41 minutes ago, Sunspear_88 said:

I don't know much about the area around Fulham & Chelsea. It doesn't seem like there's much space to move to a new area, so what are our options? London is pretty congested in regards to land space. It is frustrating that other big clubs can move to a new site or build far easier (it seems) than we can. I understand Roman favoured success on the pitch rather than investing so much money into a new stadium, but soon it will become unsustainable to continue at a 42k stadium when even smaller clubs are building bigger and better.

If a bigger stadium is eventually built, who do you think will benefit from any extra revenue?

Will it be the football club or our investors who by then will be able to pay themselves dividends.?

41 minutes ago, Sunspear_88 said:

I don't know much about the area around Fulham & Chelsea. It doesn't seem like there's much space to move to a new area, so what are our options? London is pretty congested in regards to land space. It is frustrating that other big clubs can move to a new site or build far easier (it seems) than we can. I understand Roman favoured success on the pitch rather than investing so much money into a new stadium, but soon it will become unsustainable to continue at a 42k stadium when even smaller clubs are building bigger and better.

If a bigger stadium is eventually built, who do you think will benefit from any extra revenue?

Will it be the football club or our investors who by then will be able to pay themselves dividends.?

41 minutes ago, Sunspear_88 said:

I don't know much about the area around Fulham & Chelsea. It doesn't seem like there's much space to move to a new area, so what are our options? London is pretty congested in regards to land space. It is frustrating that other big clubs can move to a new site or build far easier (it seems) than we can. I understand Roman favoured success on the pitch rather than investing so much money into a new stadium, but soon it will become unsustainable to continue at a 42k stadium when even smaller clubs are building bigger and better.

If a bigger stadium is eventually built, who do you think will benefit from any extra revenue?

Will it be the football club or our investors who by then will be able to pay themselves dividends.?

On 29/01/2025 at 18:49, Boyne said:

 

@The Rising Sun Cheers. @dkw agree, a pretty much a nothing meeting. If Gannon and Finkelstein had been allowed to answer questions about other matters concerning the club the meeting would have become very heated. I was a Chelsea Supporters Trust meeting last year and the board of the Trust mentioned that they are hoping to set up a Q&A with CST members and members of the board in attendance. Hopefully that meeting will go ahead. At the CST meeting it was mentioned that Daniel Levy has had Q&A sessions with Spurs supporters groups. Would be nice if Boehly and one of his cohorts did the same at Chelsea.

Hiya Boyne, did you get the email message today that we are to have " digital" ticketing next season? No more ST cards., it'll be on your phone instead. ?

United going for 100,000.

BBC Sport

Man Utd to build 'iconic' £2bn 100,000-capacity stadium c...

Manchester United announce plans to build the biggest stadium in the UK - an "iconic" new £2bn 100,000-seater ground close to Old Trafford.

Meanwhile, tumble weeds rolling by at Stamford Bridge ...

I bet Radcliffe will sell corp bonds paying interest and lodged against future revenue sales for Utd, doubt he will personally fund this.

Amorin needs to deliver next season,

CPO's won't ever let us move.

We can't build up because the stadium would then violate some daft 1800's rule about blocking a church's line of sight.

The only 'upgrades' we can realistically make is an additional 6,000-8,000 seats, to which would make little difference 5 years down the line.

The f**k do we do here?

6 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

CPO's won't ever let us move.

We can't build up because the stadium would then violate some daft 1800's rule about blocking a church's line of sight.

The only 'upgrades' we can realistically make is an additional 6,000-8,000 seats, to which would make little difference 5 years down the line.

The f**k do we do here?

Well they could always re-apply to do the scheme that Roman's architects came up with, which I believe involved digging down to get round the height issue.

I imagine hell would freeze over first though !

Found out via google that BlueCo have quietly dropped working with that American baseball stadium architect woman, whose appointment was announced with some fanfare back in 2022.

