strong centreback

Nail Hammer Head, id argue though that if we let kalou go as well (quite possible) that we would need a striker, even more so if lukaku goes on loan. Cahill seems like it might well go through as alex for my money will be going to juventus within the first week of january the money we get for him would pay for cahill you'd imagine (8m-ish), they have been after him for a while now and there have been reports we have a deal in principle for cahill which may not be to much of a stretch to believe considering the AVB - coyle link. Anelka will be off in january too but I dont necessarily feel like we need to replace him if we dont lose any other strikers, if however we sell for example kalou and let lukaku go out on loan then we would need to invest in another striker somebody with abit of quality though as torres is still struggling even if he is playing better than last season and drogba is definitely off at the end of the year. Right wing spot is some where we need to improve on but not with somebody world class as we have danny who is developing rapidly into a very very dangerous player with his first team exposure, we need a decent youngish (18-22) squad player for this position with a similar skill set as danny/nani/ronaldo/etc, bit of pace, bit of flair and able to stretch the defence, we have been linked with eduardo vargas who from the little of seen on youtube would tick all of the above whilst not stunting sturridges development but also providing competition for his place, cheap wages, relatively low transfer fee and would be available in january. Playmaker? now that is a much harder position to fill with quality in january, id imagine that all the players we would like/want would not be leaving in january unless they put in a transfer request, so id put that on the backburner for now and make it the number one priority in the summer.

Essien will be back soon dont forget, and when he is back as long as this latest injury hasnt effected him permantly then id be all for selling mikel, he doesnt fit in with the new style of play we are trying to implement, he is to laborious and romeu for my money will keep him out of the team from now on as he is perfect for this new way of playing, very barca like in his style of play (obviously) yet has a tough streak.

Couldnt be built inside the power station as its not big enough, the chimneys also need sorting as well due to the fact they are well over their life expectancy so they need pulling down before they fall down, this could be the reason that they made the offer to the cpo, the debt on the site has matured and its possible for the lenders to call it in so puts any new bidder in a good position should that arise as the current owners dont have the money. Id imagine that the power station shell if kept (not totally impossible to demolish) would be turned into shops or offices etc whilst the new ground would be built on some of the other parts derelict site.

from cfcnet: CPO: FIFA advisor bought £10k shares on 18th October It has been disclosed that an advisor to Sepp Blatter (and FIFA) bought 100 shares in Chelsea Pitch Owners just eight days before the EGM vote. The person concerned, who cannot be named for legal reasons, bought the maximum number of shares along with his son, who also purchased a £10,000 block. The information was passed on to CFCnet via an anonymous email account, yet on deeper analysis it would appear that the information is readily available in the public domain by anyone wishing to view the CPO share register. All one needs to do is look at purchases of blocks of £10,000 worth of shares on 18th October 2011. There’s not a lot else on the list for that particular day, particularly from Geneva. We are, unfortunately, not allowed to disclose much further information about the individual concerned yet one look at his role ‘assisting’ in the PR aftermath of Union Carbide’s Bhopal disaster (3787 deaths, 558,000 injuries) would make any sane person shudder, although his acquittal in 1995 for cocaine trafficking is a cause for relief. We would also like it put on record that this man did a wonderful job advising Bruce Buck and Chelsea over the Gael Kakuta affair which threatened to have us banned from any transfers for two consecutive transfer windows. Indeed, when a man has advised Sepp Blatter until 2008, who better to go to when negotiating with FIFA than the very same man? For that Sir, take a bow. You are a good egg. A top man. A credit to any Chelsea fan alive and you will always be welcome at the Chelsea Ram pub in Burnaby Street. I’ll buy you a Swiss schnapps topped with a Hungarian lemon. We will leave it to our readers to make up their own mind whether a man and his son who purchased two blocks of £10k worth of shares from Geneva, eight days before the vote, were operating merely for the good of Chelsea FC or to assist Bruce Buck and Chelsea in rigging the CPO EGM vote. We believe it is clearly the former and anyone insinuating otherwise will be banned from the CFCnet Forum and reported to the Information Commissioner.

My belief is if we are after cahill it is because he has been identified as being the eventual replacement for JT, terry god love him is gonna be doing well to still be playing at 33 let alone as a first choice for a title challenger, he has racked up alot of miles and injurys over the last 10 years so if he is still a week in week out for us in 2 years time that alone is an achievement as far as im concerned.

