2 minutes ago, Munkunku said:

That looks very much like our cat Kiya.

I was at the CPO AGM on Friday and will post my comments on it later but I was sent this article from the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/01/21/stamford-bridge-stuck-past-chelsea-need-billions-to-rebuild/

9 minutes ago, Boyne said:

I was at the CPO AGM on Friday and will post my comments on it later but I was sent this article from the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/01/21/stamford-bridge-stuck-past-chelsea-need-billions-to-rebuild/

I can only read about two lines of that 

 

14 minutes ago, Andy2461 said:

I can only read about two lines of that 

 

Use this site. https://archive.is/ 

Put the Telegraph URL in the black search box and click on one of the options that been archived :-) 

50 minutes ago, Andy2461 said:

I can only read about two lines of that 

 

Here is the full article for those that dont subscribe to the telegraph:

 

The seven hired actors in green velvet jackets, who made such a spectacle of themselves in the seats behind the home bench in Stamford Bridge’s east stand last Saturday, were a small reminder of the huge problem that sits at the heart of Chelsea.

They were part of a paid promotion for a new movie over the course of that match day, one more commercial deal the club decided was too good to turn down. The seats they occupied are part of The Dugout Club, which the new consortium ownership of Chelsea has been selling for as much as £3,000 each for a game on the basis that you might find yourself in the same television shot as Mauricio Pochettino.

Across the pitch in the West Stand upper tier, the club have launched Westview; a revamped hospitality offering where the most expensive season tickets for all league and domestic cup home games are £3,685. If it all sounds a bit grasping then perhaps that is because the scope for change is so limited. When faced with the immense problem of Stamford Bridge’s suitability for the modern era, trying to do something – anything – to raise match-day income will always feel less than adequate.

The Behdad Eghbali-Todd Boehly consortium faces problems aplenty on the pitch and three forthcoming games of huge significance. Middlesbrough in the Carabao Cup semi-final, second leg on Tuesday, Aston Villa in the FA Cup and then Liverpool at Anfield in the Premier League on the last day of the month. Nothing will feel stable until Pochettino’s team looks consistently competitive. But not even a winning team can escape the shadow of a stadium the club grew out of years ago.

The building of a new stadium on the same Stamford Bridge site – or a new one elsewhere – was the challenge not even Roman Abramovich’s oligarch fortune could solve. More than 20 years since his acquisition of the club, the stadium conundrum has become ever more defining and ever more complex. Bedevilled by everything from local council planning, the dark heart of Londongrad, Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine and the state of the Victorian catacombs in a neighbouring West Brompton cemetery.

In the tradition of private equity bros who like to believe the world is theirs to conquer, the owners of Chelsea will doubtless believe they are the men to complete the quest. Yet at Friday’s annual meeting of Chelsea Pitch Owners, the plc run by fans which has owned the freehold to the pitch since 1993 – and a key stakeholder in any rebuild – it was clear that the club are back to the very start again.

By far the most experienced British property expert at the club is the director Jonathan Goldstein, who was an original part of Boehly’s consortium. The latest man to take on the ultimate West London basement excavation tension – which is one way of describing Abramovich’s mega-project for a new stadium, abandoned in 2018 – is Jason Gannon, the new chief operating officer. He was the managing director of the SoFi Stadium, built by the Kroenke family for NFL franchise Los Angeles Rams and opened in 2020.

Casper Stylsvig, Chelsea’s chief revenue officer, brought in from AC Milan, will also have a part to play but whether these two bright-eyed exec hires are still there on that putative day at some point in the future when a new stadium is opened, is very much up for debate.

The estimated cost of a new stadium is extraordinary. The timescale, remarkable. Upwards of £2 billion, and perhaps as long as six years from the start of the planning process to anything close to completion, with the team obliged to play elsewhere for as many as three seasons, perhaps more. Some fans would prefer Craven Cottage as a temporary groundshare for proximity. The club would look at Wembley for size and hospitality offering.

In the meantime, what happens to the Chelsea fanbase? CPO surveys have discovered Chelsea have the Premier League’s oldest season-ticket holder demographic – an average age of 58. By the time the club have a 60,000-capacity stadium it would also be seeking to attract a new generation of match-going fans, after years away from home.

