11 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Perhaps seats behind the goal could be sold as expensive " The goalkeeper experience' seats ??

I'd take that over Sanchez or Jorgensen

9 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

I suppose the wording can be interpreted in another way, " developing" the stadium might just mean creating a few more corporate areas like the expensive " dugout" experience seats !! Perhaps seats behind the goal could be sold as expensive " The goalkeeper experience' seats ??

One of RA's stipulations was that Stamford Bridge be expanded. One of his plans as we know. That's what "development" would have referred to. Easier said than done as we know.

11 hours ago, dermott said:

One of RA's stipulations was that Stamford Bridge be expanded. One of his plans as we know. That's what "development" would have referred to. Easier said than done as we know.

What happens if they just ignore it?

On 13/10/2025 at 15:24, Sexyfootball said:

I always thought it was supposed to be a further investment of £1.75 bn on top of the £ 2.5 bn they paid for the club, thus adding up to the figure of "£4.25 billion" that was widely reported ?

Sky Sports

Chelsea takeover: Todd Boehly's £4.25bn bid approved by g...

Deal is set to bring an end to Roman Abramovichs ownership of Chelsea, in which the club has won 21 trophies; a deal for Jules Kounde has already been verbally agreed; the defenders proposed move to C

Hence, and similarly to Andy North, my assumption was that the extra £1.75 bn they signed up for was intended to be the funds for a new stadium rather than money laundering on "promising" youth LOL

They’ve spent that money in sh*t players hoping that they could resell making profit, not on improving a stadium they could not get a return on. They didn’t know that the sh*t they’ve bought they couldn’t shift for a profit, though lol

Some dude was complaining on YouTube about the atmosphere at our first game v Palace. He said he was seated in the " Captains Bar " area of the East Stand middle tier . He was expecting our fans to provide an atmosphere for him to savour but felt let down . Got loads of abuse for his moaning !

Just looked at prices for just a padded seat and the opportunity to buy drinks and food at the Captain's cash Bar.. . £220 per person v Sunderland ( sold out) and £525 v Arsenal !!

1 hour ago, Scott Harris said:

What happens if they just ignore it?

FA

12 hours ago, dermott said:

One of RA's stipulations was that Stamford Bridge be expanded. One of his plans as we know. That's what "development" would have referred to. Easier said than done as we know.

I don't think we're anywhere near getting a plan approved or even submitted for approval, despite the Mayor urging us to sort it out . His approval is required for all large building projects. .

Whereas Roman had planning approved for his new stadium .

11 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

I don't think we're anywhere near getting a plan approved or even submitted for approval, despite the Mayor urging us to sort it out . His approval is required for all large building projects. .

Whereas Roman had planning approved for his new stadium .

Roman mothballed the redevelopment in 2018.

On 06/10/2025 at 12:57, Snedger said:

That's true, although I always thought we'd try and design something a bit better than the typical soulless bowl that many play in now.

I've always been a bit sceptical that we could get 60 or 70 thousand every game, but I really would like the idea of having more than 39k and the current almost closed shop situation we have. And I think I've mentioned before that we apparently have the oldest average age for supporters in the league, so I think we need to find a way to get more new blood into our matchdays (and it'd be nice if I could go and see us play again one day too).

I remember when redevelopment of the Bridge commenced in the early 1990s Ken Bates saying that a 60,000 capacity stadium wasn't in his viable viable as he believed the football bubble would burst. Not sure if the bubble has burst as attendances seem to be up but who is going to games? People who are prepared to pay over the odds for hospitality tickets and it seems to me that Chelsea - and other clubs - are pampering to them. As you say, if we did have a 60k ground would we fill it. I'm not so sure.

It would be nice if at the CPO AGM in January an announcement were to be made on the development but cynical bastard that I am I can't see that happening. There's more chance of me giving up alcohol and buying books.

There has been suggestions on here about using the ground for non-football events. Can't see that being agreed to by Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea Councils. As we know the ground is in the former council but I'm sure the latter will have a say. Non-football events would bring in more revenue and there may be better bars and cafes with a greater choice of food and drinks and at a reasonable price but what's in it for the local residents and businesses. They would want something in return for the increase in people and events in and around the ground.

