strong centreback

If it was a temporary move whilst the new ground was built, if for some reason the bridge was sold off straight away, but not permanently even if it makes it easier for me to get to.

An article from cfcnet: CPO: Twickenham it is! An inside source in Chelsea’s 5th floor has let slip what a number of canny CPO watchers have felt for some time. Namely, the Club intends to move to a ready-built stadium in 2020. That stadium is Twickenham. At one point it seemed Wembley might get the nod but we have heard from a few people in the FA that Wembley is ‘not on the agenda’. That could explain why a number of Wembley businesses are against the CPO deal whereas one might have expected them to be in favour (if it had brought in substantial extra revenue). Wembley Car Parks no less has published an extraordinary full page statement in favour of the ‘NO Vote’ which you can read here. A better overview of the CPO coup d’état would be hard to find. The reason for the move to Twickenham is simple. It lies near the epicentre of Chelsea’s UK fan base. Chelsea has long been a heavy user of data mining and analytic techniques and these have mapped out where Chelsea supporters live in the UK. The central point of our support is Kingston-Upon-Thames, a stone’s throw from Twickenham (Editor’s note: very near Man Utd’s epicentre in Surrey). That is why the Club opened, closed and then re-opened a megastore in Kingston itself. The Club’s use of data is well known in marketing circles. Natalie Waddell, Chelsea’s head of data has gone on record in Data Strategy magazine (read article here) and said, “The Club is now able to profile (and target) potential multi-use fans using a predictive scorecard which ranks single use supporters with the highest propensity to utilise the hotels, restaurants and retail outlets at our Stamford Bridge complex. The results – increased spend is among them.” With Twickenham already built and located at the heart of Chelsea’s support, representations are said to have been made to Twickenham’s owners, the RFU, who are thought to have received the proposal enthusiastically – not least because the ground is heavily underused and the £millions in rent per annum would substantially boost the RFU’s coffers. The deal also has another major advantage: there is no need to build a new stadium whilst the 82,000 capacity would sell out for the visits of teams like Utd and Arsenal. Moreover, and here is the crux of the issue, the 12.5 acres of Chelsea real estate can then be sold by the Club for a realistic £750 million. At one stroke of a pen, Roman Abramovich gets his total Chelsea investment returned whilst owning a Top Ten European football team housed in a stadium comparable to Old Trafford, the Bernabeu or Camp Nou. This is why the Club cannot, and will not, disclose to CPO holders its true intentions. There would be uproar and a solid ‘NO’ vote. However, once the CPO deal has been railroaded through, the Club can freely relocate to Twickenham and brush aside any resistance in the same way that the Glazers simply laugh at the yellow and green scarves dotted around Old Trafford. Resistance is futile. That is why at Thursday’s CPO vote, it is beholden on every true Chelsea fan to VOTE NO.

Little update from the guardian, which seems to lend a little weight to the fact the board are maybe having to do things earlier than planned in regards to a stadia move as qpr are also on the hunt for land to build a new ground, and no doubt we will be sniffing round similar sites no doubt. Neighbours on the move: Chelsea and QPR and the battle for new grounds West London rivals want to move from their old stadiums, but suitable sites are at a premium Queens Park Rangers and Chelsea – long-standing west London rivals – collide again on Sunday at Loftus Road for the first time in the league for 15 years. But there is now added dimension to the clubs' mutual antipathy – with each in a race to grab one of the few available sites for a new stadium in the Hammersmith and Fulham borough they share. Greater monetary yield, as ever in the Premier League, is the catalyst for the clubs' expansion plans. Chelsea gaze with envy at Arsenal's financial transformation since moving to the 60,000-seat Emirates in 2006 and at the 75,000 plus who can now watch Manchester United at Old Trafford.QPR note how Sunderland and Stoke City's new builds allowed them to reap more funds from their fan base. Tony Fernandes, QPR's new owner, wants a move away from Loftus Road but not out of what he calls "a fantastic area". If the Malaysian businessman, who bought the club in the summer, can raise the cash and secure the land, the next step is relatively simple. Neil Warnock, the manager, says: "We're already talking about a new stadium. Tony is one of those owners who, with the other shareholders, just want to get there yesterday." Chelsea are aware of his ambitions and want to move fast. Yet for their oligarch proprietor, Roman Abramovich, the scenario is complex. The club insists that no definitive decision has been made to move. If they do, plots have been identified, with an area next to Battersea power station the current favourite, and sites at Earl's Court and White City other options. Earl's Court is the club's preference, on the north site, as it is the closest to Stamford Bridge, and would allow fans to continue their current pre- and post-match rituals. If Capco, which owns Earl's Court, is willing to reopen talks with Chelsea then the club would gladly accept the chance. Abramovich's first challenge, though, is to buy back the freehold on Stamford Bridge so that the land can be developed to raise funds. To do this he needs to convince the Chelsea Pitch Owners that there is no wish to relocate any further away than a three-mile radius. Chelsea insist they want to stay close to their roots. If they are to move then the deadline for one of the sites is 2020, they say. This, Chelsea contends, is due to the belief that they will all be taken by then. An extraordinary meeting of the CPO, whose members have owned the land since 1993, will be held on Thursday, with the politicking fully under way. Abramovich's offer to the 12,000 shareholders who own the 15,000 shares is to buy them at the sum they originally cost, a total of £10m, £8.5m of which was a loan from the club, which will be written off by the Russian. He is arguing, not unfairly, that the original purchase was never about profit, but safeguarding Chelsea's future. While Abramovich wants to leave Stamford Bridge with its capacity of 42,000 for a new home that can house 55,000 to 60,000, Warnock believes that QPR could regularly attract at least 30,000. "When I was at Huddersfield [1993-95], we got something like 4,000 average at the old Leeds Road and then at the McAlpine we had 12,500 day one so it trebled." Those opposed to Abramovich's offer are not against moving but want a new destination legally signed off first. Richard King, the CPO chairman, is careful to balance each side's concerns. "As directors of CPO," he says, "we had an obligation to ensure shareholders could discuss the club's proposal and then vote on it. It's for shareholders to decide, not us." He is clear that Chelsea need to relocate. "I have been watching Chelsea for years. It's like a second home. On the other hand, I understand that because of its location the stadium can't be extended. With Financial Fair Play rules to come, we need a bigger stadium to compete. Finishing below Spurs, because they have a bigger stadium and therefore a stronger squad than us, is too awful to contemplate." The Say No CPO organisation is upset that neither the CPO nor the club informed them that negotiations had occurred without the shareholders being told before the situation became public. "CPO had to deal with the proposal in confidence at the behest of the club," the Pitch Owners said. "Its directors have sought to clarify and settle a proposal which reflects what the club will offer and to allow the shareholders of CPO to decide, on a 75% vote if in favour, whether or not to accept it." What Chelsea supporters would also certainly not like is if QPR became the noisy neighbours who take up the prime spot in their local manor.

