6 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Honestly we are going by emotion here. Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham had to leave their grounds rather than rebuild them because it made the most financial sense.

Logically it is best for the club to build a new stadium elsewhere. We all know that, but we dont want to leave the bridge. We want to be different and be able to hold on to that history and identity.

We may have to accept in so doing to causes a huge financial drain on the club.

And despite of making all the financial sense, these clubs do not only keep been mediocre but have also lost their soul and are not financially better positioned than us. Not good comparisons there mate, we don't want to go that way, they've done it and it has taken them nowhere nice.

23 minutes ago, RMH said:

And despite of making all the financial sense, these clubs do not only keep been mediocre but have also lost their soul and are not financially better positioned than us. Not good comparisons there mate, we don't want to go that way, they've done it and it has taken them nowhere nice.

Thing is, romance all you like, with the state of our stadium and one of the lowest capacities in top flight football and without RM backing we are going to decline very rapidly. This season we have just about scrapped into the CL next year.

21 minutes ago, Kev56 said:

Thing is, romance all you like, with the state of our stadium and one of the lowest capacities in top flight football and without RM backing we are going to decline very rapidly. This season we have just about scrapped into the CL next year.

Personally think that the big money is now online, online sales and pay-per-view.  You don't want to lose the atmosphere in your stadium or your character.   I'm all for Stamford Bridge being upgraded, I don't want a rebuild.

13 minutes ago, mez said:

Personally think that the big money is now online, online sales and pay-per-view.  You don't want to lose the atmosphere in your stadium or your character.   I'm all for Stamford Bridge being upgraded, I don't want a rebuild.

From a money perspective, it's the corporate end they seem to be looking at. Both Arsenal and Spurs are able to make good money from this.

Doesn't add much to the atmosphere though as is evident from the Emirates.

1 hour ago, RMH said:

And despite of making all the financial sense, these clubs do not only keep been mediocre but have also lost their soul and are not financially better positioned than us. Not good comparisons there mate, we don't want to go that way, they've done it and it has taken them nowhere nice.

Keeping SB doesn't mean we will keep our soul either. SB is currently no longer the fortress it once was. It's already losing its soul.

Also I can point to Man United and OT. Old Trafford has lost its soul and the club is mediocre.

Either we keep SB and end up like Man United (but with a smaller stadium), or rebuild our stadium with higher capacity and end up like Arsenal, Spurs and WH.

Or, rebuild the stadium and create our own destiny.

Edited April 25, 20224 yr by Mana

49 minutes ago, Kev56 said:

Thing is, romance all you like, with the state of our stadium and one of the lowest capacities in top flight football and without RM backing we are going to decline very rapidly. This season we have just about scrapped into the CL next year.

I’m all up for a renewal of the stadium with an increase in capacity, but I’m also aware that I’ve been to games pre-pandemic where there were plenty of empty seats (Bournemouth when we lost to them at home, for one) or we weren’t able to sell out the semifinal against Crystal Palace. A new stadium elsewhere with an increased capacity can mean an increase in ticket price, increased capacity for corporative, less noise (even less than at the moment) and uprooting from our part of town to no one knows where. It can also mean that the club increases its revenue, but most of the money comes now from the tv and sponsors, not matchday income. We know what a new stadium has done to other teams in London, and they are in great debt too and keeping the team expenditure to a minimum, let’s keep it simple ourselves. Renew Stamford Bridge and try to get younger ones into the stadium again. Many of the away supporters that I travel with don’t usually come to the Bridge because of the expenses, and they are the younger and noisier ones. Try to get them back into a renewed, but affordable stadium.

17 minutes ago, Mana said:

Keeping SB doesn't mean we will keep our soul either. SB is currently no longer the fortress it once was. It's already losing its soul.

Also I can point to Man United and OT. Old Trafford has lost its soul and the club is mediocre.

Either we keep SB and end up like Man United (but with a smaller stadium), or rebuild our stadium with higher capacity and end up like Arsenal, Spurs and WH.

Or, rebuild the stadium and create our own destiny.

Or renew our stadium and keep winning silverware as we’ve been doing in the last 20 years.

