http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/4630618.stm

Chelsea are reportedly interested in buying Earls Court Exhibition Centre in a £400m deal so they can build a new stadium to replace Stamford Bridge.

Blues owner Roman Abramovich is believed to be keen on the switch so he can fund a new 65,000-seater stadium, replacing their current 42,000 home.

A lack of space has prevented Chelsea increasing Stamford Bridge's capacity.

The Earls Court and Olympia complex are owned by St James Capital and they have "received approaches" said a spokesman.

Abramovich has grown increasingly frustrated at Stamford Bridge as there is not enough room around it to make it any bigger.

Yet Premiership rivals Manchester United will soon be playing in front of 75,000 at Old Trafford and Arsenal move into their new 60,000 stadium at Ashburton Grove next season.

St James' entrepreneurs put the Earls Court and Olympia site up for sale in December for £400m.

The entire site takes up around 36 acres, with Abramovich looking for 13 acres on which to build any potential new ground for Chelsea.

The Blues could then sell Stamford Bridge, which may be worth up to £500m.

Interesting, would they have to build a new arena to replace EC or would London be able to manage with Wembley Arena and the new one at the Dome?

There are major issues with trying to build a ground on the earls court site.

A) The site itself doesn't have approval for sport, music only.
B) Local residents might not be to keen on the idea
C) The railway lines that run under earls court 2, what happens to them?
D) Traffic issues, the place is already terribly overcrowded.
E) Is the site even big enough for a 60/70k stadium? If you look on google earth earls court 1 is about the size of a football pitch, could they build a stadium around something that size on that plot of land.

There is a large gas works a mile south of stamford bridge that is a better option imo, but I am sure they already know that.

Why move to a bigger ground, they are not a big club, fan wise. How many times have they failed to sell the capacity, even in a European Cup match.

Money does not make you a big club.

I think the Chelsea fan base is ever growing. I don't see the rail lines to be a problem, especially as they are already covered to some extent.

sparks - I looked on google earth too! I think there is plenty of space if a bit of creativity is used.
Are there any reasons the heritage lobby would come out to 'save' Earls Court?
http://www.thealarmclock.com/mt/archives/earls%20court.jpg

well they're denying it now - instead they say they're planning to redevelop stamford bridge to make it a 50,000+ capacity stadium. how, who knows...

Seeing the back of earls court would be a plus though the place is a dump, it a disgrace that it is considered the only large music venue in the capital at the moment.

If they stayed, couldn't see how they could extend without rebuilding a stand...meaning capacity down to 30,000 for a season....

maybe Roman would rent a ground for half a year to speed up the build work, who would be skint in London, with a ground big enough....Arsenal! Could borrow Highbury for a year..all the facilities in... daft as a brush idea but when a guy has about 5 super yachts...stupid spending does not seem a problem

hmm... isn't there a railway line behind one stand, hotels behind another... could be tricky...

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7306/estextchelsea5ou.jpg

bloody hell that hotel development was a pretty short-sighted one! Look where they built it!!!

Im suprised Earls Court isnt listed already. The place needs a clean up and some decent planning but the buildings are quite unique

From that pic it just looks a mess.

I'm sure Abromovich could afford to knock it down and rebuild a new stadium at Stamford Bridge, buying out the hotels if neccesary. The fan base of Chelsea is growing, no doubt. Still it would also help if their ticket prices fell a bit.

Abromovichs £13+ billion could buy Chelsea abit more than a new ground. He could buy 15 Wembleys.

^^^ yeah or 39 billion mars bars..and i know which i'd rather buy! ;)

Why move to a bigger ground, they are not a big club, fan wise. How many times have they failed to sell the capacity, even in a European Cup match.

Money does not make you a big club.

How many times have Juventus failed to sell even a quarter of their capacity? How many clubs are there in Europe which always sell out? Rounded to the nearest whole number, one. All Chelsea's tickets would sell if the prices were a bit lower.

There are major issues with trying to build a ground on the earls court site.

A) The site itself doesn't have approval for sport, music only.
B) Local residents might not be to keen on the idea
C) The railway lines that run under earls court 2, what happens to them?
D) Traffic issues, the place is already terribly overcrowded.
E) Is the site even big enough for a 60/70k stadium? If you look on google earth earls court 1 is about the size of a football pitch, could they build a stadium around something that size on that plot of land.

There is a large gas works a mile south of stamford bridge that is a better option imo, but I am sure they already know that.

Imperial Wharf 2 will cover that soon. Imperial Wharf 1 by the river is well on its way to completion. There is an aerial view here: http://www.imperialwharf.com/PDF/IW%20Aerial%20for%20Web.pdf

The number of potential sites for a new Chelsea stadium in west London, taking into account acreage required, the shape it has to be and level of transport access that will be required to get planning permission, is heading towards zero fast.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/Sparkynufc/chelsea.jpg

Does that cover all three sites?

bloody hell that hotel development was a pretty short-sighted one! Look where they built it!!!

Im suprised Earls Court isnt listed already. The place needs a clean up and some decent planning but the buildings are quite unique

Short sighted? Without that hotel Chelsea wouldn't have 42,000 seats, in fact they'd probably be playing League 1 football.

How many times have Juventus failed to sell even a quarter of their capacity? How many clubs are there in Europe which always sell out? Rounded to the nearest whole number, one. All Chelsea's tickets would sell if the prices were a bit lower.

who's that then? NUFC have the highest percentage of filled seats in the premiership...

who's that then? NUFC have the highest percentage of filled seats in the premiership...

Johnny replace that letter N in NUFC to a big letter M for a much bigger club and city - Manchester ! :eek2:

Johnny replace that letter N in NUFC to a big letter M for a much bigger club and city - Manchester ! :eek2:

no, newcastle fill a higher percentage of their ground than man utd.

^^ Yeah I read that somewhere, its amazing we still manage to get over 51,000 each home game!

football fans are the most crazy and stupid people in the world.

no, newcastle fill a higher percentage of their ground than man utd.


No, it's Man United. Then Newcastle. We've sold out 100% in the Prem. As always.

No, it's Man United. Then Newcastle. We've sold out 100% in the Prem. As always.


sorry mate, but for this season it goes
1. 99.9% Newcastle
2. 99.5% spurs
3. 99.4% man utd

that is from the Independent newspaper :)

sorry mate, but for this season it goes
1. 99.9% Newcastle
2. 99.5% spurs
3. 99.4% man utd

that is from the Independent newspaper :)


Which makes little sense, as we've sold out every game.

well your capacity is 68,190 and your highest league attendance this season is 67,972, so in actual fact you haven't sold out a single league game this season.

well your capacity is 68,190 and your highest league attendance this season is 67,972, so in actual fact you haven't sold out a single league game this season.

No. We've sold out every game. And 68,000 is our capacity without segregation. Some games have more segregation than others. I think that highest attendance was against a smaller club, as you'd need more segregation against a big club like Liverpool for example, as they'd bring more fans.

We've not sold out every game in the Carling Cup, and our attendance against Burton was around 55k. But in the PL, each game has been sold out. We'll see what happens next year though, when our capacity is 76,000.

I heard they wanted to build a stadium of 50,000 not 65,000.

They could, in theory, increase the capacity of Stamford Bridge to well in excess of 50,000 except for the fact that Ken Bates is unwilling to sell his apartment at any price in the hotel complex to make way for redevelopment because he's an awkward and spiteful b*****d.

Don't worry. He'll be dead soon I reckon. :)

Short sighted? Without that hotel Chelsea wouldn't have 42,000 seats, in fact they'd probably be playing League 1 football.

Quite wrong. The hotel was a commercial failure. Much of the problematic debt was money spent on the hotels, but the anticipated profits didn't materialise, so the football club had to pay the interest.

Quite wrong. The hotel was a commercial failure. Much of the problematic debt was money spent on the hotels, but the anticipated profits didn't materialise, so the football club had to pay the interest.

I guess few people were very keen to stay in the Bates motel, espeically with the crazy owner living nearby.

Any News about a new stadium for Chelsea?

yeah would be nice to hear some news of this.....

more great stadiums the better!! :D

if chelsea do plan a new stadium i bet roman will do what gillet and co. are doing at liverpool and try to make the capacity bigger than 65,000...i can see it now:

New Anfield-76,000
The new Bridge-80,000

if chelsea do plan a new stadium i bet roman will do what gillet and co. are doing at liverpool and try to make the capacity bigger than 65,000...i can see it now:

New Anfield-76,000
The new Bridge-80,000

:hahaha:

Liverpool may just be able to sell out that capacity for a big match, Chelsea would be forever playing in a half empty stadium.

