Jump to content

Our New Stadium


junio_oscarSY
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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 'your name on a brick' offer was a bit derisory too. I think if the club had promised to re-instate the CPO at any new ground they'd have won the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Your spot on mate, to be honest I was going to reply but after feeling like ive had to defend myself & other CPO holders over & over on various forums I couldn't be arsed.

 

End of the day we all voted NO in the interests of our beloved Chelsea, we had nothing to gain ourselves from a NO vote, the way Chelsea & the suits went about the whole process helped make our minds up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I recall a while back the club put up an article explaining in detail why Stamford Bridge couldn't be expanded. I wonder if this change is related to Labour winning control of Hammersmith and Fulham as, supposedly, they're a bit more favourable to us than the Tories are.

Edited by Englishman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your spot on mate, to be honest I was going to reply but after feeling like ive had to defend myself & other CPO holders over & over on various forums I couldn't be arsed.

 

End of the day we all voted NO in the interests of our beloved Chelsea, we had nothing to gain ourselves from a NO vote, the way Chelsea & the suits went about the whole process helped make our minds up.

You were looking for excuses not to have to leave the only Chelsea home we've known. Understandable but you cannot say the no vote was in the best interests of Chelsea - that much should be very clear at this point.

 

Regarding Barn's points, I don't mean to be rude but they're tosh. The CPO board has already spent huge sums of money they don't have investigating "dodgy" share sales at the demands of SayNO and found no wrongdoing. The secrecy was because the club were negotiating £bn projects behind the backs of competitors for the land and an uncooperative council, it would have been suicide to announce such plans in the public domain before they were concluded. Regarding the "no move outside three miles before 2020" promise, that was quite simply what it said on the tin - we wouldn't move outside the three mile radius unless we absolutely had to as all other options were exhausted; I would agree making this promise was a mistake because it gave the conspiracy theorists scope for creating nonsense about Milton Keynes, Surrey, Moscow etc etc to scare the necessary gullible minority into a no vote.

Edited by Fatty_Speeding
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call it tosh if you like but one of the biggest reasons why a number of fans just like me and my dad decided to vote no was because the moment Bruce Buck sat on Chelsea TV and said he bought the maximum number of shares possible was because he'd always loved Chelsea, was the moment I stopped trusting a word he uttered on the subject. I didn't expect the club to tell us details of what they were proposing but equally they didn't need to add the 3 mile radius time limit either.

Now if you believe that the majority of CPO shareholders are thick, easily led or just niaive or not one thing you can't doubt is that anyone that bought a share pre-Roman done so because they love the club. Any vote from those people was done with the best of intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a dream that we redevelop SB with 30 degree stands and rail seating.

60'000 packed around the ground, right on top of the action.

Massive tifo all round with banners of Ossie, Zola, Drogba and other past legends.

Maybe one day aye ?

Edited by coco
Link to comment
Share on other sites


.

Now if you believe that the majority of CPO shareholders are thick, easily led or just niaive or not one thing you can't doubt is that anyone that bought a share pre-Roman done so because they love the club.

The vast majority of CPO shareholder didn't vote no as you suggest they voted yes!.

The vote went something like 39% no to 61% yes. The reason the motion didn't succeed was that it required75% share of the vote

So using your own words are you suggesting that the 61% are thick etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were looking for excuses not to have to leave the only Chelsea home we've known. Understandable but you cannot say the no vote was in the best interests of Chelsea - that much should be very clear at this point.

 

 

Regarding Barn's points, I don't mean to be rude but they're tosh. The CPO board has already spent huge sums of money they don't have investigating "dodgy" share sales at the demands of SayNO and found no wrongdoing. The secrecy was because the club were negotiating £bn projects behind the backs of competitors for the land and an uncooperative council, it would have been suicide to announce such plans in the public domain before they were concluded. Regarding the "no move outside three miles before 2020" promise, that was quite simply what it said on the tin - we wouldn't move outside the three mile radius unless we absolutely had to as all other options were exhausted; I would agree making this promise was a mistake because it gave the conspiracy theorists scope for creating nonsense about Milton Keynes, Surrey, Moscow etc etc to scare the necessary gullible minority into a no vote.

As much as you  can say that the no vote was not in the best interests of Chelsea I can say the opposite. It's an opinion and time will tell. As a CPO I voted no for a number of reasons.

 

With regard to the commercial side of things it would have been very simple to get a CPO to vote yes for example:

Don't try to bribe me with a named brick.

Don't try to gerrymander the vote by buying up shares.

Automatically transfer ownership of the new ground pitch etc. to the CPO.

Allow the CPO to influence the design of the stadium. ( My own personal preference was a large youth area called The Shed with a maximum ticket price for the next x number of years.)

Agree a set of circumstances which the CPO would vote on which result in a yes vote. Thus provided those circumstances were met the commercial side was not impacted upon. Since then nothing has been done to facilitate such an agreement which the CPO could vote on regarding a move away from SB. I wonder why but see no point in spending time thinking about that.

 

What was clear to me was that the commercial side saw an opportunity to own a prime piece of real estate which would more than fund a new stadium. No problem with that but remember our perspective comes from loving the club which includes it's history. Their perspective is all about money. Do you fancy going to watch Chelsea playing at home somewhere, anywhere. Plenty of places that come cheaper than West London. 

I was not surprised that they didn't offer us a share in the surplus funds as opposed to a brick. Perhaps that would have come later.

Unlike other clubs the CPO gives supporters/fans of the club a real and influential voice. Ask Wimbledon/Cardiff fans how they feel.

