Stamford Bridge Thread

[Chelsea? 892]

when can we expect a new stadium? or news for that matter. Maybe if Chelsea move to a poorer location, our games will be louder

[francozola 2,040]

Dan Levene ‏ @BluesChronicle Reply Retweet Favorite · Open

Have been told to expect a joint statement from Chelsea FC and the CPO Board later today. Interesting. More when I get it.

WHS' source is right as usual!

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

Through a trusted source

So have the CPO had any assurances or offers from the club ,like giving them the freehold of the new pitch or anything

[zolayes 14,489]

Dan Levene ‏ @BluesChronicle Reply Retweet Favorite · Open

Have been told to expect a joint statement from Chelsea FC and the CPO Board later today. Interesting. More when I get it.

WHS' source is right as usual!

Dan Levene ‏ @BluesChronicle Reply Retweet Favorite · Open

Have been told to expect a joint statement from Chelsea FC and the CPO Board later today. Interesting. More when I get it.

WHS' source is right as usual!

CPO to take over from AVB as coach in return for handing over freehold .

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

Announcment at 18:30 apparently

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

_Conclusions

_{It is clear to the Board of Chelsea Football Club that a complete new build of a 60,000 seat stadium at Stamford Bridge has little chance of acceptability. We believe that, after our discussions with the council they have come to the same conclusion. A 60,000 new-build would cost over £600 million and require the club to play away for at least three seasons and, even if the economics were acceptable, the planning risks would likely be insurmountable.}

_{Expanding Stamford Bridge to 55,000 also has a number of challenges. The cost per seat of expanding the stands is very high. The incremental revenues provide an unsatisfactory level of return, would not even cover the hypothetical financing costs, and the planning risks are significant. We believe the council recognises these challenges.}

_{The club's exercise over the years has been to analyse a large spectrum of possible expansion options, even some which would appear to be unworkable. The Board recognises that our work will not satisfy every fan, but the Board also believes its work has been thorough, appropriate and in the best interests of the club and all of our fans.}

_{To reiterate what was said at the beginning of this summary, the club are not in any way stating we have made a decision on the need to move.}

[Slam Dunk 1,442]

_{To reiterate what was said at the beginning of this summary, the club are not in any way stating we have made a decision on the need to move.}

But they are basically saying there are no other options other than to move, which (I assume) they are not allowed to say outright as they have to have an agreement with the CPO. Good to see the club releasing their information so thoroughly.

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/DocumentsFull/0,,10268~2629432,00.html

I can't understand the conclusion.

we move or not?

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Fair enough CFC. They have basically said, we can't expand.. Hopefully CPO's convinced by Chelsea's attempt to be transparent.

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

Fair enough CFC. They have basically said, we can't expand.. Hopefully CPO's convinced by Chelsea's attempt to be transparent.

CPO are saying that although they like most had hoped to stay at the Bridge, it now looks unlikely but they will be checking with Fulham and Hammersmith borough to make sure that all the figures Chels have put forward are correct. Looks like the end of an era

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

Fair enough CFC. They have basically said, we can't expand.. Hopefully CPO's convinced by Chelsea's attempt to be transparent.

CPO are saying that although they like most had hoped to stay at the Bridge, it now looks unlikely but they will be checking with Fulham and Hammersmith borough to make sure that all the figures Chels have put forward are correct. Looks like the end of an era

But they are basically saying there are no other options other than to move, which (I assume) they are not allowed to say outright as they have to have an agreement with the CPO. Good to see the club releasing their information so thoroughly.

And promptly! couldnt believe the web site had this up 18:30 on the dot

[LDN Blue 7,903]

CPO are saying that although they like most had hoped to stay at the Bridge, it now looks unlikely but they will be checking with Fulham and Hammersmith borough to make sure that all the figures Chels have put forward are correct. Looks like the end of an era

Yeah I just saw. End of an era, indeed, but hopefully the mark of a brighter era too.

I do like how Chelsea considered both 60k and 55k expansion though.

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

^{CPO BOARD STATEMENT ON MEETING WITH THE CLUB}

^{On Friday 24 February Chelsea FC invited CPO board members Steve Frankham, Rick Glanvill, Dennis Wise and Gray Smith to a meeting where extensive and detailed presentations were made by Ron Gourlay and Bruce Buck from the club, as well as architects and planning advisors working with them, regarding the potential expansion of Stamford Bridge. CPO board member Bob Sewell was away.}

^{Areas covered included: present club finances and the challenges to revenue generation of the present stadium capacity; potential benefits to supporters' match day experience; planning, safety, heritage, environmental, political, disruption and access issues surrounding the expansion of Stamford Bridge; the increasing demands of live TV coverage.}

^{We were shown designs and figures from many different plans exploring ways to expand all parts of the Bridge, along with explanations of the costs involved set against future income, and benefits to match goers.}

^{These schemes ranged from finding 2,500 new seats in corners of the ground to the total demolition and rebuild of a 55-60,000-seater stadium on the same site.}

^{The presentations were very open, with regular input, questions and points made by the CPO board. All were responded to with clarity and transparency by the club and the experts they had brought along.}

^{From the presentations and discussions, which lasted several hours, it was clear that an immense amount of time and money has been allocated to exploring how to expand Stamford Bridge.}

^{Chelsea FC's conclusion is that none of the schemes would achieve the goals of giving greater access and a better experience to supporters, and increasing matchday income.}

^{Like many of our shareholders, we have hoped and felt that there might still be some way to expand the capacity of Stamford Bridge.}

^{Having seen the detailed analysis, we all felt that a persuasive case was put that this might no longer be feasible or viable. Since so many of the planning issues concern the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, we are requesting further information and comments from them regarding Chelsea's presentation.}

^{We hope that as far as possible Chelsea make the materials we have seen available for scrutiny by all shareholders and supporters so that the issue can be debated further.}

[middleoftheshed 388]

This is what say no cpo were asking for, proof that every possible way of expanding had been looked at. It's very interesting.

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

Yeah I just saw. End of an era, indeed, but hopefully the mark of a brighter era too.

I do like how Chelsea considered both 60k and 55k expansion though.

Yeah reading it i honestly thought at first the option of the Shed and Matthew Harding being expanded was a possible goer but the figures speak for themselves.

[zolayes 14,489]

if we dont sort out the playing situation we will need to move to a SMALLER stadium

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

So we are moving?

[middleoftheshed 388]

No, but this statement is giving the evidence that SB cannot be expanded and if we want a bigger stadium then we must move. But no decision has been made to move yet.