test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Steve

Stamford Bridge thread

Started by Steve,

2,663 posts in this topic
gate 13 says:

October 9, 2011 at 10:15 am

as a cpo member i will be voting no to the move. Abramovitch and his lap dogs can take his club and move but he cant have our name or our ground. My ideal would be to start again ala afc wimbledon at stamford bridge 15 pound entrance goodbye glory hunters and the real supporters get our club back. Piss off to white city or wherever and good riddance.

Reply

Interesting..

dave30 and Kieran. like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

Question 16. Do you trust CEO; Ron Gourlay?

Question16.jpg

This really surprised me.

Question 24. How long have you supported Chelsea FC?

Question24.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting..

i bet if roman gave him 1000 notes he would vote yes in a instant :lol: i do agree with him in part though .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise with the Ron Gourlay question...

think there will be some principled opposition to this, some things are worth more than money..

(Posted this survey a week ago in the ''Roman Makes Proposal to Pitch Owners '' thread. Glad someone has put it up again

though)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting..

Club wouldnt let it happen, they might not have the freehold but they do hold a 199 year lease on the ground, and im sure they could find away to make it so that no one else can play there till its up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we can leave but we must Leave our name and the name of the stadium? I don't there is a price for that.

Seriously becoming worried now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could handle the change of the stadium's name... but the name of the club? That would be too much, and it's already too big of a brand name... Changing it would be a big blow commercially for the businessmen aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole London F.C. thing's a joke right?

Depends...if the fans get nasty about the whole thing, Roman could get nasty or just leave....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

QPR chief executive officer Philip Beard said on Thursday that the club are looking to leave Loftus Road for a new stadium, preferably in the Shepherd's Bush area.

That could only really mean White City?

Fulham were also reportedly looking for a move away from Craven Cottage but have recently said they will improve the ground.

Could this be the reason why the club have given the CPO very little time to take it all in? Why wasn't this mentioned last week at the time the offer was made public. Have the club already earmarked White City and don't want QPR to beat them to it or does it mean a ground share with them?

There's too many questions that need answering and if Abramovich wants these shares so much surely he should be turning up at the General Meeting and telling it how it really is.

I for one don't trust Buck or Gourlay and until Abramovich comes out publically and lets us know what the plans are and what discussions/proposals have already taken place then the only vote that can be made at this stage imo is a NO vote.

Vote NO and then let the club come back with proper answers and then we can start again with proper trueful information to be able to vote on what is the best thing to do for both club and fans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a CPO but i know quite a few CPO's.I didn't trust Bates when he dreamt this scheme up in 1993.

I've been going to Stamford Bridge since 1980 and hold this stadium very close to my heart.as many other fans of my ilk and those before me do.We also hold very fond memories and story's from the days in the old Shed to the vocal and raccous Matthew Harding Stand.

When the news filtered through last week that the Chelsea FC board/directors on behalf of Mr Roman Abramovich wanted the CPO to sell their shares and to relinquish the freehold of Stamford Bridge,it left a very nasty taste in my mouth,as well as all sorts of expletives coming from this mouth as my answer to their offer.

I understand the club needs to prosper to compete with the best in Europe,as well as England but this has to be done on the terms of the CPO.

I also understand that Stamford Bridge is slightly too small for us to compete with other clubs that have bigger stadiums and better income than we do.

Ideally expanding Stamford Bridge would be a godsend as we would get to remain in what's been our ancesteral home for 106 years.No other Premier League club can boast such a feat.

But,and their is a but-i do not want Chelsea to move to the bandit country of White City or Old Oak Common in NW10.Battersea Nine Elms would be my personal and prefered choice.

My problem with Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay is that they strongly deny that the they have no immidiate plans to move.If that's the case then why are they in such a rush for the CPO to relinquish their shares?

A clause in the CPO agreement states that the club would not move more than 3 miles from Stamford Bridge BEFORE 2020.

Who's to say that if/when CPO vote YES the club could u-turn,keep us at Stamford Bridge then move us anywhere they like,from Mill Hill to Moscow(example).

Under the current terms i would urge members on here that are CPO's to vote NO as the the board has not been transparent about the immidiate plans for Chelsea FC.

There also requires conditions that the CPO should set in terms from extending location clause(very important) to reducing ticket prices for children,students and OAP's.

It could also be a good idea for CPO to adjourn the vote on the 27th October to give them more time to get their case together.

Some people say the location to where we move is not important.Ahem,it damn well is.The only "fans" that share that theory are the one's that have no relation whatsoever to Stamford Bridge or your common daytripper,JCL to the fly-by-nights from Singapore to Seatlle.

I really understand we need a bigger stadium-but let's be sensible about it.

Say NO CPO!!.

True_Blue likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the news filtered through last week that the Chelsea FC board/directors on behalf of Mr Roman Abramovich wanted the CPO to sell their shares and to relinquish the freehold of Stamford Bridge,it left a very nasty taste in my mouth,as well as all sorts of expletives coming from this mouth as my answer to their offer.

I understand the club needs to prosper to compete with the best in Europe,as well as England but this has to be done on the terms of the CPO.

I also understand that Stamford Bridge is slightly too small for us to compete with other clubs that have bigger stadiums and better income than we do.

Ideally expanding Stamford Bridge would be a godsend as we would get to remain in what's been our ancesteral home for 106 years.No other Premier League can boast such a feat.

But,and their is a but-i do not want Chelsea to move to the bandit country of White City or Old Oak Common in NW10.Battersea Nine Elms would be my personal and prefered choice.

My problem with Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay is that they strongly deny that the they have no immidiate plans to move.If that's the case then why are they in such a rush for the CPO to relinquish their shares?

A clause in the CPO agreement states that the club would not move more than 3 miles from Stamford Bridge BEFORE 2020.

Who's to say that if/when CPO vote YES the club could u-turn,keep us at Stamford Bridge then move us anywhere they like,from Mill Hill to Moscow(example).

Under the current terms i would urge members on here that are CPO's to vote NO as the the board has not been transparent about the immidiate plans for Chelsea FC.

There also requires conditions that the CPO should set in terms from extending location clause(very important) to reducing ticket prices for children,students and OAP's.

It could also be a good idea for CPO to adjourn the vote on the 27th October to give them more time to get their case together.

Some people say the location to where we move is not important.Ahem,it damn well is.The only "fans" that share that theory are the one's that have no relation whatsoever to Stamford Bridge or your common daytripper,JCL to the fly-by-nights from Singapore to Seatlle.

I really understand we need a bigger stadium-but let's be sensible about it.

Say NO CPO!!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very interesting about stadium expansion. At least they have revealed that they have actually tried to get planning permission for certain things. Looks as if the East stand is a non-starter for redevelopment, The Shed end looks quite difficult although in my opinion it would be the easiest option to redevelop. I can see why a route to west brompton was rejected because there is hardly any space for a passage to be built along that route and the west stand would not really be possible to rebuild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.