5 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Do you think this might mean the Kingsmeadow stadium will be sold ? I always thought the council held the freehold but looking into it just now it looks like Chelsea or one of our companies owns the freehold? .

Saw this on X....

"Chelsea men's sold the Kingsmeadow stadium buildings to Chelsea women's only for Chelsea women's to then decide they will play all their games at Chelsea men's stadium? And Chelsea women's will have to pay rent to Chelsea men's Stamford Bridge for each game. Cool."

Is this all just another money scam to enable the mens team to have a higher book revenue each year.

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

Is this all just another money scam to enable the mens team to have a higher book revenue each year.

Yes. Revenue invested in the women's team isn't subject to FFP or SCR rules so CFC Womens' can now "pay" rent to CFC Mens' for the use of Stamford Bridge, which will count on the books as another income stream for the mens' team. The reported 12.1m price counts towards CFC Mens' revenue for FFP and SCR purposes.

However, it may still be subject to the 'associated party transaction' rules as even though CFC Womens' and CFC Mens' are legally distinct corporate entites, both UEFA and the PL must assess whether they are considered 'related' parties. Obviously, that is the case here but it's untested whether income from a womens' team counts as an APT, because in no world did UEFA or the PL think that a women's team would be subsidising a PL mens' team but I suppose BlueCo continue to 'disrupt' the sport...

Edited April 28Apr 28 by SydneyChelsea

Our owners are besotted with everything Brighton, I wonder.....

Apr 28, 2026, 05:00

Brighton and Hove Albion have announced plans to build a new stadium for their women's team -- and will become the first British team to do so.

A club statement said that the new ground will have a capacity of at least 10,000 and be connected to the men's Amex Stadium next door via a bridge walkway.

The ground aims to be open by the 2030/31 season. It marks a first in British football, with no purpose-built grounds for the women's professional game currently open in the UK.

EDIT..

Brighton's women currently play at Crawley:s stadium. ( Broadfield)

Edited April 30Apr 30 by The Rising Sun
Info

We'll be ground sharing with the Brighton women's team when they sell the bridge to a shell company to pay off the debts. Wondering if we will do a Coventry....

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

Our owners are besotted with everything Brighton, I wonder.....

Apr 28, 2026, 05:00

Brighton and Hove Albion have announced plans to build a new stadium for their women's team -- and will become the first British team to do so.

A club statement said that the new ground will have a capacity of at least 10,000 and be connected to the men's Amex Stadium next door via a bridge walkway.

The ground aims to be open by the 2030/31 season. It marks a first in British football, with no purpose-built grounds for the women's professional game currently open in the UK.

EDIT..

Brighton's women currently play at Crawley:s stadium. ( Broadfield)

The Rugby Football Union has submitted plans to Richmond Borough Council to increase the number of non-rugby events per year at Twickenham from 3 to 15. If the plans are accepted - and they won't be popular with residents - the chances of Chelsea using Twickenham if Stamford Bridge is redeveloped will in my view decrease. Of course that's if Stamford Bridge is ever redeveloped.

BBC News

Twickenham's Allianz Stadium concert plans revised

New plans are to be submitted for using the venue for large concerts after locals opposed the scheme.

Truly pathetic effort by our owners…

We’ve wasted 4 years ( and I know Chelsea comes with its own unique hurdles to overcome) but you’d think a PE firm with their “depth of pockets” should’ve been able to drum up the money to buy a few blocks of houses / relocate the pensioners / anyone else they need to and pay for a new better facility for those folks. (I’m fully on the must renovate in place train)

Maybe I’m naive, but I’ve read most articles out there about the various failings to get a new stadium built for chels and while it seems that the government and residents and CPO are all in various ways out to nuke the project, I remain shocked that all parties can’t see that being a top 5 club with middle 10 revenues due to small capacity, doesn’t bode well for the future…

Meanwhile, you look north and… we could’ve had Radcliffe as owner instead of these lot and we’d likely be better off… guy gets things done, despite any personal views on him.

Sky Sports

Man Utd secure land to build new 100,000 seater stadium a...

