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

No! I hate those roofs!

Newcastle has this bar like roof on one side, and it casts a horrible shadow on the pitch, blocking out the play when you watch it on TV.

StJamesParkPanorama.jpg

I hate that! Ugh. Well, Let's hope all our games are night matches come 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No! I hate those roofs!

Newcastle has this bar like roof on one side, and it casts a horrible shadow on the pitch, blocking out the play when you watch it on TV.

StJamesParkPanorama.jpg

I hate that! Ugh. Well, Let's hope all our games are night matches come 2020.

No! I hate those roofs!

Newcastle has this bar like roof on one side, and it casts a horrible shadow on the pitch, blocking out the play when you watch it on TV.

StJamesParkPanorama.jpg

In

I hate that! Ugh. Well, Let's hope all our games are night matches come 2020.

Hate the newcastle roof too. Looks like a greenhouse. But I guess ours will be a bit more classy. Still no clue why those bars. We got only 12 acres space and limit it even further by plugging pillars around the stadium? I would go as high and narrow as possible.

If abramovich really pays the stadium on his own it would be too grateful even for his standards. Should call it abramobridge^^ . but I guess he is too modest for this. Actually great we stay at our venue other than some clubs with so called tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate the newcastle roof too. Looks like a greenhouse. But I guess ours will be a bit more classy. Still no clue why those bars. We got only 12 acres space and limit it even further by plugging pillars around the stadium? I would go as high and narrow as possible.

If abramovich really pays the stadium on his own it would be too grateful even for his standards. Should call it abramobridge^^ . but I guess he is too modest for this. Actually great we stay at our venue other than some clubs with so called tradition.

The Stadium cannot be built any higher than it all ready is! that's why they are digging down! they space out the way on some sides won't matter as the hotel(s) and restaurants are going!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those who live in London and England what is you're thoughts on this.
Chelsea FC: 11 reasons why the Blues should move to Surrey
10 JULY 2015 - BY STUART RICHARDS , PETE BRYANT , TOM SMURTHWAITE

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/lifestyle/fun-stuff/chelsea-fc-11-reasons-blues-9629204

I know that we are staying at Stamford Bridge. I just wanted to get you're thoughts on this Article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those who live in London and England what is you're thoughts on this.

Chelsea FC: 11 reasons why the Blues should move to Surrey

10 JULY 2015 - BY STUART RICHARDS , PETE BRYANT , TOM SMURTHWAITE

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/lifestyle/fun-stuff/chelsea-fc-11-reasons-blues-9629204

That's a significant distance from where we are now and would be a lot harder for the majority of fans to get too. 99% of fans want to stay where we are now.

BlueLion. and xPetrCechx like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also what makes Chelsea more attractive is that we are a London side. We have been since the very beginning. Moving away from London removes a huge part of our identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the renders and the look of the new Bridge! But I wish the open roof-circle will be bigger as it seems it will be blocking out most of the sunlight regardless of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate the newcastle roof too. Looks like a greenhouse. But I guess ours will be a bit more classy. Still no clue why those bars. We got only 12 acres space and limit it even further by plugging pillars around the stadium? I would go as high and narrow as possible.

If abramovich really pays the stadium on his own it would be too grateful even for his standards. Should call it abramobridge^^ . but I guess he is too modest for this. Actually great we stay at our venue other than some clubs with so called tradition.

That wasn't the impression I got from reading the presentation material and press articles. Rather I expected that Roman would be lending the club the money to build the New Bridge rather than sourcing the loan on the market which would cost more and probably require more disclosure (to any lender) about its financial affairs than the club seem comfortable with these days.

For Roman simply to give the club the money does not seem to make any sense to me. Of course if that's what he wants to do then who are we to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't the impression I got from reading the presentation material and press articles. Rather I expected that Roman would be lending the club the money to build the New Bridge rather than sourcing the loan on the market which would cost more and probably require more disclosure (to any lender) about its financial affairs than the club seem comfortable with these days.

For Roman simply to give the club the money does not seem to make any sense to me. Of course if that's what he wants to do then who are we to argue.

