We don't need a new stadium. Just build a big wall and slap some paint on it. Blue co can the sell tickets...and the fans would love it. Watching that paint dry would be more exciting than another sideways pass between the centre backs.

15 hours ago, bisright1 said:

Profit is not so relevant really,

If we make 2x revenue and still make a loss, it's because we've been able to spend 2x.

It then means our value goes up because revenue is super powered.

Roman made a massive "loss" running Chelsea. But we were sold for so much more money that his losses were neutralised. Our owners are banking on the same, running us at a loss then selling for a profit.

Since 2019 Tottenham have nearly doubled their commercial (not matchday) revenue. But they haven't competed for the league once and won zero trophies. Why? The stadium. Whilst in that time period we've only gone up about 25%. Tottenham make more revenue than us in both match day and commercial revenue.

Even if we had a shirt sponsor we'd still be behind. In the grand scheme of things thats marginal. Give it 5 more years and I expect Tottenham will generate so much more commercial+matchday revenue than us it will be more than the amount we get in broadcast fees.

That's what worries me. We're now the 3rd biggest club in London on revenue. Take away the success in competitions and it's easy to see how we could get cut adrift. Especially if our current owners are forced to turn off the taps of spending - which seems likely now.

We're reliant on this squad growing in value and ultimately we will be reliant on having a stadium that can bring in the revenue in commercial and match day to compete long time.

Thank for your reply mate👍 The thing is , we are going to have to rely on just the current stadium's income for a very long time before any new stadium is finally built. Todd said "16 to 20 years " to just "figure it out " . . I agree that we would be more viable with extra income, but it's not in the foreseeable future I don't think ?

Anyway, have a good weekend mate, come on you BLUES !!

On 26/09/2025 at 20:50, The Rising Sun said:

Hi Boyne. I know CPO had a loan when Bates set it up , but what was the loan actually used for ? I believe it was quite substantial and it's still to be repaid ? It was an absolutely vital enterprise back then , and still is if these or any other owners get any daft ideas .

@The Rising Sun apologies for the delay in replying. What with the game yesterday and other stuff. Have found this about the loan and other stuff related to the CPO. Hope it helps.

Chelsea Pitch Owners: History

Will post more later about the stadium etc later as going to work in a while but given recent performances and results could we fill a bigger stadium. I'm not sure. I guess that it is dependent upon what happens in the next few seasons. Results and performances will hopefully improve but there is also the cost and availability of tickets and how long-standing fans will be treated. As said, will post more later.

7 hours ago, Boyne said:

@The Rising Sun apologies for the delay in replying. What with the game yesterday and other stuff. Have found this about the loan and other stuff related to the CPO. Hope it helps. https://www.chelseafc.com/en/chelsea-pitch-owners-history Will post more later about the stadium etc later as going to work in a while but given recent performances and results could we fill a bigger stadium. I'm not sure. I guess that it is dependent upon what happens in the next few seasons. Results and performances will hopefully improve but there is also the cost and availability of tickets and how long-standing fans will be treated. As said, will post more later.

Thanks Boyne. I can't seem to open the link, not to worry , I happened to watch an old video of Ken Bates explaining it yesterday!

Cheers mate 👍

EDIT ..the link is working now, cheers .

There's a lot there that I was totally unaware of , Eg that Glen Hoddle's insistence on a larger pitch increased the freehold fee !

Edited September 28, 2025Sep 28 by The Rising Sun
Info

46 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Thanks Boyne. I can't seem to open the link, not to worry , I happened to watch an old video of Ken Bates explaining it yesterday!

Cheers mate 👍

EDIT ..the link is working now, cheers .

There's a lot there that I was totally unaware of , Eg that Glen Hoddle's insistence on a larger pitch increased the freehold fee !

@The Rising Sun You're welcome. Glad you can now open the link. I'd forgotten all about Hoddle wanting a larger pitch until I read the article.

I read an article earlier that the Rugby Football Union has requested that more non-rugby events take place at Twickenham i.e. an increase from 3 to 15. The aim being to, unsurprisingly, increase revenue. If Richmond Borough Council does grant permission I think that Chelsea using Twickenham for games if Stamford Bridge is redeveloped will be a non-starter. Using Twickenham was suggested a while back. I can't remember by whom. It may have been more than one person or the club.

