Now that Labour have taken LBHF how does this affect our chances of potentially moving to a new stadium?

http://cfctruth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/local-election-matters-part-2.html

If no plans are announced, then its 10 years before anything happens.

Takes too much time to move. So they have to invest in this too

Stadium refurb can be written off FFP

New Labour council take first steps against the current Earls Court plan

http://cfctruth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/earls-court-election-early-signs-of.html

Wonder what they are doing to the floodlight system? Its not like the Bridge ever looks dim?

Upgrading the lights to more Eco friendly LED ones.

Roman needs to make a big bung (not suggesting illegality just whatever that looks like to get some action) to the council and get some favorable planning permission, or find a way to compensate lease holders on the site to make them go away and demo some of Bates non football stadium space

 

Ultimatley to comply with FFP and compete with clubs with 60K + capacity the Bridge has to be enlarged

New post on CFC Truth today, always worth a read if you're interested in the new stadium stuff.

Roman needs to make a big bung (not suggesting illegality just whatever that looks like to get some action) to the council and get some favorable planning permission, or find a way to compensate lease holders on the site to make them go away and demo some of Bates non football stadium space

 

Ultimatley to comply with FFP and compete with clubs with 60K + capacity the Bridge has to be enlarged

Sorry to be the cynic on this one, but what will the situation be when every big club has a stadium that enables them to compete with Utd and Arsenal? At the moment we have Spurs just about to commence construction on their new ground, City planning an expansion to take them to 60,000, Newcastles 50+ current capacity, both Merseyside clubs aiming to expand or rebuild and Westhams imminent move to the Olympic site. That's 8 clubs (9 if we build anew) with capacities of over 50,000, but there will still only be 4 CL places up for grabs every season, and even if you remove those clubs who would be viewed as unrealistic CL place contenders, Newcastle and Westham as things stand, that is still going to leave at least three of those named disappointed every year.

 

Maybe it's more to do with how well run a club is, we have been filling the Bridge consistently for more than a decade now, have an owner who is genuinely enthusiastic about the club from a supporter's point of view and a team that has been regularly capable of keeping the big bucks flowing in for on the pitch achievements. I wouldn't be opposed to a move to either Battersea or Earls Court but on the other hand I've no objections to staying where we are. My biggest concern would be getting into an arms race style pissing contest over capacities, a 60,000 seater stadium would be no guarantee at all of success on the pitch, and I dread to think what a few lean years would do to our attendances and finances.

 

My dream scenario would be to expand the Bridge to 50-55 thousand if possible, but if this can't be done I'd hope that the club would look long and hard at the implications of building a new stadium purely to keep up with the Joneses.

I think with the fan base growing each year we would fill it. Also if we had a bigger ground then other gigs come up which we would make money off such as music events or boxing matches or even if we were to get a world cup or euro cup.

Having a smaller ground kinda cuts a lot of those out.

For the past decade we've relied a lot on Roman's heavy investment for our success -- he won't be here forever and will probably eventually look to sell. Then what? There's no guarantee we'll have a multi multi billionaire take us over to be able to continue this investment, nor should we be relying on that really. Thus, a sustainable method, which may hamper short-term success would assist us in the long run by generating greater revenues from tickets, not limited to just Chelsea matches but others too. 

 

It depends on who funds the project too; if Roman decides to stay for longer and helps fund it we'll probably be fine -- and have short-term success.

 

Point is though, whilst other clubs are building new stadiums, it's for a reason; now that all of them will look to have one we'll be the only ones behind. The Sheikhs for example were looking to drastically improve youth facilities and build a new stadium to create a new sustainable model in the future -- which is a pretty good idea. We already have the youth part covered so a stadium would help with this. 

 

Furthermore, I'm sure both Old Trafford and the Emirates have stadiums with room to expand -- expansions which would probably be too costly for some of the others. United are well ahead in their size as well either way. 

 

Really though, 55k would be enough -- it doesn't have to be 65k at this moment in time as there's no guarantee we would be able to fill it. 

I am pinning my hopes on Roman never leaving :)

Im pinning my hopes on him leaving all his money and the club to his son and his son splashes every penny on our club.

Even if Roman or his son or his great great grandson one day sell the club, think how rich the next bloke would have to be to buy it, and given our prestige and our location I don't doubt there'd be suitors lining around the corner.

 

Not at all worried.

Not underestimating the importance of a stadium and meeting fans' needs but from a financial point of view doesn't most of the money come from world wide TV rights these days?

Wonder if Chelsea FC are putting forward any representation on crossrail 2 and discussions on Station.