25 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Well they could always re-apply to do the scheme that Roman's architects came up with, which I believe involved digging down to get round the height issue.

I imagine hell would freeze over first though !

Found out via google that BlueCo have quietly dropped working with that American baseball stadium architect woman, whose appointment was announced with some fanfare back in 2022.

I thought the tunnels underneath made that an impossibility?

2 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

United going for 100,000.

BBC Sport

Man Utd to build 'iconic' £2bn 100,000-capacity stadium c...

Manchester United announce plans to build the biggest stadium in the UK - an "iconic" new £2bn 100,000-seater ground close to Old Trafford.

Meanwhile, tumble weeds rolling by at Stamford Bridge ...

Would rather keep our stadium the way it is than spend £2bn on a circus tent, although it certainly fits Man Utd.

42 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Well they could always re-apply to do the scheme that Roman's architects came up with, which I believe involved digging down to get round the height issue.

I imagine hell would freeze over first though !

Found out via google that BlueCo have quietly dropped working with that American baseball stadium architect woman, whose appointment was announced with some fanfare back in 2022.

Aye coming on 3 years and nothing of note . I still believe they decided it is too expensive vs the return they would get, so are maximizing what they Can, like vividseats.

Much said about Ineos however less than a year in and a new stadium plan is on the move. now that's investing in the clubs future

5 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Aye coming on 3 years and nothing of note . I still believe they decided it is too expensive vs the return they would get, so are maximizing what they Can, like vividseats.

Much said about Ineos however less than a year in and a new stadium plan is on the move. now that's investing in the clubs future

There's nothing they can do in my opinion.

We are probably going to see some daft things like half time shows or something to make up for the lost revenue.

14 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

There's nothing they can do in my opinion.

We are probably going to see some daft things like half time shows or something to make up for the lost revenue.

Disagree on this. They cannot get a 100k stadium, but Roman did get planning permission for his design, which was to be between 60k to 65k, so it is possible.

But why go through that long process, have us ground sharing and paying rent for 5, 6 or 7 years, losing money while paying billions for a new stadium.

Does not make sense when the purpose of this ownership is to make money for their investors, and they can do that well enough with things like vivid seats.

44 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Disagree on this. They cannot get a 100k stadium, but Roman did get planning permission for his design, which was to be between 60k to 65k, so it is possible.

But why go through that long process, have us ground sharing and paying rent for 5, 6 or 7 years, losing money while paying billions for a new stadium.

Does not make sense when the purpose of this ownership is to make money for their investors, and they can do that well enough with things like vivid seats.

Don't think it was ever those numbers. Stadium upgrade was never going to top 55K. On an engineering aspect, as well as respecting the church line of sight law, they can only increase the stadium 6K-8K seats. They can't build underneath because of the tunnels.

12 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Don't think it was ever those numbers. Stadium upgrade was never going to top 55K. On an engineering aspect, as well as respecting the church line of sight law, they can only increase the stadium 6K-8K seats. They can't build underneath because of the tunnels.

Planning document said it was 60,000 capacity :

https://planningsearch.rbkc.gov.uk/publisher/docs/C8D97F3926EAA97EE2925D057F3A35ED/Document-C8D97F3926EAA97EE2925D057F3A35ED.pdf

7 minutes ago, Sexyfootball said:

Planning document said it was 60,000 capacity :

https://planningsearch.rbkc.gov.uk/publisher/docs/C8D97F3926EAA97EE2925D057F3A35ED/Document-C8D97F3926EAA97EE2925D057F3A35ED.pdf

For a complete demolition though, and even then it would of been a logistical nightmare. Roman apparently halted the idea when labor costs skyrocketed it to becoming a billionaire dollar project.

Stand expansion is what BlueCo was looking at on a cost perspective, and given the restrictions they couldn't add more than around 8K seats.

More commonly reported he halted the plans due to the UK government refusing his visa , and making any time in the Uk uncomfortable , so he decided not to pour a load of money in to the coffers of the uk.