:hahaha:

Liverpool may just be able to sell out that capacity for a big match, Chelsea would be forever playing in a half empty stadium.


Someone else who hasn't got a clue.

if chelsea do plan a new stadium i bet roman will do what gillet and co. are doing at liverpool and try to make the capacity bigger than 65,000...i can see it now:

New Anfield-76,000
The new Bridge-80,000

thats fine with me :)

Someone else who hasn't got a clue.

Why do you say that?

Last 3 attendances at Liverpool home matches:-

Arsenal 43,958
Middelsborough 41,458
Wigan 44,003

Capacity at Anfield is 44,000

where are these 30,000 fans going to arrive from for the home league midweek match against Middlesborough at the New Anfield?


If Liverpool were to be challenging at the top again then perhaps...but in the era of Chelsea....you need to get 90 points a season to have a shout.

Only perhaps United have the money (despite the debts) to compete?

David Dein at Arsenal threw his towel in.
David Moores has at Liverpool.

These new owners are not going to break the transfer budget, they will improve facilities and generate more revenue but bottom line they want their mits on the TV money.

Expect the current transfer record of Liverpool NOT to be broken this summer or next!?

The atmosphere at Stamford Bridge is bad enough already, imagine another 40,000 seats, they would either be empty or filled with foreign day-trippers. 76,000 at Liverpool wouldn't be much better either.

The atmosphere at Stamford Bridge is bad enough already, imagine another 40,000 seats, they would either be empty or filled with foreign day-trippers. 76,000 at Liverpool wouldn't be much better either.

ehh? The atmosphere at Stamford bridge is always pretty good tbh

Liverpools last three games, like all games, sold out (although Boro returned over 1,000 on the day), sell outs and turnstiles clicks are another thing which is why Newcastles claim of 99.9% attendance is bollocks.

Why do Man United fans seem to think they're the only club who'll ever shift tickets and always have done?

chelsea will move them for most games while football's 'trendy'.

I know this is supposed to be the chelsea thread, but I have to say that Liverpool pushing capacity up to 76k seems a little excessive, even for a club a their stature. I realise there are 30k odd still on the season ticket waiting list, but what people forget is that those who have season tickets don't make it to every game. I realise they 'lend' them to eager friends on these occasions, but the reason they can do this is because of the waiting list,and even then there wil still be inevitable empty seats hence the 99% stats. With the waiting list gone these seats (or a large proportion of them) will remain empty. I think they should not go beyond 70k, thus keeping a margin of competition for seats.
I love Liverpool and stood on the kop many times with my brother who is a fan, so have a soft spot for them, but still think supersizing can be a mistake.

The thing is with the Redshite, the majority of their tickets are presold and already allocated. Thay sell the tickets, and the wealthy Toads sit on them to assure priority for the big games. They don't have to go to the match, just purchase the tickets so they can go to the big ones.

where I could find any picture about the 'old style'(about 1985-1990) Stamford Bridge stadium?Thanks!!

http://www.10menwent2mow.com/images/Stamford_Bridge1_Kom_1_.jpg

from http://www.oldfootballgrounds.co.uk/

http://www.oldgrounds.co.uk/chelsea4.jpg

WOW!!:cheers:

Thanks:okay:

Incredible to think that was only 7 years ago.

That's because it wasn't. I would say that picture is probably 15 years old at least.

Ah, remember Chelsea's crowds (and Newcaslte's for that matter) attendences in the late 80's / early 90's.

anyway what is wrong with over-capacity?! There will always be a couple of games a year, cups, big league matches, european games even concerts that will require ever larger capacity! Seats dont consume energy and you can just make sure the top tier isnt used during an average attendance game to keep the atmosphere compact. Surely?

Ah, remember Chelsea's crowds (and Newcaslte's for that matter) attendences in the late 80's / early 90's.

Do you remember what our stadium looked like and how much it held?

No way potto, I think OC should be avoided at all cost. The aim should be to deliver enough seats to cope fairly comfortably with the bread and butter usage ie the league matches, whilst reserving a few more for the big occasions. There's nothing worse than being in a half empty stadium. The atmosphere is utter sh*te, even if they keep the fans together by closing, say, the upper tier. It's too hard to fill the empty space with noise, and anyway, the upper tier might have the best views.

where I could find any picture about the 'old style'(about 1985-1990) Stamford Bridge stadium?Thanks!!

http://nominated.homestead.com/files/841.jpg
http://nominated.homestead.com/files/843.jpg
http://nominated.homestead.com/files/844.jpg
http://nominated.homestead.com/files/842.jpg

Are Chelsea even able to go through with a move. I remember reading that the name 'Chelsea' and the blue jersey is owned by the people who run Stamford Bridge, meaning that any move away from SB means Abramovich is looking for a new club name and jersey?

Eh?^^

if chelsea leaves stamford bridge they can't be called chelsea
The Stamford Bridge pitch, the freehold, the turnstiles and Chelsea's naming rights are now owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners, a non-profit organisation in which fans are the shareholders. The CPO was created to ensure the stadium could never again be sold to developers. It also means that if someone tries to move the football club to a new stadium they could not use the Chelsea FC name.

intreeging, i would have thought that the fan shareholders could just vote in favour of a move, i mean what would be the point in diggin their heels in just to be left with a name of a team without any players and an empty ground.

No way potto, I think OC should be avoided at all cost.

From the point of view of money, I'm pretty sure that if a stadium sells out to a certain point then overcapacity means that extra seats pay for themselves if used only 7-8 times. Therefore it makes economic sense to have a stadium with more seats than are generally needed, if they can fill it only every year or so then its a big cash flow boost in comparison with the extra money for the seat being built.

From a fans point of view i dont think atmosphereis about how full a stadium is, its about not being allowed to stand, no alcohol sales (pissed people sing more) and over zealous stewarding.

On the Chelsea subject i dont think the FA would allow another team to 'do a wimbledon'.

if chelsea leaves stamford bridge they can't be called chelsea

don't worry.

so instead of "Chelsea FC", it would be "The football club of chelsea"

intreeging, i would have thought that the fan shareholders could just vote in favour of a move, i mean what would be the point in diggin their heels in just to be left with a name of a team without any players and an empty ground.

Quite right. If 60% of Chelsea Pitch Owners voted in favour of a move this would allow the club to redevelop Stamford Bridge and use the Chelsea FC name. Whether they would agree to move is another matter.

On a related matter I saw a story earlier this week that suggested that Chelsea and QPR were competing for the right to buy the site of the BBC Television Centre for a new stadium. Any thoughts? Personally, I think the BBC TV Centre site at 13 acres is too small. Kenyon has been quoted as saying the club would want a 20 acre site at least and there aren't many of those going spare in West London.

Wonder if "South Chelsea" has been considered for a relocation? There's this little site by the river with a London icon called Battersea Power Station which is looking for a new use.

Wonder if "South Chelsea" has been considered for a relocation? There's this little site by the river with a London icon called Battersea Power Station which is looking for a new use.
It is a possible site but it's currently due to be redeveloped into a shopping, hotel and conference complex. But, to be fair, we've heard that before and nothing has happened. Watch this space.

the struggle to fill at 45k ground don't they? what's the point in expanding?

the struggle to fill at 45k ground don't they? what's the point in expanding?
Despite the mythologising about Chelsea's support, the club consistently sell out their 42,055 capacity week after week despite some of the highest prices in the country. It's true there are empty seats for certain European matches earlier on in the season but that's down to high prices, sometimes poor opposition and the club's 25,000 season ticket holders having to pay extra for the tickets (Arsenal's season tickets include cup games as I understand it).

But you make a fair point. Could Chelsea sell out a 60,000 stadium regularly? Certainly not at current prices. But there is a fanbase there which would go if prices were reduced (it's a fact not often mentioned that Chelsea have the fifth highest average attendance of all time in England despite being hilariously unsuccessful for most of our history). But would the sums add up for Roman if prices were reduced? Would a new £400-500m stadium make sense anymore? Who knows but it would make no more sense to build a huge stadium, charge sky-high prices and only sell half the seats each week.

how is the hotel doing?
surely a better idea would be to demolish that and continue the old 3 tiered stand around to the other side stand... that'll give about 60k capacity then.. and would look pretty cool as well.

how is the hotel doing?
surely a better idea would be to demolish that and continue the old 3 tiered stand around to the other side stand... that'll give about 60k capacity then.. and would look pretty cool as well.
The hotels have never really made money and were eventually contracted out to Millennium & Copthorne Hotels Group last year who then spent more than a million quid on a full refit. Therefore no-one can really see M&C being happy about vacating the hotels so soon after spending all that money. You have to assume that they signed a lease for a fairly long period and are expecting to stay put for now.

