1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Can't be a good look for Clearlake's clients when we still don't have a f**king front shirt sponsor...

Our " commercial savvy" owners said that we weren't exploiting out commercial side to the maximum when they arrived, predicting that they would double it . 😁

3 hours ago, charierre said:

Interesting take on the current situation, much of it speculation though who honestly hand on heart say that it isn't reality?

Ah if only that proved to be true. Would be worth this season, next season, however many seasons talking to get rid of Clearlake, who only ever saw us as a good asset at a reduced cost, a money maker, just as was mentioned here and in several other places.

17 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Not to sound like a c*nt, (Munk will tell you I am but that's beside the point),  I honestly don't believe the ownership gives a toss about people like yourself, Chelsea through and through, CPO, season ticket holders, members etc.

They are not alone in this, am sure the Glazers are exactly the same with united fans. If they could do away with season tickets and members and fill the stadium with tourist and people willing to pay 400% or more mark up on tickets and have a stadium of silence (minus the away fans) they would absolutely do it, imo.

I mean if they only got 30,000 average attendance at bridge doing so, for example, but got 400% more per ticket, then that is the same as if they had 120,000 people paying regular price.

So if these ticket websites can deliver the numbers they want, why spend any money on developing or building a new stadium?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the club doesn't care about ST holders, members etc which is a shame given how much we've given to the club in money and time over the years. Many have sat together for years and have formed friendships. The people I go to games with usually only meet up on match days and the banter with have in the pub before and after the game is brilliant and is sometimes better than the game itself. If STs and memberships are done away with goodness knows what the atmosphere would be like. At the recent CPO AGM -see my post in the Our New Stadium thread - two of the points made by Gannon were about the match day experience and future capacity. Match day experience can mean many things to many people. For some including me it is meeting up in the pub or cafe before and after the game to discuss Chelsea, football in general and life in general; the experiences of travelling to away matches; and games gone by. At the CPO AGM Gannon was asked about capacity of a developed or new stadium and he replied that could be depend on financial considerations. That could mean anything and could tie in with your comment on reduced capacity and at higher prices.

I received an email with a link to a survey earlier today from the Chelsea Supporters Trust about ticket touting and if Chelsea FC is doing anything about it. I completed the survey and commented that I don't believe the club is. I also mentioned that tickets for remaining home games are available on vivid seats. Hopefully the club will see the results of the survey and respond. Cynical bastard that I am I suspect that the club will spout a load of legal mumbo jumbo and that they can't give a full answer due to commercial considerations.

I don't think we're alone. I've spoken to a West Ham fan who drinks in my local pub and has supported that team for about fifty years and feels the same about their board and not thinking of long term fans.

Would be nice if the club were to make a statement about the future of the stadium, season tickets but then again...

KTBFFH

 

Seafin ticket holders and members have been way down the list in importance to big clubs for years, they almost always the lowest spenders on game day.

Clubs want day trippers, who go in the superstore, corporate guests spending sh*t loads on vip and boxes etc.

4 hours ago, axman2526 said:

Honestly I hope Tel sticks to his guns, goes somewhere else, and someone asks him about Chelsea and he points to examples like DD Fofana, Carney, Washington etc as reasons he did not come and that he did not want his career to be treated like a stock exchange.

More will see it, eventually, and more will start avoiding us.

Weird take 

Hey Todd, your mates at AL nassr want a PL winger, had a big offer for Mitoma turned down.

Get Noni or Neto on the plane right away. Maybe Mudryk if they have not seen the info about his drug test...

9 minutes ago, timetowaste said:

Weird take 

A take in the hope it breaks their model if young players refuse to come here and be treated like stocks.

7 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Can't be a good look for Clearlake's clients when we still don't have a f**king front shirt sponsor...

Aesthetically wise I really like the fact we don't have some sponsor splurged across the shirt, same as I'm glad they haven't as yet tried to rename the stadium with a crass sponsors name.

16 hours ago, dkw said:

Seafin ticket holders and members have been way down the list in importance to big clubs for years, they almost always the lowest spenders on game day.

Clubs want day trippers, who go in the superstore, corporate guests spending sh*t loads on vip and boxes etc.

Agree and I think it's not limited to football either. Formula 1 is a great example. Back in the day motorsport fans could mingle with and chat to drivers, engineers etc. Nowadays access is controlled and I do wonder if some of the VIPs who go F1 events have any knowledge of motorsport. 

