I love our stadium the way it is. If we do increase it to a 60,000 capacity it would be soulless, like the Emirates Stadium or the Etihad.

It's holding us back though the way it is, it either needs to be increased capacity wise or we move.

We won't be at the Bridge in it's current form 10 years from now.

Our ground is pretty souless anyway, it's not the building or the site that causes that. It's the people within.

Our ground is pretty souless anyway, it's not the building or the site that causes that. It's the people within.

Sadly true.

The atmosphere at most games is pretty dire if we are honest with ourselves. I suppsoe that's the worry with moving to a 60-70k super stadium...if the bridge is quiet then imagine what that would be like...

Even though its quiet now, 20,000 more people will inevitably make it louder!

Yes..reading the above comments on the people within that have made the BRIDGE soul less...I agree......The Bridge in actual fact is a great looking place...We know noise CAN be generated because 8 out of 10 times the away fans do so.......There are many many goodl little mobs of Blues STILL ABOUT...( but) unfortunately theyre spread too thinly for my liking  around the ground.......Too many strangers sitting next to each other either not wanting to make noise , or, being a bit coy.......If and when the new gaff comes bout CFC must ready one big end (min) with applicants that wanna do nothing but create noise noise noise....Its worth a few more points a season ....

Edited June 18, 201412 yr by Mike Carefree

You were looking for excuses not to have to leave the only Chelsea home we've known. Understandable but you cannot say the no vote was in the best interests of Chelsea - that much should be very clear at this point.

 

Regarding Barn's points, I don't mean to be rude but they're tosh. The CPO board has already spent huge sums of money they don't have investigating "dodgy" share sales at the demands of SayNO and found no wrongdoing. The secrecy was because the club were negotiating £bn projects behind the backs of competitors for the land and an uncooperative council, it would have been suicide to announce such plans in the public domain before they were concluded. Regarding the "no move outside three miles before 2020" promise, that was quite simply what it said on the tin - we wouldn't move outside the three mile radius unless we absolutely had to as all other options were exhausted; I would agree making this promise was a mistake because it gave the conspiracy theorists scope for creating nonsense about Milton Keynes, Surrey, Moscow etc etc to scare the necessary gullible minority into a no vote.

With all due respect how do you know what my reason or other CPO's reasons were who voted no?

Ive said all along including on this forum, i'd back a move to Battersea/Earls Court if it was done right, i'd never agree to a move to Old Oak Common though.

 

When I said it was in Chelsea's interest I meant from my own point of view, voting no was the right thing to do imo at the time & I still stand by that.

There's no way I was going to vote yes if there was a slight chance we could be moved outside the area, I bought the share to stop that & help protect the club/SB so in my mind voting no was justified.

The problem is on various Chelsea forums especially the official chat page, us No voters get vilified as if it was a selfish act when in fact it was far from that, the same people who dig us out would be the same people crying in their beer if the club moved to Guilford for example.

 

Chelsea's top brass made a right balls up of the whole process, if they'd handled it differently I might have voted yes.

Don't think you can blame any side, everyone who voted did so for the best in their minds.

No one wants to move to a souless stadium of course yet no one wants to lose our standing because we can't get a stadium the likes of West Ham and other small clubs have got.

It's a huge problem and this move by Roman is by no means a solution at this stage...hopefully it will be though.

In the end we will need a bigger stadium no matter what.

 

 

As much as you  can say that the no vote was not in the best interests of Chelsea I can say the opposite. It's an opinion and time will tell. As a CPO I voted no for a number of reasons.

 

With regard to the commercial side of things it would have been very simple to get a CPO to vote yes for example:

Don't try to bribe me with a named brick.

Don't try to gerrymander the vote by buying up shares.

Automatically transfer ownership of the new ground pitch etc. to the CPO.

Allow the CPO to influence the design of the stadium. ( My own personal preference was a large youth area called The Shed with a maximum ticket price for the next x number of years.)

Agree a set of circumstances which the CPO would vote on which result in a yes vote. Thus provided those circumstances were met the commercial side was not impacted upon. Since then nothing has been done to facilitate such an agreement which the CPO could vote on regarding a move away from SB. I wonder why but see no point in spending time thinking about that.