Under the terms of the agreement between the CPO and the club Chelsea FC play their home games at Stamford Bridge. As we know for a while now - I can't remember how long - there has been a lot of PR about CFC LDN. Also there is also the on-going debate about playing games overseas. I hope that doesn't happen but I wouldn't be surprised if games are played overseas. A few points on that:

1. Will the club not be breaking their agreement with the CPO if a home game is played elsewhere? I'm sure the club will find a way round that.

2. With which organisation do the players have a contract with? Is it Chelsea FC or CFC LDN. If the latter you would have thought that they would have to play at the Bridge. If the latter, they could play home games anywhere and a new club plays at the Bridge. That could be difficult to set up and in which league/division would they play. If the club's board does push the CFC LDN and home games are played elsewhere who we would support?

I'm possibly being a pedantic but begs the question about what is in the small print in contracts.

2 hours ago, Boyne said:

I remember when redevelopment of the Bridge commenced in the early 1990s Ken Bates saying that a 60,000 capacity stadium wasn't in his viable viable as he believed the football bubble would burst. Not sure if the bubble has burst as attendances seem to be up but who is going to games? People who are prepared to pay over the odds for hospitality tickets and it seems to me that Chelsea - and other clubs - are pampering to them. As you say, if we did have a 60k ground would we fill it. I'm not so sure.

Its fairly logical

With a 40k stadium a lot of fans, including myself, don't bother going because it's a ball ache getting tickets.

Right now if a tourist asks Reddit how can I get tickets to Chelsea. The answer is "pay a lot of money for hospitality or don't bother".

With a 60k stadium it would just be slightly less of a ball ache. We'd easily sell out a 60k stadium.

If we built a 60k stadium in the next ten years and there was the ability to get a season ticket, I'd probably get one. Right now I only go to a game if someone offers me a ticket.

But the reality is, if we increase the capacity by 20k, only half of that will probably go to fans.

3 hours ago, Boyne said:

I remember when redevelopment of the Bridge commenced in the early 1990s Ken Bates saying that a 60,000 capacity stadium wasn't in his viable viable as he believed the football bubble would burst. Not sure if the bubble has burst as attendances seem to be up but who is going to games? People who are prepared to pay over the odds for hospitality tickets and it seems to me that Chelsea - and other clubs - are pampering to them. As you say, if we did have a 60k ground would we fill it. I'm not so sure.

It would be nice if at the CPO AGM in January an announcement were to be made on the development but cynical bastard that I am I can't see that happening. There's more chance of me giving up alcohol and buying books.

There has been suggestions on here about using the ground for non-football events. Can't see that being agreed to by Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea Councils. As we know the ground is in the former council but I'm sure the latter will have a say. Non-football events would bring in more revenue and there may be better bars and cafes with a greater choice of food and drinks and at a reasonable price but what's in it for the local residents and businesses. They would want something in return for the increase in people and events in and around the ground.

Easily. Don’t Spurs generally fill up their 62,000.

No problem with filling 60k. Whats the waiting list for a ST these days?

47 minutes ago, markpitts said:

Easily. Don’t Spurs generally fill up their 62,000.

That is at least 59k knobheads a week then.

I'd hope that if we did have an extra 20'000 seats, that they wouldn't give too many over to season ticket holders as things wouldn't really change that much. What we need is a good number of first come first served tickets, and not even this loyalty point thing, as that pretty much results in the same situation as season tickets. The odd thing is, to work best you kind of need a capacity where it doesn't quite sell out for midweek games against Sunderland. Those then become the gateway games for supporters.

But, I am sure that the owners will come up with whatever system maximises revenue, regardless of how and to whom the tickets are sold. After all, who needs people for an atmosphere when you have a Fratellis CD?

And yet again, this is all very moot as we've got more chance of winning the Watney Cup than playing in a new/rebuilt stadium in my lifetime.

2 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Its fairly logical

With a 40k stadium a lot of fans, including myself, don't bother going because it's a ball ache getting tickets.

