Jump to content

Now on a migrated server, any problems CLICK HERE

junio_oscarSY

Our New Stadium


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ewell CFC said:

Good shout. I briefly played for their youth team. Cant quite get my head around the prospect of them being in the football league.

Neither can I, they've done it the right way though, loads of emphasis on their youth teams and using their plastic pitch to benefit the community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ewell CFC said:

My parents moved to Pagham. A good few Chelsea there including old face and author MK. ( he gets in Le Reserve)

Lots of Londoners seemed to have moved down permanently having got to know that part of the world through the caravan parks at Selsey, Church Farm etc.

Always thought we had loads of fans down that way from Worthing across to Chichester and beyond.

Yes, I'm in Chichester and lots go across coast to Brighton, yes use to see MK driving taxi around Chichester about 10/15 years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ewell CFC said:

Football, as exemplified by Wembley, seems to have lost its soul. 

When it was announced that FA Cup semi's were to be played there in order to recoup rebuilding costs, it was met by universal derision by fans who realised this would reduce the specialness of the Cup Final. 

The spectacle of empty " Club Wembley" seats for large parts of the game just reinforces opinion that a large section of the crowd aren't to bothered about events on the park.

I couldn't support another football league team but am giving serious thought to watching more non league football in the future. I'd save a fortune and it's just seems more real that the Premiership/ Wembley and all the bullsh*t that surrounds top flight football in this country.

 

For all but 19 years of its existence, and for all of its heyday, Wembley stadium has been owned by a private company. A sale would just be putting things back to the way it used to be. When you consider the absolute hash The FA has made of the rebuild, them owning it is the worst thing that ever happened to Wembley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, benjsross said:

Neither can I, they've done it the right way though, loads of emphasis on their youth teams and using their plastic pitch to benefit the community. 

But the main thing they’ve got right is hosting the now seemingly annual Chelsea vs Rangers Legends game!

A guy I work with (Palace fan) regularly goes to their games and he’s made me have a bit of a soft spot for them too :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting cautionary tale from Arsenal about Wenger and their experience with the stadium. The restriction on finances required to fund it in particular.

 https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/arsenal-arsene-wenger-burnley-emirates-stadium-premier-league-a8335926.html

I'm becoming more and more concerned about the mooted idea of the club borrowing significantly to build the new ground rather than Roman funding most of it.

Paying back that amount of money (north of 1 billion) is going to have a massive impact just as it has on Arsenal. We've also had bad experiences with this in the past.

I think we're at a crossroads now about where we want to go as a club. I'm beoming less convinced that a new 60000 seat stadium that we borrow to pay for is the right move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we can't keep playing in a smaller stadium while others around us are expanding and building new ones. This is for the future of the club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But borrowing north of 500m to fund it? The effort to pay that back might actually exceed the benefit as we've seen in Arsenal's case. They haven't been able to reinforce their squad and now ten years on they've slipped out of contention for titles and their team is in a such a sorry state, fans are staying away leaving empty seats in their new stadium.

If Roman is funding it while the club pays for club operating costs okay, FFP means he can't invest much on the other side anyway. But if we are borrowing and not investing in our team to pay for interest and we become Arsenal or worse as a result, I'm becoming less convinced it is worth the investment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to this, a new stadium is projected to add around 30m of extra revenue for us.

If you look at the Deloitte Money League report it is actually in commercial deals where we have struggled by comparison to Man City who make similar amounts from their stadium but far more from sponsors. That in my mind is linked to success on the pitch. Arsenal are making more from their stadium but that is almost totally offset by the better commercial deals we have. Again that is linked to success on the pitch.  

If we're not investing in our squad and going backwards for 5 years to borrow for a stadium that will add 30m annually to revenue, that could potentially be outweighed by lost opps in sponsorship and broadcasting ie. CL money if we aren't as successful on the pitch.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spiller86 said:

If Roman is funding it while the club pays for club operating costs okay, FFP means he can't invest much on the other side anyway. 

We should seriously stop giving a monkeys about FFP, every other club has and gets away with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

GATES_RENDER.jpg

Phillip Etchells (Archiect)

 

gates_competition_high_res-jf.jpg

Jo Faifax.