On 28/09/2025 at 19:00, Boyne said:

@The Rising Sun You're welcome. Glad you can now open the link. I'd forgotten all about Hoddle wanting a larger pitch until I read the article.

I read an article earlier that the Rugby Football Union has requested that more non-rugby events take place at Twickenham i.e. an increase from 3 to 15. The aim being to, unsurprisingly, increase revenue. If Richmond Borough Council does grant permission I think that Chelsea using Twickenham for games if Stamford Bridge is redeveloped will be a non-starter. Using Twickenham was suggested a while back. I can't remember by whom. It may have been more than one person or the club.

I can imagine us striking a deal to have some games at Twickenham and some at craven cottage. 15 at Twickenham would make sense to me.

But after the Liverpool game on the weekend I was reminded why the bridge is so special.

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

I can imagine us striking a deal to have some games at Twickenham and some at craven cottage. 15 at Twickenham would make sense to me.

But after the Liverpool game on the weekend I was reminded why the bridge is so special.

I dont think we will get many games at Twickenham, I remember this was looked at as an option years ago and their council immediately kicked the idea into touch (like that analogy 😀) as the locals, police etc would never allow it.

I think we end up ground sharing with fulham.

Whenever I see this topic appear with a new post I get just a little excited that something might be happening. But in the end, it always feels like discussing our new stadium is like when I used to discuss with mates what we'd do if we won 20 million on the national lottery back when it started in 1994. Sadly I'm still working for a living.

4 minutes ago, Snedger said:

Whenever I see this topic appear with a new post I get just a little excited that something might be happening. But in the end, it always feels like discussing our new stadium is like when I used to discuss with mates what we'd do if we won 20 million on the national lottery back when it started in 1994. Sadly I'm still working for a living.

After that winner though aren't we all a bit happy to still have a real stadium and not a soulless bowl

17 minutes ago, dkw said:

I dont think we will get many games at Twickenham, I remember this was looked at as an option years ago and their council immediately kicked the idea into touch (like that analogy 😀) as the locals, police etc would never allow it.

I think we end up ground sharing with fulham.

Could well be, but money does talk and the RFU will do everything they can to get some of it and I imagine if Richmond is anything like any other council right now they'll want some too

Would be nice to split between the two if it ever comes to it.

6 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

After that winner though aren't we all a bit happy to still have a real stadium and not a soulless bowl

That's true, although I always thought we'd try and design something a bit better than the typical soulless bowl that many play in now.

I've always been a bit sceptical that we could get 60 or 70 thousand every game, but I really would like the idea of having more than 39k and the current almost closed shop situation we have. And I think I've mentioned before that we apparently have the oldest average age for supporters in the league, so I think we need to find a way to get more new blood into our matchdays (and it'd be nice if I could go and see us play again one day too).

On 06/10/2025 at 12:47, bisright1 said:

Could well be, but money does talk and the RFU will do everything they can to get some of it and I imagine if Richmond is anything like any other council right now they'll want some too

Would be nice to split between the two if it ever comes to it.

Twickenham have been severely limited by the number of non rugby events they are allowed to host for some years now. They want to hold more because of the cost of the stadium redevelopment. They've even threatened to move if the council doesn't relax the rules.!!

Sweeney said: "Part of the renovation of the stadium from 2027 means we are in a discussion with Richmond Council about the ability to stage more non-rugby events. For us, it's three [per year] and we're only allowed one on a Friday.

Im waiting for a BlueCo feasibility study evaluating stadia in New York and beyond. Or maybe Strasbourg, im always keen to learn from the Americans as per Todds suggestion.

Edited October 8, 2025Oct 8 by OTL

While we are in year 4 of the blueco ownership and there is no a plan within sight for the Bridge or a move, Arsenal are looking at expanding beyond 70k and moving to wembley while it happens.

embarrassing

2 hours ago, GarnachoCheese said:

embarrassing

It is indeed.

All this time to buy the Earls Court site and already have a super stadium on its way to being made but no we are left to watch our beloved stadium decay. Probably end up like old Trafford.