 

What was clear to me was that the commercial side saw an opportunity to own a prime piece of real estate which would more than fund a new stadium. No problem with that but remember our perspective comes from loving the club which includes it's history. Their perspective is all about money. Do you fancy going to watch Chelsea playing at home somewhere, anywhere. Plenty of places that come cheaper than West London. 

I was not surprised that they didn't offer us a share in the surplus funds as opposed to a brick. Perhaps that would have come later.

Unlike other clubs the CPO gives supporters/fans of the club a real and influential voice. Ask Wimbledon/Cardiff fans how they feel.

 

As for the most recent news; this is just a study. It shows willing but may lead to a cul de sac. Expansion of capacity is absolutely necessary from a financial perspective (FFP) and if we leave SB so be it. It is not the same as it used to be, that went a long time ago so a purpose built stadium may be the only solution. My personal preference is near where I live but since that is about 150 miles from SB that might not go down too well.

 

Yes Battersea would have been iconic and a potentially glorious location in Chelsea heartland. The CPO were underestimated and treated with complete disrespect. Hence the shambles that ensued. If I were RA I would have considered removing the person responsible for that debacle. A yes vote could easily have been obtained for Battersea.

 

Like Carshalton I too am a little weary of defending the CPO position. I have grown used to the modern demands for instant satisfaction by the fans and supporters of Chelsea FC.

For me the CPO has only in mind the LONG TERM future of Chelsea FC. 

 

If only for the CPO I thank Bates for that. 

 

Roman Abramovich who have spent billions of pounds on chelsea and wants to building a new 60'000 capacity stadium loves chelsea.  And thinking of the LONG TERM future of this club.

when Chelsea suffered serious financial troubles and people buying shares to help the club was the best thing that could of happened ''BUT'' it's a hole differently situation now.

these fans or who ever got hold of shares of the chelsea's pitch voting ''NO'' it's a big disadvantage! to have for Chelsea CF holding the club to ransom!

Can these people with the shares spend billions of pounds to build a new stadium! ''NO''

Can these people with the shares Spend millions of pound on world class players ''NO''

Can these people with the shares Take chelsea fc to the next level with their financial power?? ''NO''

so buy holding the club ransom what do you people want??  ( A large youth area called The Shed with a maximum ticket price for the next x number of years)

Roman Abramovich who have spent billions of pounds on chelsea and wants to building a new 60'000 capacity stadium loves chelsea.  And thinking of the LONG TERM future of this club.

when Chelsea suffered serious financial troubles and people buying shares to help the club was the best thing that could of happened ''BUT'' it's a hole differently situation now.

these fans or who ever got hold of shares of the chelsea's pitch voting ''NO'' it's a big disadvantage! to have for Chelsea CF holding the club to ransom!

Can these people with the shares spend billions of pounds to build a new stadium! ''NO''

Can these people with the shares Spend millions of pound on world class players ''NO''

Can these people with the shares Take chelsea fc to the next level with their financial power?? ''NO''

so buy holding the club ransom what do you people want??  ( A large youth area called The Shed with a maximum ticket price for the next x number of years)

Yes..reading the above comments on the people within that have made the BRIDGE soul less...I agree......The Bridge in actual fact is a great looking place...We know noise CAN be generated because 8 out of 10 times the away fans do so.......There are many many goodl little mobs of Blues STILL ABOUT...( but) unfortunately theyre spread too thinly for my liking  around the ground.......Too many strangers sitting next to each other either not wanting to make noise , or, being a bit coy.......If and when the new gaff comes bout CFC must ready one big end (min) with applicants that wanna do nothing but create noise noise noise....Its worth a few more points a season ....

Mate Chelsea security are utter c***s, they constantly eject lads for the heinous crime of standing up & singing, all the while standing there & watch the likes of Galatasary fans throw coins & lighters at the family enclosure, I know lads who have had their seat numbers taken down for standing up even though 1,000s of others are doing the same in the MHL, what chance have we got when our own security are against us?

 

Also did you know lads on twitter received emails from Chelsea last season for tweeting about having spare tickets/sts, with a warning of a ban, for what? selling a ticket at face value, nah Chelsea want you to rip off your fellow fans by selling tickets with their partner Viagogo.

