Stamford Bridge Thread

[BlueLion. 21,491]

.

Buck and Gourlay have apparently had a seance and managed to get Matthew Hardings view on it from Beyond the Grave

http://www.chelseafc...2489213,00.html

Absolutely shameless

Agreed, the club could have done better than release that on the 15th anniversary of his death, shameless.

[barzil33 0]

you dont understand.

were chelsea!

we neen to move away from strampord bridge to bigger stadioum,65,000.

we are a big club.stop with that,we are not everton.

[Liquidator 5,176]

you dont understand.

were chelsea!

we neen to move away from strampord bridge to bigger stadioum,65,000.

we are a big club.stop with that,we are not everton.

obviously you have not thought this through. We were formed in 1905 after STAMFORD BRIDGE was built and there was no club to fill it. As a result, Chelsea Football Club were created. We have played there through the good and bad times right from the beginning in 1905. When you are actually at Stamford Bridge you can only really appreciate this and see that this site was also where we were playing 106 years ago. Without it we would not exist as a club. If you went to Stamford Bridge you would realise that it is our TRUE home, not some horrible 65 000 bowl stadium in Wormwood Scrubs

[francozola 2,040]

you dont understand. were chelsea! we neen to move away from strampord bridge to bigger stadioum,65,000. we are a big club.stop with that,we are not everton.

Would give a negative rep if I could

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

Shame we Can't renovate SB....

[manpe 10,861]

I haven't said much about this case, but I now and then think how horrible this situation actually is... Long story short, Terminator X hit the nail right on the head: Progression vs. Sentiment.

Do we move and progress as a club? Or do we stay in our real home with no chance to up the standards to a big club level? I feel that more spirited and long-time supporters will choose sentiment, and the more recent and factual fans will choose progression.

I still haven't decided my mind, because I want both - to stay AND progress. So it's a battle still going on in my head and I can't imagine what actual CPO voters think who bleed for this club.

It will come down to emotion and reason in the end. Although it's well known either option will have its pros and cons, it's a question of giving weight to those pros and cons, and which option eventually outweighs the other.

[Peace. 4,352]

we neen to move away from strampord bridge to bigger stadioum,65,000.

Who would fill the 25 000 added seats ?

[Liquidator 5,176]

http://www.apps.lbhf.gov.uk/PublicAccess/propdb/property/property_history_summary.aspx?blpukeyval=001AR0BIBU000&lpikeyval=H830S9BIU2000&module=P3&historymodule=DC

All of the planning applications made by Chelsea to the council since the 1950's. Nowhere can I see that we have actually applied for planning permission to expand Stamford Bridge since 2003

[LDN Blue 7,903]

http://www.apps.lbhf...istorymodule=DC

All of the planning applications made by Chelsea to the council since the 1950's. Nowhere can I see that we have actually applied for planning permission to expand Stamford Bridge since 2003

But that could be because they could not figure out a way to expand, so it would've been pointless to apply for planning permission.

[barzil33 0]

we need to move away.

i like strampord bridge too.

but,still.i dont change my mind.

we have too move away from strampord bridge too 65,000 stadium.

[Liquidator 5,176]

we need to move away.

i like strampord bridge too.

but,still.i dont change my mind.

we have too move away from strampord bridge too 65,000 stadium.

shame you cant even spell its name

[manpe 10,861]

wouldn't be surprised if he was a qphaha troll

[barzil33 0]

What do you think would be the decision, yes or no?

[strong centreback 157]

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.

[francozola 2,040]

we need to move away.

i like strampord bridge too.

but,still.i dont change my mind.

we have too move away from strampord bridge too 65,000 stadium.

JESUS CHRIST CAN YOU STOP CALLING IT STRAMPORD BRIDGE

I wanted to tell you in my first message but decided to let it go incase it was a typo or something but clearly you have NO CLUE

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Anyone else in favour of a Roman Abramovich stand?

[Liquidator 5,176]

I doubt it will be the end of the saga even if the CPO vote no.

[Term-X 7,891]

I doubt it will be the end of the saga even if the CPO vote no.

Of course not, it would just be prolonging the inevitable.