Man Utd have secured the majority of the land required to build the largest stadium in the UK; New Trafford will have 100,000 seats and will take five years to construct; the new facility will be 350m

On 24/06/2026 at 02:59, H2SO4aq said:

Truly pathetic effort by our owners…

We’ve wasted 4 years ( and I know Chelsea comes with its own unique hurdles to overcome) but you’d think a PE firm with their “depth of pockets” should’ve been able to drum up the money to buy a few blocks of houses / relocate the pensioners / anyone else they need to and pay for a new better facility for those folks. (I’m fully on the must renovate in place train)

Maybe I’m naive, but I’ve read most articles out there about the various failings to get a new stadium built for chels and while it seems that the government and residents and CPO are all in various ways out to nuke the project, I remain shocked that all parties can’t see that being a top 5 club with middle 10 revenues due to small capacity, doesn’t bode well for the future…

Meanwhile, you look north and… we could’ve had Radcliffe as owner instead of these lot and we’d likely be better off… guy gets things done, despite any personal views on him.

Sky Sports

Man Utd secure land to build new 100,000 seater stadium a...

Man Utd have secured the majority of the land required to build the largest stadium in the UK; New Trafford will have 100,000 seats and will take five years to construct; the new facility will be 350m

The Government aren't out to nuke the project. Simply because we've not put forward anything at all for consideration.

In fact, the London Mayor's office have said that Chelsea needs a new stadium and asked us to meet them to discuss proposals.

At the meeting we offered nothing for them to consider.

Let's face it, our owners have NO intention to build a new stadium at all.

Roman got all hurdles cleared eventually and got full planning permission granted and signed off by the London Mayor's office. ..

This lot haven't even tried.

15 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

The Government aren't out to nuke the project. Simply because we've not put forward anything at all for consideration.

In fact, the London Mayor's office have said that Chelsea needs a new stadium and asked us to meet them to discuss proposals.

At the meeting we offered nothing for them to consider.

Let's face it, our owners have NO intention to build a new stadium at all.

Roman got all hurdles cleared eventually and got full planning permission granted and signed off by the London Mayor's office. ..

This lot haven't even tried.

Yeah there's zero chance of it happening. Quite simply if it was going to happen, they'd have done it by now.

They fully plan on selling the club at the 10 year point. They've looked at the numbers and realised that a stadium will be too high a cost without the ROI. The only way it happens is if Earls Court comes available, as the cost of temporarily relocating will just be too great a price.

Terrifies me as if we aren't eating at the top table again we will be in a permanent drift downwards and cut adrift from the other 5 in the "big 6".

17 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

The Government aren't out to nuke the project. Simply because we've not put forward anything at all for consideration.

In fact, the London Mayor's office have said that Chelsea needs a new stadium and asked us to meet them to discuss proposals.

At the meeting we offered nothing for them to consider.

Let's face it, our owners have NO intention to build a new stadium at all.

Roman got all hurdles cleared eventually and got full planning permission granted and signed off by the London Mayor's office. ..

This lot haven't even tried.

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

Yeah there's zero chance of it happening. Quite simply if it was going to happen, they'd have done it by now.

They fully plan on selling the club at the 10 year point. They've looked at the numbers and realised that a stadium will be too high a cost without the ROI. The only way it happens is if Earls Court comes available, as the cost of temporarily relocating will just be too great a price.

Terrifies me as if we aren't eating at the top table again we will be in a permanent drift downwards and cut adrift from the other 5 in the "big 6".

Agree, I can't see the stadium being redeveloped. It would be nice to see the Bridge redeveloped and enlarged. I've only been in the East Stand a few times but it's over fifty years old and is showing its age. But as you say @bisright1 the owners won't get a ROI.

I'm a CPO shareholder and the CPO isn't adverse to the ground being redeveloped but just want the club to stay at the Bridge.

At the CPO AGM last year on of the club's board, Jason Gannon, was in attendance and he was asked about redevelopment of the ground. His response - and I can't remember the exact words - was along the lines of numbers in the stadium wasn't the only factor. We have noticed over the recent seasons more tickets being given to people who don't mind spending good money on tickets; food and drink in the ground and buying stuff in the shops. Another factor to consider is that the Chelsea Women will play all their league matches i.e. 13 games and some European matches at the Bridge and that will bring in more money into the club and local businesses.