As mentioned before we hardly spend anymore in the club shop. I may pop in at Christmas and that's it. I won't spend much either. Can't remember when I last bought a replica shirt. Rarely wear colours to the game. Only tends to be at cup-finals. Don't use the bars and cafes much. Partly because the quality of beer is poor. Food is okay but it's not long until you feel hungry again. As you say, the clubs will want fans who spend a fortune in the shop and on hospitality. Okay if you have lots of money or only go to a few games a year.

Here's me being cynical again but it wouldn't surprise me if the stadium is renamed. I wonder also if the club gets sponsorship sorted out that banners around the club i.e. the ones from supporters clubs and about players and fans are removed so they don't cover up sponsors logos and messages. 

On 31/01/2025 at 03:27, Boyne said:

Here's me being cynical again but it wouldn't surprise me if the stadium is renamed. I wonder also if the club gets sponsorship sorted out that banners around the club i.e. the ones from supporters clubs and about players and fans are removed so they don't cover up sponsors logos and messages. 

The ownership have trademarked the names 'Chels", "The Chels" as well as LDN at the end of those two.

Here is what I think they have in mind for the Bridge. They dont want to develop it, they will knock it down and sell off the land, possibly in part of trade to the Government, who, I venture, would help find an alternative site to build a new 60k stadium that gives them all the outside of football chances to make money. NFL games, Taylor swift concerts etc.

 

Now what about the CPO? They leave the pitch alone, everything around it they get rid of and sell. Cannot use the Chelsea Football Club name? That's where the trademarks come in. Lose some of the hard-core fanbase? They don't care, more room for tourists to spend more.

Earls Court mooted to be back on the table, with Government help. 

7 hours ago, axman2526 said:

The ownership have trademarked the names 'Chels", "The Chels" as well as LDN at the end of those two.

Here is what I think they have in mind for the Bridge. They dont want to develop it, they will knock it down and sell off the land, possibly in part of trade to the Government, who, I venture, would help find an alternative site to build a new 60k stadium that gives them all the outside of football chances to make money. NFL games, Taylor swift concerts etc.

 

Now what about the CPO? They leave the pitch alone, everything around it they get rid of and sell. Cannot use the Chelsea Football Club name? That's where the trademarks come in. Lose some of the hard-core fanbase? They don't care, more room for tourists to spend more.

Earls Court mooted to be back on the table, with Government help. 

One thing I forgot to mention when I posted about the CPO AGM and I should have done is there was a discussion about the CFC LDN name. I should mention that I don't like the name CFC LDN. If you choose to support Chelsea it won't take long to find out where the club is. We've been in the same place since 1905. CPO does own the name Chelsea Football Club.

A few comments and questions:

1. Could the club sell-off the buildings which it owns at Stamford Bridge as part of a plan - with or without Government (local or central) - to move elsewhere e.g. Earl's Court.

2. If that happens CPO would still own the pitch and the name Chelsea Football Club. The board could get around that by calling in the loan to the CPO and then buy the pitch from CPO share-holders. As for the name, I'm sure there would be lots of legal battles.

3. If there is a move to a new site could a new club be set-up? A bit like MK Dons. Wimbledon FC disappeared for a while and then came back as AFC Wimbledon.

4. Would a new club at a new site have a new name e.g. CFC LDN?

5. If the Government does help how will other clubs react? There is talk about the Government helping with the re-development of Old Trafford and the surrounding area but if you help one club you have to help all. Given the financial restraints in the U.K, at the moment there could be all sorts of legal and financial implications. 

6. What would the reaction of the players be? Would they care?

I don't know the answers but hopefully can be sorted out sooner rather than later.

2 hours ago, Boyne said:

One thing I forgot to mention when I posted about the CPO AGM and I should have done is there was a discussion about the CFC LDN name. I should mention that I don't like the name CFC LDN. If you choose to support Chelsea it won't take long to find out where the club is. We've been in the same place since 1905. CPO does own the name Chelsea Football Club.

A few comments and questions:

1. Could the club sell-off the buildings which it owns at Stamford Bridge as part of a plan - with or without Government (local or central) - to move elsewhere e.g. Earl's Court.

2. If that happens CPO would still own the pitch and the name Chelsea Football Club. The board could get around that by calling in the loan to the CPO and then buy the pitch from CPO share-holders. As for the name, I'm sure there would be lots of legal battles.

