Stamford Bridge Thread

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

Hold on. Did the council say there is a possibility to increase the capacity? I think not. So let us not conclude anything for now. All the council wants to do is find out if capacity can be expanded. Pretty much what the club has done all this while.

No. We were told by the club that all avenues had been explored and no way could the ground be redeveloped. Now because the CPO vote was a no vote the council say they are going to open talks with the club on ways to expand the ground and keep Chelsea at SB.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Hold on. Did the council say there is a possibility to increase the capacity? I think not. So let us not conclude anything for now. All the council wants to do is find out if capacity can be expanded. Pretty much what the club has done all this while.

Why didn't they do this before though? Why didn't they ask the council before deciding to up and leave?

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

Why didn't they do this before though? Why didn't they ask the council before deciding to up and leave?

Money. See that Hunaz10 post on the last page.

The Council must make a fortune from Chelsea, not just on match days -they are only too eager to accomodate expansion

[SeanO 7]

http://www.givemefoo...-to-bridge-stay

Chelsea are ready to consider developing Stamford Bridge as oppose to moving to a new site.

The Chelsea Pitch Owner's refusal to see the their freehold that guards the club from selling the ground sold back to the football club has led to The Blues beginning their search for an alternative solution.

And the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham say they will come to the aid of Chelsea, by discussing plan to redevelop the ground, rather than move from their 106-year home.

"In light of the recent decision by Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC to retain its freehold of the ground, we reaffirm our desire to see Chelsea FC remain in the Borough and our commitment to help the club to remain at its historic home of Stamford Bridge.

"The Council now proposes to examine whether there are planning options to expand Stamford Bridge to accommodate a larger capacity, recognising that such a project must be economically viable, benefit local businesses and not unreasonably affect residents.

"We look forward to working closely with Chelsea FC and all local stakeholders as soon as possible to examine the options of redeveloping Stamford Bridge."

Last week, Chelsea failed to gain the 75% of the vote required to take control of the freehold owned by the CPO, which would have set in motion the club moving from the Stamford Bridge site.

The club said upon the result of the vote that they would investigate other avenues, with the council coming to their aid this week.

"Chelsea Football Club welcomes the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham's commitment to see the Club stay in the Borough and importantly their recognition of our need for greater capacity at Stamford Bridge," a statement read.

"As an initial step in a renewed dialogue with the Borough, we would like to explore promptly with LBHF how they propose helping us address the club's current problem of Stamford Bridge having substantially reduced capacity for big games."

At 42,055, Chelsea have the eighth highest domestic ground in the country, but with continued participation in the Champions League expected, the club are looking to expand their capacity to compete with their rivals.

I don't know if any one else has put this but here you go.

[strong centreback 157]

I wouldnt expect this to be anything more than a pr exercise by the council, health and safety regs stipulate that no more than our current capacity can get out of the bridge in the timeframe needed in an emergency situation due to the only egress point being the fulham road, that is a bloody major hurdle to get over to increase capacity, and when the club have looked into the only viable option of overcoming that issue with a walkway over the top of the railway lines uptowards west brompton station, but the council shot that down, citing various reasons.

The council just dont want to look like the people that forced us to move, if they put on a pr show stating they will help us to explore avenues to increase again, then when it comes to the local residents objecting and the health and safety not budging on their numbers they can play the innocent party and say we tried.

The club board may be out of touch with the fans on this issue, have done a things very underhand and deviously, but I personally believe them when they say we cant expand the bridge looking at it objectively its logical the bridge is cramped on its land (13acres) as it is, can you imagine trying to squeeze an extra 20k in there? you would need an extra 50% acreage to accommodate a 50% capacity increase.

[strong centreback 157]

Look at this picture from the official site, http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2501875,00.html See how boxed in it is!

[strong centreback 157]

Asian flotation: real reason for CPO land grab?

by Martin Rowe

CFCnet has received a startling tip off from a merchant banker (purporting to be from a top City institution) regarding the CPO stadium land grab by Chelsea FC.

The anonymous tip off, received on our iPhone but from an untraceable number, is made all the more convincing because we asked said banker to prove his credentials. He replied by describing the interior elevator to the fifth floor, the one that houses Roman, Tenenbaum etc (the real power clique behind Buck and Gourlay).