 

Lads have had to change their user name on twitter because of it, ie not have their full name in their profile, its pathetic & only going to get worse.

Is it utterly cynical of me to to suggest this is just simple PR from the club ? They know full well we cant redevelop but are just trying to prove that its actually what they really want to do, before ploughing ahead with moving from SB ?

 

I could be way off course here, but lets face it, would anyone be surprised ?

Edited June 18, 201412 yr by bjd

Oh and i see Bruce Buck has got a login now

Does ground redevelopment have any implications on ffp?

Is it utterly cynical of me to to suggest this is just simple PR from the club ? They know full well we cant redevelop but are just trying to prove that its actually what they really want to do, before ploughing ahead with moving from SB ?

 

I couldl be well of course here, but lets face it, would anyone be surprised ?

 

I don't think you're being cynical no, I would guess that's the main objective but in truth it would be nice to clear it up once and for all whether it's possible to expand on the current site and if things like decking over the railway are possible. 

Does ground redevelopment have any implications on ffp?

Does ground redevelopment have any implications on ffp?

Money spent on ground improvements, new build etc are discounted

Is it utterly cynical of me to to suggest this is just simple PR from the club ? They know full well we cant redevelop but are just trying to prove that its actually what they really want to do, before ploughing ahead with moving from SB ?

 

I could be way off course here, but lets face it, would anyone be surprised ?

 British Rail would never agree to Stamford Bridge redevelopment, IMO they are & always have been, the biggest & strongest objectors.

Roman loves Chelsea???????

He'd have loved Spuds if he'd been successful in buying them!

He cares for the club, but it's not love, not like a fan whose grown up supporting them from a young age.

Roman loves Chelsea???????

He'd have loved Spuds if he'd been successful in buying them!

He cares for the club, but it's not love, not like a fan whose grown up supporting them from a young age.[/quot

Absolutely spot on!

Is it utterly cynical of me to to suggest this is just simple PR from the club ? They know full well we cant redevelop but are just trying to prove that its actually what they really want to do, before ploughing ahead with moving from SB ?

 

I could be way off course here, but lets face it, would anyone be surprised ?

 

I did wonder that as well. This was the article put on the official site a couple of years ago, outlining in detail why expanding Stamford Bridge isn't really feasible. Does having a Labour-run H&F council make that much difference? Perhaps, but perhaps also an effort to ram home the point that SB cannot be expanded and that the club have done their utmost to look into it.

If so then that is fair enough though isn't it? Because we know they have looked into it. If it's not possible to expand, then we have to move, it's as black and white as that.

If so then that is fair enough though isn't it? Because we know they have looked into it. If it's not possible to expand, then we have to move, it's as black and white as that.

This in a nutshell.

Either way we are doing what's best for this club

If so then that is fair enough though isn't it? Because we know they have looked into it. If it's not possible to expand, then we have to move, it's as black and white as that.

 

I don't think we have to move at all costs. A 42,000 capacity stadium isn't ideal, but if it's a choice between Stamford Bridge and some far flung outpost of London with no connection to Chelsea, then personally I'd rather stay where we are. Juventus, a huge club by any measure, actually moved to a smaller stadium than we have and they survive somehow.

The Italian league is sh*t though and attendances are awful.

^ Juve sell out most weeks, they have a strong team, and are in the top 10 in Deloitte's money league. They aren't doing too badly with a smaller stadium than SB.

you've often mentioned juventus, but what about the 20 other big clubs who all have big stadiums or are looking to get bigger ones? 

 

To add to the other point above, clubs with bigger stadiums are now aiming to get smaller ones i.e Inter since it's supposedly better to minimise losses. Even so, Juventus not competitive in Europe; they can't afford to spend so greatly, even with their continued title wins. They really don't need to be in the league either with how bad the rest are. 

Edited June 18, 201412 yr by MANoWAR

Facts are IF we don't expand either at the bridge or a new stadium, theres only one outcome massive increase in ticket prices. Because of the ffp RA can't bank roll us anymore, the club are working hard on off the pitch income but if we want to stay at the top, employing the best players, and attracting the best transfers in, wheres the money going to come from,