Transition people, get used to it AVB is building something that could be great but he needs time to implement it, as defeatist as this sounds I see man city for the next two years doing what we done under jose for his first 2 years, smashing the league and leaving everyone in their wake, their squad is stupidly strong and mancini is a defensive coach who has a world class frontline in depth. What we need to be doing is what man utd done, which is build and get to the bar that has been raised, AVB's football is more expansive and as such will leave us more open at the back, a few quality signings to strengthen our depth and we could be on the verge of something very good. Our main problem is purely our main strikers are out of sorts, drogba is abit hit and miss currently and torres is still lacking quite abit from what we expect him to be able to do for us, kalou is kalou, anelka has a worse record in front of goal than drogba or torres in recent times. Our wingers in mata and sturridge are topdraw and good + getting better, kalou is kalou and malouda is malouda not much more to expand on that im afraid, we need better strength in depth for our attacking options, cast some of the tried tested and failing players for younger hungrier players. Our line up for the top sector looks like this, or different variations of the below: mata--------torres-------sturridge malouda------drogba-------anelka/kalou Now the first seems to be our strongest but needs a season to gel properly id say, and the second is the line up that wasnt scoring enough last season, so there in lies the problem we need next summer to have a shake up, you could even start it in january, AVB seems to be the first manager to have clocked kalou id expect him to be gone either january or the first week after the season finishes, anelka is off for definite, drogba id be surprised if he stayed to be honest, malouda may be kept on to keep the numbers up but he would only have one more year left and after that he will be gone too. So with 3 out of our current 6 players potentially leaving (all out of contract as well dont forget) then that would allow us to say sign (from paper talk) de bruyne and hazard whilst pushing lukaku more in to the first team frame and potentially buying another striker if torres doesn't find his goal scoring form of old. A year from now we will be clearer as to where the team is heading but for my money id say its on the right if bumpy track, have faith and be patient it might take 2-3 years to achieve but once it is achieved you will be glad it happened and the taste of victory will be sweeter.

Battersea is approx 2 miles away from the bridge south of the river, It would be wandsworth council and not fulham and hammersmith so less swanky but it would provide us with a big enough site to do something special with and is in the heart of our traditional fan base area.

Battersea mentioned again http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8901837/Abramovich-eyes-Battersea-move-for-Chelsea-FC.html

Where is the line drawed on that though? is it racist if for example I was living in india/africa and I was called a white cunt? as in their country I would be in the minority, or is it minority on a worldwide scale? or can it go down to communitys? another example if I was in southall, and I was called a white cunt by a group of asian youths would that not be racist? as in that area of our country I would be in a minority to another race/creed. With racism surely its a level playing field or why bother? its stupid to say only certain races can be affected by racism, the minoritys amongst the majority seemingly have a kind of victim mentality, its almost like a subconscious instinct if you like you feel like your being discriminated against because your different to the masses, and its not just in a traditional sense (black minority within a white majority) it works the otherway too, I feel the same way in my head when I do work in a prominently black/asian area as id imagine the opposites would in the opposite situation, racism is basically self-perpetuating due to peoples pre concivied notions that the other race doesnt like you.

Up to 10m a season although id expect lower, if they have made headway in the naming rights to the bridge then it is purely down to the fact that they are giving said sponsor first refusal on a new grounds naming rights as well, as the last report about this subject gourlay said they were finding it difficult to sell as stamford bridge had to be kept in the name as promised.

Certainly something which every football club should be pushing for, the modern football fan is a different breed from the fan of the late eighties and security at matches is 10 fold what it was as well, the safe standing in germany is what needs to be pushed as prove its safe and can be used over here.

