger , or any profit at all. Broadcasting revenue is the main source of every PL club's income these days, it's double the Bundsligia broadcasting revenue. My personal belief is that instead of loading up with more debt and debt repayments for extra income from a stadium about 10 years into the future, we need to manage that income better. . And get a shirt sponsor.

I wouldn't say no to a new stadium at Earls court though !!

This article below from somewhere, not AI generated! Spurs made profits 4 seasons in a row at WHL , and losses ever since moving to new stadium

"The long-held notion has been that Spurs are a profitable football club. Indeed, the club made a profit every year between 2015 and 2019, with cumulative profits of £328m. Since then, however, there have been five years of losses that have amounted to a combined £300m. The net profit for the last decade has been £28m, and no profitable season has been posted since the club moved to their new stadium."

Profit is not so relevant really,

If we make 2x revenue and still make a loss, it's because we've been able to spend 2x.

It then means our value goes up because revenue is super powered.

Roman made a massive "loss" running Chelsea. But we were sold for so much more money that his losses were neutralised. Our owners are banking on the same, running us at a loss then selling for a profit.

Since 2019 Tottenham have nearly doubled their commercial (not matchday) revenue. But they haven't competed for the league once and won zero trophies. Why? The stadium. Whilst in that time period we've only gone up about 25%. Tottenham make more revenue than us in both match day and commercial revenue.

Even if we had a shirt sponsor we'd still be behind. In the grand scheme of things thats marginal. Give it 5 more years and I expect Tottenham will generate so much more commercial+matchday revenue than us it will be more than the amount we get in broadcast fees.

That's what worries me. We're now the 3rd biggest club in London on revenue. Take away the success in competitions and it's easy to see how we could get cut adrift. Especially if our current owners are forced to turn off the taps of spending - which seems likely now.

We're reliant on this squad growing in value and ultimately we will be reliant on having a stadium that can bring in the revenue in commercial and match day to compete long time.

Edited September 26, 2025Sep 26 by bisright1