And I'm afraid that rebuilding the Shed End to get to a 60,000 capacity is unrealistic anyway. Its current capacity is 6,814. 18,000 extra on top of that means the stand would need to hold around 24,814 people. Now compare that figure with the capacity of the largest current end stand in the country - the Holte End - which is 13,472. You can surely see that a Shed End capacity of 24,814 is just unrealistic. Looking at it logically, if all conditions were met then rebuilding the Shed End from scratch might give us space for an extra 6,000 fans but that's it.

Overall then, assuming planning permission could be secured (quite unlikely given the council's track record) and the Shed End was redeveloped as noted above, an extra tier was added to the Matthew Harding Stand and the East Stand could be rebuilt by building back over the railway lines, you could feasibly get up to around a 55,000 capacity (which may be enough anyway to be fair). But it would be very expensive.

if chelsea leaves stamford bridge they can't be called chelsea

But Chelsea aren't in Kensington & Chelsea anyway - they're actually in Hammersmith & Fulham. And seeing as how there is already a team called Fulham, Chelsea should more accurately be called Hammersmith F.C.

They should call them selfs. "The BIGGEST CLUB In The WORLD"

More likely to be "The biggest club in fulham" :lol:

They have plastic fans,all's that we need now is a plastic stadium and we can melt the bastards.

They have plastic fans,all's that we need now is a plastic stadium and we can melt the bastards.

:hilarious class

Ignoring the bleating from our northern correspondents (:blahblah:) for a moment, there is a current rumour going around that a deal has been done between Abramovich and the owners of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre for the purchase of what would become the site of a new stadium for Chelsea FC. This site has long been the most likely location for a new Stamford Bridge but obviously nothing has happened as yet. If anyone can put any meat on the bones of this story then that would be most welcome. It may well just be gossip though.

Ignoring the bleating from our northern correspondents (:blahblah:) for a moment, there is a current rumour going around that a deal has been done between Abramovich and the owners of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre for the purchase of what would become the site of a new stadium for Chelsea FC. This site has long been the most likely location for a new Stamford Bridge but obviously nothing has happened as yet. If anyone can put any meat on the bones of this story then that would be most welcome. It may well just be gossip though.

He better tell him its brought the wrong type of drill then. Hes needs piling drills not a £80 Million 20 Meter diameter under sea tunnel drill.

Ignoring the bleating from our northern correspondents (:blahblah:) for a moment, there is a current rumour going around that a deal has been done between Abramovich and the owners of the Earls Court Exhibition Centre for the purchase of what would become the site of a new stadium for Chelsea FC. This site has long been the most likely location for a new Stamford Bridge but obviously nothing has happened as yet. If anyone can put any meat on the bones of this story then that would be most welcome. It may well just be gossip though.

tell that russian git to leave earls court alone

i mean what would be the point in diggin their heels in just to be left with a name of a team without any players and an empty ground.

Some twat named John Houlding pulled the same stunt. He had to change the name of his team to Liverpool though, and the rest is history. A subtle name change to Chelski would suffice, surely?

One of the biggest concerns for the local council concerning capacity at Stamford Bridge was the fact that the entire crowd can only be evacuated one way - i.e. out the southern part of the site onto Fulham Road. It's completely closed off on the three other sides. In the past no-one gave it much thought but in these health and safety conscious days the council would probably resist a significant crowd increase.

They should call them selfs. "The BIGGEST CLUB In The WORLD"

they maybe rich but certainly not the biggest they shouldn't even be on the same pitch as man utd and they are the biggest and richest football club in the world because they have earned it through winning trophies and having a massive fan base chelsea won the two titles because of a rich commie hence they bought those two titles.stick to stamford bridge cos thats as big as your gonna be

they maybe rich but certainly not the biggest they shouldn't even be on the same pitch as man utd and they are the biggest and richest football club in the world because they have earned it through winning trophies and having a massive fan base chelsea won the two titles because of a rich commie hence they bought those two titles.stick to stamford bridge cos thats as big as your gonna be

So basically every chairman at every club who has pumped his own money into a club has bought success? Has no Man Utd chairman ever put their own money into the club in the past?
All you're bothered about is the success not the money. Chairmen up and down the country pour millions into football every week - why aren't you complaining about them?

Man Utd have "bought" success (and continue to do so) by being richer than all the other clubs irrespective of how their money was earnt; whether t.v., gate receipts, merchandising (of players poached from poorer teams who couldn't afford to hold onto them ) etc. Roy Keane was the most expensive midfielder ever when the Reds bought him - paving the way for the success that team was to have subsequently. Isn't that buying success?

Chelsea weren't out of the top five or six for ten years before Abramovich turned up. I dont remember Chelsea complaining in 1999 (pre-Abramovich) after they just missed out challenging for the top spot, about all Man U's money.

they maybe rich but certainly not the biggest they shouldn't even be on the same pitch as man utd and they are the biggest and richest football club in the world because they have earned it through winning trophies and having a massive fan base chelsea won the two titles because of a rich commie hence they bought those two titles.stick to stamford bridge cos thats as big as your gonna be
Point 1. You say United have earned it "through winning trophies and having a massive fan base". In fact they have a massive fan base because they've consistently won trophies, just like Liverpool, just like Arsenal. Having a massive fan base is not a prerequisite for winning trophies. Equally, having a history of winning trophies is not a requirement either. Otherwise only United, Arsenal and Liverpool would win anything. But I'm sure that's how fans of the 'Red Establishment' would prefer it.

Point 2. We "bought those two titles...because of a rich commie". Good job the "Red Establishment' have never benefitted from the investment of money from rich financial benefactors, eh? History lesson - look up the names of John Henry Davies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Davies), James W.Gibson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Gibson), Henry Norris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Norris) and the Moores family. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Moores) Or does their investment not matter because it happened a while ago?

Sod off to the bbc s 606 forums if you want to blah on about whose got the biggest club etc.

So prey tell, out of interest is there any real plans for Chelsea to move or expand their ground?

Point 1. You say United have earned it "through winning trophies and having a massive fan base". In fact they have a massive fan base because they've consistently won trophies, just like Liverpool, just like Arsenal. Having a massive fan base is not a prerequisite for winning trophies. Equally, having a history of winning trophies is not a requirement either. Otherwise only United, Arsenal and Liverpool would win anything. But I'm sure that's how fans of the 'Red Establishment' would prefer it.

Point 2. We "bought those two titles...because of a rich commie". Good job the "Red Establishment' have never benefitted from the investment of money from rich financial benefactors, eh? History lesson - look up the names of John Henry Davies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Davies), James W.Gibson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Gibson), Henry Norris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Norris) and the Moores family. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Moores) Or does their investment not matter because it happened a while ago?
Chelsea are owned by a multi billionaire look at whats been spent on palyers.Man utd have bought players with whats been earned from revenue.And all those names are they multi billionaires no they are not and come on some of those guys died seventy years ago you gotta do better than that.I'm not a man utd fan i support my hometown you know the tiny club where we'll never win anything cos we have got sweet fa but hey so what.But chelsea will never compare you only think your a massive club cos of the money when in fact your no bigger than say Everton at the most.Wednesday night hopefully bought you guys down to earth it shows money doesn't buy decent penalties

Chelsea are owned by a multi billionaire look at whats been spent on palyers.Man utd have bought players with whats been earned from revenue.And all those names are they multi billionaires no they are not and come on some of those guys died seventy years ago you gotta do better than that.I'm not a man utd fan i support my hometown you know the tiny club where we'll never win anything cos we have got sweet fa but hey so what.But chelsea will never compare you only think your a massive club cos of the money when in fact your no bigger than say Everton at the most.Wednesday night hopefully bought you guys down to earth it shows money doesn't buy decent penalties

Well Man U are about £600 million in debt thanks to the billionaire Glazer family buying them with a massive loan, so not a great situation is it?

Every club has to start somewhere, why can Chelsea never compare if we win the Champs League? Its not like we paid off the refs.

And money does buy decent penalties, as Ballack, Belletti and Cole all scored.

Sod off to the bbc s 606 forums if you want to blah on about whose got the biggest club etc.


Seeing as you asked so nicely, no.

Mario you are just trotting out tabloid cliches. If you think Man Utd became the club they are without investment from non-football related sources you are dreaming. 0.K. it may have been years ago but its impact is still felt today. That's how clubs grow - on past success.
You will never hear any Chelsea fan say the club are as big as United. But what's wrong with aiming to be?

Seeing as you asked so nicely, no.

