If anything Ramigoal is young.

As a libertarian I completely agree that militarism is a bad thing. However, you are communicating on the internet, using wifi, mac/windows, on a site that uses php and javascript, and you probably have a smartphone and watch American shows and movies. Probably using air conditioning too, since summer is almost here.  I'm just sayin.  

 

As much as I'd hate to get into a "British vs American" argument on this topic, you really have shot yourself in the foot there. 

 

The World Wide Web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, a Londoner, who chose not to patent it and instead made it freely available even though it could have made him a multi-billionaire, allowing American inventions which use the internet, however none would have been able to work or even be invented had it not been for the original invention of the World Wide Web.

 

So an American invented the latest smartphone. It is far more impressive for someone to actually invent the original product than to just slightly improve a later version. Steve Jobs could not have invented the iPhone without past accumulated knowledge on telephones pioneered by those such as Alexander Graham-Bell, a Scotsman. A footballing analogy here would be it is more important and impressive to invent the Cruyff Turn, as Johan Cruyff did, than to be the best at it in the current age, as the current footballer could not have done it without the inventor.

 

Yes I watch American shows and films, as Americans watch British shows and films. I watch them on my television, again, invented by a Scotsman, John Logie Baird. I also watch films at the cinema, with the history of film pioneered largely by three separate Londoners, Robert Paul, George Smith and Cecil Hepworth who each, working independently, invented separate things vital to the creation of film.

 

So pretty much everything on your list was pioneered a Brit. Even the inventions that weren't (WiFi, Air-Con), were pioneered by other countries. Many ancient civilisations had their forms of Air-Conditioning as did many European countries in the middle ages. And WiFi is known to be pioneered by Dutch and Australian pioneers, Vic Hayes and John O'Sullivan (source - Wikipedia).

 

You have been proved wrong. America is a modern country who's modern inventions are only the tip of an iceberg of inventions, largely by Europeans. I have a theory why you are doing this, although I may be wrong. My friend recently came back from America and reckoned most of the males hated him because he found it so easy to pick up girls due to his being British and apparently all the girls love the accent.

 

Anyway, sorry everyone for going way off topic.

Edited April 13, 201412 yr by RichardCFC

Richard it's easier with an Irish accent they really love that. Lol

Anyway, apart from Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck; I mention those two famous Americans to show that the best things coming out of America are cartoon characters although that could be said of their current President….a lame duck who is a mouse with no balls…..anyway back on topic, we need at least a 60,000 seater, the local fan base could easily sustain a nearly full house for most games however the seat prices will have to be finely balanced.  I recall the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team having $2 Tuesdays where you could watch a night game, albeit in the nose bleeds, for 2 bucks which is great when you are dragging a few kids around.  So I am sure the boys from the bridge could lower the seat prices quite a bit on a Wednesdays, especially against lower teams.  But the dilemma is finding the enormous amount of land required to build the place, or you knock the existing place down and entirely redesign the existing space with higher level seating, while we play at Wembley while building takes place, well I mean its like a second home to us anyway..

Let's hope there's some news on a new stadium or a Stamford Bridge redevelopment.

Oh boy, American patriotism really is something else isn't it?

Let's hope there's some news on a new stadium or a Stamford Bridge redevelopment.

I heartily applaud your futile attempt to get us back on topic.

I tried.

One question, I asked, and this...Phew

You mean the internet that's invented by a Brit that travels through communication cables built by British Telecom or Virgin Media? In this country at least. The claim that the World Wide Web is an American system is, quite frankly, embarrassing.

I can give the US a lot of credit for a lot of things. I buy a lot of Apple products, an American company, but the chief of design there was from Essex and they're all built in China. I also have a lot of respect for Bill Gates, who has the intelligence to be a lot more modest and genuinely endeavours to help the world, especially Africa.

By the way, I care about cars. The ones the US make are bloody appalling.

I'm guessing you're from the South?

Never driven a Tesla, have you?

Haha, this has to be a parody.

First phone - a Scotsman

First computer - an Englishman

Internet - an Englishman

WiFi - many people, but a Dutchman supposedly is called the father of WiFi.

Air con - ancient Egyptians.

But other than that a very informative post.

Those guys were all American immigrants. Air conditioning was invented by Willis Carrier. The internet was started in the 1960s by the department of defense to withstand a nuclear attack.

Boring.

The #1 genius of all time, Newton, was an Englishman so I'll just shut up since I'm being an ass.

Those guys were all American immigrants. Air conditioning was invented by Willis Carrier. The internet was started in the 1960s by the department of defense to withstand a nuclear attack.

 

Congratulations. Calling Ancient Egyptians "American immigrants" is quite possible the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

 

The #1 genius of all time, Newton, was an Englishman so I'll just shut up since I'm being an ass.

 

 Yes. Yes you are.