The 40,341-capacity Stamford Bridge shrinks in size with growing match-day broadcaster demands. The most recent Deloitte audit of clubs’ finances had Chelsea’s annual match-day income at £82 million. Tottenham Hotspur’s was £125 million. Liverpool’s was £112 million. The ever more outdated Old Trafford earned Manchester United £126 million. To close the gap, Chelsea will have to build the most expensive stadium Europe has seen.

The club have bought most of the Oswald Stoll veterans housing site abutting the stadium for £80 million. The options to move elsewhere are now vanishingly small, although not impossible. The Earls Court development north of Stamford Bridge has a well-advanced masterplan with no provision for a stadium. Changing that course and the minds of the two applicable London borough councils would require a huge amount of money and political will.

Not rebuilding Stamford Bridge is not an option either, as Abramovich knew. The plan he commissioned was famously to dig downwards to accommodate a stadium bowl big enough and build across the two railway lines to the north and east. The vision was undoubtedly magnificent but, given what has happened since, one looks at those old projections for the future as one might a 1950s science fiction epic.

The club at least knows that it obtained planning once with Hammersmith and Fulham council and can do so again. Objections from local residents to living next to such a vast building site are likely to be even more vehement a second time. The potential damage to the catacombs from building-activity reverberations was named in planning last time.

Stadiums, however impressive, are not trophies — they are a means to winning trophies and all the other parts that come with being a successful club. Yet if Chelsea’s new ownership do build a new Bridge in the next two decades, they may well feel like they deserve a shiny cup of some sort. It is the one challenge, amid all the success, modern Chelsea have never really come close to solving.

There doesn’t seem to be any news from The Earls Court Development, the councils involved, or Chelsea themselves.

Is it a definite no? Are the club still trying to pursue this?

Part of the Earls Court plan is for a show ground and an exhibition centre, what better than a nice new stadium than can accommodate both?

Earls court is the only way, I just don't see how redeveloping, or rebuilding on site, the Bridge is going to be profitable enough for the owners.

Looking at those figures , Tottenham get roughly £40 odd million more matchday income than us than us per YEAR.

I'm not sure about how many events we would be allowed to have at a bigger stadium to raise more income either. Spurs , Arsenal and West Ham don't seem to be hosting concerts, etc much if at all.

That extra £45 million a year is not much in today's Chelsea world of £100 million transfers is it ?

And at a cost of £2billion and years away from The Bridge to achieve it , is it really  worth it ?

Lpoks like most season ticket holders will qualify for half price tickets by the time a new stadium is built....unless the owners have a rethink on senior citizen concessions 

 

 

Edited January 22, 20242 yr by The Rising Sun
Info

On 21/01/2024 at 10:53, Andy2461 said:

I can only read about two lines of that 

 

Not sure what happened there. @Sexyfootball and @nonotnowjim thanks for posting a link and the article in full.

Here is a note about the CPO AGM. There was about fifty people in the meeting at the Bridge and a number - not sure of the figure - who joined remotely.

The CPO announced an operating profit of £14,000 which is up on the previous year. There was an increase in the sale of CPO shares but that was due to the recent purchase of part of the Oswald Stoll Estate and the change of ownership. The board reported that the relationship with the current owners is better than that it had with the previous owners. The CPO Board stated that the believed that the previous owners saw the CPO as an irritant. I'm not convinced about that.

Those in the audience were asked if they had any questions. Not sure why those who joined by Zoom weren't invited to ask questions especially given that the time of the meeting was changed to an afternoon to allow them to join.

The CPO board was asked about the move to Earl's Court. The local council i.e. Hammersmith and Fulham isn't keen on that and it is not in the current plans of the owners of Earl's Court.

There was a number of questions and debate about how to publish the CPO more and it was suggested using the women's team and advertising in supporters magazines. A couple of people from supporters groups offered to advertise for no fee.

It was mentioned by the board the difficulty to have pre-match presentations of CPO shares by players. Part of that problem is the reluctance of players to be involved in presentations and to sign them. One of the excuses is they don't have time. In my view that is disappointing and poor. Someone in the audience suggested that those players be named and shamed. For me the players who would sign are Tiago Silva, Reece James and Conor Gallagher. I could be wrong though.