Apparently the egm is now being held in the great hall in the west stand, the cpo have brought in the Electoral Reform Services to oversee the vote due to greater numbers now expected to turn up on the day, they are writing to all cpo shareholders and you need to email them to confirm your presence on the day. If you are going make sure you have photo id on you ie: driving licence or passport, as no photo id means no admittance.

The chairman told viewers he was sure the name Stamford Bridge would go with the club should it move, and that the club would listen to fans' recommendations that a new ground design should have one, big, single-tier 'home end' stand as seen at some other grounds across Europe. 'If it makes sense and makes the fans happy, of course we'd consider things like that.'

Actually if we assume that a little over a third of cpo members (6000) take part in the vote either in person or by proxy and two thirds own one share per person and the final third own say 3 shares each then you would have a total of 10000 votes taking part, assuming all that bruce buck has 1% of the possible votes.

http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/london-sport/london-chelsea-fc/2011/10/18/chelsea-chairman-increased-cpo-shareholding-to-voting-max-this-year-82029-29617581/? By Dan Levene CHELSEA chairman Bruce Buck has revealed that he topped-up his existing shareholding in Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) to the voting maximum of 100 shares just this year. Mr Buck, who is presently spearheading Chelsea's campaign to buy the freehold of Stamford Bridge back from CPO, says he intends to use those 100 shares to vote in favour of the proposals put to the independent group by the Board of Directors that he chairs. In a statement today, Chelsea Football Club revealed that Mr Buck's initial CPO share purchase came in 1995 – at a time when the club was aggressively marketing the shares as a way to protect it's Stamford Bridge home from acquisitive property developers. Then he bought just a single share costing £100, as a gift to his son. Over the course of the last two years, a time when CPO has been far less active in marketing shares, Mr Buck increased that shareholding to the extent that at the coming general meeting called to discussed the offer on October 27, he will have the full voting maximum of 100 shares – valued at £10,000. In total, around 15,500 CPO shares have been sold since 1993. A spokesman for Chelsea Football Club said: “The Chairman first purchased a share in Chelsea Pitch Owners as a gift to his son in 1995. He made subsequent share purchases in his own name in 2010 and 2011 and these are clearly shown in the CPO register. “Mr Buck bought those shares as a fan, and as someone fully supportive of CPO; and is currently the registered holder of 100 shares. Mr Buck intends to vote his shares in favour of the proposal, and has asked others to do the same.” The CPO register shows that Mr Buck purchased the shares in his own name, and made no attempt to hide the purchases. No other members of his immediate family appear on the CPO register, and it is understood no other members of the Chelsea Board have purchased CPO shares. CPO shares cannot be traded on the open market, so it would not be possible for Mr Buck to make any direct profit on his shareholding, other than the return of his initial £10,000 outlay. Rules on insider trading applying to quoted shares would therefore not apply in this case. Indeed, Mr Buck would almost certainly deny any conflict of interest. CPO shares with full voting rights have continued to be available for purchase since the club announced it's bid on October 3: and it is understood that there has been an upsurge in sales since this date. There is no evidence that anyone directly connected with the club has bought shares since this date, though it is clear that some of those campaigning for a 'no' vote have made purchases - in some cases of multiple shares. Note: the author of this article wishes to make it known that he is personally the registered holder of one CPO share, purchased in 2011 at a cost of £100. He intends to vote against the club's proposal to buy back the freeholding of Stamford Bridge.