Mario you are just trotting out tabloid cliches. If you think Man Utd became the club they are without investment from non-football related sources you are dreaming. 0.K. it may have been years ago but its impact is still felt today. That's how clubs grow - on past success.
You will never hear any Chelsea fan say the club are as big as United. But what's wrong with aiming to be?

of course i know there has been outside investment but not on the scale of what chelsea has.And man utd have a debt yes but they are big enough to handle it and get it paid off in ten or so years i sure without roman chelsea would crumble with a debt like that

Lol. Chelsea were just hours from going bust pre-Abramovich, if he leaves so what? The club would be back to where they started; potless.

Chelsea and Leeds are two sides of the same coin. Both clubs gambled big time on the new T.V. deals back in the 90's. Leeds lost, Chelsea won. It could very easily have been Chelsea in Leeds position right now. But that's sport, it's a competition, a gamble.

The scale of the investment in Chelsea has been exceptional but as Leeds Utd prove it doesn't mean success. And as Abramovic has discovered all the money in the world doesn't get you "sexy" football.
But more and more clubs will see similar levels of investment in the future - football is the only true global sport, watched by billions of people around the world. Chelsea may be 5 or 10 years ahead of the game in terms of investment but it will be happening to more and more clubs in the future.

And if billionaires end up owning all the top clubs, there'll still only be one winner every year. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sod off to the bbc s 606 forums if you want to blah on about whose got the biggest club etc.
Fair point. Understood.

So prey tell, out of interest is there any real plans for Chelsea to move or expand their ground?
No further either concrete or rumoured news on this currently.

There was this article today in the Observer, about Chelsea looking into a move to a new stadium 65,000 - 75,000 next to Battersea Park power station.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/nov/09/premier-league-chelsea

Sounds interesting, but I can't find anything on HOK Sports' website... :(

The club are denying it as an unsolicited approach from HOK;
http://www.teamtalk.com/football/story/0,16368,1773_4475160,00.html


Chelsea have been linked with numerous stadium moves in the past, including nearby Earls Court, but the club will not sanction any new build until redevelopment of Stamford Bridge has been entirely ruled out.

A statement from Chelsea read: "This story is total nonsense. Chelsea is not actively considering moving to this site in Battersea.

"Chelsea has been linked with a whole host of high profile sites in London before, including this one.

"We are approached on a regular basis by developers and others with a commercial interest in driving up the price of property.

"The architects HOK have not been commissioned by Chelsea to build a stadium and do not work for the club. Their approach was unsolicited.

"Chelsea's position on stadium development is very clear. We will not be considering moving away from our present stadium until all possibilities of redeveloping Stamford Bridge are exhausted.

"Most people are well aware of the difficulties involved in redeveloping Stamford Bridge."

If we leave the Bridge we can't be Chelsea anymore (pitch owners agreement); that's not acceptable.

You can't sell the ground either.

If we leave the Bridge we can't be Chelsea anymore (pitch owners agreement); that's not acceptable.

I think we will be seeing Chelsea under the name London Blues FC in the future:cheers:

But seriously, if they moved to battersea the odds are they could keep their name because its more or less in the chelsea area anyway - and most of chelsea's fan base is from that area too.

I think we will be seeing Chelsea under the name London Blues FC in the future:cheers:

But seriously, if they moved to battersea the odds are they could keep their name because its more or less in the chelsea area anyway - and most of chelsea's fan base is from that area too.

I'm far from a Chelski fan but I'm sure the name is tied to Stamford Bridge so if they move they lose the rights to the name and thus could not be called Chelsea FC if they move to Battersea.

Could they get around the problem by calling themselves something like AFC Chelsea?

I think a Chelsea move is inevitable, the Bridge is broken so they believe. :)

When Pro Evo has the fake team names, due to its unofficiality, what are Chelsea called then? Could they use that, or would they have to purchase the name off the game developers?

I'm far from a Chelski fan but I'm sure the name is tied to Stamford Bridge so if they move they lose the rights to the name and thus could not be called Chelsea FC if they move to Battersea.The Chelsea FC name is owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) - the scheme set up by Ken Bates which owns the Stamford Bridge pitch and the land the stands sit on thus protecting it forever from unscrupulous property investors. So if the club moved the CPO could withhold the use of the name Chelsea FC and block any sale of a large section of the land. Or, alternatively, the club could beg/persuade/bribe 75% of CPOs vote for a move... So it's not true to suggest that there is no way around this issue.

.........alternatively, the club could beg/persuade/bribe 75% of CPOs vote for a move... So it's not true to suggest that there is no way around this issue.

With enough money, all problems can be fixed.

That is infact wrong. You would have to buy out every single share in the Chelsea Pitch Owners holding. If someone owned 99.999% of all the shares and there was one person with 1 share. He couldn't do anything because every share holder has 100% voting rights. You could buy out 50%, 75% or 90% and it would not make any difference. The person with 1000 shares has the same rights as the person with 1. I might buy one then they are fucked. :lol:

They can't fill the current ground. They should knock down one of the stands and expand slowly, like OT. Stay put. Much as I dislike where the money has come from, the club deserves it's future not to be hijacked by a Russian gangster.

Chelsea are owned by a multi billionaire look at whats been spent on palyers.Man utd have bought players with whats been earned from revenue.And all those names are they multi billionaires no they are not and come on some of those guys died seventy years ago you gotta do better than that.I'm not a man utd fan i support my hometown you know the tiny club where we'll never win anything cos we have got sweet fa but hey so what.But chelsea will never compare you only think your a massive club cos of the money when in fact your no bigger than say Everton at the most.

Thats an insult to Everton.

They can't fill the current ground. They should knock down one of the stands and expand slowly, like OT. Stay put. Much as I dislike where the money has come from, the club deserves it's future not to be hijacked by a Russian gangster.

Fulham wanted to build a new stadium for long enough and eventually had to settle for doing what they could at Craven Cottage as a short-term measure. Chelsea may end up having to do similar. But if they don't fill Stamford Bridge regularly, is it really a surprise at 50-odd quid a ticket?

Those who claim to have the inside track at Chelsea say that when this season's financial figures are released at the start of next month, there will no longer be any doubt about the commitment of Roman Abramovich, the owner, to his club.

There is talk of a major announcement. It could be a new stadium or substantial redevelopment at Stamford Bridge; it could be a favourable adjustment of his loan arrangements...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1113567/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Romans-Bridge-falling-.html?ITO=1490

Chelsea ponder naming rights deal.


Chelsea chief Ron Gourlay says they would consider selling naming rights to Stamford Bridge, as long as the current name is included in the new one.

In his first interview since replacing Peter Kenyon as chief executive, Gourlay told Chelsea TV any deal would have to be with "the right partner".

"Retaining the ground's heritage is paramount to considering such a move but we think it's achievable," he said.

"On that basis we would enter into discussions over naming rights."

BBC Sport understands any possible deal would be for in the region of seven to 10 years, which would seem to end any speculation about the possibility of the club moving away from Stamford Bridge in the forseeable future.

Gourlay said he realised how sensitive an issue the identity of the ground would be with fans, which is why the keeping the name Stamford Bridge would be essential to any deal.

But he also said he hoped fans would understand the commercial considerations which meant it had to be considered if they wanted to keep pace with their rivals.

"What we are not prepared to happen, and I am sure our fans will appreciate this, is allow our rival clubs in England and Europe to gain a competitive advantage over us in terms of the revenue they can generate through either expanding the capacity of their existing stadia or moving to a new stadium and then invest that upside in their team or the club," he said.

"Those possibilities are not open to Chelsea for the foreseeable future because of the restrictions in expanding our stadium and the issues around finding a new site.

"That means we have to be creative and look at our sponsorship architecture and see if we can create new value and new opportunities that keeps us competitive."

Stamford Bridge's capacity is 41,841 and this season it has been close to sold out for every Premier League game.

Gourlay said this fact, and also the lack of room for further development around the ground, were also factors in the club's thinking.

"Our stadium does very well at the moment in competing with the bigger, and in some cases newer, stadia of our rivals. But they have more possibilities in the long run than we do. We cannot sell anymore tickets to Chelsea fans as we sell out virtually every match within our limited capacity.

"The match day experience at Stamford Bridge and the relationship with our fans has improved greatly through initiatives such as our flexible ticketing policy for all cup matches, the freezing of non-hospitality ticket prices for the last four seasons for Premier League matches and subsidised or free travel to a significant number of away games.

"But we need to keep evolving and move the business forward to support the football side and the club generally. This is a potentially realistic way of doing that."