There was a straw poll in the audience about whether we should stay at a redeveloped Stamford Bridge or move to a nearby area. Some people abstained but the winner was to stay.

After the meeting four of us went for a few beers and a curry and discussed the CPO AGM and one of the topics of discussion was whether or not we would fill a larger stadium. This is something @bluehaze has touched upon. I have to say I'm not sure. 

Personally I believe the Bridge is too expensive to redevelop for the limited amout of extra seat we would get, and the CPO don't appear to be willing to approve moving, even if Earls court was possible.

I don't believe our stadium will have been changed much at all when the owners look to sell in the summer of 2032.

6 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Looking at those figures , Tottenham get roughly £40 odd million more matchday income than us than us per YEAR.

I'm not sure about how many events we would be allowed to have at a bigger stadium to raise more income either. Spurs , Arsenal and West Ham don't seem to be hosting concerts, etc much if at all.

That extra £45 million a year is not much in today's Chelsea world of £100 million transfers is it ?

And at a cost of £2billion and years away from The Bridge to achieve it , is it really  worth it ?

Lpoks like most season ticket holders will qualify for half price tickets by the time a new stadium is built....unless the owners have a rethink on senior citizen concessions 

Yes it's roughly 40m in matchday revenue. 

But the difference in revenue between a Chelsea with a Tottenham stadium and a Chelsea with a crumbling bridge will be bigger than that and it'll grow year on year. 

Because it's not just matchday. It's all commercial revenue activities. We're more likely to command a better shirt sponsor if we have a world class stadium as just one example. 

Edited January 22, 20242 yr by bisright1

 

 

17 minutes ago, Argo said:

 

 

Can't help but feel that mug Rory Jennings leads these votes. 

20 minutes ago, Argo said:

 

 

That’s a real worry for me 

On 22/01/2024 at 18:52, bisright1 said:

Yes it's roughly 40m in matchday revenue. 

But the difference in revenue between a Chelsea with a Tottenham stadium and a Chelsea with a crumbling bridge will be bigger than that and it'll grow year on year. 

Because it's not just matchday. It's all commercial revenue activities. We're more likely to command a better shirt sponsor if we have a world class stadium as just one example. 

Thanks for reply.

But what commercial activities can we have in a 60,000 stadium that we can't in a 42,000; stadium?

I genuinely don't know mate, I know it's something that is always put forward for having a bigger stadium, I'd like to know the actual extra revenue that a bigger stadium brings in on non match days?

Goal ! 4-0 ! Still not going relax though !

 

Just now, The Rising Sun said:

Thanks for reply.

But what commercial activities can we have in a 60,000 stadium that we can't in a 42,000; stadium?

I genuinely don't know mate, I know it's something that is always put forward for having a bigger stadium, I'd like to know the actual extra revenue that a bigger stadium brings in on non match days?

Goal ! 4-0 ! Still not going relax though !

 

It's hard to quantify. But let's look at Tottenham, 

They moved into their stadium in 2019.

Commercial revenue 2017 = 84m

Commercial revenue 2022 = 215m

In the same period we went from 162m to only 209m. 

I think that's largely down to the stadium. 

So the difference in match day might only be 45m, but when you add commercial you could be looking at 150m, per season. 

And this is remembering that Tottenham haven't even sold the naming rights to their stadium and that we're still more likely to win a trophy this season!

3 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

It's hard to quantify. But let's look at Tottenham, 

They moved into their stadium in 2019.

Commercial revenue 2017 = 84m

Commercial revenue 2022 = 215m

In the same period we went from 162m to only 209m. 

I think that's largely down to the stadium. 

So the difference in match day might only be 45m, but when you add commercial you could be looking at 150m, per season. 

And this is remembering that Tottenham haven't even sold the naming rights to their stadium and that we're still more likely to win a trophy this season!

Are your figures correct there ?

You say Spurs went from  £84 million s year to £215 million 

We went from £160 million to only £209 million ?

Thanks for info regardless mate, I'll have a look at this stuff later,

Cheers

31 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Are your figures correct there ?

You say Spurs went from  £84 million s year to £215 million 

We went from £160 million to only £209 million ?