Asian flotation: real reason for CPO land grab? by Martin Rowe CFCnet has received a startling tip off from a merchant banker (purporting to be from a top City institution) regarding the CPO stadium land grab by Chelsea FC. The anonymous tip off, received on our iPhone but from an untraceable number, is made all the more convincing because we asked said banker to prove his credentials. He replied by describing the interior elevator to the fifth floor, the one that houses Roman, Tenenbaum etc (the real power clique behind Buck and Gourlay). The banker described how the elevator goes between Floor One & Four in normal fashion (correct) but to access Floor Five one has to insert a special plastic card (correct). He also described the Russian Special Forces goon (bulging left armpit) at the entrance to the fifth floor posing as security (also correct). Clearly, whoever this chap is, he’s been to the inner sanctum of Chelsea FC. The banker went on to reveal that the recent stadium land grab by Chelsea FC (snap EGM/£269,000 in dodgy share purchases leading up to the vote/carefully plotted PR campaign) had nothing whatsoever to do with a move to a new stadium. This is what the banker had to say, “The stadium move might or might not happen but it is not the real reason Chelsea tried to railroad CPO shareholders into handing over their shares.” He continued, “rather it’s because Chelsea intend to follow Man Utd’s lead and list on one of the Asian Stock Exchanges, either Hong Kong or Singapore.” When asked why this would involve CPO, the banker stated, “The Club intend to float 49% of the Club – to raise upwards of £500 million – but to do that it must offer investors more than a few players, a training ground and a balance sheet nursing red ink.” The banker then added, “any flotation must be backed by real assets and that means the 12-odd acres of Chelsea real estate. The pitch, because it is owned by CPO, represents a considerable barrier that must be removed – it’s essentially a ransom strip.” The banker then went on, “the Club’s line that they can’t negotiate with brownfield site owners because of CPO is laughable. The moment anyone in the City of London sees Roman Abramovich the doors are flung wide open. To suggest otherwise is a poorly disguised lie.” CFCnet then asked about the stadium move to which we received the following answer, “I’m not involved in that, I was only involved in the preliminary stages of organising a flotation and my role has been passed on to more senior bankers”. The banker then added, “it would be easy for the Club to say where it was moving the stadium to. The reason it isn’t prepared to do so is probably because they don’t have anywhere earmarked yet they still need to float the Club. That’s why they can’t tell the truth.” CFCnet doesn’t feel competent enough in investment banking matters to comment on the accuracy (or not) of the above tip off. All we can vouch for is that whoever this person is, he has been to visit the inner coterie of Chelsea FC board members (the organ grinder behind Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay). It also answers at a swipe why the Club can’t tell CPO shareholders where they want to move to. In all probability they don’t have anywhere in mind. Indeed, this week’s announcement by Hammersmith & Fulham Council (“The Council now proposes to examine whether there are planning options to expand Stamford Bridge to accommodate a larger capacity”) also gives lie to the fact that all Stamford Bridge options have been exhausted and that the Council is itself a ‘barrier’. What we at CFCnet know is (1) the Club are lying (2) there is a deeper agenda at work. What agenda this is we don’t know but the above conversation has certainly made us stop and think, especially as our fan base in Asia is second only to Man Utd. Interesting if true.

Cant see anyone paying him 250k a week at 19 with no european experience, so if that is bullshit and like peace said he has a buyout of 40m sterling then by that fact the whole article is bullshit. Personally think that we are potentially still in with a shout for him, madrid are sniffing round hazard now reportedly, I personally think one of those two will be our big summer siging to take away some of the attention that drogba, anelka and kalou all leave as out of contract.

Look at this picture from the official site, http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2501875,00.html See how boxed in it is!

I wouldnt expect this to be anything more than a pr exercise by the council, health and safety regs stipulate that no more than our current capacity can get out of the bridge in the timeframe needed in an emergency situation due to the only egress point being the fulham road, that is a bloody major hurdle to get over to increase capacity, and when the club have looked into the only viable option of overcoming that issue with a walkway over the top of the railway lines uptowards west brompton station, but the council shot that down, citing various reasons. The council just dont want to look like the people that forced us to move, if they put on a pr show stating they will help us to explore avenues to increase again, then when it comes to the local residents objecting and the health and safety not budging on their numbers they can play the innocent party and say we tried. The club board may be out of touch with the fans on this issue, have done a things very underhand and deviously, but I personally believe them when they say we cant expand the bridge looking at it objectively its logical the bridge is cramped on its land (13acres) as it is, can you imagine trying to squeeze an extra 20k in there? you would need an extra 50% acreage to accommodate a 50% capacity increase.