3. If there is a move to a new site could a new club be set-up? A bit like MK Dons. Wimbledon FC disappeared for a while and then came back as AFC Wimbledon.

4. Would a new club at a new site have a new name e.g. CFC LDN?

5. If the Government does help how will other clubs react? There is talk about the Government helping with the re-development of Old Trafford and the surrounding area but if you help one club you have to help all. Given the financial restraints in the U.K, at the moment there could be all sorts of legal and financial implications. 

6. What would the reaction of the players be? Would they care?

I don't know the answers but hopefully can be sorted out sooner rather than later.

Thanks for update.

The government will only help with the regeneration of the Old Trafford district and not with the redevelopment of the stadium itself.  See below..

 

""government will not fund any of the 'sporting elements' in the redevelopment of Old Trafford, a senior minister has said.

Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the government will meet with local leaders on the 'exciting project' which could see the area around Manchester United's ground regenerated. However, the cabinet minister confirmed the government will not fund the stadium.'

5 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Thanks for update.

The government will only help with the regeneration of the Old Trafford district and not with the redevelopment of the stadium itself.  See below..

 

""government will not fund any of the 'sporting elements' in the redevelopment of Old Trafford, a senior minister has said.

Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds said the government will meet with local leaders on the 'exciting project' which could see the area around Manchester United's ground regenerated. However, the cabinet minister confirmed the government will not fund the stadium.'

Thank you for the information about Old Trafford. Only right and proper that the Government doesn't fund the stadium.

10 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Thank you for the information about Old Trafford. Only right and proper that the Government doesn't fund the stadium.

It would be outrageous if any tax payer money was used to fund the stadium, even more so as Ratcliffe is a tax exile himself.

It would be quite typical if the government were to assist the richest club in the league, rather than a nearby club with less favourable finances, like say... Bury. 

4 hours ago, Boyne said:

One thing I forgot to mention when I posted about the CPO AGM and I should have done is there was a discussion about the CFC LDN name. I should mention that I don't like the name CFC LDN. If you choose to support Chelsea it won't take long to find out where the club is. We've been in the same place since 1905. CPO does own the name Chelsea Football Club.

A few comments and questions:

1. Could the club sell-off the buildings which it owns at Stamford Bridge as part of a plan - with or without Government (local or central) - to move elsewhere e.g. Earl's Court.

2. If that happens CPO would still own the pitch and the name Chelsea Football Club. The board could get around that by calling in the loan to the CPO and then buy the pitch from CPO share-holders. As for the name, I'm sure there would be lots of legal battles.

3. If there is a move to a new site could a new club be set-up? A bit like MK Dons. Wimbledon FC disappeared for a while and then came back as AFC Wimbledon.

4. Would a new club at a new site have a new name e.g. CFC LDN?

5. If the Government does help how will other clubs react? There is talk about the Government helping with the re-development of Old Trafford and the surrounding area but if you help one club you have to help all. Given the financial restraints in the U.K, at the moment there could be all sorts of legal and financial implications. 

6. What would the reaction of the players be? Would they care?

I don't know the answers but hopefully can be sorted out sooner rather than later.

1. In theory they could sell off everything but the pitch. I believe all the property parts of the club is now under the "blueco properties Ltd" part of their group. Including the stadium, bar the pitch, hotels, Cobham area, the stoll mansions etc.

So if they had a buyer they could sell it off.

2. Agreed they could do that, or could just leave pitch, maybe have that area deemed a historical site or something. The club name depends on how bothered they are to keep it, maybe they are happy enough with the trade marks and a name change.

3. I did wonder about a possible MK Dons/AFC Wimbledon situation with us if the above was to happen.

4. I would guess we would keep the Chelsea Football Club name for a AFC regen.

5. Government help I would guess would be more finding an alternative site for us to buy, not funding it. Maybe paying for regen of area like OT.

6. I doubt most of the players would care. Most don't appear to career now.

2 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

It would be outrageous if any tax payer money was used to fund the stadium, even more so as Ratcliffe is a tax exile himself.

Your priorities are in the wrong place.

The real waste of tax payers money is disabled people who want to work but can't getting just about enough money to feed themselves. Get with the programme.

