Couple of points -

 

That we somehow owe CPO something for them saving the club or similar is a complete fallacy, CPO did nothing but attempt to protect the future of Stamford Bridge WAY after Ken Bates had already fought off the threat of property developers, CPO's "protection" never came into use as no further threats ensued. Any effects they have had have been negative.

 

That CPO were right to object to the vote because we might, possibly, perhaps move somewhere undesirable is based on the idea that Roman would suddenly decide to flip off the entire core fan base he had worked so hard to ingratiate himself with and permanently tarnish the history of his time at Chelsea. Personally I think that's a little far fetched but then again... maybe he's an alien.

Couple of points -

 

That we somehow owe CPO something for them saving the club or similar is a complete fallacy, CPO did nothing but attempt to protect the future of Stamford Bridge WAY after Ken Bates had already fought off the threat of property developers, CPO's "protection" never came into use as no further threats ensued. Any effects they have had have been negative.

 

That CPO were right to object to the vote because we might, possibly, perhaps move somewhere undesirable is based on the idea that Roman would suddenly decide to flip off the entire core fan base he had worked so hard to ingratiate himself with and permanently tarnish the history of his time at Chelsea. Personally I think that's a little far fetched but then again... maybe he's an alien.

CPO was bought in so that after Bates had left/died Stamford Bridge could never be under threat again, who better to protect the ground than generations of fans.

Couple of points -

 

That we somehow owe CPO something for them saving the club or similar is a complete fallacy, CPO did nothing but attempt to protect the future of Stamford Bridge WAY after Ken Bates had already fought off the threat of property developers, CPO's "protection" never came into use as no further threats ensued. Any effects they have had have been negative.

 

That CPO were right to object to the vote because we might, possibly, perhaps move somewhere undesirable is based on the idea that Roman would suddenly decide to flip off the entire core fan base he had worked so hard to ingratiate himself with and permanently tarnish the history of his time at Chelsea. Personally I think that's a little far fetched but then again... maybe he's an alien.

Pretty sure when he appointed FSW he wasn't thinking about ingratiating himself with the core fan base! who can tell what he would do?

CPO was bought in so that after Bates had left/died Stamford Bridge could never be under threat again, who better to protect the ground than generations of fans.

Depends, are those fans educated on the inner workings of how to run a football club and £bn land deals?

 

Pretty sure when he appointed FSW he wasn't thinking about ingratiating himself with the core fan base! who can tell what he would do?

Sacking someone who caused us to be knocked out of the Champions League group stages and plummet down the table seemingly unstoppably and replacing him on a 6 month contract with someone who ensured automatic Champions League qualification and won us the Europa League... seems more forgivable than permanently moving us to Milton Keynes/Moscow doesn't it?

I have had time to reply to your post a bit better now.

 

 

As I said, this is massively missing the point.

Some things are more important to fans than trophy counts, league positions and 'marquee signings'; where we play and our identity is absolutely one of these things.

 

Referencing the fact he is a business man (as opposed to a fan like you you or I) only goes to demonstrate my point further in the context of this discussion. It may make perfect business and financial sense to move to a location however this location could be somewhere that the fans find unacceptable. 

 

 

He's not just a businessman though. He's someone who took this club from a very precarious position and pushed us to the very top of world football, and what exactly has he asked for in return?? My point was that the vote showed a tremendous lack of faith in a man who has given this club and it's supporters so much.

 

He may not have grown up in London walking down the Fulham Road but he's definitely one of our own.

 

 

 

List of demands? We would hardly be stamping our feet demanding golden toilet seats and reclining leather sofas in the stands.

We would simply be looking for reassurance that the heart and soul won't be ripped out of our club. We would be looking for reassurance that the club we have followed and loved for decades will not lose it's identity overnight. Hardly taking the piss.

 

 

The fans and our history are this club's heart and soul and they aren't going anywhere. The true, loyal supporters turn up home and away,always have done.

 

 

Think you are reading too much into that comment and getting a bit defensive about it as a result.

Most Chelsea fans these days probably weren't born in London and it really doesn't matter. My point was just that he is a billionaire from Russia who decided to buy Chelsea in 2003 when he got into football. I don't know about you but that makes him pretty different from most of the match going Chelsea fans I know. 