FRANKHAM TO CHAIR CPO Following the resignation of Richard King as chairman and a director of Chelsea Pitch Owners Plc, the remaining directors of the Company have invited Steve Frankham to rejoin the board of directors and to act as chairman. He has accepted that invitation. Steve Frankham is a long-time Chelsea supporter, who was an original director when CPO was founded in 1993. He became its chairman in 1997 - when Tony Banks resigned as chairman upon entering government - and led CPO during its most successful period of fundraising. Upon his appointment, Mr Frankham said he relished the opportunity to lead CPO in this vital period and to help it achieve its historic objectives. Mr Frankham, together with the other directors of CPO, will be up for re-election at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting. The Board would like to express its sincere thanks to Richard King for the huge contribution he has made to CPO over the last eight years. The Board of CPO 31 October 2011.

http://www.telegraph...rd-Bridge.html? A grassroots rebellion at Stamford Bridge Even Roman Abramovich and his millions can’t sway the diehard Chelsea football supporters. A heartwarming and rather unexpected thing happened this week in English football. And no, delicious as the news was, it had nothing to do with the disgraced misogynists Richard Keys and Andy Gray being obliged to cancel a nationwide tour after a profound lack of activity at the box office. Rather, it happened in that cradle of democracy, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. And it featured a bunch of football fans reminding those who think they are in control of the game who it is that actually counts. The Chelsea Pitch Owners are a group of Blues fans who, back in 1992, came together to stop the institution they love falling into the hands of asset-strippers. No one has heard of them since, largely because they are a non-profit group and football these days is entirely preoccupied with money. But on Thursday, they decided that they weren’t going to flog the freehold of their Stamford Bridge pitch to Chelsea’s owner, Roman Abramovich. Now, you may have thought that Abramovich already owned everything to do with Chelsea, from the hospitality lounges to the Vegas-style hotels flanking the stadium to the bloke who paints the centre circle. The Russian has, over the past eight years, siphoned the best part of £800 million from the gas fields of Siberia to this particular west London playing field. But the one thing he doesn’t own, it turns out, is the very grass on which his team plays. Instead, since 1992, it has been owned by those supporters who were prepared to stump up £100 a share. They then leased the grass to the club for a nominal rent. It seemed a purely formal arrangement. To all intents and purposes, Chelsea is Abramovich’s. He does the hiring, and more often the firing. He is the boss. And a benevolent one, too: his association with Chelsea has been entirely to its advantage. Recently, however, Abramovich has sought to move his possession to bigger premises, ones that could generate a higher income. In order to do so, he must first sell Stamford Bridge. And to do that, he needs the freehold. Which is where the fans so gloriously demonstrated their bloody-mindedness. The rules of the Chelsea Pitch Owners require a 70 per cent majority in favour of handing over the freehold. Abramovich thought that would be easily arranged, and had his allies buy up the shares. But the fans weren’t having it: though the vote went Abramovich’s way, the required majority was not forthcoming. As of this week, then, the fans still own the pitch. And that’s important. In part, it secures the future. Abramovich is a magnificent benefactor, but he won’t be around for ever. What if the owner who follows him is an asset-stripper, keen to realise the immense value of a huge development site on the Fulham Road? Besides, Stamford Bridge is a place the fans love. It is a place where they spend huge swaths of their lives, where they buried the ashes of the club’s biggest hero, Peter Osgood, in an urn beneath the penalty spot. Luckily, the situation is not intractable. Instead of trying to rig the vote, all Abramovich needs to do is to offer the fans the freehold of any new stadium, in exchange for the one at Stamford Bridge. Because that, after all, is what they want to ensure: that the football remains long after any owner has moved his pile elsewhere. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The chelsea barracks site sold for a shade under 1billion to the candy brothers and a qatar investment vehicle, that is 3 miles up the road, makes you wonder about the bridges true value? the club if ever in an akward position in the future, would be circled by potential investers whether they be football fans or property speculators who could turn a profit by sticking us in a new cheaper stadia on a brownfield site on the m25 and turning the bridge into flats, its a remote possibility though obviously, but it did happen to us before.

There maybe no need according to the club in the current or future but that is under the current regime, but there maybe a need in the distant future if we were to have a new owner that is less roman and more risdale, thats the point the cpo are making, and ultimately why is it that the cpo cant be transferred, it just keeps the status quo as it is, club gets what it wants in a new stadia with increased revenues and the cpo/fans (likely to be the ones who kept turning up when we got relegated in 83) get to keep being the clubs guardian if it ever got to that marler estates scenario again. No one can predict the future so why get rid of something designed to protect the club and which has the best intentions for the club at heart when there is no need, having the cpo hold any new freehold at a new stadium is not a problem for anyone, unless we are either in the current position of wanting a move and needing a 75% yes vote or that the stadium is trying to be sold from under us.