The banker described how the elevator goes between Floor One & Four in normal fashion (correct) but to access Floor Five one has to insert a special plastic card (correct). He also described the Russian Special Forces goon (bulging left armpit) at the entrance to the fifth floor posing as security (also correct). Clearly, whoever this chap is, he’s been to the inner sanctum of Chelsea FC.

The banker went on to reveal that the recent stadium land grab by Chelsea FC (snap EGM/£269,000 in dodgy share purchases leading up to the vote/carefully plotted PR campaign) had nothing whatsoever to do with a move to a new stadium.

This is what the banker had to say, “The stadium move might or might not happen but it is not the real reason Chelsea tried to railroad CPO shareholders into handing over their shares.” He continued, “rather it’s because Chelsea intend to follow Man Utd’s lead and list on one of the Asian Stock Exchanges, either Hong Kong or Singapore.”

When asked why this would involve CPO, the banker stated, “The Club intend to float 49% of the Club – to raise upwards of £500 million – but to do that it must offer investors more than a few players, a training ground and a balance sheet nursing red ink.” The banker then added, “any flotation must be backed by real assets and that means the 12-odd acres of Chelsea real estate. The pitch, because it is owned by CPO, represents a considerable barrier that must be removed – it’s essentially a ransom strip.”

The banker then went on, “the Club’s line that they can’t negotiate with brownfield site owners because of CPO is laughable. The moment anyone in the City of London sees Roman Abramovich the doors are flung wide open. To suggest otherwise is a poorly disguised lie.”

CFCnet then asked about the stadium move to which we received the following answer, “I’m not involved in that, I was only involved in the preliminary stages of organising a flotation and my role has been passed on to more senior bankers”. The banker then added, “it would be easy for the Club to say where it was moving the stadium to. The reason it isn’t prepared to do so is probably because they don’t have anywhere earmarked yet they still need to float the Club. That’s why they can’t tell the truth.”

CFCnet doesn’t feel competent enough in investment banking matters to comment on the accuracy (or not) of the above tip off. All we can vouch for is that whoever this person is, he has been to visit the inner coterie of Chelsea FC board members (the organ grinder behind Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay).

It also answers at a swipe why the Club can’t tell CPO shareholders where they want to move to. In all probability they don’t have anywhere in mind. Indeed, this week’s announcement by Hammersmith & Fulham Council (“The Council now proposes to examine whether there are planning options to expand Stamford Bridge to accommodate a larger capacity”) also gives lie to the fact that all Stamford Bridge options have been exhausted and that the Council is itself a ‘barrier’.

What we at CFCnet know is (1) the Club are lying (2) there is a deeper agenda at work. What agenda this is we don’t know but the above conversation has certainly made us stop and think, especially as our fan base in Asia is second only to Man Utd.

Interesting if true.

[warnie_666 1,081]

I'm not a finance guy but how does floatation of Chelsea at hongkong or Singapore stock exchange affect the club in a negative way? If this is about raising money I think with the financial FairPlay rules the club has every right to looks at avenues. But not by lying to the fans.

[mrparkersdogbite 15]

Buck and co are being shown to be such cunts. No wonder they wanted everyone to make their minds up in 21 days.

One of the worst aspects of this is that anyone that had CPO shares and was dead, were counted as a 'YES' vote

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.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Chelsea and Stamford Bridge are synonymous. We were created because of the ground, afterall. Stamford Bridge may not be the biggest or the best stadium, but it is the only ground in England with four architecturally-different stands, which is a wonderful statistic.

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

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.

It was originally reported as such by various main stream media sources, so has not been made up.

It has hoever since been repudiated on the club website. Seeing as the club have lied up until now, I wouldnt bet either way...

[mrparkersdogbite 15]

It was originally reported as such by various main stream media sources, so has not been made up.

It has however since been repudiated on the club website. Seeing as the club have lied up until now, I wouldnt bet either way...

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.

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

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.

I suggest you go back through this thread then. eg we were told by the club that all avenues had been explored and no way could the ground be redeveloped. Now because the CPO vote was a no vote the council say they are going to open talks with the club.

Of course its illegal. The club could be sued left right and centre. Newspapers wrongly reported something. Bears shit in woods.