Right now if a tourist asks Reddit how can I get tickets to Chelsea. The answer is "pay a lot of money for hospitality or don't bother".

With a 60k stadium it would just be slightly less of a ball ache. We'd easily sell out a 60k stadium.

If we built a 60k stadium in the next ten years and there was the ability to get a season ticket, I'd probably get one. Right now I only go to a game if someone offers me a ticket.

But the reality is, if we increase the capacity by 20k, only half of that will probably go to fans.

1 hour ago, markpitts said:

Easily. Don’t Spurs generally fill up their 62,000.

59 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

No problem with filling 60k. Whats the waiting list for a ST these days?

39 minutes ago, Snedger said:

I'd hope that if we did have an extra 20'000 seats, that they wouldn't give too many over to season ticket holders as things wouldn't really change that much. What we need is a good number of first come first served tickets, and not even this loyalty point thing, as that pretty much results in the same situation as season tickets. The odd thing is, to work best you kind of need a capacity where it doesn't quite sell out for midweek games against Sunderland. Those then become the gateway games for supporters.

But, I am sure that the owners will come up with whatever system maximises revenue, regardless of how and to whom the tickets are sold. After all, who needs people for an atmosphere when you have a Fratellis CD?

And yet again, this is all very moot as we've got more chance of winning the Watney Cup than playing in a new/rebuilt stadium in my lifetime.

@bisright1 You're right, it should be easier to get tickets as long as they go the ST holders and members and not to corporates, hospitality and ticket agencies. Tickets are still available through Vivid seats. The Chelsea Supporters Trust have contacted Boehly about Vivid Seats and he has not responded.

@Snedger The Chelsea Supporters trust estimate that 5,000 tickets go to members for each home game. You're right it would be good if more members could get tickets especially as the club convinced - or should that be deceived - fans to buy memberships when the new system was announced and said that they would go to real fans. What a load of tosh that was with seats being sold on Vivid Seats. The way that tickets are sold is a nightmare. Perhaps if the ground capacity is increased some members tickets are sold on loyalty points and others on a first come, first served. I think that whichever way tickets are sold is going to be a nightmare. You're right, the owners will find a way to maximise revenue. As I posted a while back at the CPO AGM in January, one of the board, James Gannon was asked about the future capacity of the ground and he replied that there are a number of factors to consider. I took that as if the club could increase revenue without increasing capacity they would. As for playing the Fratellis after a goal it has become boring and in my view unnecessary. Leave the songs to before and after the game. I was at Kingsmeadow on Sunday for the women's match against Spurs and Chelsea Dagger was played after Walsh scored.

@nonotnowjim I'm not sure how many are on the waiting list. Trying to get information from the board is now impossible. The Chelsea Supporters Trust has asked for information but it's like getting blood out of a stone.

@markpitts True, the Spuds do fill their ground as do West Ham and Arsenal and it would be great if we could but as long as tickets go to ST holders and members and not to corporates. I know I shouldn't judge others but it would be great to know how many corporates and people who buy tickets through a ticket agency have a genuine attachment to a club or just go for the "football experience". As I've mentioned before I'm a cynical bastard. Must be because I'm an old git.

9 hours ago, dermott said:

Roman mothballed the redevelopment in 2018.

He did. The point I was trying to make is that it can get done . It was the difficulty over his Visa renewal that made him decide not to pour over a billion into the UK economy if he was possibly going to be denied entry into the country. Arsenal, Spurs, Brentford have all built new stadiums in London. I know it's not easy , but we're not getting anything for a very long time , if ever.

This was the stadium redevelopment plan from 1970 under the Mears ownership. A 60,000 stadium. There was no doubt a lot of standing terrace in the plan.

The East Stand was the first part to be completed before the club ran into massive financial difficulties and the project abandoned

7 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Its fairly logical

With a 40k stadium a lot of fans, including myself, don't bother going because it's a ball ache getting tickets.

Right now if a tourist asks Reddit how can I get tickets to Chelsea. The answer is "pay a lot of money for hospitality or don't bother".

With a 60k stadium it would just be slightly less of a ball ache. We'd easily sell out a 60k stadium.