As an aside the move of the Chelsea Women's team from Kingsmeadow to Stamford Bridge has divided opinion. Some will miss the atmosphere at Kingsmeadow and it is a great ground. I should add that I have ST for both the men's and women's team so I'll probably spend more time at the Bridge than I do at home or in the pub!

3 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Agree, I can't see the stadium being redeveloped. It would be nice to see the Bridge redeveloped and enlarged. I've only been in the East Stand a few times but it's over fifty years old and is showing its age. But as you say @bisright1 the owners won't get a ROI.

I'm a CPO shareholder and the CPO isn't adverse to the ground being redeveloped but just want the club to stay at the Bridge.

At the CPO AGM last year on of the club's board, Jason Gannon, was in attendance and he was asked about redevelopment of the ground. His response - and I can't remember the exact words - was along the lines of numbers in the stadium wasn't the only factor. We have noticed over the recent seasons more tickets being given to people who don't mind spending good money on tickets; food and drink in the ground and buying stuff in the shops. Another factor to consider is that the Chelsea Women will play all their league matches i.e. 13 games and some European matches at the Bridge and that will bring in more money into the club and local businesses.

As an aside the move of the Chelsea Women's team from Kingsmeadow to Stamford Bridge has divided opinion. Some will miss the atmosphere at Kingsmeadow and it is a great ground. I should add that I have ST for both the men's and women's team so I'll probably spend more time at the Bridge than I do at home or in the pub!

Hi Boyne, did I read somewhere that you'll be allowed to drink alcohol in the West Stand during the women games this season ??

""CFCW season tickets will be on sale in the iconic Shed End and West Stand. Explore the guide below to choose the perfect spot, or view the full Stamford Bridge stadium map.

Through the Fan Choice Pilot, supporters can enjoy alcohol at their seats across most of the stadium, excluding the designated alcohol‑free sections in West Lower 1 and 2.

Edited June 29Jun 29 by The Rising Sun
Information

3 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Agree, I can't see the stadium being redeveloped. It would be nice to see the Bridge redeveloped and enlarged. I've only been in the East Stand a few times but it's over fifty years old and is showing its age. But as you say @bisright1 the owners won't get a ROI.

I'm a CPO shareholder and the CPO isn't adverse to the ground being redeveloped but just want the club to stay at the Bridge.

At the CPO AGM last year on of the club's board, Jason Gannon, was in attendance and he was asked about redevelopment of the ground. His response - and I can't remember the exact words - was along the lines of numbers in the stadium wasn't the only factor. We have noticed over the recent seasons more tickets being given to people who don't mind spending good money on tickets; food and drink in the ground and buying stuff in the shops. Another factor to consider is that the Chelsea Women will play all their league matches i.e. 13 games and some European matches at the Bridge and that will bring in more money into the club and local businesses.

As an aside the move of the Chelsea Women's team from Kingsmeadow to Stamford Bridge has divided opinion. Some will miss the atmosphere at Kingsmeadow and it is a great ground. I should add that I have ST for both the men's and women's team so I'll probably spend more time at the Bridge than I do at home or in the pub!

Four persuasive, eloquent paragraphs sunk by the falsehood of the last four words.

13 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Hi Boyne, did I read somewhere that you'll be allowed to drink alcohol in the West Stand during the women games this season ??

""CFCW season tickets will be on sale in the iconic Shed End and West Stand. Explore the guide below to choose the perfect spot, or view the full Stamford Bridge stadium map.

Through the Fan Choice Pilot, supporters can enjoy alcohol at their seats across most of the stadium, excluding the designated alcohol‑free sections in West Lower 1 and 2.

@Boyne is the last person to ask about alcohol. Born into a Salvation Army family and plays a mean tambourine.

16 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Hi Boyne, did I read somewhere that you'll be allowed to drink alcohol in the West Stand during the women games this season ??

