5 hours ago, strider6004 said:

Curious to see you mention Sunderland 85 as an ugly atmosphere yet not Millwall in 95?

The difference was in the atmosphere before the game and the area of the ground I was aiming for.

I was a Shed ender in '85. (White Wall) I usually travelled over Wandsworth Bridge and then down the back streets and Fulham Road to the Britannia gate entrance. Fulham Road was absolutely rammed, I mean rammed, when I got to the ground. It quickly became clear I wasn't going to make it to the Britania gate so I decided to use the Bovril gate instead. That meant no real chance of getting to the White Wall and meeting my regular crew. Perhaps you were there that night in which case you must have felt the naked agro in the air. It was pay on the gate and it was clear that some people might not get in so it could all kick off at any moment. I read the runes and left. 

By '95 I had moved into the East Stand, had a ticket and arrived much earlier. It was Millwall so the fear of 'bover' was always in mind but that fear had really began to fade away by the mid 90s. In any case the feeling pregame was not as bad as it was 10 years before and you always felt that if there was going to be trouble in would come from the 'ends'.

5 hours ago, strider6004 said:

The transport link is interesting as i think under RA's plans there was going to be a direct channel constructed to the tube. Will that come back into play?

The direct access to Fulham Broadway would have to be a part of the plan as would redesigned platforms at interchange stations en route to FB. This will be necessary to cope with increased traffic. Remember we are projected to have crowds which are 50% bigger than we see now. The infrastructure will cope much better than it did years ago but it IS going to be a nightmare getting in and out of the ground. After the semi-final at Wembley a few weeks ago it took me an hour to get to Wembley Park along Olympic Way. Worse, there were a few loons baiting each other, including one particular Chelsea fan that was jus winding everybody up. A few punches were thrown but, thankfully, the idiots who would have kicked something off weren't all clustered together so there were always just enough people calming things down to keep a lid on the violence. It was an unpleasant glimps of the tye of transport issues which may lay ahead.. 

5 hours ago, strider6004 said:

Commercial use, could see the club hiring out the bars as private event venues yet apart from constructing advertising hoardings that probably do not being in much not sure what other possibilities there?

The redevelopment of the the Stamford bridge site I referred to was in the event that the football club moved to a stadium at a different location so the current site could be entirely redeveloped. If so, it would be worth hundreds of millions. Maybe half a billion even.

4 hours ago, Kantesmini said:

CPO wont budge, Battersea power station once lost pretty much the nail in the coffin for moving although earls court could sway some, Would have to spend big bags to get the plans and convince all the interested party's, Def something to look out for with the new ownership to see what they cook up etc

It is interesting that all of the bidders seemed to want people with property development expertise to be a part of the management team.

I think that CPO would budge if their conditions were met. The thing is that granting those conditions, the transfer of freehold and rights from Stamford to the new location, make no sense financially and there has to be a vanishingly small chance that any winning bidders would even consider it.

The cost of relocation would have to be assessed in the light of real numbers but, in principle, building at The Bridge is going to be an awkward, stressed site making it an expensive proposition. In addition, sequential stand closure will result in lost matchday income and extended build times. Building elsewhere would, in principle at least, be much more straightforward and so cheaper, would not entail lost matchday revenue and would be massively offset by the income from the sale/redevelopment of the existing SB site.

My guess is that, if we could relocate the football ground, the incoming owners would want to redevelop SB themselves and then own income generating, high value real estate, in a sought after area of one of the world's leading cities with a capital friendly structure of laws and financial regulations. A dream for money men and women.

Edited May 20, 20224 yr by OhForAGreavsie

1 hour ago, bisright1 said:

It would have to be somewhere close like Battersea or earls court. I can't think of another area that is even on the cards for a stadium. I'd hate to move any further than that and be very against it. 

I agree that any relocation would have to be geographically acceptable to the fan base. Chances are that all the words I've typed on this issue over the past 24 hours have been a total waste of time because no such site would be granted planning permission and perhaps simply does not even exist at all. 

Edited May 20, 20224 yr by OhForAGreavsie

40 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

It is interesting that all of the bidders seemed to want people with property development expertise to be a part of the management team.

I think that CPO would budge if their conditions were met. The thing is that granting those conditions, the transfer of freehold and rights from Stamford to the new location, make no sense financially and there has to be a vanishingly small chance that any winning bidders would even consider it.

The cost of relocation would have to be assessed in the light of real numbers but, in principle, building at The Bridge is going to be an awkward, stressed site making it an expensive proposition. In addition, sequential stand closure will result in lost matchday income and extended build times. Building elsewhere would, in principle at least, be much more straightforward and so cheaper, would not entail lost matchday revenue and would be massively offset by the income from the sale/redevelopment of the existing SB site.

My guess is that, if we could relocate the football ground, the incoming owners would want to redevelop SB themselves and then own income generating, high value real estate, in a sought after area of one of the world's leading cities with a capital friendly structure of laws and financial regulations. A dream for money men and women.

doubtful, All the holders i know although a tiny sample dont want to move from the bridge at all, Even bledy rory Jennings is against it! (cpo share holder)

Last I read homes was the plan for the earls court site and a 60k stadium was planned, new build on bridge wouldn't be far off that and we can get straight to work wont have to spend 10 years trying to grease all the palms to make it happen etc!!