5 hours ago, axman2526 said:

It is indeed.

All this time to buy the Earls Court site and already have a super stadium on its way to being made but no we are left to watch our beloved stadium decay. Probably end up like old Trafford.

Even the bloody mayor effectively offered to smooth the way, in order to get something done.

Lets face it, when Todd announced halfway through last season at that overseas business convention that we " have 16 to 20 years to figure it out " when he was aske about a possible new stadium, my feeling was that they have no intention of doing it. .

And if they DO intend to do it in that timeframe, we've got a LONG time before we benefit from any larger stadium income.

Edited October 11, 2025Oct 11 by The Rising Sun

I had always thought it was a precondition of the purchase that a new stadium had to be built.

I thought Abramovich had insisted upon this.

1 hour ago, Andy North said:

I had always thought it was a precondition of the purchase that a new stadium had to be built.

I thought Abramovich had insisted upon this.

Once there was no more political points to be scored the government like most of the deals preconditions disappeared.

3 hours ago, Andy North said:

I had always thought it was a precondition of the purchase that a new stadium had to be built.

I thought Abramovich had insisted upon this.

This is from an article when the deal was being completed...I can't see that the commitments they made can be enforced in any way certainly not by the charity that still holds the money from the sale.. ?

It is not clear, though, quite what will happen if Boehly and his partners choose to renege on any of the conditions once they have control of the club. Any oversight role will fall on the charity, the only outside entity still inextricably linked to both Chelsea and Abramovich,.."

Edited October 12, 2025Oct 12 by The Rising Sun
Information

18 hours ago, Andy North said:

I had always thought it was a precondition of the purchase that a new stadium had to be built.

I thought Abramovich had insisted upon this.

A new stadium wasn't a precondition. There were various preconditions:

1. No dividends paid or management fees taken till 2032.

2. No sale of shares in the club for 10 years.

3. Minimum further investment of £1bn on Stamford Bridge, the academy and women's team.

3 hours ago, dermott said:

A new stadium wasn't a precondition. There were various preconditions:

1. No dividends paid or management fees taken till 2032.

2. No sale of shares in the club for 10 years.

3. Minimum further investment of £1bn on Stamford Bridge, the academy and women's team.

I always thought it was supposed to be a further investment of £1.75 bn on top of the £ 2.5 bn they paid for the club, thus adding up to the figure of "£4.25 billion" that was widely reported ?

Sky Sports

Chelsea takeover: Todd Boehly's £4.25bn bid approved by g...

Deal is set to bring an end to Roman Abramovichs ownership of Chelsea, in which the club has won 21 trophies; a deal for Jules Kounde has already been verbally agreed; the defenders proposed move to C

Hence, and similarly to Andy North, my assumption was that the extra £1.75 bn they signed up for was intended to be the funds for a new stadium rather than money laundering on "promising" youth LOL

1 hour ago, Sexyfootball said:

I always thought it was supposed to be a further investment of £1.75 bn on top of the £ 2.5 bn they paid for the club, thus adding up to the figure of "£4.25 billion" that was widely reported ?

Sky Sports

Chelsea takeover: Todd Boehly's £4.25bn bid approved by g...

Deal is set to bring an end to Roman Abramovichs ownership of Chelsea, in which the club has won 21 trophies; a deal for Jules Kounde has already been verbally agreed; the defenders proposed move to C

Hence, and similarly to Andy North, my assumption was that the extra £1.75 bn they signed up for was intended to be the funds for a new stadium rather than money laundering on "promising" youth LOL

It didn't specify a new stadium. It was deemed infrastructure spending. Specifying funds to be spent on stadium (developing Stamford Bridge), academy and women's teams.

6 hours ago, dermott said:

It didn't specify a new stadium. It was deemed infrastructure spending. Specifying funds to be spent on stadium (developing Stamford Bridge), academy and women's team

I suppose the wording can be interpreted in another way, " developing" the stadium might just mean creating a few more corporate areas like the expensive " dugout" experience seats !! Perhaps seats behind the goal could be sold as expensive " The goalkeeper experience' seats ??

Edited October 13, 2025Oct 13 by The Rising Sun
Information