 

vrHKzRZ.jpg

1OR4weR.jpg

Quote

The Central Gate: The Fans Gate. Each engraved segment would have the name of a season ticket holder that qualified for a seat in the inaugural year of the new stadium. It would stand as a subtle and humble gesture of recognition for the most dedicated Chelsea fans.

The Left-Hand Gate: Player's Gate. Each engraved segment will bear the name of a notable Chelsea player or staff member.

The Right-Hand Gate: Hoeroe's Gate. The gates would bear the names of the Chelsea Pensioner veterans past and present as well as the names of those former players that served and died in the world wars.

The gates were designed in bronze and wrought iron and framed by large brick arches inspired by the classical collonades of the neighbouring Brompton Cemetery. The brick massing and the crozier shape of the ironwork were designed to complement the key design motifs of Herzog & de Meuron's design for the new stadium.

http://www.wilsonholloway.com/projec...d-bridge-gates

Edited by kiwi1691

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/05/2018 at 23:57, Spiller86 said:

But borrowing north of 500m to fund it? The effort to pay that back might actually exceed the benefit as we've seen in Arsenal's case. They haven't been able to reinforce their squad and now ten years on they've slipped out of contention for titles and their team is in a such a sorry state, fans are staying away leaving empty seats in their new stadium.

If Roman is funding it while the club pays for club operating costs okay, FFP means he can't invest much on the other side anyway. But if we are borrowing and not investing in our team to pay for interest and we become Arsenal or worse as a result, I'm becoming less convinced it is worth the investment. 

 

Football revenue has moved on massively from when Arsenal built the Emirates, teams are getting north of 100m now a days just for TV revenue. On the other hand, players wages and transfer fees have also sky rocketed but the correlation between Arsenal re-building then and us building now isnt as skewed, IMO.

The sad reality is we'll have to speculate to accumulate with the new stadium, we cant be left behind by other sides who have 55k+ stadiums and make more money through gate revenue and merchandise/food/booze being sold on match days.

Ideally, we'd have had this stadium built a decade ago or as soon as Roman touched down but it wasnt to be back then, we're pushing closer to 2 decades of Roman ownership of us and a new stadium, when it finally opens would probably coincide with that milestone and its something we badly need.

We wont be moving away, the CPO have rightly seen to that so the only other way is to build. Ideally, it wouldnt see massive debt saddled on the club but I reckon through naming rights, we'll fund a huge portion of this build anyway and end up playing in the Pepsi/Microsoft e.g. but it will still be the Bridge to anyone that knows. Chelsea, throughout Romans reign have been a European power house and probably Englands most prestigious and successful club in that period, we deserve a stadium to celebrate and reinforce that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Delnino said:

Football revenue has moved on massively from when Arsenal built the Emirates, teams are getting north of 100m now a days just for TV revenue. On the other hand, players wages and transfer fees have also sky rocketed but the correlation between Arsenal re-building then and us building now isnt as skewed, IMO.

The sad reality is we'll have to speculate to accumulate with the new stadium, we cant be left behind by other sides who have 55k+ stadiums and make more money through gate revenue and merchandise/food/booze being sold on match days.

Ideally, we'd have had this stadium built a decade ago or as soon as Roman touched down but it wasnt to be back then, we're pushing closer to 2 decades of Roman ownership of us and a new stadium, when it finally opens would probably coincide with that milestone and its something we badly need.

We wont be moving away, the CPO have rightly seen to that so the only other way is to build. Ideally, it wouldnt see massive debt saddled on the club but I reckon through naming rights, we'll fund a huge portion of this build anyway and end up playing in the Pepsi/Microsoft e.g. but it will still be the Bridge to anyone that knows. Chelsea, throughout Romans reign have been a European power house and probably Englands most prestigious and successful club in that period, we deserve a stadium to celebrate and reinforce that fact.

All fair points. 

For me between 500m and 1b funded by loans, for an extra return of 40m per season (if you say our new stadium brings in the same revenue as Arsenal's does) can't be funded through reductions in investment in the squad.

