RA can bankroll us and he can invest into the club. For example the stadium or expansion will be financed by him. Buying players the way we have done in the past is probably behind us.

 

I think the club handled it as well as they could

 

If that was the best they could do I would hate to see the worst! 

 

It was an absolute fiasco. A shambles. It was there for the taking and they absolutely blew it. A total and utter balls up on behalf of the club.

 

Like I think CB mentioned I was a little surprised that someone's head didn't roll for that (or for the appointment of the FSW while we're at it but apparently you can cock up massively with impunity over some issues at Chelsea but not others).

 

Buck and Gourlay were obviously completely out of touch with the issue and oblivious to what they were dealing with. They ended up just getting it plain wrong. Buck's supposed to be some hot shot lawyer? On that evidence I wouldn't want him representing me. He completely misread the jury.

 

I honestly think that just a little less arrogance and a little more sympathy to most people's feelings over the matter would have won the day. Even a change in demeanour on the day might have worked wonders. I'm really not sure they needed any more than that. But they thought they had it won beforehand, I heard Gourlay say that to someone at the end of the meeting. They were both genuinely taken aback and surprised and that says to me that they were woefully out of touch with the feelings of many of those who attended.

 

Of course offering me a brick as well would have helped. 

Awsome

Awsome

I think i'll have a season ticket in the back row of the sixth tier of the MH stand. There's nothing like being close to the action.

If they build it mega steep it would be awesome

^ 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.

They don't compete in Europe at all. My point is attendances in Serie A are down overall in general compared to a decade ago. It's no surprise juventus sell out, being arguably the biggest and best club

Awsome

 

 

Awful

Awsome

When i first saw this i thought whoever posted this was on drugs. I think i may have been right because the way he's spelt awesome

he's definitely dropped an E.

Lol. .found this on Facebook ...would be amazing if we can get 70k from Stamford Bridge

We don't need to convert stamford bridge into a huge stadium. I think 50,000-60,000 would be ideal as we still want it to have that enclosed, intimidation factor to it.

55-60k would be ideal.

However it's simply too small as is, we will be in the bottom half of the EPL soon in terms of stadium capacity and for a club who want to be number 1 in the world then it's not going to be good enough.

It's alright saying Juve are doing ok but they are not Chelsea and Italian football is on it's arse attendance wise...all you need to do is tune in to the highlights every week and see half empty stadiums.

Roman won't be here forever and we need to make sure we can maximise our profits to stay where we are today and that means a higher gate at home games.

Ideally it will be here at the Bridge but if not then we have to accept it.

As I said earlier I agree that we may have to move particularly if we want to continue to compete against other top clubs.

 

How that move, if any, is handled should be being discussed with the CPO NOW. If they get a yes vote that would also strengthen their hand with the council and poss british rail.

55-60k would be ideal.

However it's simply too small as is, we will be in the bottom half of the EPL soon in terms of stadium capacity and for a club who want to be number 1 in the world then it's not going to be good enough.

It's alright saying Juve are doing ok but they are not Chelsea and Italian football is on it's arse attendance wise...all you need to do is tune in to the highlights every week and see half empty stadiums.

Roman won't be here forever and we need to make sure we can maximise our profits to stay where we are today and that means a higher gate at home games.

Ideally it will be here at the Bridge but if not then we have to accept it.

I was at inter v Lazio and the ground looked empty but yet it had over 50,000 in it. The likes of Rome's Olympic stadium and the san siro are huge stadia and will only sell out for derbies and big European games.

Will we really fill a 60,000 seater stadium out at our prices I really doubt it.

Edited June 19, 201412 yr by bluegraham

55-60k would be ideal.

However it's simply too small as is, we will be in the bottom half of the EPL soon in terms of stadium capacity and for a club who want to be number 1 in the world then it's not going to be good enough.

It's alright saying Juve are doing ok but they are not Chelsea and Italian football is on it's arse attendance wise...all you need to do is tune in to the highlights every week and see half empty stadiums.

Roman won't be here forever and we need to make sure we can maximise our profits to stay where we are today and that means a higher gate at home games.