""CFCW season tickets will be on sale in the iconic Shed End and West Stand. Explore the guide below to choose the perfect spot, or view the full Stamford Bridge stadium map.

Through the Fan Choice Pilot, supporters can enjoy alcohol at their seats across most of the stadium, excluding the designated alcohol‑free sections in West Lower 1 and 2.

1 minute ago, dermott said:

@Boyne is the last person to ask about alcohol. Born into a Salvation Army family and plays a mean tambourine.

Yes, fans can drink in parts of the ground at women's game. Strange as it may seem I rarely drink alcohol in the ground. The beer is crap and too expensive. If the club were to improve the quality I may start drinking in the ground. In the meantime I'll have to remain teetotal!

31 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Agree, I can't see the stadium being redeveloped. It would be nice to see the Bridge redeveloped and enlarged. I've only been in the East Stand a few times but it's over fifty years old and is showing its age. But as you say @bisright1 the owners won't get a ROI.

I'm a CPO shareholder and the CPO isn't adverse to the ground being redeveloped but just want the club to stay at the Bridge.

At the CPO AGM last year on of the club's board, Jason Gannon, was in attendance and he was asked about redevelopment of the ground. His response - and I can't remember the exact words - was along the lines of numbers in the stadium wasn't the only factor. We have noticed over the recent seasons more tickets being given to people who don't mind spending good money on tickets; food and drink in the ground and buying stuff in the shops. Another factor to consider is that the Chelsea Women will play all their league matches i.e. 13 games and some European matches at the Bridge and that will bring in more money into the club and local businesses.

As an aside the move of the Chelsea Women's team from Kingsmeadow to Stamford Bridge has divided opinion. Some will miss the atmosphere at Kingsmeadow and it is a great ground. I should add that I have ST for both the men's and women's team so I'll probably spend more time at the Bridge than I do at home or in the pub!

Any stadium built to provide the levels of income and prestige that these people aspire to, needs to be 70,000+, certainly for the coming decade. Stamford Bridge just doesn't have the footprint to be able to do this, even more so with the height limit covenant as well. WE are not moving away as i agree with @bisright1 and we're not developing SB, excpet for possibly some cosmetics, because it has no value to them to do so. Oh and they've spunked the dough already.

1 hour ago, Boyne said:

Agree, I can't see the stadium being redeveloped. It would be nice to see the Bridge redeveloped and enlarged. I've only been in the East Stand a few times but it's over fifty years old and is showing its age. But as you say @bisright1 the owners won't get a ROI.

I'm a CPO shareholder and the CPO isn't adverse to the ground being redeveloped but just want the club to stay at the Bridge.

At the CPO AGM last year on of the club's board, Jason Gannon, was in attendance and he was asked about redevelopment of the ground. His response - and I can't remember the exact words - was along the lines of numbers in the stadium wasn't the only factor. We have noticed over the recent seasons more tickets being given to people who don't mind spending good money on tickets; food and drink in the ground and buying stuff in the shops. Another factor to consider is that the Chelsea Women will play all their league matches i.e. 13 games and some European matches at the Bridge and that will bring in more money into the club and local businesses.

As an aside the move of the Chelsea Women's team from Kingsmeadow to Stamford Bridge has divided opinion. Some will miss the atmosphere at Kingsmeadow and it is a great ground. I should add that I have ST for both the men's and women's team so I'll probably spend more time at the Bridge than I do at home or in the pub!

I'm perfectly happy, and it's probably my preference for us to move to Earls Court. I wouldn't want to move much further than that though. Id be very happy to leave Stamford Bridge if the alternative was redeveloping it over a period of 3-5 years. A horribly long period of time just to end up with a ground that would probably be poorer than one built from scratch in a better connected part of London.

I hope that the CPO as a group would be open to such a move, if it was on the table.

Khan's office approved Roman's stadium plan.

April 2025 ...He's almost begging us to get some proposals in motion. As it is, we had a meeting and offered nothing on what the club wants to do with regard to our stadium.