12 minutes ago, RMH said:

Or renew our stadium and keep winning silverware as we’ve been doing in the last 20 years.

Under RA's leadership. That's going to change now.

4 hours ago, RMH said:

And despite of making all the financial sense, these clubs do not only keep been mediocre but have also lost their soul and are not financially better positioned than us. Not good comparisons there mate, we don't want to go that way, they've done it and it has taken them nowhere nice.

West ham significantly better off to be fair, competing in the top half and attracting good players. Tottenham have secured their place as a top tier club for the next 2 decades and have a better stadium for it! Arsenal are the only ones who might apply but I'd say it was a necessary change. They'd be worse off now if they didn't move. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10751023/Chelsea-bidders-told-guarantee-not-sell-club-TEN-YEARS.html

This is good news...as long as the new owners are competent! It is annoying that the sale is seemingly dragging on, we might have lost Rudiger indirectly because of it and also fail to get other targets. But the long-term future and stability of the club are paramount. In another thread, I mentioned my hometown club being relegated from the league, a founding member of the Premier League, and being f**ked over by a series of incompetent owners over the decades. Whilst they are a lot smaller in size to Chelsea, it serves as a lesson to all of how bad things can get if you have rogue owners. 

11 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Honestly we are going by emotion here. Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham had to leave their grounds rather than rebuild them because it made the most financial sense.

Logically it is best for the club to build a new stadium elsewhere. We all know that, but we dont want to leave the bridge. We want to be different and be able to hold on to that history and identity.

We may have to accept in so doing to causes a huge financial drain on the club.

Tell that to the cpo

One of the best things about the club IMO

No chance they will vote to leave esp after Battersea power station stuff, Which was the absolute best and pretty much only option

Might as well build a new bowl on Epstein's island, probably more feasible for a total re build!!!

33 minutes ago, charierre said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10751023/Chelsea-bidders-told-guarantee-not-sell-club-TEN-YEARS.html

This is good news...as long as the new owners are competent! It is annoying that the sale is seemingly dragging on, we might have lost Rudiger indirectly because of it and also fail to get other targets. But the long-term future and stability of the club are paramount. In another thread, I mentioned my hometown club being relegated from the league, a founding member of the Premier League, and being f**ked over by a series of incompetent owners over the decades. Whilst they are a lot smaller in size to Chelsea, it serves as a lesson to all of how bad things can get if you have rogue owners. 

It could actually very well ruin us.

Why? Because we end up with bitter owners who are making excuses about funding and what not but we cant legally get rid, We would be absolutely stuck

Also the 10 years is most likely about the money i.e in 10yrs time the club will be worth way more (expect the club to be sold for bitcoin by then!)

Its almost like raine or the gov are trying to get rid of everyone but the people they actually want by changing the goal posts every few days

 

 

5 hours ago, Frankie8Lampard said:

TT all but confirmed the sanctions are really what f**ked us over in resigning Rudiger. I'm beyond frustrated at this whole takeover situation. 

 From everything I thing I have read it was AR and his agents demands that scuttled the deal. The sanctions of course meant we couldn’t go in with further offers but the simple fact is that at some point you just have to accept that the numbers just don’t add up and for a player who is 30 next season wanting a 3 , 4 or 5 year  deal on £200k per week plus signing on fee plus a sum amounting to millions payable to his agent is mind blowing.

Of course we will miss him but it would be madness to sign off on a deal that even if it were just a 4 year deal would mean a financial commitment of circa £65 million.

I suspect that AR is like Hazard is chasing a dream. I hope it works out for him but he will find that the tolerance of his type of aggression in Spain is far less than here in England similarly the press and supporters won’t tolerate the sort of performances he put in prior to TT arrival. 

 

Question is do we look for CBs who can play 4 at the back? If that is the case, we need to improve our midfield 10x and unfortunately that doesn't include Jorginho and Kante. 

3 minutes ago, Kantesmini said:

It could actually very well ruin us.

Why? Because we end up with bitter owners who are making excuses about funding and what not but we cant legally get rid, We would be absolutely stuck

Also the 10 years is most likely about the money i.e in 10yrs time the club will be worth way more (expect the club to be sold for bitcoin by then!)