Story from BBC SPORT:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/8345546.stm

Naming rights at Stamford Bridge:

Can British football clubs whore themselves out anymore, do the people running these clubs have no shame? Are British football fans prepared to bend over and take this crap? Absolutely disgusting we should be ashamed that we are prepared to take this... And where will this extra revenue go? Into the pockets of overpaid footaballers & agents as i can guarentee you its not to reduce the cost of match tickets or make any long term benefit for the club... We are the laughing stock of Europe, apparently the most successful league in the world yet every club is horrifically skint and worse off than pre premier league days... I hope it all completely implodes...

u mad

Naming rights at Stamford Bridge:

Can British football clubs whore themselves out anymore, do the people running these clubs have no shame? Are British football fans prepared to bend over and take this crap? Absolutely disgusting we should be ashamed that we are prepared to take this... And where will this extra revenue go? Into the pockets of overpaid footaballers & agents as i can guarentee you its not to reduce the cost of match tickets or make any long term benefit for the club... We are the laughing stock of Europe, apparently the most successful league in the world yet every club is horrifically skint and worse off than pre premier league days... I hope it all completely implodes...They should whore themselves for all they're worth (literally) and get the investment in so that our clubs can buy the world's best players and kick arse in international competitions. If our clubs cannot balance their books then that's indeed worrying, but there's no way that a less commercial approach towards football in Britain is going to win us any trophies, or at least not international ones. It would be music to our ears if our key foreign rivals (Barcelona, Real Madrid, AC Milan, etc) were to consider what you propose, but it's music to their ears if our leading clubs consider the same.

It will only ever go into the pockets of the players & the agents anyway.. Clubs should start trying to run themselves properly rather than selling off everything they can get there hands on..

Langur and his ilk are what is wrong with football today!

Naming rights at Stamford Bridge:

Can British football clubs whore themselves out anymore, do the people running these clubs have no shame? Are British football fans prepared to bend over and take this crap? Absolutely disgusting we should be ashamed that we are prepared to take this... And where will this extra revenue go? Into the pockets of overpaid footaballers & agents as i can guarentee you its not to reduce the cost of match tickets or make any long term benefit for the club... We are the laughing stock of Europe, apparently the most successful league in the world yet every club is horrifically skint and worse off than pre premier league days... I hope it all completely implodes...

To be honest I wouldn't care. It's free money and no real fan is ever going to call the stadium by it's new "name".

On the subject of Chelsea -I thought the parade on Sunday for Rememberance Sunday was tasteless. WTF has Chelsea FC got in common with the ordinary men and woman who sacrificed so much??? Nothing. What makes Chelsea and their fans think they are so superior and somehow the 'official club of the British Army'?

On the subject of Chelsea -I thought the parade on Sunday for Rememberance Sunday was tasteless. WTF has Chelsea FC got in common with the ordinary men and woman who sacrificed so much??? Nothing. What makes Chelsea and their fans think they are so superior and somehow the 'official club of the British Army'?

Yeah! Next time I see a football club showing respect and rememberance for those who died I'm going to give them a good telling off!

On the subject of Chelsea -I thought the parade on Sunday for Rememberance Sunday was tasteless. WTF has Chelsea FC got in common with the ordinary men and woman who sacrificed so much??? Nothing. What makes Chelsea and their fans think they are so superior and somehow the 'official club of the British Army'?
:ohno:

Every single club took part in a minute's silence over the last 10 days or so. Birmingham city for example had two, one at home against Man City and one at Anfield.

Last time i checked football fan's were 'ordinary men and women' too.

They should whore themselves for all they're worth (literally) and get the investment in so that our clubs can buy the world's best players and kick arse in international competitions. If our clubs cannot balance their books then that's indeed worrying, but there's no way that a less commercial approach towards football in Britain is going to win us any trophies, or at least not international ones. It would be music to our ears if our key foreign rivals (Barcelona, Real Madrid, AC Milan, etc) were to consider what you propose, but it's music to their ears if our leading clubs consider the same.

Its not as if all those clubs arent in similar positions either, Real are choc to the eyeballs in debt purely from spending(rather than leveraged buyouts like Man Utd and Liverpool) to a far greater degree than any english side. Whats more they take an even more comerical approach to football than we do talking a vastly higher percentage of TV income for themselves.

A large factor in the premier league foruming in the first place was that english sides were starting to loose there best players to the newly rich Seria A.

:ohno:

Every single club took part in a minute's silence over the last 10 days or so. Birmingham city for example had two, one at home against Man City and one at Anfield.

Last time i checked football fan's were 'ordinary men and women' too.

Also they are closely linked with the Chelsea Pensioners of the Royal Hospital

Just to return to the issue of a Chelsea future stadium surely if Abramovich and Chelsea want to fulfil a dream of being a global power house and be self sufficient they need to build an enlarged stadium. Whilst selling naming rights is all well and good it's not a long term solution to the funding gap opening up between those with 60,000+ full house stadia and the rest (and yes i know about the debt of Man U, Arsenal, etc, but long term the increased capacities pay for themselves).

With the problems of sight lines around the bridge and the ownership of the name if they move away I realise they're in a tight spot. But surely one day they have to bite the bullet and just move to one of the few remaining sites in West London that could accomodate them before they in turn get redeveloped (Battersea Power Station, the other bit of the white city estate, Earls Court).

Would Chelsea fans completely loose it if they were known as Chelsea AFC or something and played in Battersea? It's not ideal but it would enable the club to be self sufficient long term when Abramovich moves permanently to one of his mega yachts and becomes a cross between Bloefeld and Howard Hughes.

:ohno:

Every single club took part in a minute's silence over the last 10 days or so. Birmingham city for example had two, one at home against Man City and one at Anfield.

Last time i checked football fan's were 'ordinary men and women' too.

I totally agree with you're comments - a minutes silence is the correct show of respect. My point was that Chelsea as a club appear to think that by parading servicemen and some of the Chelsea pensioners on the pitch that they are somehow being more respectful. Keep it simple - fans in the stand, players, ref and linesman in the centre circle with heads bowed and a minute of respect - not some quasi militarisic parade. Chelsea as a club are as far detached from reality as any football club I can think of.

Just to return to the issue of a Chelsea future stadium surely if Abramovich and Chelsea want to fulfil a dream of being a global power house and be self sufficient they need to build an enlarged stadium. Whilst selling naming rights is all well and good it's not a long term solution to the funding gap opening up between those with 60,000+ full house stadia and the rest (and yes i know about the debt of Man U, Arsenal, etc, but long term the increased capacities pay for themselves).

With the problems of sight lines around the bridge and the ownership of the name if they move away I realise they're in a tight spot. But surely one day they have to bite the bullet and just move to one of the few remaining sites in West London that could accomodate them before they in turn get redeveloped (Battersea Power Station, the other bit of the white city estate, Earls Court).

Would Chelsea fans completely loose it if they were known as Chelsea AFC or something and played in Battersea? It's not ideal but it would enable the club to be self sufficient long term when Abramovich moves permanently to one of his mega yachts and becomes a cross between Bloefeld and Howard Hughes.

I would love to see Battersea Power station converted into a stadium... doesn't look likely now though... Earl's court is obviously a perfect and large site, and it's actually in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Just to return to the issue of a Chelsea future stadium surely if Abramovich and Chelsea want to fulfil a dream of being a global power house and be self sufficient they need to build an enlarged stadium. Whilst selling naming rights is all well and good it's not a long term solution to the funding gap opening up between those with 60,000+ full house stadia and the rest (and yes i know about the debt of Man U, Arsenal, etc, but long term the increased capacities pay for themselves).

With the problems of sight lines around the bridge and the ownership of the name if they move away I realise they're in a tight spot. But surely one day they have to bite the bullet and just move to one of the few remaining sites in West London that could accomodate them before they in turn get redeveloped (Battersea Power Station, the other bit of the white city estate, Earls Court).

Would Chelsea fans completely loose it if they were known as Chelsea AFC or something and played in Battersea? It's not ideal but it would enable the club to be self sufficient long term when Abramovich moves permanently to one of his mega yachts and becomes a cross between Bloefeld and Howard Hughes.



But don't Chelsea have to change their name of they leave the Stamford Bridge site?

If they were going to build a new stadium, I'd like for it to be on the site of the old gas towers. It's relatively close to Stamford Bridge, plenty of space and could be served by Imperial Wharf.

But don't Chelsea have to change their name of they leave the Stamford Bridge site?

No, why would they?

But don't Chelsea have to change their name of they leave the Stamford Bridge site?