 

 

Our fanbase is massively diverse, but he turns up more often than almost any other owner and quite a lot of supporters too. Everyone has to start supporting their club at some point but I think it's fair to say he's proved his mettle.

 

 

 

Actually Benitez was appointed in 2012 but your point remains that it was after the vote, my mistake. 

 

Easy mistake. I worked off him taking over in the second-half of the 2013 season and got confused.

 

Sorry I took so long to reply but you made some good points and I wanted to respond properly. My general feeling is that the CPO has it's own agendas going on and as in any organisation like that, some people make decisions based on their own self-interest. I also think Roman deserves a bit more trust and faith whilst also recognising that we're in a tough position with regards real estate in one of the most expensive areas of land in the whole world. 

That vote really did come down to trust and faith in the current owner and board (well for me at least).  As I've said on here many times I voted in favour of giving up my share to the board but it was a really really tough decision.  They were far too sneaky in the way they were dealing with the whole thing, things like Bruce Buck buying the maximum number of shares just before the vote and claiming it was because he's a life long Chelsea fan being the highlight for me.

As for Mr Abramovic, he's been a brilliant owner but I don't believe he's one of us I do think when the time suits him he'll go and won't look back - that's a matter of opinion though and it's each to their own on that.  Who would have thought though after all the years and battles that he went through that Bates would walk away and never appear to hold any fondness for the club after he left?

 

People that try to belittle what the CPO have done and what they stand for in my opinion have no real understanding of how close we were to not having a club and it's going through periods like that which make some fans think the club means more to them than some of the newer fans.  It's tough because you can't really show your worth to the club till you go through some bad times, lets hope that's a long time off for us.

 

But final point; CPO voted the way they did because they care for the club, they may have got it wrong (we'll never know for sure) but if they did it was for the right reasons.

 

 

Sacking someone who caused us to be knocked out of the Champions League group stages and plummet down the table seemingly unstoppably and replacing him on a 6 month contract with someone who ensured automatic Champions League qualification and won us the Europa League... seems more forgivable than permanently moving us to Milton Keynes/Moscow doesn't it?

 

Plummeting unstoppably down the table from first to.....erm... third? A whole 4 points a drift from the league leaders City at the time. 

 

But thank god Benitez came in and rescued our season and managed to pick us up and take us from third place to eventually finish the season in..... third place, 14 points a drift of the league leaders. 

 

"Ah yes, but Benitez delivered the Europa league and that proves the decision to appoint him was justified" I hear you cry....

 

Not wanting to belittle the Europa league but it's worth remembering that the only team that had any right to be beating us in that competition were Benfica, who incidentally savagely outplayed us from start to finish in the final before we won in smash & grab style. That would be the same Benfica who were the easiest team we met in the knockout stages of the Champions League when we won it under RDM and the one team who you could genuinely say we outplayed over the two legs. 

 

At the end of the day it was our failure to get out of the group stages in the CL the following year that cost Di Matteo his job.

Whilst ultimately not good enough, it's worth remembering that Man City had also failed to get out the group stages managing it without picking up a singe win in their group. It was also fine margins that saw us fail to qualify in a hard group, finishing with 10 points, joint with Shakhtar. Had goal difference been the deciding factor we would have progressed. 

 

None of this is relevant to this thread to be fair but I can't stand people who still go along with the media driven story that Benitez came in and 'saved us'. 

Edited March 16, 201511 yr by mclovin83

None of this is relevant to this thread to be fair but I can't stand people who still go along with the media driven story that Benitez came in and 'saved us'. 

 

Agreed with all your post but especially this bit.  We were appalling under him - and yes, I admit, made more so by who he was.  He would have had to do a hell of a lot to be accepted but even allowing for my dislike and prejudice, he came nowhere near.  He was not a success.  Remember QPR.

Agreed with all your post but especially this bit.  We were appalling under him - and yes, I admit, made more so by who he was.  He would have had to do a hell of a lot to be accepted but even allowing for my dislike and prejudice, he came nowhere near.  He was not a success.  Remember QPR.

Is that the twin of Rafa Who?

Love this

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CAOzsMCVIAE5TUg.mp4

Agreed with all your post but especially this bit.  We were appalling under him - and yes, I admit, made more so by who he was.  He would have had to do a hell of a lot to be accepted but even allowing for my dislike and prejudice, he came nowhere near.  He was not a success.  Remember QPR.