The #1 genius of all time, Newton, was an Englishman so I'll just shut up since I'm being an ass.

To be an ass you would have to raise your level ten fold, minimum.

FFS, give it a break you lot.

Thought I'd go and push this back on topic.

 

Does anyone have any more info on this? With City expanding, Spurs trying, Anfield trying it seems we have run out of options to Expand the bridge.

 

Ive no clue on the stadium stuff so if anybody could give me a run down that would be great.

Thought I'd go and push this back on topic.

 

Does anyone have any more info on this? With City expanding, Spurs trying, Anfield trying it seems we have run out of options to Expand the bridge.

 

Ive no clue on the stadium stuff so if anybody could give me a run down that would be great.

 

Basically it's at a stand still.

 

The club promised the CPO (Chelsea pitch owners) that they would not look to move further than 3 miles away from Stamford Bridge.

 

Battersea was our best option but after losing out on the blind bid it's unlikely that any other sites are going to become available that will be big enough to build a new stadium. 

 

Redevelopment of of Stamford Bridge is both difficult (due to a lack of space) and unlikely (cost of development isn't financially worth it for the total expansion possible).

 

I think there is still the issue of buying up the CPO shares to allow us to sell Stamford Bridge as well so it's all just ground to a rather frustrating stand still at the moment. 

Basically it's at a stand still.

 

The club promised the CPO (Chelsea pitch owners) that they would not look to move further than 3 miles away from Stamford Bridge.

 

Battersea was our best option but after losing out on the blind bid it's unlikely that any other sites are going to become available that will be big enough to build a new stadium. 

 

Redevelopment of of Stamford Bridge is both difficult (due to a lack of space) and unlikely (cost of development isn't financially worth it for the total expansion possible).

 

I think there is still the issue of buying up the CPO shares to allow us to sell Stamford Bridge as well so it's all just ground to a rather frustrating stand still at the moment. 

 

 

Cheers.

 

I keep hearing about the CPO making it difficult, surely if they care about Chelsea they would not stand in their way?

 

Im not meaning this as a typical foreign fan who doesnt believe in the heritage at the Bridge, but its clearly a massive issue we're facing.

CPO aren't there to make things difficult be we do intend to ensure we stay close too our routes.

Cheers.

 

I keep hearing about the CPO making it difficult, surely if they care about Chelsea they would not stand in their way?

 

Im not meaning this as a typical foreign fan who doesnt believe in the heritage at the Bridge, but its clearly a massive issue we're facing.

 

The CPO's aren't being difficult for bad reasons, they have genuine concerns about the club were they to sell their pitch ownership back to the club.

 

The board have made promises about not moving (too far) away from SW6 should they be allowed to buy back from CPO but I think there remains a skepticism which I think is what led to the "no" vote a couple of years back.

 

Basically the CPO's having essentially saved the club from going under hold the clubs interests very dear to their hearts and have a very emotional attachment to Stamford Bridge... I think there remains a belief that more can be done to expand Stamford Bridge's current capacity despite the club insisting otherwise. 

 

It's been quiet for a long time now considering how active the club appeared a couple of years ago to find a solution but the silence is starting to be a bit deafening as to what the next move will be. 

I don't see how much more can be done to the Bridge though?

The space is extremely tight as is so there is just no way you would get another 10-20 thousand seats crammed in and realistically that is what we will need if we are to grow.

I mean even if an option came up now for a new site the plans ect would still need drawn up ect which we know takes years before these projects can be completed so I just don't see where we go from here now.

The CPO's I doubt will budge rightly or wrongly in peoples eyes while no new sites in the distance agreed is ever likely to come up in the near future.

The CPO's aren't being difficult for bad reasons, they have genuine concerns about the club were they to sell their pitch ownership back to the club.

 

The board have made promises about not moving (too far) away from SW6 should they be allowed to buy back from CPO but I think there remains a skepticism which I think is what led to the "no" vote a couple of years back.

 

Basically the CPO's having essentially saved the club from going under hold the clubs interests very dear to their hearts and have a very emotional attachment to Stamford Bridge... I think there remains a belief that more can be done to expand Stamford Bridge's current capacity despite the club insisting otherwise. 

 

It's been quiet for a long time now considering how active the club appeared a couple of years ago to find a solution but the silence is starting to be a bit deafening as to what the next move will be. 

 

Makes abit more sense now mate, cheers.

 

Ive been to the bridge numerous times and their really isnt enough wiggle room to expand, a knock and rebuild would probably fulfil alot more hope of getting a 60-70k seater in there.

 

but thats a whole different can of worms!

a knock and rebuild would probably fulfil alot more hope of getting a 60-70k seater in there.

Would it though?

I mean it's not a huge space in the first place, I don't think that would be a viable option.

To get a 50-60k seater you need a good bit of space and our seating is as close to the pitch as I think it can get already.