Edited March 11, 20251 yr by axman2526

14 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

More commonly reported he halted the plans due to the UK government refusing his visa , and making any time in the Uk uncomfortable , so he decided not to pour a load of money in to the coffers of the uk.

That would be my take as well.

25 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

More commonly reported he halted the plans due to the UK government refusing his visa , and making any time in the Uk uncomfortable , so he decided not to pour a load of money in to the coffers of the uk.

He halted plans because the redevelopment costs more than doubled in the span of a year. Visa issue was a convenience for him if anything.

In the end, it didn't & still doesn't make financial sense and it's not worth the headache. We'd just find ourselves in the same issue 5-10 years down the line given the 60K stadium would be maxed out with no more room to expand. That £1.2bn in 2018 is likely 2x that after COVID.

Far as the CPO goes, and @Boyne could say better on this, but I reckon moving, within reason would be approved if:

1. CPO gets freehold of new stadium pitch, old freehold given in exchange.

2. CPO keeps the rights to the name Chelsea Football club.

3. Ossies ashes moved to New site.

4. Remaining CPO debt forgiven by the club.

So not that hard to get them on board, imo.

Bridge can then still be used while new stadium is built, and they can get a 70k to 80k all singing all dancing stadium to host baseball games, NFL, Taylor swift and wrestlemaninas.

Edited March 11, 20251 yr by axman2526

1 minute ago, axman2526 said:

Far as the CPO goes, and @Boyne could say better on this, but I reckon moving, within reason would be approved if:

1. CPO gets freehold of new stadium pitch, old freehold given in exchange.

2. CPO keeps the rights to the name Chelsea Football club.

3. Ossies ashes moved to New site.

4. Remaining CPO forgiven by the club.

So not that hard to get them on board, imo.

Bridge can then still be used while new stadium is built, and they can get a 70k to 80k all singing all dancing stadium to host baseball games, NFL, Taylor swift and wrestlemaninas.

That will never happen. Look at what Roman tried to do in 2011.

Moving is out of the question for the CPOs. They would rather 2x/3x the cost to redevelop Stamford Bridge and all its constraints vs moving a few miles to a larger stadium with room of even more expansion.

53 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

That will never happen. Look at what Roman tried to do in 2011.

Moving is out of the question for the CPOs. They would rather 2x/3x the cost to redevelop Stamford Bridge and all its constraints vs moving a few miles to a larger stadium with room of even more expansion.

Had we been in a position to build at Earls court, with those above conditions, I believe the CPO would have agreed to it.

As it is the owners will most likely milk all they can from the Bridge, or pull an MK Don's on us, which would be where the trade marked "Chels" and "the Chels" would come in.

Would be handy to if they could get a good portion of the fan base to move on to an AFC Chelsea so they could fill The Chels of Surrey with tourists.

42 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Had we been in a position to build at Earls court, with those above conditions, I believe the CPO would have agreed to it.

As it is the owners will most likely milk all they can from the Bridge, or pull an MK Don's on us, which would be where the trade marked "Chels" and "the Chels" would come in.

Would be handy to if they could get a good portion of the fan base to move on to an AFC Chelsea so they could fill The Chels of Surrey with tourists.

Are we not still in a position with Earls Court? Only a month ago there were reports that’s still up in the air.

5 hours ago, timetowaste said:

Would rather keep our stadium the way it is than spend £2bn on a circus tent, although it certainly fits Man Utd.

The other aspect of that design is its lack of British traits that give it a ‘Manchester’ identity, looks like something Qatar cooked up for the World Cup. Modernised English stadia should be more like Everton’s new stadium.

3 minutes ago, Term_X said:

Are we not still in a position with Earls Court? Only a month ago there were reports that’s still up in the air.

It's hard to know what to believe anymore. We have been going through this same song and dance since before this topic was created.