Rhino's Skin

No need to research. Am fully aware he has had injuries....was just debating the fact that a poster stated as fact that this was down to him being a triplet

At the end of the day naming rights or not, providing we stay at the present ground it should always be called Stamford Bridge. The bridge over a sand creek that was a tributary of the River Thames is still the hallow ground the stadium and rail track was built on. Would be deplorable if it was renamed and the words Stamford Bridge were dropped but because its still on the same land, most supporters going to the match will still refer to it as "going to the bridge" etc. Can understand with the reasons that posters above have given and quoted from media articles that it has been difficult to obtain naming rights but in all essence, what will have changed? Upto 3 new stands but still on same land....still Stamford Bridge

all that says is Samsung reasons for not sponsoring any stadium whether new, old, or whatever at that time ....not just Stamford Bridge.Did they actually enter negotiations about it? I doubt it as they seem very clear at that time about doing shirts over buildings

Still no proof. It would have got iut like everything normYally does. You, me or any normal punter does not know that nobody wants to pay or whether other plans were put in place. Just because a sponsor didnt happen doesnt automatically mean there were rejections....just pure speculation by you unless you are privy toboardroom conversations

Still no proof that there have been rejection from a company. Seen all these clips before..Boring

Think as we are staying ....it will always be Stamford Bridge. Had we gone to EC or 9 elms then of course...but as it stand most match going support will call it SB no matter what

Links to these 'reports'...you seem very certain and i am playing devils advocate but see no proof on the table....just speculation. The success of the club means we have been very sponserable ....SB included I would have thought. I think new rules about sponsors and how they could rebrand grounds had a lot to do with it otherwise Abramovich could have used his influence over his companies to sponsor.

Or Chelsea FC had a rethink, change of plan etc etc. Because somewhere like Cobham which is state of the art one of the best in the world could have easily attracted training ground spinsorship. SB is not a decrepid old stadium either...looks quite modern as you approach it.

So still no proof that sponsors actually rejected the renaming then. I agree with what you say in principle but the poster did actually state that sponsor deals of renaming/rebranding SB were rejected by potential sponsors. What if say the West Stand stays and the other 3 stands are rebuilt/remodeled? Its still Stamford Bridge

Are you also saying this is because he was a triplet ?....because thats what that part of the debate is about

thanks...remember now.but rejections due to age of ground?Never seen that

Really??? Have never seen anything about SB name being sold in the time Abramovich is here. No mention of it in end of year and pre season reports by the board or in fan club meetings with the them. Do you have links? Would be interesting to see this

depends what happens with FFP....if it sticks I could easily see certain naming rights at SB and possibly Cobham being sold off.However FFP is in a mess at the moment so its safe at the moment. The Yokohama Bridge or the The Gazprom training ground dont sound right ;-)

yeah...because thats their only work at the moment and they all live within walking distance of SB ;-)

thats the whole point.Wembley as an events centre already has its own contracts with regards to certain aspects of staffing such as security catering etc and CFC cant really dictate to them about getting prefferred partners in. They also have their own admin etc. WHS implied that only 30% of SB staff would be required from what he heard from his sources if an event centre like Wembley was used.....I can see the reasons why it doesnt sound great if we made 70% redundant when a move to Upton park meant we kept 100%. Lots of weighing up by Chelsea at boardroom level required

the question wasnt that at all...it asked the differenceand I answered..... We would fully staff Upton park but not other grounds

yup.....totally agree.Been drinking in their pubs in that area last couple seasons and even they are a bit run down. Give us the Olympic stadium for a couple matches though....;-)

doesnt make sense. If you are saying the fact they are bigger means there are more staff, surely that means 70% of SB wouldnt lose jobs. What he meant was that stadiums like Wembley, Twickers are already staffed and West Hams bolyn ground wouldnt be staffed by then

because they will already have their own full time and part time staff

There will be regulations such as local resident issues etc ...Twickenham will have similar regulations with the amount of 'live' events that can be held there. With reference to the above and West Ham ground.....there was also a rumour that they could be approached about the Olympic stadium share possibilities or the occasional match to tie in with Wembley and Twickers

actually different deficencies can be caused by a number of things such as smoking or hereditary amongst them.Some can also be fixed by such things as breast feeding and will have no effect on later life. I am only going on personal experience as an identical twin and having lots of tests when younger. Each family is different so for you to state medical stuff as fact with regards to bone structure and to reckon that being a triplet is the reason why for all of his injuries astounded me

only might have thinner skulls.......rest of bone structure CAN be quite normal.....Thats a fact. Of course some twins trips etc will have slight deficiencies but how do you know the Cech family had?

Have you seen his medical records then and are you a qualified orthopedist? Youngest of triplets eh...... so just because he came out third doesnt prove anything one way or another.His skull (MIGHT) be thinner but so would have the other two as well...doesnt matter 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Youngsters playing computer games are more likely to have an overall weaker bone structure than him

just rehashing old speculation and/or news.Hopefully we will get confirmed plans from the club soon and possibly design ideas

Over your head son ;-)