15 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Aye is indeed.

Funny to think, despite them turning in to a yo yo club, Leeds have more of a passionate fanbase than we do.

Maybe is a northern thing.

15 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Aye is indeed.

Funny to think, despite them turning in to a yo yo club, Leeds have more of a passionate fanbase than we do.

Maybe is a northern thing.

It's because Leeds are the only major city in the UK with only one top tier team.. IIRC

What doesn't help CFC is the match day total spend per game -travel, drink, food, etc-which by location compared all other teams is probably the *highest in the league with possibly Fulham is a close second. (*TBC)

I was a totally a "Stamford Bridge or nothing" guy but I'm coming to realise that to grow support and lower average age both are a must IMHO, MDS is one of the major factors in attendance. In that respect Twickenham would be the ideal choice. However, a potential downside is that this could affect the corporate sector as they may feel reluctant to travel outside their metropolis bubble.. But I'm sure big brains can figure this one out.

That plus "Chelsea's 2023/24 financial year, matchday revenue was £80.1 million, while commercial revenue (including sponsorship) was £225 million.""

MDR is gross so remove expenses and that's probably halved. Commerical revenue is close to net so the gap is huge. Therefore to make MDR make sense it would be to reduce costs, increase capacity and increase the spend inside the stadium . Therefore relocation to 'Twickenham' would do all three :

cheaper upkeep costs wages council tax etc etc lower expenses

larger capacity increased MDR

reduced travel expenses etc means more spare cash to spend inside the ground

It wouldn't surprise me if the Americans have a trial run of a few seasons at a ground share to test the resolve of the CPO .

I understand the egg chasers have already ruled out selling but I use that as an example....

All IMHO.

36 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Apologies,.it's actually true!if he could make Earl's court happen I'd be well happy. The area could do with regeneration, that might be something in our favour

But did you see the prick said he changed from supporting Chelsea to supporting Liverpool because of the racist abuse he used to get at Chelsea games ?

I'd rather stay in the present location but Earl's Court is actually not a bad place to move to. Not far from Stamford Bridge (around 1 mile, 20minutes walk) and it would allow us to stay at SB while the new bigger stadium is built rather than having to move games to Wembley/Craven Cottage/Twickenham or wherever they decided.

Reports this week and on the " we are Tottenham YouTube channel" confirm that Spurs now have to sell players this season to raise the cash to buy players..

Below, from the Athletic.......... Despite the new stadium........

Sustainability or Stagnation?

For years, Spurs resisted the temptation to follow their rivals into unsustainable spending. Their stadium hosts NFL games, music concerts, and Euro 2028 fixtures. Yet, as The Athletic outlines, all of this activity hasn’t masked footballing shortcomings.

Daniel Levy’s words in the latest financial report are defiant: “We cannot spend what we do not have, and we will not compromise the financial stability of this club.” That philosophy has underpinned Spurs’ model—but as others charge ahead, the mood is shifting.

On that " We are Tottenham site" they reckon that the club are making so much money from non football events that the need for the football team to be successful to bring in extra revenue is greatly diminished and is now a secondary consideration .

Of the £150m that was supposedly injected into the club a few years ago by the ownership, they reckon about £53m that's unaccounted for may be going towards a new hotel build..

I almost feel sorry for them..almost

20 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

On that " We are Tottenham site" they reckon that the club are making so much money from non football events that the need for the football team to be successful to bring in extra revenue is greatly diminished and is now a secondary consideration .

Of the £150m that was supposedly injected into the club a few years ago by the ownership, they reckon about £53m that's unaccounted for may be going towards a new hotel build..

I almost feel sorry for them..almost

Nah f**k em.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/chelsea-twickenham-stamford-bridge-redevelopment-allianz-stadium-rfu-b2740969.html

Being reported all over the place. What do you think. i'm for playing at the bridge for a few years while they build at Earls Court if pos.

Or taken from the above article-

'The RFU discussed a number of possible proposals before settling on a redevelopment of Twickenham, with a possible move to Milton Keynes or a site near Birmingham mooted, as well as a possible purchase of a 50 per cent share in Wembley.'