If we built a 60k stadium in the next ten years and there was the ability to get a season ticket, I'd probably get one. Right now I only go to a game if someone offers me a ticket.

But the reality is, if we increase the capacity by 20k, only half of that will probably go to fans.

The allocation of seating in Roman's stadium showed a large increase in corporate seating .

Dan Levene researched the plans at the time, below is part of his findings . Additionally to below he also mentioned seats to be allocated to " Bronze" members ...a new, premium , more expensive, membership group.

"The full report accompanying the application, which runs to 130 pages, goes into considerable additional detail.

It says that stadium capacity will be increased from 41,840 to "approximately 61,000", with a more than doubling of the hospitality capacity to 10,431, and a small increase of 715 extra seats for season ticket holders.

The biggest areas of increase will be for general sale and young supporters – with 5,500 extra seats here. The away section will be reduced by 431, with a similar number of seats being reallocated for “players, directors, officials, disabled, media, etc”."

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

The allocation of seating in Roman's stadium showed a large increase in corporate seating .

Dan Levene researched the plans at the time, below is part of his findings . Additionally to below he also mentioned seats to be allocated to " Bronze" members ...a new, premium , more expensive, membership group.

"The full report accompanying the application, which runs to 130 pages, goes into considerable additional detail.

It says that stadium capacity will be increased from 41,840 to "approximately 61,000", with a more than doubling of the hospitality capacity to 10,431, and a small increase of 715 extra seats for season ticket holders.

The biggest areas of increase will be for general sale and young supporters – with 5,500 extra seats here. The away section will be reduced by 431, with a similar number of seats being reallocated for “players, directors, officials, disabled, media, etc”."

Dan levene, that's a name I've not heard for a while.

49 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Dan levene, that's a name I've not heard for a while.

👍You're right mate, don't know that I've seen anything from him for ages. The last time I can remember was when he was reporting from court on JTs court case. I'll have to see if he's still doing stuff about the club

6 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

👍You're right mate, don't know that I've seen anything from him for ages. The last time I can remember was when he was reporting from court on JTs court case. I'll have to see if he's still doing stuff about the club

He's now pivoted away from Chelsea and reporting on why Israel is actually not the bad guys after all

11 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

He did. The point I was trying to make is that it can get done . It was the difficulty over his Visa renewal that made him decide not to pour over a billion into the UK economy if he was possibly going to be denied entry into the country. Arsenal, Spurs, Brentford have all built new stadiums in London. I know it's not easy , but we're not getting anything for a very long time , if ever.

It wasnt entirely down to the visa issue, it was also the current economic situation, prices for materials had risen astronomically, construction costs were ridiculous and the viability of the project was called in.

1 hour ago, dkw said:

It wasnt entirely down to the visa issue, it was also the current economic situation, prices for materials had risen astronomically, construction costs were ridiculous and the viability of the project was called in.

I think that was all a cover.

It was - and this is no bad thing - a vanity project for him. He wanted to build a thing that would stamp his legacy on London. There was rumours once it was built he would hand Chelsea over to his son.

That's why the design was so fantastical. He wasn't thinking about costs. He didn't need or want to.

But it became more and more obvious with the direction of where Putin/UK relations was going that wouldn't be possible. Why build such a monument if it ends up being taken away from your family before it's even built. He would have known that direction better than anyone else.

Edited October 16, 2025Oct 16 by bisright1

2 hours ago, bisright1 said:

I think that was all a cover.

It was - and this is no bad thing - a vanity project for him. He wanted to build a thing that would stamp his legacy on London. There was rumours once it was built he would hand Chelsea over to his son.

That's why the design was so fantastical. He wasn't thinking about costs. He didn't need or want to.

But it became more and more obvious with the direction of where Putin/UK relations was going that wouldn't be possible. Why build such a monument if it ends up being taken away from your family before it's even built. He would have known that direction better than anyone else.

It wasnt a cover, it was an actual fact that prices rocketed at that time and the project simply wasnt viable, its a main tenet of Project management to stop a project in these situations. He wanted the club to be self sustainable at that point, and this project meant it had no chance of accomplishing that.