Ideally it will be here at the Bridge but if not then we have to accept it.

 

The Premier League (and Championship and League One for that matter) are also full of shiny new stadiums that are half empty every week. City are the champions and there were empty seats at their games last season. West Ham will soon have a bigger capacity than us, yet do you see West Ham attracting 54,000 every week? Do you see them attracting 54,000 ever? Ironically it will end up like Italy, where clubs have huge stadiums they can't fill.

 

The point about Juve still stands. They manage to be a rich and successful club without having an enormous stadium. In fact they gave up their enormous stadium to move to this one. Bayern have a much larger stadium than we do, yet get lower gate receipts than us because of their lower ticket prices. They both cope.

 

Like I said above 42,000 at the Bridge isn't ideal, yet as it stands only four clubs in Europe get higher gate receipts than us. A huge stadium isn't the be all and end all that we just have to accept. Especially if it means accepting Old Oak Common or Ladbroke Grove.

if it opens it up for people to choose nearer the date of the game if they want to go then I think we'll stand a much better chance of filling it.  Another way to increase attendance is to sell people a ticket in a stand rather than a specific seat, that will allow people to sit with their mates.

We don't need to convert stamford bridge into a huge stadium. I think 50,000-60,000 would be ideal as we still want it to have that enclosed, intimidation factor to it.

 

You clearly haven't been to Stamford Bridge lately if you think being small makes it intimidating.

I'm no economist, but I would of thought having stadium so close to the West End would attract concert promoters.

Other sporting events, exhibitions etc. would increase revenue for the club, local shops as well as the council.

Let's hope a sensible study is made and all avenues are explored.

Arsenal overcame huge obstacles to build The Emirates, we don't want to lag behind.

I'm no economist, but I would of thought having stadium so close to the West End would attract concert promoters.

Other sporting events, exhibitions etc. would increase revenue for the club, local shops as well as the council.

Let's hope a sensible study is made and all avenues are explored.

Arsenal overcame huge obstacles to build The Emirates, we don't want to lag behind.

But how many top drawer concerts would we be able to attract, let's not forget we've got Wembley, Twickenham, Hammersmith Odeon, Earls Court and I'm sure a few more on our doorstep who can all offer facilities at least comparable to anything we'd be able to offer with adequate parking for most of them on top.

 

I think we'd be better off just concentrating on keeping the football side of things at the top of our agenda.

A redevelopment at SB really would be a massive compromise and half-measure.

 

Ultimately the club wants (indefinitely) more seats for bums, better corporate facilities, something iconic and a bigger playing surface.

 

We'd get to partially address the first and second aspirations, but the last two we can kiss goodbye to and ultimately at far greater cost than simply selling SB and moving elsewhere.

I remain positive.

A redevelopment at SB really would be a massive compromise and half-measure.

 

Ultimately the club wants (indefinitely) more seats for bums, better corporate facilities, something iconic and a bigger playing surface.

 

We'd get to partially address the first and second aspirations, but the last two we can kiss goodbye to and ultimately at far greater cost than simply selling SB and moving elsewhere.

Something iconic well good luck with that. Let's not forget what the name of this forum is. And if we move to our bigger stadium with it's super corporate facilities will we be sitting in the Waitrose end shouting Harrod's Harrod's give us a song.

This is where we should have been playing, I cannot understand why people cant accept our present site is way way too small, its not about wanting to leave the Bridge, the Bridge just isnt viable for what we require in a stadium

It's fine for what I require.

This is where we should have been playing, I cannot understand why people cant accept our present site is way way too small, its not about wanting to leave the Bridge, the Bridge just isnt viable for what we require in a stadium

the CPO have long been protecting the interests of Chelsea and Stamford Bridge. i trust those members to do what is right, as loyal, long-standing supporters. if they felt there wasnt a strong enough case for moving, or that the proposal wasnt good enough then i trust them in that decision. Its one of the few occassions where fans get a voice in important matters at our football club, and we should back those fans 100%. God knows enough of us moan when we dont get a say in what goes on, so why criticise those who stand up for us when they are allowed a vote? (Not a dig at you personally enders, just a general point!)