 

As for the most recent news; this is just a study. It shows willing but may lead to a cul de sac. Expansion of capacity is absolutely necessary from a financial perspective (FFP) and if we leave SB so be it. It is not the same as it used to be, that went a long time ago so a purpose built stadium may be the only solution. My personal preference is near where I live but since that is about 150 miles from SB that might not go down too well.

 

Yes Battersea would have been iconic and a potentially glorious location in Chelsea heartland. The CPO were underestimated and treated with complete disrespect. Hence the shambles that ensued. If I were RA I would have considered removing the person responsible for that debacle. A yes vote could easily have been obtained for Battersea.

 

Like Carshalton I too am a little weary of defending the CPO position. I have grown used to the modern demands for instant satisfaction by the fans and supporters of Chelsea FC.

For me the CPO has only in mind the LONG TERM future of Chelsea FC. 

 

If only for the CPO I thank Bates for that. 

Edited by shedhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me set one thing straight, I voted Yes. That said it was a bloody tough decision and done with massive reservations, my posts have been to try and explain why so many voted no. And with damned good reason. Those suggesting they were wrong to do so obviously don't fully understand how close we came to losing the club and why CPO shareholders deserve some respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while respecting anyone that voted yes barn, those that voted no should also be respected for not wanting to abandon our historical home on a whim and a prayer...I appreciate the need for a bigger stadium to compete and cope with ffp, but people seem to forget the soulless venues that can be created in its place...arsenal have had a pretty ground for eight-nine years, but it is about as intimidating as an oj and lemonade...

If the no vote leads the club to redevelop sb, a big if at this stage, then surely it will have been the right decision all along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RFC_CFC

Don't think you can blame any side, everyone who voted did so for the best in their minds.

No one wants to move to a souless stadium of course yet no one wants to lose our standing because we can't get a stadium the likes of West Ham and other small clubs have got.

It's a huge problem and this move by Roman is by no means a solution at this stage...hopefully it will be though.

In the end we will need a bigger stadium no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


And while respecting anyone that voted yes barn, those that voted no should also be respected for not wanting to abandon our historical home on a whim and a prayer...I appreciate the need for a bigger stadium to compete and cope with ffp, but people seem to forget the soulless venues that can be created in its place...arsenal have had a pretty ground for eight-nine years, but it is about as intimidating as an oj and lemonade...

If the no vote leads the club to redevelop sb, a big if at this stage, then surely it will have been the right decision all along

Exactly the point I was trying to make mate, that's why I needed to make it clear to some that I'm arguing on behalf of the No voters whilst that's not actually the view I took.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest RFC_CFC

I think it's been announced to let us know they are looking into it, nothing more.

We still face the same problems we faced when we looked at this years ago. We just need to keep our fingers crossed there is a chance for redevelopment to a decent level at the Bridge.

Losing out on the last site meant facing years in the wilderness unless we try everything to see what we can do to our current site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good reaction piece on the statement by CFCTruth:

 

 

 

 
Stamford Bridge statement - a bit of analysis
 
CFC have announced that they are to begin a process of consultation on local needs and it was an interesting - and guarded - statement from the club yesterday. The suggestion that there is no presumption on the part of the club is an olive branch to locals but we all know that designs exist. The statement also suggests that the club are looking at the possibilities within the "existing boundaries" of the site which would appear to count out Oswald Stoll or other properties. We are still, therefore, left with the difficult physical notion of getting a larger stadium into the half pint pot that is the 11.5 acre site...... 
 
The issues of egress are key, of course, and the old nugget of roofing over the railway tracks along to West Brompton is back. This also raises the question of Brompton Cemetery who will have to be involved in that process since the Royal Park's managed land abuts the railway tracks. Interestingly, the Royal Parks are in the process of bidding for money for a substantial renovation and conservation project for the cemetery and CFC may well consider becoming 
a generous donor. Or, conversely, from that project may emerge fierce opposition..it is Crown land after all that they are about to beautify.More on the project here; http://www.royalparks.org.uk/projects/brompton-cemetery-conservation-project 
 
So we would appear to be at the start of a long road; the pre-planning consultation, unquestionably at the behest of the council who will no doubt be intensely interested in the reaction of local residents, is a sensible move. The costs that may emerge from the consultation should the opposition be intensive (we expect it will be) along with the overall build costs of the project, will determine the eventual outcome. 
 
Our concern is that there is some cynicism afoot already which essentially proposes that the club is merely going through the process in order to prove an expansion of SB is NOT feasible, given costs and resident opposition. The club, ironically, is partly in its current position because of the behaviour of the previous council administration who successfully contributed to scuppering the vote in October 2011 which would have seen the club in a stronger position over EC. However, that is in the past but it is not unreasonable to believe that the new administration is nervous too. Access to West Brompton will probably require the co-operation of CapCo who are developing the Seagrave Road car park scheme, past which a walkway will run - but the new council is in the process of challenging the EC development (to which it is hostile) and the sale of West Ken and Gibbs Green Estates. That little triangle of animosity will be a curious one to watch and CFC are again in the middle of it. 
 
We expect the club is genuinely trying to tease out the extent of any opposition to the idea of SB expansion. We hope fans will listen to the results. What is abundantly clear is that any development is now going to involve huge additional costs, substantial contributions to local projects and a hell of a lot of argument. The development will also take a great deal of time. If Roman has decided to commit the money and can find a sensible solution then we would all be happy that the club can remain at Stamford Bridge. We remain sceptical that it is possible with all that will be against it. But the club are trying and we look forward to the results of the study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!