WHAT KHAN SAID

He told The Times: "My message to Chelsea is come and speak to us in relation to what you want to do. Chelsea are the victims of their success, and Stamford Bridge is now too small for them. After all, this is a team that has twice won the Champions League. We work closely with all seven of our Premier League clubs but I'm sure Chelsea look with some envy at the stadiums some of their rivals in London have. We're really keen to make sure that Chelsea, as we are with all our clubs, continue to flourish and thrive, so we're open to talking to Chelsea about what plans they have. At the moment they've not approached us. But we're here.”

34 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I'm perfectly happy, and it's probably my preference for us to move to Earls Court. I wouldn't want to move much further than that though. Id be very happy to leave Stamford Bridge if the alternative was redeveloping it over a period of 3-5 years. A horribly long period of time just to end up with a ground that would probably be poorer than one built from scratch in a better connected part of London.

I hope that the CPO as a group would be open to such a move, if it was on the table.

34 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I'm perfectly happy, and it's probably my preference for us to move to Earls Court. I wouldn't want to move much further than that though. Id be very happy to leave Stamford Bridge if the alternative was redeveloping it over a period of 3-5 years. A horribly long period of time just to end up with a ground that would probably be poorer than one built from scratch in a better connected part of London.

I hope that the CPO as a group would be open to such a move, if it was on the table.

I'd prefer Earl's Court too. The information on it seems to change all the time, one minute there's no chance because the redevelopment plan doesn't include a stadium, next minute the stadium is a real possibility!

2 hours ago, WhiteWall said:

Any stadium built to provide the levels of income and prestige that these people aspire to, needs to be 70,000+, certainly for the coming decade. Stamford Bridge just doesn't have the footprint to be able to do this, even more so with the height limit covenant as well. WE are not moving away as i agree with @bisright1 and we're not developing SB, excpet for possibly some cosmetics, because it has no value to them to do so. Oh and they've spunked the dough already.

45 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I'm perfectly happy, and it's probably my preference for us to move to Earls Court. I wouldn't want to move much further than that though. Id be very happy to leave Stamford Bridge if the alternative was redeveloping it over a period of 3-5 years. A horribly long period of time just to end up with a ground that would probably be poorer than one built from scratch in a better connected part of London.

I hope that the CPO as a group would be open to such a move, if it was on the table.

9 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

I'd prefer Earl's Court too. The information on it seems to change all the time, one minute there's no chance because the redevelopment plan doesn't include a stadium, next minute the stadium is a real possibility!

I should have mentioned that even as a CPO shareholder that I'd be happy with a move to Earl's Court as it would better for transport being on the District and Piccadilly lines. I reckon that if the club wanted they could call in the loan to the CPO and also offer money to shareholders as a way to persuade them to agree to a move. Then as mentioned already will the club's owners get a ROI and will a move to Earl's Court be approved by the London Mayor and the London Assembly. @The Rising Sun as you say the information changes all the time.

@WhiteWall You're right there isn't the footprint to have a 70,000 Stamford Bridge even if the Stoll Mansions and other buildings were bought and knocked down. Due to the height constrictions I guess the club could build down but I wonder if there would be an impact on the railway lines which back on to the Matthew Harding and East Stands by doing so.

The redevelopment or not of the ground is going to drag on for ages and if does go ahead I'll probably be long gone.

36 minutes ago, Boyne said:

I should have mentioned that even as a CPO shareholder that I'd be happy with a move to Earl's Court as it would better for transport being on the District and Piccadilly lines. I reckon that if the club wanted they could call in the loan to the CPO and also offer money to shareholders as a way to persuade them to agree to a move. Then as mentioned already will the club's owners get a ROI and will a move to Earl's Court be approved by the London Mayor and the London Assembly. @The Rising Sun as you say the information changes all the time.

@WhiteWall You're right there isn't the footprint to have a 70,000 Stamford Bridge even if the Stoll Mansions and other buildings were bought and knocked down. Due to the height constrictions I guess the club could build down but I wonder if there would be an impact on the railway lines which back on to the Matthew Harding and East Stands by doing so.

The redevelopment or not of the ground is going to drag on for ages and if does go ahead I'll probably be long gone.

