mrparkersdogbite

There never were any Battersea Power Station stadium plans; just one single concept drawing. Not picking on you alone but that amount of whingeing and whining I've seen from Chelsea fans since the application has gone in is ridiculous - with criticism of everything from the design and the building materials to the need to move to Wembley for three years. I just don't think people realise how lucky we all are.

What about the 'Bridge Over Bubbled Water' sponsored by Perrier?

The trouble with 'modern' designs is that eventually they stop looking modern and start looking old fashioned. What I like about our plans are that they're more or less unique and so will hopefully come to be seen as classic and timeless.

The outside will still be London stock brick and the roof will be steel (exact colour not yet confirmed). Hard to make a model of that scale give a proper impression of the materials but the artists impressions of the design give a better idea (see http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1079233&page=34).

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?

The Stadium Green Guide states the following (in section 13.11) "When calculating sightlines it should be noted that the maximum recommended angle of slope for standing accommodation is 25°, compared with 34° for seating." Someone should get their protractor out.

The term Kop has a much longer historythan just being about the scousers.

Where are you hearing this Rhino? I'll be amazed and impressed if they can find one design that will give us a 60,000 stadium on the land we have available let alone four. But if you're right a huge single tier home end would be fantastic.

The Football Supporters Federation reckon safe standing gives an extra 12% capacity for any given space in a stadium. So the overall increase wouldn't be dramatic but it would still be worth it if it's possible.

Any idea if the club are planning to buy any of the properties surrounding Stamford Bridge? If they could then it will be easier to understand how they'll manage to fit a 60k stadium onto a very restricted site. Excellent ITKing regardless

I'm not sure that statement really clarifies anything apart from the fact that discussions are ongoing - which is good in itself. But I really don't like that odd reference to the 'perceived monetary value of a CPO share'. Is that saying that SNCPO are going to try and argue legally that the club and the CPO board have undervalued the shares by pricing them at £100? I'm really uncomfortable with SNCPO going down that line because it opens up the possibility that some people might just be in this for what cash they think they might get back. As everyone knows, this has nothing at all to do with money for the vast majority of us.

No. This is yet another piece of misinformation which, because it has been repeated often enough by 'credible' sources has become accepted as fact. But in order to change the CPO's Articles of Association (which would be required in this case) they need a Special Resolution to be passed by shareholders which, by law, requires a 75% majority. It doesn't matter whether the resolution is voted on at an EGM or an AGM. So whenever you see this statement written in a story about the CPO it confirms (a) that the journalist has failed to do any fact checking and (b ) that the rest of what he/she has written needs to be treated with some scepticism as well.

The club has never said that there is no way to increase capacity. Bruce Buck has said repeatedly that they could increase capacity by a few thousand but that it would cost so much to do so that it wouldn't actually provide any additional income to the club (I suspect the subtext to this is also that it wouldn't allow the club to build any new corporate facilities). The club has also stated that all the options to increase the Bridge by a more substantial number have been explored. I do believe this because if we could play in front of 60,000 at Stamford Bridge why wouldn't the club want to do that? This doesn't necessarily mean that everything has been discussed with the council though. Why go to the trouble of submitting planning applications that have no chance of being approved (by, let's not forget, a council which has acted as an obstacle to anything this club has ever tried to do: from rare orchids, to cup final parades to TV trucks on Champions League nights)? But do I welcome talks with the council? Of course I do. Still don't think it will come to anything though. True enough. We know newspapers lie - especially about Chelsea. But it's our responsibility not to repeat those lies just because it suits our personal agenda. Thanks. Nice to be here.

Certain newspapers reported it incorrectly after a tip-off by No voters. It was wrong when first reported and wrong now because it's illegal. And if there had been such a monstrous conspiracy don't you think the club would have won the vote? I'd also appreciate a list of the specific lies the club has told in this process.

That simply is not true. There are other things wrong with the way the club handled all this but there's no point in just making stuff up.