If they transferred the cpo shares onto the freehold of the new site and had in a contract that they would remain in a sw postcode as close to the current bridges location as possible, then they would have got more than the 75% needed. The transparency the cpo are asking for is not a great leap from what is already on the table, if they moved the cpo over as well then that would be a cool 10m saved as well, even if circa 8m of it is little more than debt on paper. It really isnt hard for the club to comeback with a counter offer of the counter offer put to them from the sncpo campaign, make the deadline 2025, promise a huge one tier home stand behind the goal and to transfer the cpo onto the new freehold, that would get the extra 15% odd needed yes votes.

Like you said you can play the what if card all night, fact of the matter is nobody knows what will happen in 10, 20, 30 years time for the club, im sure leeds would have liked a cpo structure in place when peter risdale was chairman, bottom line is why take away a line of defence when you dont have to? if the cpo stick to their guns on a transfer of rights to a new ground the club will have to give in if they are 100% behind a move, id imagine alot of our current fans had never heard about the cpo up until nearly a month ago. No need to be patronising with your last sentence Im right behind and appreciate everything roman has done for us, and very much want and expect him to stay for a long long time yet, my want for the cpo to continue is born out of the fact that the grandson of the original owner, who founded us, instigated the need for the cpo in the first place, its not that I dont trust roman, I do, its that I dont know what will happen with future owners and so see no need to get rid of said organisation, and frankly nor should the club.

How about putting it in the next offer like the 2020 move promise?

Id imagine they want assurances that the club wont move out of south west london fullstop, even west london like white city isnt a popular choice due to being so close to qphahaha

That was the original idea behind the cpo, its just that it never got to the level of members first thought was possible by bates, im not sure what is wrong with 15k people who are majority dyed in the wool chelsea fans having the ultimate say on whether we move or not, they are speaking not only for themselves but also for the non cpo holders that would say no, until the club gives cast iron guarantees that we never move out of south west london and lets the cpo is transfered onto the new ground, I hope they continue to say no, as for us supporters they are our only voice on the matter.

You obviously dont understand what it is the cpo have power over, they literally only have the power to stop the club from having the ground sold out from under them by unscrupulous owners, they have no powers to sell the ground without chelsea fc agreeing to it as well, they also have to lease back the stadia automatically each time the 199 year lease at a cost of £1 an annum runs out, in laymans terms the cpo cant do anything without the club also agreeing to it and vice versa, its basically a water tight fail safe to insure the club never goes throught the legal battle of the eighties again. Now whether or not you agree if its needed anymore is irreverent, it might be needed in the future as who knows what that brings, that is the point sncpo are making.

And what if in 40 years time in a big new 60k seater stadium in battersea by the thames we got a new owner, say some americans akin to gillet and hicks, who purchase the club on leveraged debt totalling 500m for example but all the time accruing interest, they then start to make abysmal decisions like interfering with team selection and over spending beyond there means, we start losing ground in the league and drop out of the champions league spots (current liverpool pattern) for a few years, a few years without the CL revenue hits the club in the pocket and they cant afford to keep up with debt repayments and so need to sell a few players for money to service the debt which turns into a vicious cycle of selling better players and replacing with lesser quality players, this continues for a couple more years by which time it has taking its toll, we are considered a mid table club now. The club have a terrible start to the season, morale is at an all time low, the manager gets the chop 12 games in only to be replaced with someone just as unable to get the players to play above their level, and the club "too big to go down" gets relegated by the end of the season, following the drop our revenues flatline even with the parachute payments (if they still exist) the club default on the loans, problem is a championship club with premiership expenditure isnt worth alot of money anymore say circa 100m max with debts of say 550m and a playing squad worth another 100m, leaves a short fall for the banks on their original loan of circa 350m. Now where can the club raise the 350m needed to starve off the threat of liquidation? same way the mears did in the late 70s, and im sure if the owner whos family had owned the club for 75 years from its inception can sell the ground then a couple of hypothetical yanks up to their eyes in debt would, we would probably get a 10 year lease (minimum) back option in the deal but ultimately would find ourselves right back at the same situation as we were in with calibra/marler estates battle. Of course if the cpo was transfered onto any new ground in exchange for the bridges freehold said hypothetical situation couldnt happen, this isnt about what happens to the club now and in 10 years time, its also about what happens to it past romans and ours lifetimes.