Stamford Bridge Thread

[NikkiCFC 7,942]

What is pitch owners stand about new stadium? Are they holding us back? Can Boehly potentially build a new stadium on other place and let them do whatever they want with SB? 

[Magic Lamps 11,653]

7 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

What is pitch owners stand about new stadium? Are they holding us back? Can Boehly potentially build a new stadium on other place and let them do whatever they want with SB? 

The club is contractually bound to continue using SB as home ground

[NikkiCFC 7,942]

5 minutes ago, Magic Lamps said:

The club is contractually bound to continue using SB as home ground

So they are holding us back. 

[We Hate Scouse 10,286]

34 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

So they are holding us back. 

Not necessarily, plans can go to the CPO for members to vote on. If the location wasn't far from SB and still in West London, it'd likely get approved. 

Theoretically, Boehly could just move the stadium without consent from the CPO, but he'd also have to rename the club as the CPO own the name Chelsea FC. 

I think it's important to remember the history and reasoning behind the CPO before we start slinging mud at them. 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

On 14/11/2022 at 16:16, Superblue said:

I don't get down to watch Chelsea often, but for me personally it wouldn't make any difference. I get the bus to Earl's Court and walk to the Bridge from there. Earl's Court is about 10-15 minute walk away from Stamford Bridge so it's hardly a move that would put people out. If moving was the only option available, I think most people would pick that as the ideal place to move purely from the proximity to where the Bridge is.

I think it would actually be the more logical option to trying to renovate Stamford Bridge which is fraught with problems to redevelop. The issues involved I think would end up resulting in a redevelopment costing nearly as much as a brand new stadium anyway. Certainly from the owners perspective, I could see a new stadium that can be built from the ground up to be far more attractive and that option would also allow us to build a stadium whilst continuing to play at Stamford Bridge until it's ready.

I think the biggest issue is for the CPO it goes beyond Stamford Bridge, it's having an element of control on the club as a whole to ensure there's no threat to what we see the club to be. Giving that up I'm not sure would be on the table. The only way this would have legs is if Clearlake/Boehly can placate by offering some form of binding assurances at their end with regards to the club.

There is at least one person among forum regulars who actively prefers to see a new stadium away from Stamford Bridge. Me.

You have listed most of the reasons I would give so I would add just one point; renovating Stamford Bridge would cost more than building a new stadium. In part this is because of the challenges of the SB site you've referred to, in part the costs related to the disruptions of playing and locating company offices elsewhere, and most of all because the costs of building elsewhere would be offset, if not outright covered, by the eventual sale or redevelopment of the Stamford Bridge site. (I expect Clearlake would want to develop the site themselves.)

Edited January 23, 2023 by OhForAGreavsie

[Superblue 6,370]

34 minutes ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

There is at least one person among forum regulars who actively prefers to see a new stadium away from Stamford Bridge. Me.

You have listed most of the reasons I would give so I would add just one point; renovating Stamford Bridge would cost more than building a new stadium. In part this is because of the challenges of the SB site you've listed, in part the costs related to the disruptions of playing and locating company offices elsewhere, and most of all because the costs of building elsewhere would be offset, if not outright covered, by the eventual sale or redevelopment of the Stamford Bridge site. (I expect Clearlake would want to develop the site themselves.)

Completely agree. When the talk of renovating an existing stadium is somewhere around the billion pound mark, it's just not economically feasible. As you've pointed out, other teams have helped offset a chunk of the costs of a new stadium with some form of redevelopment or sale of the old site. In our situation, this is even more significant given where Stamford Bridge sits.

The issue simply is in what situation will the CPO agree to this? I completely understand the reluctance in what is quite a delicate situation, and with what the club had to go through in recent months will have only strengthened that resolve that the hold over the Bridge is justified to retain some power within the club.

I'm not sure legally the positioning, but could there be a situation where the new ownership could agree to switch the CPO leasehold over to a new site, to allow the move? That might potentially help, but in all honesty I think there's too many people who's minds are made up that they don't want to move from the Bridge.

[NikkiCFC 7,942]

If we play at Wembley for many years what do you think guys would be our average attendance from possible 90k?

[ZAPHOD2319 4,476]

 

[Fulham Broadway 16,831]

1 minute ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

PR distraction from on field crisis ? oooh look over there !!

[ZAPHOD2319 4,476]

1 minute ago, Fulham Broadway said:

PR distraction from on field crisis ? oooh look over there !!

I could use a distraction. It is amazing in the worst way how weak our attack is with the quality of players on the field. I think gameday is becoming an anxiety ridden dose of depression every week. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,831]

34 minutes ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

I could use a distraction. It is amazing in the worst way how weak our attack is with the quality of players on the field. I think gameday is becoming an anxiety ridden dose of depression every week. 

Feel your pain, but we will turn the corner For me it's becoming less interesting - but thinking that this pool of players could produce sublime football with leaders on the pitch and the right coach

[TheHulk 1,855]

 

[NikkiCFC 7,942]

Why he doesn't just continue Roman project?

[ZAPHOD2319 4,476]

4 minutes ago, NikkiCFC said:

Why he doesn't just continue Roman project?

Those permits expired and they would need to start the entire approval process over. The permits expired before he bought the club.

[Vesper 28,770]

13 hours ago, ZAPHOD2319 said:

Those permits expired and they would need to start the entire approval process over. The permits expired before he bought the club.

exactly, and there are multiple options we can do

we still, IN THEORY, could build the Roman stadium, I would love that

hopefully if you do that, or do a total tear-down and rebuild of a another design, Boehly and Co can convince the Rugby Football Union to let us lease out Twickenham for the 4 or 5 years it will take

Edited February 25, 2023 by Vesper

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

5 hours ago, Vesper said:

exactly, and there are multiple options we can do

we still, IN THEORY, could build the Roman stadium, I would love that

hopefully if you do that, or do a total tear-down and rebuild of a another design, Boehly and Co can convince the Rugby Football Union to let us lease out Twickenham for the 4 or 5 years it will take

Why not Cottege or Wembley?

[Mário César 975]

well if we will go to another stadium means that we will stay at stamford bridge and will not build a new stadium, right?

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

1 minute ago, Mário César said:

well if we will go to another stadium means that we will stay at stamford bridge and will not build a new stadium, right?

We will build a new stamford bridge...