Its almost like raine or the gov are trying to get rid of everyone but the people they actually want by changing the goal posts every few days

 

 

Think you will find that this requirement originates from RA who it is said feels that this will ensure stability. 
 

 

Wouldnt be suprised if this is all about angling to get the club onto the public listings like man utd

That would probably be pretty sweet as we would have unlimited resources and it almost cancels out ffp etc

Just now, terraloon said:

Think you will find that this requirement originates from RA who it is said feels that this will ensure stability. 
 

 

Does anyone know if roman is even involved?

My take was that raine actually technically own us and its their job to find someone new and perhaps roman wrote them what he would like to see

Interesting Q: Can roman decline the best bid if he doesn't like it?

According to many on here romans a high flying kgb agent who was in it for the money and to help putin, Does he really care? he just wants his money back!

Otherwise its a fire sale and lots of white noise!

7 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Question is do we look for CBs who can play 4 at the back? If that is the case, we need to improve our midfield 10x and unfortunately that doesn't include Jorginho and Kante. 

To a large degree the bulk of our problems stem from midfield.

Jorgino and Kante just don’t offer the goal threat and in Jorginhos case he is far to lacking in pace and alas Kante gives the ball away far too much.

Gallagher offered energy, a goal scoring threat but does not have the killer ball but I could well see him, Kovacic and a defensive midfielder providing a more dynamic midfield.

We will need two CB but it’s possible that Reece James may well be a first choice wide on the right of a 3 CD . Sarr is just not good enough but there are two youngsters who may well be in Colwill and Xavier Mbuyamba

8 minutes ago, Kantesmini said:

Wouldnt be suprised if this is all about angling to get the club onto the public listings like man utd

That would probably be pretty sweet as we would have unlimited resources and it almost cancels out ffp etc

Don't have to worry about ffp anyway because UEFA binned it for now. There are talks to reintroduce it at some point, but apparently it will be focused on player wages.

5 minutes ago, Kantesmini said:

Does anyone know if roman is even involved?

My take was that raine actually technically own us and its their job to find someone new and perhaps roman wrote them what he would like to see

Interesting Q: Can roman decline the best bid if he doesn't like it?

According to many on here romans a high flying kgb agent who was in it for the money and to help putin, Does he really care? he just wants his money back!

Otherwise its a fire sale and lots of white noise!

RA choose the Raine Group prior to UK sanctions and of course it’s important to note that he still isn’t sanctioned in the US so will have no problems communicating with Raine.

Whilst the offers are being assessed by Raine the broad criteria will almost certainly been set by RA.

I think far too much overthinking is going on here in terms of the UK government’s input quite simply because their involvement will be no more that to change the license to enable the sale of shares . The fit and proper person’s paperwork will be reviewed and signed off  by the PL the UK government won’t want to be anywhere near the sign off 

6 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

Don't have to worry about ffp anyway because UEFA binned it for now. There are talks to reintroduce it at some point, but apparently it will be focused on player wages.

It’s not be binned at all. It looks like it will be in a year or two but for now it remains albeit slightly adjusted due to COVID

 

This is worth a read

 

https://www.si.com/soccer/chelsea/news/uk-government-expected-to-agree-deal-with-roman-abramovich-over-1-5-billion-chelsea-debt

19 minutes ago, terraloon said:

It’s not be binned at all. It looks like it will be in a year or two but for now it remains albeit slightly adjusted due to COVID

 

Well, technically it's not been binned, but it's been relaxed to such a state that it should never really be an issue for any club unless they are run terribly. It's also set to go through big changes soon, so ffp as we know it has effectively been binned.

I wish this wasn't taking so long.  Will be a weight off players, staff and fans once we can just move forward.  Just hopeful it is sorted by late May and we retain back office staff for some level of continuity and transfer execution.  

I think it’s awful that we’ve allowed the govt to ban us from renewing contracts. The CLUB have been negatively hurt because of this. There’s no need for it with the sale clearly in the final stages. Sanction Roman but not the club. We’ve lost an assets worth £40-60m because of this. If you include potential transfer targets as we, the figure could be very large. 
 

What’s worse is as fans, we’ve just sat back and accepted it. No protests or anything. Shameful.