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

Fair do's to club for answering questions that fans have been asking,but there are still many holes in this that need to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum... Sorry if it was already being said...

... If we knock down the hotel, would we be able to expand the Bridge ? I mean, will it be okay toward the laws, and the security constraints..

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 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!!.

Top post Mike . Where've you been rodders ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell us :eyebrows:

Isn't the proposal against everything that CPO was set up for?

No. CPO was set up to stop property developers evicting Chelsea FC from Stamford Bridge against its wishes, which had been threatened during the 1980s and early 1990s. CPO was never intended to hinder the club by restricting its ability to maximise its income.

Everyone wants the club to progress. This is the next step to do so.

xPetrCechx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last time I heard anything about the hotel we had sold a 10 year lease on it to Millennium & Copthorne hotel group a few years ago so that is one problem, second problem being that their are also apartments there as well one being owned by uncle ken, who im willing to bet anything you want that he would say no to any offer the club put to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lifted from cfcnet forums, but could it be related to the sudden interest in buying the csl freehold back?

http://www.independe...ar-2329099.html

http://uk.reuters.co...E7971KT20111008

Would explain that comment from bruce buck about needing to be able to move quickly if the opportunity arises, if they default on their loans or need to sell up to stay afloat they would look for a quick sell and there would be a big queue for that site id imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hum... Sorry if it was already being said...

... If we knock down the hotel, would we be able to expand the Bridge ? I mean, will it be okay toward the laws, and the security constraints..

unfortunately not because the hotels are, as mentioned owned by millennium and corpothone and contain appartments. There are also some houses behind the Shed end wall which are not part of the hotel complex which would not get enough light into their gardens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As well as buying back the freehold, is the club also proposing to buy back the name Chelsea Football Club from CPO?

As the original agreement makes clear, CPO has never owned the name Chelsea Football Club. The name would only ever move across into CPO ownership should the club leave Stamford Bridge without the consent of CPO.

Is it possible that the club moves from SB, CPO doesn't sell it's property but makes an agreement with the board not to change the name CFC ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earl's Court, Imperial Wharf and Battersea

To add to that to those who have never been, Earls Court is almost a stones throw from SB. The majority of fans who travel in/out on the train, walk up to the Earls Court tube station afterwards, we're talking 5-10 minutes walk.

LDN Blue, Madmax and sLOVEnian Blue like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to that to those who have never been, Earls Court is almost a stones throw from SB. The majority of fans who travel in/out on the train, walk up to the Earls Court tube station afterwards, we're talking 5-10 minutes walk.

That walk is legendary. (Well, the way we took it, it was :lol: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earl's Court, Imperial Wharf and Battersea

66-chelsea_653981a.jpg

For the record, the White City site is also within the three mile limit. However, Old Oak Common/Wormwood Scrubs is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top post Mike . Where've you been rodders ?

Ello mate.Really busy,don't really get alot of time these days.When CPO issue went public i had to air my views.Firmly in the NO camp.

Hope you're well too btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only place to ever be every other Saturday is getting mugged in NW10

Meet the tourists buy a shirt-get bled try until it hurts :whistling:

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.