Simply yes. Chelsea Football Club or Roman don't own the naming rights. The Chelsea pitch owners do and its set up in such a way no one could buy it and the owners couldn't sell it or agree to give it away. They also own the freehold, the pitch and turnstiles. So Chelsea can't use the Chelsea FC, Chelsea Football Club name if they ever move.

Simply yes. Chelsea Football Club or Roman don't own the naming rights. The Chelsea pitch owners do and its set up in such a way no one could buy it and the owners couldn't sell it or agree to give it away. They also own the freehold, the pitch and turnstiles. So Chelsea can't use the Chelsea FC, Chelsea Football Club name if they ever move.

However a small change in the name like Chelsea Blues FC, London Blues FC etc. would be acceptable.

However a small change in the name like Chelsea Blues FC, London Blues FC etc. would be acceptable.

Can you picture that on Match day. London Blues Vs Arsenal........

Simply yes. Chelsea Football Club or Roman don't own the naming rights. The Chelsea pitch owners do and its set up in such a way no one could buy it and the owners couldn't sell it or agree to give it away. They also own the freehold, the pitch and turnstiles. So Chelsea can't use the Chelsea FC, Chelsea Football Club name if they ever move.

I wonder if Mr Abramovich might be able to ehem, how you say............... conveeeeence them...............?

However a small change in the name like Chelsea Blues FC, London Blues FC etc. would be acceptable.

Not exactly what i'd call a small change. Couldn't be much bigger in fact.
Isn't that a name from Pro Evolution soccer?

London FC, actually. But I'm sure the other London clubs would have something to say about that!

Surely if everyone was happy about the move (if/when it happens) then the Chelsea pitch owners would allow them to use the name?

where theres a will and billionaire russian theres a way!

I wonder if Mr Abramovich might be able to ehem, how you say............... conveeeeence them...............?

Surely if everyone was happy about the move (if/when it happens) then the Chelsea pitch owners would allow them to use the name?

where theres a will and billionaire russian theres a way!

No, No and No. These are the people who don't want see Chelsea leave Stamford Bridge or see an outside party take over the name. The reason it was set up was so no one can sell the land to a developer or sell the Chelsea FC name on. Roman cannot buy the Chelsea FC name.

If we assume that Chelsea will staying at their current site and could knock down the hotels and start from scratch, what would be the maximum sized stadium they could build? (Bearing in mind the size of the site, railway lines/roads, planning constraints, crowd dispersal issues etc).

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7306/estextchelsea5ou.jpg

I'd guess somewhere around 55-60,000 at a push. Obviously no parking and no pavements. That's just my guess though, looking at the pic.

No, No and No. These are the people who don't want see Chelsea leave Stamford Bridge or see an outside party take over the name. The reason it was set up was so no one can sell the land to a developer or sell the Chelsea FC name on. Roman cannot buy the Chelsea FC name.

I don't believe this for a second.

For starters, Chelsea pitch owners aren't a homogeneous group. They don't all think exactly alike. If Abramovich goes to them with a proposal which is generally considered to be advantageous to Chelsea FC, then it WILL be approved by the majority - however stubbornly a small minority of Chelsea Pitch Owners protest.

Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC (it's a PLC, despite the fact that shares are not listed or traded on any stock market) wasn't set up in order to ensure that Chelsea FC would never move from Stamford Bridge, full stop. It was set up in order to ensure that Chelsea FC wouldn't be forcibly removed from Stamford Bridge. Remember that Stamford Bridge was, for a long time, owned by property development companies - Marler Estates and, subsequently, Cabra Estates. They constantly threatened to evict Chelsea without provision for any alternative home. Chelsea Pitch Owners was only set up to counter such a threat arising once again in the future. Clearly, that would not be the case should Abramovich propose to build a new, 60K stadium at Earls Court, for instance.

I don't believe this for a second.

For starters, Chelsea pitch owners aren't a homogeneous group. They don't all think exactly alike. If Abramovich goes to them with a proposal which is generally considered to be advantageous to Chelsea FC, then it WILL be approved by the majority - however stubbornly a small minority of Chelsea Pitch Owners protest.

Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC (it's a PLC, despite the fact that shares are not listed or traded on any stock market) wasn't set up in order to ensure that Chelsea FC would never move from Stamford Bridge, full stop. It was set up in order to ensure that Chelsea FC wouldn't be forcibly removed from Stamford Bridge. Remember that Stamford Bridge was, for a long time, owned by property development companies - Marler Estates and, subsequently, Cabra Estates. They constantly threatened to evict Chelsea without provision for any alternative home. Chelsea Pitch Owners was only set up to counter such a threat arising once again in the future. Clearly, that would not be the case should Abramovich propose to build a new, 60K stadium at Earls Court, for instance.
How does Roman buy a company where its written into the rules that there are limited voting rights? How would a person set up such a vote when the legally binding rules prevent such sales? If was the case as you state a developer would have no problem buying the pitch and the name off the group of share holders. If as you say the name can move, there is no point in this group.

btw if Roman can buy them out why hasn't he done it? Ohhh that's right because he can't.

How does Roman buy a company where its written into the rules that there are limited voting rights? How would a person set up such a vote when the legally binding rules prevent such sales? If was the case as you state a developer would have no problem buying the pitch and the name off the group of share holders. If as you say the name can move, there is no point in this group.

btw if Roman can buy them out why hasn't he done it? Ohhh that's right because he can't.

Yes there is a limit of 100 votes per shareholder, regardless of how many CPO shares an individual (or institution) might own.

But you're making the assumption that the majority of CPO shareholders would oppose any move from Stamford Bridge regardless of circumstances. And it's a false assumption. Sure, I don't doubt that there are some hard core CPO owners who will insist that Chelsea always stay at Stamford Bridge no matter what. But there are far more CPO shareholders who are just Chelsea fans - who want nothing more than whatever is best for Chelsea FC.

I know plenty of Chelsea fans who are CPO owners and they would have little hesitation in voting for a move to a new 60-65K stadium at an acceptable site if the only alternative was to remain forever at a 42K stadium on the current site and fall behind other clubs because of the comparatively limited ticket revenues.

So I repeat, Abramovich doesn't have to buy up all the shares in CPO. The only requirement (to be fair, no easy task) would be for him to make a case for a move to a new site that is sufficiently compelling to gain the necessary majority of votes.

Yes there is a limit of 100 votes per shareholder, regardless of how many CPO shares an individual (or institution) might own.

But you're making the assumption that the majority of CPO shareholders would oppose any move from Stamford Bridge regardless of circumstances. And it's a false assumption. Sure, I don't doubt that there are some hard core CPO owners who will insist that Chelsea always stay at Stamford Bridge no matter what. But there are far more CPO shareholders who are just Chelsea fans - who want nothing more than whatever is best for Chelsea FC.

I know plenty of Chelsea fans who are CPO owners and they would have little hesitation in voting for a move to a new 60-65K stadium at an acceptable site if the only alternative was to remain forever at a 42K stadium on the current site and fall behind other clubs because of the comparatively limited ticket revenues.

So I repeat, Abramovich doesn't have to buy up all the shares in CPO. The only requirement (to be fair, no easy task) would be for him to make a case for a move to a new site that is sufficiently compelling to gain the necessary majority of votes.

Your making a totally false assumption, they'd vote for it. These are the type of fans who want to help protect the club for the long term. Does that involve building a new ground, when the club is aiming to be financially stable with what its currently got? There are fans who would argue against it. Big Russian bloke with the possibility of sticking £400-600 million of debt on a club which can't support its own players wages. Don't forget its been stated Roman wants some money back which hes lent the club to move forward. Building the ground would mean Roman is staying for another 25-30 years. There will also be fans who don't want to see the team move from Stamford Bridge. Until theres a vote and it comes out in a press release, I'd say the CPO is currently doing a good job of keeping the Chelsea name and the pitch where it is. I'd think just setting up a vote to propose such a move would be a total nightmare or does none of that apply?

Then again I'd still argue that the legally blinding rules/laws written into the company would prevent such a vote. Unless I got the papers and a lawyer to go though it, which am not going to do, I'd still go with what I've said. I've seen the same things repeated over and over again. The only place I've heard about a possible vote is on this forum. No where else.

I'd guess somewhere around 55-60,000 at a push. Obviously no parking and no pavements. That's just my guess though, looking at the pic.

Looks like 55,000 would be a bit of a squeeze.

^^ YEs you'd need some pretty steep tiers. Check out the Bernabeu

http://www.madridgalacticos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/santiago-bernabeu-02.jpg

Remember there open top bus tour there was knowone there hardly i doubt they could sell that size ground out every week.

