Jump to content

Battersea stadium denial


geezer

Recommended Posts

The club have moved very quickly in issuing a denial over a story in todays Observer linking the club with moving to a new site in Battersea. The club have re-iterated they have no intention of looking elsewhere until all avenues of expanding the current site are exhausted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The speed of the denial was amazing and we all know that the council and police will never allow the Bridge capacity to increase all the time there is only access via the Fulham Road. Got a hunch it was a wee bit too close to the truth, although I still think Earls Court is probably number one option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get rid of the hotel and build it at Battersea. We can't move ground. We'd lose a HUGE part of our identity, and we'd be unable to call is Stamford Bridge. We'd be no better than Arsenal

We also wouldnt be able to call the club Chelsea anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also wouldnt be able to call the club Chelsea anymore

Because the club wouldn't be in Chelsea any more?

But it's never been in Chelsea. It's on the Borough of Hammersmith side of the border, so is and always has been in Fulham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It isn't that Lofty. Chelsea Pitch Owners own the naming rights for the club and if we left the Bridge without their approval they can prevent us taking the name with us.

And thats how it should stay, never want us to leave the bridge anyone agree? it would be like giving our history away, isnt that right liverpool! B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd forgotten about that to be honest. But then I remember someone on the old Chelsea Mailing list telling me and Paul Rushton that the club could never have the Lion and Staff badge back because it was copyright of the Earl of Chelsea - in other words, anything is possible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd never ever want the club to move elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't that Lofty. Chelsea Pitch Owners own the naming rights for the club and if we left the Bridge without their approval they can prevent us taking the name with us.

And that's probably the only thing keep us at the Bridge. Without the "brand name" Chelsea FC the move to a bigger stadium does them no good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It is as simple as this, whether we move or not we need to find another 10 000 min seats. We need to compete with the the other 3.

Mancs - 76,212

Arsenal - 60,355

Liverfool - 45,522 (will soon improve)*

Spuds - 36,240 (will soon imporve)*

* Both targeting 60 000 + stadiums.

I do not care what anyone says we need to keep up with everyone else, a type of Emirates stadium would be a big plus for the club there is no doubt about it. I mean guys what if and I do use the word 'IF' Roman decides to pack up and leave ? would you rather be stuck with a stadium of 65 000 or 42 000 ? From what I ahve read the stadium will also be completely paid for by the sale of the land at Stamford Bridge which will be used to build over 1000 units of apartments !

I can completely understand where all the old boys are coming from and I am sure the CFC pitch owners are not going to be too happy about the move but it is a neccessity if we cannot develop Stamford Bridge further and I am afraid it really is that simple.

Personally I love Stamford Bridge and think more can be done but I think at a great cost but as Bob said 'times they are a-changin'.

Do you really want to have a stadium which is smaller than the spuds ? :D :300:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree entirely.

My reasons are here

http://www.theshedend.com/fansite/stamford-bridge.html

This is what I found in your link:

As a consequence there has been much speculation about of a possible move away from the Bridge, a move which would mean the club would have to relinquish the name Chelsea Football Club due to the terms of the agreement with ‘Chelsea Pitch Owners’ This is a point not missed by Ken Bates who said, ‘When they talk about Abramovich moving the club to East London or the new Wembley or whatever, you say “Great, off you go, rename it Neasden United, give us our pitch back, we’ll sign tomorrow and we’ll name it Chelsea Football Club Limited, just as Wimbledon have"

But I am even more confused. Who are the pitch owners? And why they own the name of the club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm one of the pitch owners and my dad is another.

It's something that Bates introduced after his long battle to keep the club and the ground together, he decided that if he sold these pitch owner shares to the fans then the club and ground are safe for all time. I'm not sure what the legal aspect of this is but someone did tell me that effectiveley there's not alot the pitch owners can do to stop the club moveing from the Bridge, but I think Loz is right the name is linked to the site of Stamford Bridge.

Not sure what the right answer is but I do have these thoughts on moving;

1) it's been proved by loads of other clubs that moving to a new ground isn't necessarily a bad thing. Increased revenue, advertising increases etc.

2) Stamford Bridge isn't the ground that I loved anyway, I hate Stamford Bridge as it stands now.