Welcome to the forum by the way mr dog bite

[zolayes 14,489]

an anonymous tip off on an untraceable phone ...sounds such a reliable source ..at least to the trouble making media ,, It doesn't convince me even though

I dont trust our board.

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

The Asian flotation that CFC net are reporting sounds a credible reason for wanting to own the pitch.

Dodgy cunts

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Just read that..

Unbelievable.

[eldo 868]

Just read that..

Unbelievable.

Don't be naive.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Don't be naive.

If it's true, obviously.

There's nothing to suggest it's credible.

[mrparkersdogbite 15]

I suggest you go back through this thread then. eg we were told by the club that all avenues had been explored and no way could the ground be redeveloped. Now because the CPO vote was a no vote the council say they are going to open talks with the club.

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.

Of course its illegal. The club could be sued left right and centre. Newspapers wrongly reported something. Bears shit in woods.

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.

Welcome to the forum by the way mr dog bite

Thanks. Nice to be here.

[Fulham Broadway 17,332]

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.

My 'agenda' is the best for the club, as opposed to an agenda as an apologist for Buck and Gourlays PR .

No apologies for posting this from CFC Net

CFCnet has received a startling tip off from a merchant banker (purporting to be from a top City institution) regarding the CPO stadium land grab by Chelsea FC.

The anonymous tip off, received on our iPhone but from an untraceable number, is made all the more convincing because we asked said banker to prove his credentials. He replied by describing the interior elevator to the fifth floor, the one that houses Roman, Tenenbaum etc (the real power clique behind Buck and Gourlay).

The banker described how the elevator goes between Floor One & Four in normal fashion (correct) but to access Floor Five one has to insert a special plastic card (correct). He also described the Russian Special Forces goon (bulging left armpit) at the entrance to the fifth floor posing as security (also correct). Clearly, whoever this chap is, he’s been to the inner sanctum of Chelsea FC.

The banker went on to reveal that the recent stadium land grab by Chelsea FC (snap EGM/£269,000 in dodgy share purchases leading up to the vote/carefully plotted PR campaign) had nothing whatsoever to do with a move to a new stadium.

This is what the banker had to say, “The stadium move might or might not happen but it is not the real reason Chelsea tried to railroad CPO shareholders into handing over their shares.” He continued, “rather it’s because Chelsea intend to follow Man Utd’s lead and list on one of the Asian Stock Exchanges, either Hong Kong or Singapore.”

When asked why this would involve CPO, the banker stated, “The Club intend to float 49% of the Club – to raise upwards of £500 million – but to do that it must offer investors more than a few players, a training ground and a balance sheet nursing red ink.” The banker then added, “any flotation must be backed by real assets and that means the 12-odd acres of Chelsea real estate. The pitch, because it is owned by CPO, represents a considerable barrier that must be removed – it’s essentially a ransom strip.”

The banker then went on, “the Club’s line that they can’t negotiate with brownfield site owners because of CPO is laughable. The moment anyone in the City of London sees Roman Abramovich the doors are flung wide open. To suggest otherwise is a poorly disguised lie.”

CFCnet then asked about the stadium move to which we received the following answer, “I’m not involved in that, I was only involved in the preliminary stages of organising a flotation and my role has been passed on to more senior bankers”. The banker then added, “it would be easy for the Club to say where it was moving the stadium to. The reason it isn’t prepared to do so is probably because they don’t have anywhere earmarked yet they still need to float the Club. That’s why they can’t tell the truth.”

CFCnet doesn’t feel competent enough in investment banking matters to comment on the accuracy (or not) of the above tip off. All we can vouch for is that whoever this person is, he has been to visit the inner coterie of Chelsea FC board members (the organ grinder behind Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay).

It also answers at a swipe why the Club can’t tell CPO shareholders where they want to move to. In all probability they don’t have anywhere in mind. Indeed, this week’s announcement by Hammersmith & Fulham Council (“The Council now proposes to examine whether there are planning options to expand Stamford Bridge to accommodate a larger capacity”) also gives lie to the fact that all Stamford Bridge options have been exhausted and that the Council is itself a ‘barrier’.

What we at CFCnet know is (a) the Club are lying ( there is a deeper agenda at work. What agenda this is we don’t know but the above conversation has certainly made us stop and think, especially as our fan base in Asia is second only to Man Utd.