Your making a totally false assumption, they'd vote for it. These are the type of fans who want to help protect the club for the long term. Does that involve building a new ground, when the club is aiming to be financially stable with what its currently got? There are fans who would argue against it. Big Russian bloke with the possibility of sticking £400-600 million of debt on a club which can't support its own players wages. Don't forget its been stated Roman wants some money back which hes lent the club to move forward. Building the ground would mean Roman is staying for another 25-30 years. There will also be fans who don't want to see the team move from Stamford Bridge. Until theres a vote and it comes out in a press release, I'd say the CPO is currently doing a good job of keeping the Chelsea name and the pitch where it is. I'd think just setting up a vote to propose such a move would be a total nightmare or does none of that apply?

Then again I'd still argue that the legally blinding rules/laws written into the company would prevent such a vote. Unless I got the papers and a lawyer to go though it, which am not going to do, I'd still go with what I've said. I've seen the same things repeated over and over again. The only place I've heard about a possible vote is on this forum. No where else.

Check out the CPO pages on the Chelsea official site. A vote is possible.

Of course, we're only talking about a hypothetical scenario here. I've heard nothing of any substance to suggest that Chelsea are considering a move from Stamford Bridge. Even if they were, it would be very hard for them to find a suitable site in the right area.

But, in theory, there is no reason why Chelsea couldn't move to a new stadium if the required majority of CPO owners agreed to it.

Check out the CPO pages on the Chelsea official site. A vote is possible.

Of course, we're only talking about a hypothetical scenario here. I've heard nothing of any substance to suggest that Chelsea are considering a move from Stamford Bridge. Even if they were, it would be very hard for them to find a suitable site in the right area.

But, in theory, there is no reason why Chelsea couldn't move to a new stadium if the required majority of CPO owners agreed to it.

So what is the point of this thread then?

So what is the point of this thread then?

Because when it was started Chelsea were strongly rumoured to be planning a new stadium.

There are plenty of threads in the Transport forum based on less probability than this one that drag on for much longer.

Ok.
But 'pre-planning' is a tad misleading. Should be 'rumoured' or something.

Fair point.

As a trial run to measure demand how about sending the first 5 matches of 2011 to the Olympic stadium.

I hope you're being sarcastic Mr Rush..

Looks like 55,000 would be a bit of a squeeze.

Not if they brought back terracing!

Old proposal from the early 1970's. The motorway in the foreground was the planned London Ringway 1.

http://i46.tinypic.com/nfr9ti.jpg

^^

Reminds me a little of the De Kuip stadium

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/NED/De_Kuip_A.jpg

Apparently Earls Court arena is to be demolished and turned into a residential area:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/olympic-volleyball-will-be-earls-court-swansong-1875008.html

Why doesn't Roman "make them an offer they can't refuse" to build a stadium on the site, and give them the current stadium site instead? Surely it's better placed and more desirable for residential purposes?

Its about time this CPO (Chelsea Pitch Owners) stuf was put to bed along with the ridiculous idea that Chelsea could not use their name if they moved ground

a)The CPO was set up by Ken Bates to stop property spivs using CFC for real estate and it only stops the use of the pitch itself being sold, making the rest of the site unusable for housing.

b)The CPO was set up with a £16m 'loan' from Chelsea repayable at 'some time in the future' which when fully funded would hand ownership of the pitch to CPO, CPO do NOT own the pitch, Chelsea could merely call in this loan and CPO would fold

c)CPO shareholders being Chelsea supporters would vote for whats best for Chelsea anyway, and if that involved moving to a newer bigger stadium then they would vote accordingly


CPO would not stop Chelsea moving ground, using their name etc etc

BTW they have only raised a fraction of the £16m in all the years they have been formed to complete the purchase of the pitch

Its about time this CPO (Chelsea Pitch Owners) stuf was put to bed along with the ridiculous idea that Chelsea could not use their name if they moved ground

a)The CPO was set up by Ken Bates to stop property spivs using CFC for real estate and it only stops the use of the pitch itself being sold, making the rest of the site unusable for housing.

b)The CPO was set up with a £16m 'loan' from Chelsea repayable at 'some time in the future' which when fully funded would hand ownership of the pitch to CPO, CPO do NOT own the pitch, Chelsea could merely call in this loan and CPO would fold

c)CPO shareholders being Chelsea supporters would vote for whats best for Chelsea anyway, and if that involved moving to a newer bigger stadium then they would vote accordingly


CPO would not stop Chelsea moving ground, using their name etc etc

BTW they have only raised a fraction of the £16m in all the years they have been formed to complete the purchase of the pitch

Is it allowed rename for chelsea fc if they move relocation.! what Football association say about rename issue.! is there any law or rules for club name changed.! most of club's are never changed name since they estb.

How long we wait new stamford bridge stadium.? We don't need any debate. Go ahead build new stadium and change name chelsea fc. it is alot of waste time debate CPO issue. We don't have any other options CPO.

Ken bates is an idiot.

Is it allowed rename for chelsea fc if they move relocation.! what Football association say about rename issue.! is there any law or rules for club name changed.! most of club's are never changed name since they estb.

How long we wait new stamford bridge stadium.? We don't need any debate. Go ahead build new stadium and change name chelsea fc. it is alot of waste time debate CPO issue. We don't have any other options CPO.

Ken bates is an idiot.

As a Leeds fan I wholeheartedly agree than Bates is an idiot but I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make apart from that...

Chelsea in talks to leave Stamford Bridge and move to Earls Court

Chelsea FC have been in high level talks to leave Stamford Bridge and move to Earls Court.

Chelsea Football Club are in talks to quit their 105-year old home at Stamford Bridge and build a ground on the site of the soon- to-be-demolished Earls Court exhibition centre to hold at least 60,000 spectators, the Guardian has learned.

The Premier League champions, owned by the Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, are considering a move to the prime west London site just half a mile from their existing home amid growing concern they are losing ground to rivals with bigger and bigger stadiums.

Discussions have been kept secret because the move could torpedo a plan by the leading architect Sir Terry Farrell to transform Earls Court into a new residential enclave with more than 8,000 new homes. The scheme enters the latest phase of public consultation this week and is being undertaken with fellow landowners, Transport for London and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

"The discussion is now on again," said a source close to the deal. "It is largely because the owners are progressing alternative uses for the site and there's lots more urgency for Chelsea to make a decision. From Chelsea's point of view this is their last opportunity to get a new ground and stay in the same area they have been in for over a century."

Chelsea flirted with acquiring the same site four years ago but talks came to nothing. Now the site is larger and Chelsea's chairman, Bruce Buck, has been warned the club faces a "deficit" as a result of Stamford Bridge's lack of capacity.

"There have been discussions about it and the club is clearly considering its next step," confirmed a source close to Chelsea, who added that negotiations are at an early stage and no deal has been signed.

The club has met the site's owner, Capital and Counties, in recent months and Chelsea and its advisers are holding "a series of key meetings to decide whether to pursue a bid or not", according to a source close to the talks.

A new stadium would not be ready until 2015 because Earls Court is scheduled to host the 2012 Olympic volleyball competition before the exhibition centre is demolished. After 73 years in which it has hosted gigs by the likes of Led Zeppelin, Oasis and Madonna, its economic viability has been compromised by the establishment of major new concert and conference venues elsewhere in London, including the 02 arena at the Millennium Dome.

Tonight Buck said it was "very difficult for us to make the philosophical decision that we are going to move on", but conceded that the lack of capacity at Stamford Bridge left it out of pocket compared with other clubs.

"Certainly we wouldn't leave west London or thereabouts and there are very few sites available," he said. "We have to do things with our other commercial activities to make up the deficit that is created by the fact we don't have a 60,000 seat stadium. We can't say that we will never move or have a new stadium but at the moment, it's not at the front of our agenda."

However, Chelsea insiders said Buck is keen to boost matchday takings because Uefa is introducing rules limiting the ability of super-rich owners to bankroll clubs without squaring spending with revenues. Despite winning the league last season, the club was only fifth in terms of average attendance in football's top flight behind Manchester United, Arsenal, Manchester City and Liverpool. Stamford Bridge accommodates around 41,000 fans compared with 76,000 at Manchester United's Old Trafford ground and 60,000 at Arsenal's Emirates stadium.

Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham United recently made bids to occupy the 80,000 seat Olympic stadium.

The emergence of Chelsea's renewed interest in Earls Court is awkward for Capital and Counties, which has launched a public charm offensive for its housing project employing Edelman, the international public relations company. It is promoting the "four villages and a high street" vision for the area and declined to comment on negotiations with Chelsea.