 

And Swansea.

Not to mention the fact that we f*cked up the Capital One Cup when we were easily the best team left in it, and the Club World Cup when we were easily the best team to enter that too. Yes, the players deserve blame too, but Benitez's lack of motivational skills and dumb substitutions clearly were a factor too.

 

The job that Benitez did was Ok IMO overall. He wasn't a total failure but he also definitely was not a resounding success either.

 

Still a c*** though.

Edited March 18, 201511 yr by Celery1989

There's been no real update on the stadium plans for quite a while now, I hope there is still a strong focus on this within the club and that there haven't been too many distractions.

There's been no real update on the stadium plans for quite a while now, I hope there is still a strong focus on this within the club and that there haven't been too many distractions.

 

By the time it get's sorted out and finished, we will be old men. Say another 5 years in planning, and 4 years to construct, I'll be bloody nearly 60.

By the time it get's sorted out and finished, we will be old men. Say another 5 years in planning, and 4 years to construct, I'll be bloody nearly 60.

I'm half way to 60 as it is !

There's been no real update on the stadium plans for quite a while now, I hope there is still a strong focus on this within the club and that there haven't been too many distractions.

I saw something last month about Wimbledon residents and Kingsmeadow stadium. Then the naming of the architects, but they were linked with Earls Court? I've stopped looking at the hideous Battersea mock up.

By the time it get's sorted out and finished, we will be old men. Say another 5 years in planning, and 4 years to construct, I'll be bloody nearly 60.

I probably won't be around!

I probably won't be around!

 

This is interesting.

 

West Ham are reducing prices to fill the Olympic Stadium when they move there, which flies in the face of many people's argument that a bigger ground would automatically lead to higher prices for us.

 

I have always said bigger ground = lower prices in general.

 

It's basic supply and demand. If you have two tickets they go for millions. If you have millions they go for two quid, if you want to sell all of them.

 

People often cite Arsenal and say their prices have gone up, but Arsenal can fill their ground ten times over. They have a waiting list for season tickets as long as your arm.

 

If they had a smaller ground their tickets currently would be more expensive than they are.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32399291

^ I'd still say we're much closer to Arsenal than West Ham though regarding what would happen at a new ground. Clubs will generally charge as much as they can get away with and still fill the stadium. West Ham have an additional 30,000 seats to fill and probably don't have the fanbase to fill them. They also have the added advantage of a brand new stadium they didn't have to pay for, so they can afford to be more generous.

^ I'd still say we're much closer to Arsenal than West Ham though regarding what would happen at a new ground. Clubs will generally charge as much as they can get away with and still fill the stadium. West Ham have an additional 30,000 seats to fill and probably don't have the fanbase to fill them. They also have the added advantage of a brand new stadium they didn't have to pay for, so they can afford to be more generous.

 

Spot on. If we were to increase the number of tickets available to say 60,000 then prices would remain broadly the same simply because they will sell at that price. Fact is prices have been frozen for the last 3 seasons and will be next year as well.

 

West Ham don't have the fanbase to sell extra seats at the same price so will see this as an opportunity to expand the numbers of fans who go to games whereas we would be looking to service the current supporters who want to go to matches but simply can't because of a lack of supply.

Interesting piece today r.e. West Ham's move http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/22/west-ham-season-ticket-prices-olympic-stadium-taxpayers-money-karren-brady

This is interesting.

West Ham are reducing prices to fill the Olympic Stadium when they move there, which flies in the face of many people's argument that a bigger ground would automatically lead to higher prices for us.

Difference being West Ham are only paying £2.5m a year for their brand new stadium as part of their 99 year lease agreement.

The £200m cost to covert the athletic stadium into a football one is being funded by the tax payer.

So West Ham get a bigger ground at almost zero cost, price reductions aren't really to be applauded.

Considering that if Chelsea for example built a brand new 60k stadium it would cost the club probably £450m+ we, like Arsenal did, would probably have to increase ticket prices to cover costs of the new build.

when we do get round to building a new stadium, we'd better make sure it's big enough to accommodate our world-wide fan base

 

http://talksport.com/football/which-premier-league-football-club-has-most-fans-around-world-find-out-here-150422144147?p=4

Clubs will generally charge as much as they can get away with and still fill the stadium.

 

The harder it is to obtain a ticket, the more you can get away with charging.