There you go Todd, buy a ready made Stadium. 🍺

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/29/football-soccer-stadiums-everton-nfl

1 hour ago, SydneyChelsea said:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/apr/29/football-soccer-stadiums-everton-nfl

Nothing worse than a half empty stadium, I struggle to believe Chelsea can get anywhere near 82k on an average matchday without massive incentives

Sometimes it's a case of "Careful what you wish for.."

NFL is a different beast given the money that's generated is primarily off TV deals and Sponsorships, and the sums are large given the scarcity of the sport (Only 17 games in a regular season) which ultimately drives demand.

Empty seats hardly a concern for them.

Edited May 1, 20251 yr by Sconnie Blue

4 hours ago, Kev56 said:

Or taken from the above article-

'The RFU discussed a number of possible proposals before settling on a redevelopment of Twickenham, with a possible move to Milton Keynes or a site near Birmingham mooted, as well as a possible purchase of a 50 per cent share in Wembley.'

There you go Todd, buy a ready made Stadium

Todd should be aware that the council only allows 3 non sporting events at the stadium, with restrictions on which days that can be used. Different council, But bound to happen to us in a new Chelsea stadium too !

Twickenham have given a date of 2027 to start redeveloping their own stadium .

Mind you they could work on about half of an empty stadium while our games are in progress .

6 hours ago, Kev56 said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/chelsea-twickenham-stamford-bridge-redevelopment-allianz-stadium-rfu-b2740969.html

Being reported all over the place. What do you think. i'm for playing at the bridge for a few years while they build at Earls Court if pos.

It's all meaningless unless they can get 75% of the CPO to agree on it. Abramovich failed, and he was loved by the fans, what hope does this lot have of convincing them?

I wouldn't be surprised if these f**kers just cut their losses, leave the name Chelsea Football Club behind and call us Chelsea LDN.

1 minute ago, Scott Harris said:

It's all meaningless unless they can get 75% of the CPO to agree on it. Abramovich failed, and he was loved by the fans, what hope does this lot have of convincing them?

I wouldn't be surprised if these f**kers just cut their losses, leave the name Chelsea Football Club behind and call us Chelsea LDN.

Moving to Earl's Court, with us staying at the Bridge for the time being until construction is complete, could be an option the CPO's could get behind.

But then again, don't blame them for rejecting anything this ownership offers them.

Edited May 1, 20251 yr by Sconnie Blue

6 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Moving to Earl's Court, with us staying at the Bridge for the time being until construction is complete, could be an option the CPO's could get behind.

But then again, don't blame them for rejecting anything this ownership offers them.

I just can't see them getting behind a permanent move away in all honesty. The only thing I feel they will support is a redevelopment of the Bridge, but I just don't know how feasible that is.

29 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

It's all meaningless unless they can get 75% of the CPO to agree on it. Abramovich failed, and he was loved by the fans, what hope does this lot have of convincing them?

I wouldn't be surprised if these f**kers just cut their losses, leave the name Chelsea Football Club behind and call us Chelsea LDN.

I don’t think it’s any coincidence whatsoever that the CFC LDN is now out there.

Love or as most do,hate the new owners they are very well connected when it comes to high level legal and financial advice and I would imagine they have played every scenario through and I thought the very first time the CFC logo appeared that they were setting out a route toward by passing the CPO.

I personally think the CPO will be put in a near impossible position if the option is to move to Earls Court because unlike RA the current owners won’t care about a fall out . Ironically RA would have “ bulldozed “ through a move to Battersea if the bid made to but land there had been successful

2 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

It's all meaningless unless they can get 75% of the CPO to agree on it. Abramovich failed, and he was loved by the fans, what hope does this lot have of convincing them?

I wouldn't be surprised if these f**kers just cut their losses, leave the name Chelsea Football Club behind and call us Chelsea LDN.

RA failed because he or rather the board played a dirty underhand game. They under estimated CPO and the depth of feeling they had for the club.

If they had tried to take the CPO along with them rather than shut them out, strong arm them and for example get friends to buy shares to sway the result they possibly would have won..

Although unlike the Americans they all (CPO inc) did what they did with the best intentions.

IMHO.

I thought the CFC LDN conspiracy had been debunked....by the CPO themselves?