3) We don't fill the capacity we've got at the moment half the time so do we really need a bigger home.

4) teams like 'Boro and Blackburn are a laughing stock because they built these big new grounds and they sit half empty all the time, do we really want that to happen to us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just found this on CPO's, it seems that Roman could potentially buy up enough shares for freinds to ensure that they out vote the rest of us in agreeing to move from Stamford Bridge, but it doesn't go into much depth so that could be wrong.

"Chelsea suffered serious financial troubles during the 1970s and 1980s following a large-scale attempt to renovate Stamford Bridge. The financial crisis and a subsequent change of ownership at the club culminated in the sale of the Stamford Bridge freehold to property developers. The move almost saw Chelsea lose the stadium.

The future of the stadium (and hence the club) was only secured in 1992, when the property developers were forced into bankruptcy, allowing the then-chairman Ken Bates to do a deal with their bankers and to regain control of the stadium for the football club. Following this, Chelsea Pitch Owners was created, and in 1997 it purchased the Stamford Bridge freehold, the turnstiles, the pitch and the Chelsea FC name with the aid of a loan from Chelsea Village plc, the parent company of the club.

[edit] Organisation and ownership

The new entrance to the West Stand.In purchasing the freehold and the naming rights, the intention was to ensure that Stamford Bridge could never again be sold to property developers and that the Chelsea FC name could not be traded on outside of the stadium. Should Chelsea decide to move to another stadium in the future, they will not be able to use the name Chelsea Football Club.[1]

The company is not listed on any Stock Exchange. Its purpose is to raise the £9.2million needed to pay off the loan and then lease the freehold back to the club, on the strictly-defined proviso that the ground may only be used for football purposes. Irrespective of how many shares are owned by an individual, voting rights are limited to 100 per shareholder to prevent any one person or organisation gaining control. Fans are encouraged to purchase shares in order to secure the club's future."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather have that than a stadium with a lot of empty seats and the atmosphere that would echo if only it were loud enough.

This is true but I doubt the powers that be are going to make this sort of move unless they were sure they could fill it. I am sure we could fill more corporate boxes though !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're niave if you think we could fill a bigger stadium. SOme fans would use moving as an oppotunity to turn their back on a club that they now feel removed from. I agree there would be others willing to fill that gap, but we wouldn't fill it week in week out, not unless we started charging about £15 per ticket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers Barn.

I hadn’t realised the pitch had been sold to the public, I thought it was still part of the financial mess Bates got into with the developers. I had no idea that this included the rights to the name as well. I would like to hear the reasoning behind this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


With good marketing we could fill 60 000 easily for all the good games, the smaller games you offer cut rates and you will fill it. At the end you will be making more money over the course of the year. Especially with more corporate seats and boxes available.

All CFC has to maintain is an exciting brand of football with lots of goals and glory for the next decade and we will create a good fan base I can assure you. More and more people are becoming CFC fans by the day and when tourists come to London from all over the world who do they want to go and see ? the mighty Chelsea more and more now than ever before, market and advertise to these sectors and you can easily fill a 60 000 stadium...do any of you know how many tourists enter London every week ? I do not either but I can tell you it is a hell of a lot !

You make CFC a place to go on tourist maps and you are sorted as we are in the centre/prime location and very very easy to get to from a tourist point of view !

As for atmosphere.....Sing louder ! ;) :D

This can be done and it must be done because Roman is not going to be around forever !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you want them to create my worst nightmare!

Are you Kenyon?

That's not a football club it's just a soulless brand, I understand that's the way football is going I just don't want my Chelsea to go any further down that route than we already are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither me but I do not fancy taking the crap from the scummers of north London when Roman leaves and we did not bother to build any sort of foundation.

This is where we are going and this is where we have to go like it or not, I am not a revolutionist but I am a realist. CFC needs to bring in more funds and the best way and most lucrative way of doing this is by getting more people through the gates. If we can stay at the Bridge then f'ing brilliant if not then..... well life is not perfect is it !

Nothing soulless about making more money for a brighter and stronger future Barn.

Without a move like this within the next 5 years we will suffer down the line greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up

Well, this is awkward!

Happy Tech GIF by Atlassian

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!

Sure, let me in!