Thanks for info regardless mate, I'll have a look at this stuff later,

Cheers

All pulled from statista. Who knows how much you can trust numbers really. But it's too often forgotten that a sponsorship deal is more appealing to the business if there's a shiny stadium attached. Most of the extra seats will be corporate I'm sure of it. 

Something must be happening as London BBC has been covering a story about the Chelsea Pensioners likely to be looking for a new home.

Following the talk about the stadium and the CPO "dragging us down" in Todd's thread, where would people like to move the new Stamford Bridge that is realistic? Battersea station is off the table, so do not say it as an option, and Earl's Court is also not possible as the Council and the owners don't want it to happen. What other options in London, West, Central, South... are there? Cobham or Kingsmedow are a pain to get to and would be as soulless as West Ham's London Stadium and surroundings, anywhere else in London?

4 minutes ago, RMH said:

Following the talk about the stadium and the CPO "dragging us down" in Todd's thread, where would people like to move the new Stamford Bridge that is realistic? Battersea station is off the table, so do not say it as an option, and Earl's Court is also not possible as the Council and the owners don't want it to happen. What other options in London, West, Central, South... are there? Cobham or Kingsmedow are a pain to get to and would be as soulless as West Ham's London Stadium and surroundings, anywhere else in London?

No one's suggesting Battersea. Anyone who lives in London wouldn't suggest it. 

Earls Court is probably not an option. It's not definitely off the table. Money talks. 

The CPO is not an issue in my mind. They blocked us from moving ONCE and that was because the plans were so wishy washy we could have ended up going anywhere. 

If there was a concrete plan to move to Earls Court, I am certain the CPO would allow it.

Ultimately I think if we can't move to Earls Court, then we knock down the bridge, move in with Fulham and build a new one. 

2 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

No one's suggesting Battersea. Anyone who lives in London wouldn't suggest it. 

Earls Court is probably not an option. It's not definitely off the table. Money talks. 

The CPO is not an issue in my mind. They blocked us from moving ONCE and that was because the plans were so wishy washy we could have ended up going anywhere. 

If there was a concrete plan to move to Earls Court, I am certain the CPO would allow it.

Ultimately I think if we can't move to Earls Court, then we knock down the bridge, move in with Fulham and build a new one. 

I agree with you in all your points except in that Battersea was an option at some point and many fans (including myself and some others I go to football with) thought our stadium there would have looked really nice. Yesterday someone mentioned it and said it would have been awesome. And it is a very well known fact in this forum that you need to mention unavailable options at least once a week 😉 

59 minutes ago, RMH said:

I agree with you in all your points except in that Battersea was an option at some point and many fans (including myself and some others I go to football with) thought our stadium there would have looked really nice. Yesterday someone mentioned it and said it would have been awesome. And it is a very well known fact in this forum that you need to mention unavailable options at least once a week 😉 

Yes Battersea was an option and would have been awesome. The reason we didn't get it had nothing to do with the CPO though but because it was sold to someone else.

Its quite clearly not an option anymore because there's an entire village there now! 

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

Yes Battersea was an option and would have been awesome. The reason we didn't get it had nothing to do with the CPO though but because it was sold to someone else.

Its quite clearly not an option anymore because there's an entire village there now! 

I wonder if there is any scope in making a play for the corner of Battersea Park, right opposite the power station ? Where the athletics stadium and the tennis courts are ?

A hard up council might like a swap for the land at Stamford Bridge ?

Also, anyone know what the bit of "waste" ground to the south of Stamford Bridge is used for ? Utilities perhaps ? Certainly an area that looks big enough for a stadium the size of The Emirates ... 

 

Here is a rough and ready overview of our target area ... (the actual Chelsea boundary is the dotted red line) ... with The Emirates and The Toilet Bowl shown to scale

 

The perfect site unfortunately has the Royal Hospital and an annual flower show on it ... 🙂

 

Edited January 26, 20242 yr by Sexyfootball

Thread was started in 2013. 11 years and 2 ownerships later still the same Bridge.

If Roman could not make it happen, despite his love for the club, I dont believe it will happen. The cost to develop the Bridge for a small capacity increase won't be worth it financially speaking.