Stamford Bridge Thread

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

'The profit on the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge would be maybe a third of that amount, and money from other sources such as Mr Abramovich and banks would be needed to move to another location.

'I don't know how much money Mr Abramovich has,' he added. 'He has invested £800 million into this club, and no matter how much he has he must notice he has invested £800 million. A figure of £500 million for a new stadium is a lot of money no matter who you are, and the decision has been made that we're not going to move to another stadium unless we can take the proceeds of a redevelopment of Stamford Bridge towards it.'

I don't understand- we want to redevelopment SB-then to sell him and use the money+money from RA and maybe banks for the new Stadium?

[strong centreback 157]

'The profit on the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge would be maybe a third of that amount, and money from other sources such as Mr Abramovich and banks would be needed to move to another location.

'I don't know how much money Mr Abramovich has,' he added. 'He has invested £800 million into this club, and no matter how much he has he must notice he has invested £800 million. A figure of £500 million for a new stadium is a lot of money no matter who you are, and the decision has been made that we're not going to move to another stadium unless we can take the proceeds of a redevelopment of Stamford Bridge towards it.'

I don't understand- we want to redevelopment SB-then to sell him and use the money+money from RA and maybe banks for the new Stadium?

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.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

London need a free places for flats or maybe a office complex.....so....

but all this things can happen only if the CPO will Vote "YES"?

[strong centreback 157]

London need a free places for flats or maybe a office complex.....so....

but all this things can happen only if the CPO will Vote "YES"?

Give the man a coconut, hes got it

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

Give the man a coconut, hes got it

:eyebrows:

TNX

[BlueLion. 21,491]

I don't like the idea of us 'doing an Arsenal' and destroying more than a century of tradition.

However I think its better than seeing QPR move in...

[strong centreback 157]

I don't like the idea of us 'doing an Arsenal' and destroying more than a century of tradition.

However I think its better than seeing QPR move in...

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.

[Term-X 7,891]

I think that's unfair. Roman could've easily asked for those shares in 2003 before he bought the club. The fact is, he's allowed the CPO's existence for the last 8years. Chelsea only want it back now because they want to move, which is understandable.

Did the CPO really have much input anyway?

Indeed, the protests are cringeworthy to say the least.

It's like I said, Sentiment Vs Progression.

[Laylabelle 9,356]

I just hope when its all finished and all done that it doesnt look like crap...you walk into it think 'oooo/wow' rather then 'wtf is this?!?'

[BlueDutchy 63]

Say No CPO proposal to Chelsea FC:

The proposals put to the club by Say No CPO are as follows:

1 The club to have total freedom to move to a larger new stadium anywhere within three miles of Stamford Bridge at any time before 2030 so long as Roman Abramovich is still in control of Chelsea.

2. Chelsea to save £1.5m by leaving Chelsea Pitch Owners in place. The CPO will sell the freehold at SB to the club in exchange for the freehold at the new ground on the same terms as currently in place.

3. The club to agree to ongoing consultation, and transparency of information, with the fans regarding any new stadium.

[strong centreback 157]

Not sure this is creditable but

http://www.football365.com/chelsea/7248130/Chelsea-reject-campaigners-offer?

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

.

To: Bruce Buck

Following our meeting last week and subsequent telephone conversation we would like to propose an alternative way forward, as follows:

...

1 The club to have total freedom to move to a larger new stadium anywhere within three miles of Stamford Bridge at any time before 2030 so long as Roman Abramovich is still in control of Chelsea

2. Chelsea to save £1.5m by leaving Chelsea Pitch Owners in place. The CPO will sell the freehold at SB to the club in exchange for the freehold at the new ground on the same terms as currently in place

3. The club to agree to ongoing consultation, and transparency of information, with the fans regarding any new stadium

We await with interest your response and we are happy to meet at any time to discuss this further.

The SayNoCPO Team

Buck has rejected out of hand any negotiations until the vote on 27th.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

I don't blame CFC saying no to some of those.

Why should they want a CPO for a new ground? It doesn't make sense from their pov. Thought the first point sounds quite fair.

[strong centreback 157]

.

To: Bruce Buck

Following our meeting last week and subsequent telephone conversation we would like to propose an alternative way forward, as follows:

...

1 The club to have total freedom to move to a larger new stadium anywhere within three miles of Stamford Bridge at any time before 2030 so long as Roman Abramovich is still in control of Chelsea

2. Chelsea to save £1.5m by leaving Chelsea Pitch Owners in place. The CPO will sell the freehold at SB to the club in exchange for the freehold at the new ground on the same terms as currently in place

3. The club to agree to ongoing consultation, and transparency of information, with the fans regarding any new stadium

We await with interest your response and we are happy to meet at any time to discuss this further.

The SayNoCPO Team

Buck has rejected out of hand any negotiations until the vote on 27th.

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.

[strong centreback 157]

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.

[strong centreback 157]

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.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

In short? ^ The conclusion?

[LDN Blue 7,903]

In short? ^ The conclusion?

Buck owns around 100shares.