Stamford Bridge Thread

[eldo 868]

Why because I put the club first before an owner ?

Why is that 'pathetic' ? All you've proved is that you can insult with no logical argument., which isnt that clever really, is it ?

No, because you are just guessing.

Insult? I think you insulted me, but I won't cry about that like you do.

[Blue Armour 4,288]

As a neutral observer may I ask what exactly the CPO feels the club is "hiding"?

[strong centreback 157]

As a neutral observer may I ask what exactly the CPO feels the club is "hiding"?

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

[manpe 10,861]

How can the club give that assurance? From interviews (like the one with Gourlay) they've said that they most definitely won't move away from south west london. What type of assurance other than their word they want/need?

[Blue Armour 4,288]

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

Is that the only reason or are they against the fact the CPO will be dissolved?

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

No, because you are just guessing.

Insult? I think you insulted me, but I won't cry about that like you do.

Sorry, you're not making any sense at all. Apart from the pigeon English, semi-wind up comments or random smileys, there doesnt seem to be any constructive arguments for your contrary position.

[warnie_666 1,081]

1. Where? I'm sure he didn't.

2. Again I'm 99% sure he didn't, and that's the point these are the things we want to negotiate.

3. Insulting NO voters like that and just thinking the only reason people have voted NO is because they don't trust Roman and they don't want to move from SB, shows me you don't understand the situation.

4. No. The club had debts of around 60-80 million pounds. The debt could not have been paid in time if we had continued as we were. However the club had many players on expensive contracts we could have sold and assets like the hotel etc. That could have sold. The club would have slipped out of the top 4 and down the table. However the club would not have folded.

Ticket prices kept the financial theme going.

Many more seats available should put downward pressure on ticket prices,' Buck said

'We can't make guarantees today what the pricing will be in five, 10, 20 years, that is impossible in any stadium, but a big stadium would allow us to test pricing, test different categories and test things that hopefully would help the fans.'

On the location of a potential new stadium, Buck said:

'You have to respect the fact that Mr Abramovich is a Chelsea fan and it would not make sense to move the stadium to somewhere that was not to the satisfaction of the bulk of Chelsea fans.'

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.'

What the club is not considering is moving to a location on Atlas Road in London NW10, as was made absolutely clear when one caller suggested it is in negotiation for that site.

'I have never heard of Atlas Road until now,' Buck responded.

'We are not negotiating about any sites at the moment but when people have said to us why are we considering Stratford, why are we considering Wormwood Scrubs, why are we considering a site adjacent to Wormwood Scrubs, the conversation has lasted less than 30 seconds. We have said they are not appropriate for Chelsea Football Club and an NW10 postcode is not appropriate for Chelsea Football Club.'

http://www.chelseafc...2482506,00.html

Above is for the Question 1 and 2. These are Buck's comments.

3. Calling someone paranoid is not insulting. Someone asked me in one of the posts what if after 40 years Roman leaves and we get owners like Hicks and Gillete or Glazers. Thats is called being paranoid.

4. I dont think you understand what bankruptcy means. When you run out of the liquid assets/cash to pay off your debt, and are forced to sell your fixed assets like LEEDS were that is when you are termed as bankrupt. We could have sold players or assets like the hotel and other things like you mentioned and would have easily gone down the Leeds way currently playing in the Championship.

[warnie_666 1,081]

Having 10bn is greedy in my eyes. Chelsea were on the up, which is why he bought it rather than Spurs.

Yes he might fuck off -but he would then be seen to be childish, throwing his toys out the pram, not listening to the fans that make the club what it is, the fans that go to games and not therefore worthy of being an owner of the club I love, so good riddance.

Good riddance? Wow...He invests 800m into club, turns it from going bust into one of Europe's elite and there is only so much an owner can do for a club. To buy a completely new stadium for fans with his own money is just too much to ask for after what he has done. He may have 10b but thats his money. He has done enough for the club. And now that he has requested fans go "HOW DARE HE"...

Just because someone lifts you on his shoulders doesnt mean you gotta pee in his ears....

[warnie_666 1,081]

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.

You are talking about scenarios after 40 years? What if Roman's Son has taken over the reins of the club? We can play the "What if" game till the cows come home....

You need to understand that our owners are not in it for financial gain like Glazers, Hicks and Gillete. He invested 800m and has even written off thaqt 800m of debt from the club's account.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

This is silly imo.

The longer cpo delay the less chance we have of moving in the 3mile radius. It's the fans that make the club, not the stadium.

Absolutely correct. Which is why we should move - get the fans back to Chelsea FC. Moving out of SW6 would probably mean less of a bourgeoisie audience and cheaper ticket prices would be an incentive to get the old boys back.

Yeah we'd have to officially rename, but we'd still be 'Chelsea.'

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

Good riddance? Wow...He invests 800m into club, turns it from going bust into one of Europe's elite and there is only so much an owner can do for a club. To buy a completely new stadium for fans with his own money is just too much to ask for after what he has done. He may have 10b but thats his money. He has done enough for the club. And now that he has requested fans go "HOW DARE HE"...

Just because someone lifts you on his shoulders doesnt mean you gotta pee in his ears....

Yes. Good riddance if he walked away because of the no vote-it would show him for what he was.

He wont of course. People misconstrue what the CPO want. its not that theyre against a move, just a proper consultation before giving up the protection of the sacred ground that they took ownership of before it was destined to be flats -or condominiums as you Americans say.

Dont take this the wrong way, but English fans who have been going to the ground for forty odd years would have a different perspective on events, than an Indian living in the United States who has never been to a match.

[dave30 728]

You mean phobia ? A fear of wealthy people ? No. not at all, quite wealthy myself. Why do you ?

a wealthy communist is there any other kind ?

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Absolutely correct. Which is why we should move - get the fans back to Chelsea FC. Moving out of SW6 would probably mean less of a bourgeoisie audience and cheaper ticket prices would be an incentive to get the old boys back.

Yeah we'd have to officially rename, but we'd still be 'Chelsea.'

We will get the atmosphere back.

Look at Manchester United. Their stadium is massive, and I'm sure they get their share of foreign fans who can't sign or anything, but they still hold an incredible atmosphere because majority of fans, "real fans" can still be there.

A new stadium will show a reduction in ticket prices, it makes sense & it's already been said. We'd be in more trouble if a breakaway club started up, we'd have more heartbreak, more disastrous owners & no doubt, huge debt.

[Liquidator 5,176]

If Roman could buy Earls Court and tell us more about stadium design, timescale etc then I think the CPO would vote yes. At the moment Buck and Gourlay are just saying what the fans want to hear (about us not moving further than 3 miles etc). Once they prove their words with actions then the CPO would probably start to listen.

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

a wealthy communist is there any other kind ?

You a commie then Dave ? :eyebrows: Dont you know thats sooooooooooo last year. @narchy mate, thats where its at

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

If Roman could buy Earls Court and tell us more about stadium design, timescale etc then I think the CPO would vote yes. At the moment Buck and Gourlay are just saying what the fans want to hear (about us not moving further than 3 miles etc). Once they prove their words with actions then the CPO would probably start to listen.

Nail on head. Its the expectation that they want us to rush into giving up th ground without any consultation makes fans wary.

[dave30 728]

You a commie then Dave ? :eyebrows: Dont you know thats sooooooooooo last year. @narchy mate, thats where its at

ha ha fair play mate sorry ile try to keep up in future

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

ha ha fair play mate sorry ile try to keep up in future

Okey dokey