Could hold the key to developing our stadium with compulsory purchases and interchange at Fulham Broadway and associated works at the rear of the North Stand?

https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/june/have-your-say-on-crossrail-2

Edited June 10, 201412 yr by Nitro

The most disappointing aspect to all this, is that it may have in fact been us the fans, or rather a minority of them, who were and have been responsible for us missing out on the one suitable, in fantastic alternate site - ie Battersea

 

Its now clear Roman was in talks with the private owner, who at that time was being threatened with foreclosure by the banks - the refusal to pass on the CPO shares and freehold of Stamford Bridge, left our club in a terrible bargaining position and we lost what could have been the site for the most iconic stadium in world football

The most disappointing aspect to all this, is that it may have in fact been us the fans, or rather a minority of them, who were and have been responsible for us missing out on the one suitable, in fantastic alternate site - ie Battersea

 

Its now clear Roman was in talks with the private owner, who at that time was being threatened with foreclosure by the banks - the refusal to pass on the CPO shares and freehold of Stamford Bridge, left our club in a terrible bargaining position and we lost what could have been the site for the most iconic stadium in world football

It was all about bribes and corruption.Chelsea would never have got it.

It was all about bribes and corruption.Chelsea would never have got it.

It may have been once the banks foreclosed, but if Roman had been able to negotiate a private sale, there is a very good chance the new stadium build at battersea would now be underway

 

chelsea needed to have the freehold of stamford bridge though to be able to a)finance the deal and b) be sure they would not be stuck with the battersea site if at a later date CPO refused to transfer the shares

 

I hate to think it, but I think we made a huge mistake there

On one hand I do understand part of the reason why the CPO said no to start with but on the other hand i totally agree that because of that it delayed us so much that we missed out.

Like all Chelsea fans i love the bridge but it wont get any bigger. I for one thought that FFP was going to be a joke but it is starting to be taken seriously but most at least and in that case we need to be bringing in more money. Match days are a massive source of income. The more bums on seats means more money in our clubs pocket.

I worry that if something isnt done to get us more seats at the bridge or in a new home then if FFP keeps going and they really start clamping down on teams spending then we will be left behind the teams like United, Arsenal, even City and Liverpool are in talks to build on what they already have.

Agreed, the new stadium should be underway already, the clock is ticking and others are getting it done. We have to find a solution and quickly.

The main reason the CPO said no was because the club weren't up front with us - if the offer had been to give up the shares and the club will move within 3 miles of the Bridge I think the vote would have been yes.

The other thing that made us less trusting of the board was that they started buying up the maximum numbers of shares allowed prior to the offer.  Whatever Bruce Buck said, he's not a life-long Chelsea fan that bought shares to ensure the ground wasn't sold from under us.

The CPO held us back in the end it seems, but hey had good intentions

It may have been once the banks foreclosed, but if Roman had been able to negotiate a private sale, there is a very good chance the new stadium build at battersea would now be underway

 

chelsea needed to have the freehold of stamford bridge though to be able to a)finance the deal and b) be sure they would not be stuck with the battersea site if at a later date CPO refused to transfer the shares

 

I hate to think it, but I think we made a huge mistake there

Come on, the club handled the situation woefully so only have themselves to blame...talked to the press before the fans, a mysterious 'won't move beyond three miles before 2020' and buying up shares themselves...if it had been a sell shares cos we're moving to a specific site like earls court or battersea, then they probably would have won...but it was all so shady and such a sensitive issue, no wonder it ended with a no vote

Come on, the club handled the situation woefully so only have themselves to blame...talked to the press before the fans, a mysterious 'won't move beyond three miles before 2020' and buying up shares themselves...if it had been a sell shares cos we're moving to a specific site like earls court or battersea, then they probably would have won...but it was all so shady and such a sensitive issue, no wonder it ended with a no vote

 

I think the club handled it as well as they could, the rush was because they knew the Battersea site owner was in serious financial trouble and there was a window of opportunity to buy the site

 

But they needed to be sure they actually owned Stamford Bridge first, plus they could not just basically let the owner know they had to have the site by telling CPO it was Battersea they were moving to, less he just upped the price by tens of hundreds of millions

 

There was no conspiracy Im afraid, just Roman looking to buy a site for a new ground - nobody amongst the sayno campaign has ever been able to come up with a rational theory re any conspiracy either, all that is immaterial now though, the tragedy is we lost what could have been the best stadium location in the world and will from now on be at least £30-50m worse off re revenues compared to our bigger rivals

it was never ours to lose.

it was never ours to lose.

 

? not sure what that means - it was owned by someone else yes

 

By an Irish investor who got into financial difficulties and the banks were threatening foreclosure

 

it was at that time Roman had talks about purchasing the site off him, chelsea then rushed through the CPO share buyout deal, were knocked back and shortly later the banks did foreclose -  and it went to sealed bids on the open market

 

those are the facts of the matter - there was no conspiracy and chelsea's sealed bid of approx £300m fell short