The squad and success drive sponsorship and broadcast revenue which is far more important  financially than the stadium. If we do that we'll end up worse off financially and on the pitch just as Arsenal have done. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chelseafc.com/fans/chelsea-pitch-owners/cpo-news/new-cpo-director-appointed-.html

The Chelsea Pitch Owners Board is pleased to announce the appointment of Ginette Gower as the new Director to replace Rick Glanvill who stepped down in 2017. Ginette has been invited to join the Board following a comprehensive selection process.

As indicated last year, the Directors actively sought to add skills and expertise not currently covered, particularly marketing and PR. Ginette has extensive experience in these areas and her aim will be to raise the profile of Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) to attract new shareholders and build supporter networks in the UK and overseas.

Ginette has been a Chelsea supporter since the 80s and a Pitch Owner since 2003. She has a track record in communications, marketing and public relations over many years. Her last permanent role was Head of Marketing & Communications at Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce until October 2017 when she left to start her own consultancy.

Ginette said: 'I am very excited to join the CPO Board to help to deliver the vision for the future. Specifically, I want to develop campaigns to recruit new Pitch Owners, particularly young fans.  I will also be giving the opportunity for Pitch Owners to be involved in the development of new ideas for events and other initiatives.'

Charles Rose, CPO Chair commented: 'The board is delighted that Ginette has accepted the role of Director. Her expertise in the areas of communications, together with her experience at the Chamber of Commerce, and with her long standing support of the club, make her an ideal Director. CPO continues to evolve, and like the club will face the challenges of the prospective redevelopment with enthusiasm and professionalism, and I am looking forward to Ginette assisting us in that.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video showing the proposed new design for Oswold Stoll Mansion next door. It looks like everything except for the building fronting Fulham Road will be demolished and a new block constructed over on the western half of the site - freeing up the eastern side. Not sure yet how much of the site Chelsea will be buying, but there's a decent chunk of available land if this scheme gets approval.

AK3agZm.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will really be interested by opinions here why build a cathedral type stadium, I understand we need to get to 60,000 capacity, but why be so different. It's the team we go to watch,not turn up for the stadium photos, maybe they feel they can get extra revenue from jolly foreigners paying to get inside for a look.what is wrong from a little bit different to say bayern's ground,but even that wouldn't bother me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fitz said:

Video showing the proposed new design for Oswold Stoll Mansion next door. It looks like everything except for the building fronting Fulham Road will be demolished and a new block constructed over on the western half of the site - freeing up the eastern side. Not sure yet how much of the site Chelsea will be buying, but there's a decent chunk of available land if this scheme gets approval.

AK3agZm.png

 

Chelsea will be buying all the eastern side, all 2 acres of it, if their offer is accepted. The mansion block with the arches that faces on to Fulham Road will belong to Chelsea but will remain. It is an impressive building so I'm happy with that and it could potentially solve the problem of where to put the club offices, given they won't be accommodated within the new stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bluesince66 said:

I will really be interested by opinions here why build a cathedral type stadium, I understand we need to get to 60,000 capacity, but why be so different. It's the team we go to watch,not turn up for the stadium photos, maybe they feel they can get extra revenue from jolly foreigners paying to get inside for a look.what is wrong from a little bit different to say bayern's ground,but even that wouldn't bother me.

But it's not different compared to it's surroundings, bricks everywhere,the aesthetics are governed by the planning, we wouldn't get away with something resembling a spaceship (on the outside).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coco said:

But it's not different compared to it's surroundings, bricks everywhere,the aesthetics are governed by the planning, we wouldn't get away with something resembling a spaceship.

Thankyou for replying coco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davey Baby said:

 

Chelsea will be buying all the eastern side, all 2 acres of it, if their offer is accepted. The mansion block with the arches that faces on to Fulham Road will belong to Chelsea but will remain. It is an impressive building so I'm happy with that and it could potentially solve the problem of where to put the club offices, given they won't be accommodated within the new stadium.

That's interesting Davey, it would make a nice small hotel or similar. Also the extra access through the arches will help ease congestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2018/5/31/stadium-plans-on-hold?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Chelsea Football Club announces today that it has put its new stadium project on hold. No further pre-construction design and planning work will occur.

The club does not have a time frame set for reconsideration of its decision.

The decision was made due to the current unfavourable investment climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×