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2482506,00.html New info seems to be making its way out of the club, touches on some other issues like ticket prices and stadium design.

If they lose the vote then id expect them to come back with a counter offer, realistically id say the first may be implemented by the club, the second I reckon will get shot down in flames and the third will be nothing more than a gesture that the thoughts of the fan forums will be taken into consideration.

Not sure this is creditable but http://www.football365.com/chelsea/7248130/Chelsea-reject-campaigners-offer?

Woolwich Wanderers have had more home stadiums than liverpool have won european cups, when they moved it was more a case of here we go again, remember they were a south east london team originally. As long as we dont do a 'arsenal' or what the spurts wanted to do by relocating out of their traditional area of london (olympic stadium move) then I wont be too pissed off, bruce buck seems to have been attributed quotes recently saying that we are not interested in moving out of west/south west london, so old oak common and wormwood scrubs seem to be off the table if you believe him, which is great as they are shit holes, battersea power station would be my ideal site out of the actual sites that are a realistic option (earls court seems highly as the redevelopment plans for that site are quite advanced) we could have a stadium right next to the river and make it the best in the country and hopefully the envy of europe. Im not keen on the bbc white city site as its qphahaha country, but a guy on cfcnet said that apparantly that is our first choice when it becomes available and the reason the club are trying to buy out the cpo is because qprs new chairman is sniffing round the site as he also wants a new ground for his club, thus chelsea's stance of wanting to be able to make a quick move if the right site becomes available.

Give the man a coconut, hes got it

If we move the club wants to sell stamford bridge so that it can be turned either into flats or maybe a office complex, the money from that sale would go towards the cost of the new stadium, if the club cannot sell stamford bridge then they will not move, simples.

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.

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.

Indeed you do, and depending on where we moved to maybe a local landmark could be incorporated into the name (that would only be used till the naming rights were sold) like the way the bridge was named. My suggestion would be for us fans to accept that the naming of the actual stadium will be sold to the highest bidder but.. we shoul have a vote on the stand names, the new shed, one named after the king of the bridge peter osgood, matthew harding and one after our former home the bridge end?

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.

After seeing him in action since his arrival at the club id argue the guy has more charisma than jose and conducts himself in whats considered the right way, avoiding controversy and producing seemingly what it is roman wants, attacking football, if he can bring us the champions league during his time here then I see him going down as a club legend, so far all the signs are pointing towards a long and successful career with us long my it continue.

New ground new name, wouldnt make sense to call it stamford bridge anyway if you know the reason why stamford bridge is called as such.

My mate is going out there in january, not sure its for the same type of holiday though lol

In a perfect world earls court or imperial wharf would be ideal, wouldnt need to change pubs you drink in just leave 5-10 minutes earlier to get in ground.

from @@EastUpper3 on twitter: I have just been told that Chelsea are in detailed discussions to buy the Makro site and surrounding properties in Atlas Road NW10..... ....this info comes via a corporate sponsor who has a large business in the same area. If there is even a hint of truth to this then the cpo should refuse full stop to sell, im all for progress and needs must in regards to a new stadia so am generally in the yes camp, but not at a cost to our heritage, old oak common is an absolute shithole the whole area surrounding it is also a shithole, goes totally against what chelsea football club stands for and if nw10 is the preffered option for a new ground to be built on then im well up for never selling the cpo back to the club. If it isnt a sw or w postcode then I wouldnt even consider it for a split second, battersea nine elms id be happy with as its traditionally where alot of our support originate from but moving us out of west/south west london is not on, we are not woolwich wanderers, chelsea is west london the glitz the glamour its what sets us apart from the rest of the other clubs in london the country even, it is also a major pull in bringing players to the club, do you see the next big thing coming out of south america for example choosing us hypothetically over madrid if we had a ground in some shithole industrial estate in a dive like north acton/harlesden or in the the pride of london the west end? If its nw10 then it goes against everything our great club stands for and I personally think it a fucking disgrace if its even being considered, they might as well go the whole hog and move us out of london and down to cobham/guildford.

besides the main one about egress from the stadium on to the fulham rd.

Didnt this years increase come after 4 years of staying the same for the goons?

Heres something to chew on, if we stay at the bridge in the coming years ticket prices will continue to go up on a probable annual basis, should we move to a new stadia then it could mean cheaper tickets in the longer run with less increases.