9 minutes ago, Kantesmini said:

doubtful, All the holders i know although a tiny sample dont want to move from the bridge at all, Even bledy rory Jennings is against it! (cpo share holder)

Last I read homes was the plan for the earls court site and a 60k stadium was planned, new build on bridge wouldn't be far off that and we can get straight to work wont have to spend 10 years trying to grease all the palms to make it happen etc!!

The advantage of earls court though is zero time away from a full stadium that is ours. 

Rebuilding stand by stand you are looking at 4 years of reduced captacity. Rebuilding Stamford bridge entirely means 2-3 years at Wembley. 

I think the CPO could be won over on the issue. But who knows. 

37 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

The advantage of earls court though is zero time away from a full stadium that is ours. 

Rebuilding stand by stand you are looking at 4 years of reduced captacity. Rebuilding Stamford bridge entirely means 2-3 years at Wembley. 

I think the CPO could be won over on the issue. But who knows. 

If only we had a mini stadium like Barca and City do.

42 minutes ago, Kantesmini said:

10 years trying to grease all the palms to make it happen etc!!

Good point!

43 minutes ago, Kantesmini said:

All the holders i know although a tiny sample dont want to move from the bridge at all, Even bledy rory Jennings is against it!

Well the last time it was put to the CPO Roman won, by quite a big margin, backing for a move, just not the 75% he needed. (It was something like 60%-40% in favour of moving from memory. Easy to look up I guess but I'd rather type an excuse than actually do the work. 🙂) Bear in mind that offer by Roman did not include any CPO rights being transferred to the new site.

27 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Good point!

Well the last time it was put to the CPO Roman won, by quite a big margin, backing for a move, just not the 75% he needed. (It was something like 60%-40% in favour of moving from memory. Easy to look up I guess but I'd rather type an excuse than actually do the work. 🙂) Bear in mind that offer by Roman did not include any CPO rights being transferred to the new site.

It also didn't say where we'd move if memory serves which I think was the main sticking point for some 

29 minutes ago, Argo said:

If only we had a mini stadium like Barca and City do.

Im glad we aren't united. They literally have zero decent options if they knock down old Trafford. 

Rumours the club were pushing for it done to be done by Sunday. Reckon we’ll get an announcement tomorrow?

2 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Good point!

Well the last time it was put to the CPO Roman won, by quite a big margin, backing for a move, just not the 75% he needed. (It was something like 60%-40% in favour of moving from memory. Easy to look up I guess but I'd rather type an excuse than actually do the work. 🙂) Bear in mind that offer by Roman did not include any CPO rights being transferred to the new site.

I'm fairly certain it was to move to the power station as that was the excitement at the time, The plans looked amazing, Can't remember if it was the infrastructure that was also sticking point as the powers that be didnt want to pay for a bridge so the cost was mental, otherwise that was to do with a full Stamford bridge rebuild

3 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Rumours the club were pushing for it done to be done by Sunday. Reckon we’ll get an announcement tomorrow?

1 hour ago, JM7 said:

Rumours the club were pushing for it done to be done by Sunday. Reckon we’ll get an announcement tomorrow?

48 hours

4 hours ago, Argo said:

If only we had a mini stadium like Barca and City do.

Well we do have a mini stadium of sorts. Unfortunately Kingsmeadow is too small and definitely not of Premier League standard. That said, the terms of the sale agreement make it a contractual obligation that the new owners continue to develop Kingsmeadow. It will never be a suitable venue for competitive first team games.

2 hours ago, JM7 said:

Rumours the club were pushing for it done to be done by Sunday. Reckon we’ll get an announcement tomorrow?

2 hours ago, JM7 said:

Rumours the club were pushing for it done to be done by Sunday. Reckon we’ll get an announcement tomorrow?

Maybe at half time on Sunday. Big presentation, new owners running out in Chelsea kits. Hansjorg Wyss taking on the cross bar challange etc.

5 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Maybe at half time on Sunday. Big presentation, new owners running out in Chelsea kits. Hansjorg Wyss taking on the cross bar challange etc.

Jose Feliciano playing Liquidator.

6 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Maybe at half time on Sunday. Big presentation, new owners running out in Chelsea kits. Hansjorg Wyss taking on the cross bar challange etc.

Michael Knighton

Will we wear a new kit that we can’t buy!!

55 minutes ago, Richard P said:

Will we wear a new kit that we can’t buy!!

In view of Nike's past designs for us, that sounds like music to my ears 

Edited May 21, 20224 yr by Valerie

Have we officially cut ties with Three? I am personally ready to see that logo gone. We won the Champions League with that there but it still looks bad.

43 minutes ago, evissy said:

Have we officially cut ties with Three? I am personally ready to see that logo gone. We won the Champions League with that there but it still looks bad.

Hoping so. It’s a terrible logo. 

Does anyone know the full cost of moving and rebuilding the stadium ?

and what increased revenue a new stadium could generate ? Do the costs out weigh increased match day revenue ?.

and we have to consider that loans will probably finance the project ?

Clearlake investment are known to use debt to part  finance acquisitions, typically 60% according to the FT,  how does that all figure into a rebuild ?

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

Does anyone know the full cost of (1) moving and (2) rebuilding the stadium ?

 

(1) A lot

(2) A hell of a lot

And both will cost a lot more than initially expected.

Think how much it cost Spuds, with nowhere near the complexities facing us.