39 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

1. In theory they could sell off everything but the pitch. I believe all the property parts of the club is now under the "blueco properties Ltd" part of their group. Including the stadium, bar the pitch, hotels, Cobham area, the stoll mansions etc.

So if they had a buyer they could sell it off.

2. Agreed they could do that, or could just leave pitch, maybe have that area deemed a historical site or something. The club name depends on how bothered they are to keep it, maybe they are happy enough with the trade marks and a name change.

3. I did wonder about a possible MK Dons/AFC Wimbledon situation with us if the above was to happen.

4. I would guess we would keep the Chelsea Football Club name for a AFC regen.

5. Government help I would guess would be more finding an alternative site for us to buy, not funding it. Maybe paying for regen of area like OT.

6. I doubt most of the players would care. Most don't appear to career now.

As for the pitch and that assumes it can be bought from the CPO I wonder if the club would do a deal with the local council and developers and turn it into a communal garden - or single gardens - for residents. Similar to what Arsenal did with Highbury. There is also the issue of the old Shed Wall which is, if memory serves correctly, a listed structure. It would have to be preserved but developers have a way of "accidentally" demolishing listed structures.

If two clubs do emerge from the redevelopment - and God forbid that doesn't happen - it would be interesting to see how fans react. Who to support. A woman I knew many years ago was a Wimbledon FC supporter and after the creation of MK Dons she and many others started to support AFC Wimbledon.. She like many others was very angry with Sam Hammam and what he did to their club.

7 minutes ago, Boyne said:

As for the pitch and that assumes it can be bought from the CPO I wonder if the club would do a deal with the local council and developers and turn it into a communal garden - or single gardens - for residents. Similar to what Arsenal did with Highbury. There is also the issue of the old Shed Wall which is, if memory serves correctly, a listed structure. It would have to be preserved but developers have a way of "accidentally" demolishing listed structures.

If two clubs do emerge from the redevelopment - and God forbid that doesn't happen - it would be interesting to see how fans react. Who to support. A woman I knew many years ago was a Wimbledon FC supporter and after the creation of MK Dons she and many others started to support AFC Wimbledon.. She like many others was very angry with Sam Hammam and what he did to their club.

Yeah something like Highbury could be possible. Like you said they have ways of dealing with the Shed wall.

I imagine the owners would prefer the core Chelsea fans go to the AFC club, more space to overcharge tourist and internationals at the new stadium.

In addition to NFL and concerts they may use their ties to the states, provided Trump does not turn his sights on the UK after he has finished with China, Mexico and Canada, to bring a dodgers game, maybe part of the world series, a wrestling live event like a summerslam, to the new stadium.

If they could get the government to, politely force a site, say Earl's Court, to take on a stadium, it could generate a lot of outside football income for both the owners and government.

Edited February 3, 20251 yr by axman2526

Palace rejecting a £70m bid for Guehi, Tomori playing as a regular for AC Milan, we really do utterly waste our academy talent. Even Hudson Odoi's looked good with Forest this year

Was mentioned about a protest to stop exploiting the loyalty of the fans, both West Ham and Chelsea fans took part.

It is Johnny's video but he does not appear in it or say a word so if you want to see but cannot stand Johnny don't worry:

 

 

Earlier today I received the following email from the Chelsea Supporters Trust. There is a link to the full results. You will see that the over-two thirds of supporters believe that there is a problem with ticket-touting and approximately the same number believe that the club is not doing enough to combat touting. Vivid Seats and Boehly's relationship with that company is also mentioned.

"The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust (CST) has today (6 February) provided its membership with an update on ticket touting and Vivid Seats.

Last week, the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust conducted a short survey regarding ticket touting and the illegal sale of tickets on 3rd party websites.

On Friday 31 January, the survey results were presented in full to Chelsea FC.

The key findings from CST members were:

• Over two-thirds of supporters believe that ticket touting is a problem at Chelsea FC
• 68% of supporters do not believe that Chelsea FC is doing enough to combat ticket touting
• Only 9% of supporters believe that Chelsea FC is doing enough to combat ticket touting
• 69% of supporters are not well informed as to what Chelsea FC is doing to reduce ticket touting
• Only 17% of supporters have confidence in Chelsea FC to combat ticket touting

*Full survey results can be found on the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust website.

CST Comment on ticket touting at Chelsea FC:

“The alarming findings of this survey have indicated that supporters do not have faith or trust in Chelsea FC to combat ticket touting and that the club has failed to protect its loyal supporters from the ongoing exploitation of ticket touting.