I'd actually hope the owners would view retaining the CPO as a net positive if they moved, instead offering full rights etc. as they have now in a new ground. The only thing that changes is the location of the pitch.

And it would also probably prove a guarentee that the CPO on the whole would vote for it. As if I was a CPO member, my primary problem with your suggestion is that it could be a bait and switch, offer the buy out with a view that Earls Court is on the table, only to backtrack after its gone and we end up building a ground in Croydon or Staines.

Edited June 29Jun 29 by bisright1

20 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

I'd actually hope the owners would view retaining the CPO as a net positive if they moved, instead offering full rights etc. as they have now in a new ground. The only thing that changes is the location of the pitch.

And it would also probably prove a guarentee that the CPO on the whole would vote for it. As if I was a CPO member, my primary problem with your suggestion is that it could be a bait and switch, offer the buy out with a view that Earls Court is on the table, only to backtrack after its gone and we end up building a ground in Croydon or Staines.

You're right, it would be good if the CPO could be retained and kept onside as that would be a sign of goodwill. Yes, if there was a buy out and the club changed it's mind it wouldn't be good but then nothing would surprise me with the owners.

God forbid we end up in the middle of nowhere and the club buys out the CPO and then sells the ground to a property developer. Marler Estates all over again. Stamford Bridge is prime land and I reckon that the land on which Craven Cottage is built is worth more with it being on the river.

3 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Khan's office approved Roman's stadium plan.

April 2025 ...He's almost begging us to get some proposals in motion. As it is, we had a meeting and offered nothing on what the club wants to do with regard to our stadium.

WHAT KHAN SAID

He told The Times: "My message to Chelsea is come and speak to us in relation to what you want to do. Chelsea are the victims of their success, and Stamford Bridge is now too small for them. After all, this is a team that has twice won the Champions League. We work closely with all seven of our Premier League clubs but I'm sure Chelsea look with some envy at the stadiums some of their rivals in London have. We're really keen to make sure that Chelsea, as we are with all our clubs, continue to flourish and thrive, so we're open to talking to Chelsea about what plans they have. At the moment they've not approached us. But we're here.”

Its fking criminal isn't it. It is without doubt one of the most damning indictments on these American frauds that we have been subjected to. What a complete and utter failure these morons have been.

Do we (they - BlueCo) need a 70’000 plus stadium? Maybe 50’000 is enough if it’s designed in a way to maximise premium seating. If you’ve flown long haul much recently you might have noticed the reductions in economy seats and the increase in economy premium and business class seats. Just a thought.

Premium economy seating and prices? Really? - come on. No sir, I dont like it.

How about a return to the 'terraces'? To have terraces would mean getting the numbers into the stadium and would create an awesome atmosphere. Safe standing areas? Just a thought.

UEFA regulations currently require that international matches be held in all-seater stadiums. However, several major stadiums in Europe have implemented safe standing areas. One of the most notable examples is Borussia Dortmund, that uses rail seating to facilitate safe standing.

13 hours ago, Snedger said:

Do we (they - BlueCo) need a 70’000 plus stadium? Maybe 50’000 is enough if it’s designed in a way to maximise premium seating. If you’ve flown long haul much recently you might have noticed the reductions in economy seats and the increase in economy premium and business class seats. Just a thought.

No we need at least 70,000 for the bigger games, etc.

I like the seats with the cushions and the overhead heaters. I like to place my drink order and then when i go to my table at half time, my pint of guinness is waiting for me at my table. I am a "champagne socialist" after all and i cannot stand for 2 hours. . . but y'know safe standing ares would be great for the younger more robust Chelsea fans.

19 hours ago, Snedger said:

Do we (they - BlueCo) need a 70’000 plus stadium? Maybe 50’000 is enough if it’s designed in a way to maximise premium seating. If you’ve flown long haul much recently you might have noticed the reductions in economy seats and the increase in economy premium and business class seats. Just a thought

They could probably put a cushion on every existing seat and charge double and still fill the stadium with tourists and day trippers.

But despite it being a 'business" , football doesn't work like any other business in the traditional sense.

Football doesn't have"customers " despite what they say, it has"fans"