I think you are right on this. People seem to have got carried away with the idea of Roman building us all a stadium as a act of outstanding benevolence but that doesn't seem to be his way (most of his loans to the club are still noted as debts on the Fordstam balance sheet). So if Roman does pay for the building work the total cost, which is likely to be a lot more than £500m in my view, will probably sit there in the Fordstam accounts as an additional debt. That said I remember Bruce Buck talking about the financing of the stadium back in 2011 and he mentioned a combination of Roman's own cash and bank loans. But however the project is financed it raises the question of the CPO and whether Roman will ask for its dissolution as his price for financing the redevelopment. After all, why would someone invest a lot of money in an asset that doesn't really belong to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right on this. People seem to have got carried away with the idea of Roman building us all a stadium as a act of outstanding benevolence but that doesn't seem to be his way (most of his loans to the club are still noted as debts on the Fordstam balance sheet). So if Roman does pay for the building work the total cost, which is likely to be a lot more than £500m in my view, will probably sit there in the Fordstam accounts as an additional debt. That said I remember Bruce Buck talking about the financing of the stadium back in 2011 and he mentioned a combination of Roman's own cash and bank loans. But however the project is financed it raises the question of the CPO and whether Roman will ask for its dissolution as his price for financing the redevelopment. After all, why would someone invest a lot of money in an asset that doesn't really belong to them?

Indeed.

Putting loans into Chelsea Ltd is absolutely the best way for Roman to take cash back out of the club should that ever become the right thing for him to do. We have to keep in mind that while Chelsea FC PLC have no debts, the PLC is owned by Chelsea Ltd and Chelsea Ltd do owe money to one of Roman's companies. Given our historic financial losses, it's not likely that Chelsea Ltd will face corporation tax liabilities any time soon but it is entirely prudent to plan for the future.

If the football club continue to make profits then Chelsea Ltd will too and, eventually, all of its tax write-offs due to the mountain of losses over the years, will have expired or been used up. In that situation Chelsea Ltd could be hit with tax demands which is where the loans would come into play. Instead of declaring a profit, and paying tax on it, Chelsea Ltd would simply repay a part of its loan. Profit gone, tax liability gone and Roman has some of his cash back without his having to pay tax on it either.

Now I wouldn't want anyone to get me wrong, I'm no Maggie Thatcher. I believe in society; I recognise that it costs money to run, organise and protect. I therefore don't shirk, or begrudge, my own taxes and I don't approve when anyone else does. This mechanism I'm talking about however is no tax dodge, it's a perfectly standard business practice. It allows people to invest and build businesses which generate the wealth that ultimately pays for society. Chelsea FC, along with the rest of football, already make an enormous contribution to the national coffers and that's how it should be.

BlueLion. and CeleryFC like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea sold a higher percentage of tickets for their home games than any club in England last season.

Stamford Bridge – a ground the Premier League champions are planning to redevelop – was at 99.8 per cent capacity on average during Chelsea's march to the title.

top-tickets-clubs_3326056.jpg?2015071619

didierforever and nachikethas like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea sold a higher percentage of tickets for their home games than any club in England last season.

Stamford Bridge – a ground the Premier League champions are planning to redevelop – was at 99.8 per cent capacity on average during Chelsea's march to the title.

top-tickets-clubs_3326056.jpg?2015071619

Only 41k seats...

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea sold a higher percentage of tickets for their home games than any club in England last season.

Stamford Bridge – a ground the Premier League champions are planning to redevelop – was at 99.8 per cent capacity on average during Chelsea's march to the title.

top-tickets-clubs_3326056.jpg?2015071619

Misleading figures. Arsenal filled 99.27% of the Emirates Stadium? :lol:

As if.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roman putting his own money into the new Bridge just shows his love for the club.

I love watching him in the stands he shows every emotion the rest of us feel. Theres none of this put on smiles etc hes full of nervous energy. I bet if he was sitting up in the MH with us he would be up n down calling the ref a wanker too.

I dont think it would be a naff idea if we were to put up his statue in front of the new site. Its better than Al Fayeds Michael Jackson eh!

I really do hope we look at safestanding too.

As well as being able to relocate a proper end full of us noisey buggas again. It did us no favours at all splitting the Shed end up. It really would help us I'm sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misleading figures. Arsenal filled 99.27% of the Emirates Stadium? :lol:

As if.

The figures relate to tickets sold, not bums on seats. Arsenal do pretty much sell out all of their games but actual attendances are often down from capacity due to no shows.

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.