“It is vital that the club provides immediate reassurances to supporters and must demonstrate that they are taking effective action to combat ticket touting through greater communication, stricter resale policies and sanctions, and additional enforcement against illegal ticket selling.

“Despite warnings from the CST, the trend of data indicates that supporters have become increasingly dissatisfied with anti-touting measures in place at Chelsea FC over the past 2-3 years. Now is the time to take proper, meaningful steps to address this. This is not simply about ticketing, this is about respecting and protecting the lifeblood of Chelsea FC - its supporters.”

-

In response to recent reports connecting Todd Boehly and Vivid Seats, the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust has issued the following comment:

“Vivid Seats currently lists hundreds of Chelsea FC General Admission tickets at significantly inflated prices. As these tickets are not sold by the Chelsea FC website, they are considered by the club to be ‘illegal sales.’

“Within the recent CST ticket touting survey, many CST members suggested that Mr Boehly’s connection with Vivid Seats is a ‘breach of trust’ and could be a conflict of interest.

“These recent reports are very disappointing, and it is within Mr Boehly’s best interests to investigate these issues and address supporters’ concerns - we do not believe it is appropriate for any Chelsea tickets or wider Premier League tickets to be listed on the Vivid Seats website.”

-

Full survey results can be found on the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust website.


Kind regards,

The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust"

 

4 minutes ago, Boyne said:

Earlier today I received the following email from the Chelsea Supporters Trust. There is a link to the full results. You will see that the over-two thirds of supporters believe that there is a problem with ticket-touting and approximately the same number believe that the club is not doing enough to combat touting. Vivid Seats and Boehly's relationship with that company is also mentioned.

"The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust (CST) has today (6 February) provided its membership with an update on ticket touting and Vivid Seats.

Last week, the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust conducted a short survey regarding ticket touting and the illegal sale of tickets on 3rd party websites.

On Friday 31 January, the survey results were presented in full to Chelsea FC.

The key findings from CST members were:

• Over two-thirds of supporters believe that ticket touting is a problem at Chelsea FC
• 68% of supporters do not believe that Chelsea FC is doing enough to combat ticket touting
• Only 9% of supporters believe that Chelsea FC is doing enough to combat ticket touting
• 69% of supporters are not well informed as to what Chelsea FC is doing to reduce ticket touting
• Only 17% of supporters have confidence in Chelsea FC to combat ticket touting

*Full survey results can be found on the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust website.

CST Comment on ticket touting at Chelsea FC:

“The alarming findings of this survey have indicated that supporters do not have faith or trust in Chelsea FC to combat ticket touting and that the club has failed to protect its loyal supporters from the ongoing exploitation of ticket touting.

“It is vital that the club provides immediate reassurances to supporters and must demonstrate that they are taking effective action to combat ticket touting through greater communication, stricter resale policies and sanctions, and additional enforcement against illegal ticket selling.

“Despite warnings from the CST, the trend of data indicates that supporters have become increasingly dissatisfied with anti-touting measures in place at Chelsea FC over the past 2-3 years. Now is the time to take proper, meaningful steps to address this. This is not simply about ticketing, this is about respecting and protecting the lifeblood of Chelsea FC - its supporters.”

-

In response to recent reports connecting Todd Boehly and Vivid Seats, the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust has issued the following comment:

“Vivid Seats currently lists hundreds of Chelsea FC General Admission tickets at significantly inflated prices. As these tickets are not sold by the Chelsea FC website, they are considered by the club to be ‘illegal sales.’

“Within the recent CST ticket touting survey, many CST members suggested that Mr Boehly’s connection with Vivid Seats is a ‘breach of trust’ and could be a conflict of interest.

“These recent reports are very disappointing, and it is within Mr Boehly’s best interests to investigate these issues and address supporters’ concerns - we do not believe it is appropriate for any Chelsea tickets or wider Premier League tickets to be listed on the Vivid Seats website.”

-

Full survey results can be found on the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust website.


Kind regards,

The Chelsea Supporters’ Trust"

 

Once again, thanks for posting this information.👍

16 minutes ago, The Rising Sun said:

Once again, thanks for posting this information.👍

Cheers mate. Thank you.

The Boehly ticket thing was on the TalkSport news tonight.