Stamford Bridge Thread

[Fulham Broadway 17,081]

  On 04/11/2011 at 17:08, mrparkersdogbite said:

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]

  On 05/11/2011 at 19:15, Fulham Broadway said:

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 17,081]

  On 06/11/2011 at 17:09, mrparkersdogbite said:

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 17,081]

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]

  On 06/11/2011 at 20:28, LDN Blue said:

Just read that..

Unbelievable.

Don't be naive.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

  On 06/11/2011 at 22:17, eldo said:

Don't be naive.

If it's true, obviously.

There's nothing to suggest it's credible.

[mrparkersdogbite 15]

  On 06/11/2011 at 18:32, Fulham Broadway said:

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.

  Quote

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.

  Quote

Welcome to the forum by the way mr dog bite

Thanks. Nice to be here.

[Fulham Broadway 17,081]

  On 07/11/2011 at 13:27, mrparkersdogbite said:

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.

[steve5221 91]

  On 07/11/2011 at 14:15, Fulham Broadway said:

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.

Interesting stuff indeed FB, lets hope you don't wake up tomorrow with a horses head in your bed!!

[Fulham Broadway 17,081]

  On 07/11/2011 at 14:25, steve5221 said:

Interesting stuff indeed FB, lets hope you don't wake up tomorrow with a horses head in your bed!!

Too late Steve, unless I get a divorce

[steve5221 91]

  On 07/11/2011 at 14:31, Fulham Broadway said:

Too late Steve, unless I get a divorce

I knew there was a joke in thier somewhere!!!

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Chief executive Ron Gourlay fears Chelsea could be left behind both on and off the field if they do not move to a new stadium.

  Quote

The club's hopes of switching grounds suffered a setback at the hands of their fans in October after shareholders in the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) company rejected a proposal to buy back the land upon which Stamford Bridge is built.

It was a humiliating defeat for Blues owner Roman Abramovich and Gourlay said on Monday no decision had yet been made as to whether a fresh vote will be called at December's AGM.

Gourlay insisted, however, that it was imperative a solution was found, claiming the club has "outgrown" Stamford Bridge.

He also revealed plans to announce a naming rights sponsor for the ground in the New Year.

Solution

"We have one of smallest stadiums in Europe," Gourlay told the International Football Arena in Zurich.

"We have corporate hospitality that is second to none and 30,000 season-ticket holders. But we have a stadium slightly larger than 40,000 which drops to 38,000 on Champions League nights. We have to find a solution."

He added: "We have outgrown our stadium and tried every way possible to extend capacity.

"We need a 60-65,000 stadium. We have the eighth biggest stadium in England and the 61st biggest in Europe.

"But when you look at the activity of stadiums planned for next few years, we will fall out of top 75 which can only be restrictive to the football club.

"In the meantime, we continue on our conversations to see if there is any way at all to extend Stamford Bridge.

Big step

"We hope to make an announcement on naming rights for Stamford Bridge within the next six to eight months. It would make a big step because we have to drive up the revenues."

Having lost one CPO vote, Gourlay refused to say whether the next month's AGM, which requires only a 50 per cent majority, would prompt another ballot.

"This is a time for reflection, to sit down with the owner and discuss the situation," he said. "We thought we made a very good proposal to the CPO shareholders. They decided on a 'no' vote.

"We got 62% but it's time to discuss it with Roman and the board. We have been very transparent in terms of venues."

Gourlay said the club were also intent on identifying the Chelsea fans who were involved in chanting against QPR defender Anton Ferdinand during last week's UEFA Champions League match in Genk.

"We know the people who travelled but we don't know who participated in any of that chanting," he said. "If and when they are identified, we need to sit down and discuss it."

http://www1.skysport...n-stadium-plans

[Henrique 9,133]

  On 06/05/2011 at 02:21, Blue In Green said:

This is the toughest question to answer in modern football: Build a new stadium, which could ultimately put Chelsea on the world stage permanently and sell the soul and only home of the club or stay at the Bridge and run the risk of being Liverpool, who struggle to keep up with the ascendancy of their peers?

Its doesnt make any sense. A club doesnt lost "their soul" because they move to a new Stadium. Bayern has a new stadium, and the soul is still there.

Football is business.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

  Quote

Chelsea set to announce Stamford Bridge stadium sponsor

Chelsea have played at Stamford Bridge in SW6 since 1905

Chelsea are set to announce a naming rights sponsor for their Stamford Bridge stadium in the new year.

This follows the club's failed attempt to buy back the land on which the ground is built, which could have facilitated a move to a new venue.

Chief executive Ron Gourlay said: "We have outgrown our stadium.

"We hope to make an announcement on naming rights in the next six to eight months. It would make a big step as we have to drive up the revenues."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/15630954.stm

[steve5221 91]

Anyone got any info on figures for the naming rights - how much could we realistically get????

[strong centreback 157]

Up to 10m a season although id expect lower, if they have made headway in the naming rights to the bridge then it is purely down to the fact that they are giving said sponsor first refusal on a new grounds naming rights as well, as the last report about this subject gourlay said they were finding it difficult to sell as stamford bridge had to be kept in the name as promised.