The lease of the stadium contains a clause with the title "Cessation of Football", stipulating that if the Club either: 1. Stops playing football at Stamford Bridge; or 2. Starts playing football at a different home ground; it must do two things. First, it must change its name and second, it must transfer the rights to the name Chelsea Football Club. By displaying the CFC LDN branding at the stadium and elsewhere the Club is presently making sure that "CFC LDN" is already very closely associated with the club. Given the close association between the club and the CFC LDN branding, I dont think any owner could use that branding to rename the club in the event of a move away from Stamford bridge.

Where is the shed end legal team to get a view? Or we could ask Nicolas Jackson for his view....i am sure his response will be insightful

31 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I thought the CFC LDN conspiracy had been debunked....by the CPO themselves?

The lease of the stadium contains a clause with the title "Cessation of Football", stipulating that if the Club either: 1. Stops playing football at Stamford Bridge; or 2. Starts playing football at a different home ground; it must do two things. First, it must change its name and second, it must transfer the rights to the name Chelsea Football Club. By displaying the CFC LDN branding at the stadium and elsewhere the Club is presently making sure that "CFC LDN" is already very closely associated with the club. Given the close association between the club and the CFC LDN branding, I dont think any owner could use that branding to rename the club in the event of a move away from Stamford bridge.

Where is the shed end legal team to get a view? Or we could ask Nicolas Jackson for his view....i am sure his response will be insightful

It was debunked by Sean Jones KC, a King's Counsel and CPO member.

To add to your point in bold, his assessment is that its now harder for the club to do what is alleged. The Cessation of Football clause also requires that the new club use a name with no association to Chelsea Football Club, so by using it in current promotion, the ownership have lost that ability.

All this has been vital for the club. With the significant battle between Bates and Cabra and with the Wimbledon to MK Don's move it provided us with a level of security. But the times of club moves to completely knew locations appears to be largely a thing of the past, with most ground moves being pretty close to the original site.

This is affecting us now. We have one of the worst stadiums of the big clubs in the country and many of us cannot get tickets unless we sell our souls on Vivid Seats.

A move to an Earls Court site provides an iconic address still, increases revenue opportunities along with the clubs profile, allows for more spectators, and if a deal could be done offering transferable shares to the new site, I really can't see a problem with it.

What I do want to see locked down is that we cannot be too far removed from our spiritual home and we can't be rebranded to some cheesy acronym.

15 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

I just can't see them getting behind a permanent move away in all honesty. The only thing I feel they will support is a redevelopment of the Bridge, but I just don't know how feasible that is.

I would never criticise the CPO, but the fact is , they are a small percentage of the fanbase., but with enormous power to affect the future of the club. About 21,000 shares held by a smaller amount of individual members.. ??

I suppose if the majority of fans approve of a move to Earls Court we need to start buying shares ?? For me, Earl's Court would be the best option rather than years away from the Bridge for a Stadium rebuild . Pity we can't do a Liverpool and construct larger stands without moving.

What was the problem with RA's building plan? His architects managed to design a larger (I can't remember the exact capacity) and beautiful new Stamford Bridge in its present place. Why can't this lot do the same?

2 hours ago, RMH said:

What was the problem with RA's building plan? His architects managed to design a larger (I can't remember the exact capacity) and beautiful new Stamford Bridge in its present place. Why can't this lot do the same?

Quite.

Another option is to lobby to repeal that ridiculous outdated (Henry VIII !!!) line of sight law from that hill in Richmond Park (or wherever it was) to St Paul's .. and then build to whatever height gives the optimal capacity (without taking the piss of course)

3 hours ago, RMH said:

What was the problem with RA's building plan? His architects managed to design a larger (I can't remember the exact capacity) and beautiful new Stamford Bridge in its present place. Why can't this lot do the same?

The cost? It was quoted as £1bn in 2018. In 2022 it was estimated to have risen to £2.2bn. I assume this has increased significantly again.

1 hour ago, Sexyfootball said:

Quite.

Another option is to lobby to repeal that ridiculous outdated (Henry VIII !!!) line of sight law from that hill in Richmond Park (or wherever it was) to St Paul's .. and then build to whatever height gives the optimal capacity (without taking the piss of course)

Was the issue with that then something about blocking sunlight to residential buildings? Dont know for sure - but building in London is a headache. Digging down and lowering the pitch I think was the only way to get to the magic 60k figure (which i think still is too low and not future proofed)