"Our vision for Earls Court is for a world class residential-led development delivering thousands of new homes and jobs, and creating a remarkable new place in London," a spokesman said. "As part of that we maintain discussions with a wide range of stakeholders and neighbouring landowners including both local authorities, TfL, the GLA and the local community."


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Apparently Earls Court arena is to be demolished and turned into a residential area:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/olympic-volleyball-will-be-earls-court-swansong-1875008.html

Why doesn't Roman "make them an offer they can't refuse" to build a stadium on the site, and give them the current stadium site instead? Surely it's better placed and more desirable for residential purposes?

:)

:)

I wonder whether Chelsea have looked at the cost/benefit of demolishing Chelsea Village, which as far as I can see is occupying valuable space where they could build a very substantial stand indeed.

As with Man City I'm guessing that the sudden change of heart might have alot to do with Platini's new spending laws that would tie player spending to turnover. Even if a new stadium isnt a great investment from a business standpoint the very fact it will boost turnover would allow for greater spending.

:)

My crystal ball does work!

Right, now to concentrate on this weeks EuroMillions numbers!

west ham with money

west ham with money

You must be a West Ham fan then

http://img227.imageshack.us/i/zimoweautawse.jpg

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6033/zimoweautawse.jpg

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/640/shengen.jpg bramki działaja w najlepsze i nie maja zamiaru zniknac

west ham with money

Spurs?

Why the toll booth?

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/download?mid=2d09c082c92acd1fe1e730d86b6988d&rtyp=lt&ctyp=other&ts=1202485776000

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2096/chelsea1234gt6.jpg

Those above renders are actually quality! the first one is sort of Bernabeu-esque

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/download?mid=2d09c082c92acd1fe1e730d86b6988d&rtyp=lt&ctyp=other&ts=1202485776000

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/2096/chelsea1234gt6.jpg

I don't understand why people keep posting these renders. They are not official and were made by some fella using Google Sketch-Up on his computer at home!!

Chelsea cant redevelop Stamford Bridge further, there is not enough space around the stadium to support an increase in capacity.

So why keep posting these home-made renders??

^^^^ Cos some look good.

^^^^ Cos some look good.

but will never be built, so lets them keep posting the same home made renders over and over again, its not as if we havnt seen them before....

very interesting

but will never be built, so lets them keep posting the same home made renders over and over again, its not as if we havnt seen them before....

very interesting

Maybe WE Should have a thread of peoples designs

Chelsea take first step towards leaving Stamford Bridge for new home

• Club seek to buy back freehold on current home
• Chairman Bruce Buck seeks to reassure fans

Chelsea are to take what will be perceived as the first significant step towards leaving Stamford Bridge for a new 60,000-seat stadium, by seeking to buy back the freehold for the land on which their home of 106 years is built.

Shareholders at Chelsea Pitch Owners plc, a company founded in 1993 to safeguard the then financially vulnerable London club's future at Stamford Bridge, will receive on Tuesday details of an offer to repurchase the pitch, the turnstiles and the freehold for the land on which the stadium's four stands are built. The company bought the assets for £10m in 1997, with the aid of an £8.5m loan secured from Chelsea's then holding company. The club are offering effectively to write off that debt and buy back the freehold for an identical £1.5m.

While Chelsea are at pains to insist that no dialogue is under way with developers over potential new sites, there have been tentative discussions in the recent past over the availability and viability of sites at Battersea Nine Elms, Earl's Court and Olympia, White City and Imperial Wharf to house a ground that can better Arsenal's Emirates Stadium in terms of capacity and match-day revenue.

Chelsea are aware of the difficulties in increasing the 41,800 capacity of Stamford Bridge and they would be better positioned to react to a suitable area becoming available once they have secured the land on which their home since 1905 stands. They would need to sell the stadium for redevelopment in order to part-fund the purchase of land for any new ground and the construction costs.

The value of the Chelsea FC site is often compared to the former Chelsea Barracks, which sold for close to £1bn in 2007, and Roman Abramovich, the club's owner, may be hoping to achieve a similar value. But property industry sources warned that Stamford Bridge is more constrained by neighbouring housing and railway infrastructure than the barracks site, which, they pointed out, was also sold at a premium during the height of the property and credit boom.

Chelsea expect fierce opposition within CPO, a company which was formed to ensure Stamford Bridge never fell into the hands of property developers – the ground had been sold to Marler Estates plc (later Cabra Estates plc) in 1984, only for that company to go into liquidation eight years later – and which may oppose the possibility of the club leaving their only home.

The Chelsea chairman, Bruce Buck, is hopeful the potential long-term benefits can secure an agreement. "Some shareholders will not react positively and there will be a group of fans who consider this to be a precursor to Chelsea moving and they will not want Chelsea to move," he said. "At the moment we have no discussions ongoing with any developer and we still have not made the decision that, yes, Chelsea definitely want to move. But, just like any business, we have at least to be prepared for a move if something right comes along.

"This [buying the freehold] is something we should have done five years ago when we were clearing up the financial housekeeping of Chelsea, like the Eurobonds issue and other kinds of financing that we had on the books that really weren't appropriate for a club now wholly owned by Roman Abramovich." Asked whether buying the freehold represented the only way Chelsea could move to a new home, Buck said: "That's the bottom line. We could not move unless the club had the ability to redevelop this site. That would be a precondition to getting the money to help us move."

Notification of an extraordinary general meeting, to be held on 27 October, has been issued to the 12,000 CPO shareholders. The club will need to secure the support of 50% of those in attendance if their offer is to be accepted. There remains, therefore, potential for the plans to be blocked at an early stage. The fact that shareholders are seeing no return on their investment – the shares cost £100 each in 1997 – could prompt further opposition.

Chelsea have indicated that 10% of seats in any new stadium would be available to families and supporters under 21 and that no relocation would take place before 2020, unless within a three-mile radius of Stamford Bridge.

"There are only 'x' number of sites in London that we would consider and, by 2020, we expect those sites to be gone," Buck said. "So we would have no restrictions after 2020 in terms of where we could move. But we are confident that most of these shareholders are fans of Chelsea and will understand and approve what we're trying to do."

© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Risible revenues make Chelsea see Stamford Bridge as an unsound ground.

Chelsea have decided that they will be unable truly to rival Manchester United without a much larger stadium.

For all the multi-million-pound players purchased by Roman Abramovich over his money-flushed eight-year ownership of Chelsea, the one thing the oligarch has never possessed is the pitch upon which his team have strutted. Now the Russian, the man who has everything else, finds himself in the bizarre position of having to appeal to the better nature of 12,000 small shareholders, who stand to make no capital gain on their original investment, if his club is at some stage to consider a move to a brighter, bigger home.

The offer made on Tuesday morning to Chelsea Pitch Owners plc (CPO) represents Abramovich attempting to draw a line once and for all under the Ken Bates era. CPO is a legacy of a previous era, having been formed when there was a real prospect of the club being rendered homeless, scarred as they had been by the sale of Stamford Bridge to Marler Estates (subsequently Cabra Estates) in 1984, and with the intention that the stadium could never again be sold to property developers. Chelsea are not currently speaking to any such developers over a potential move, and have not been approached by any seeking to buy the current ground, but the motivation behind reacquiring the land is clear. Without the prospect of redeveloping their home since 1905, there would be no prospect of upgrading.

The club's current capacity of 41,800 is simply not competitive enough for a setup that has long since made clear its ultimate intention to rival clubs such as Manchester United off the pitch as well as on it. A move to a ground that can hold up to 60,000 would hoist them into a different league. The chairman, Bruce Buck, has estimated that Arsenal's revenues have increased by around £35m every year since their move to the Emirates Stadium. Chelsea fear that figure may be nearer to £50m when other sources of revenue, from catering to merchandising, are taken into account.

"Our stadium is the eighth largest in the Premier League at the moment," the chief executive, Ron Gourlay, says. "If you look at some of the activity at other stadiums, you'll definitely see us slipping down that table away from eighth. And I think we're round about 60th in terms of stadiums in Europe when it comes to our size, so our current stadium is restrictive."

Everything is delivered with the caveat that no decision, as yet, has been made to leave the only home Chelsea have ever had, though the reality suggests there is no decision to be made at all. With studies conducted by two architectural firms – at a cost of around £700,000 – to examine the viability of developing the current site having concluded that expansion is impractical, hemmed in as the ground is by railway lines, flats and hotels, the long-term future can only be relocation if the commercial revenues are to increase.

Of the sites potentially available, Battersea Nine Elms, an area on the south bank of the Thames stretching from Chelsea Bridge to Lambeth Bridge, would appear the most convenient in terms of potential availability and size. A site of at least 18 acres would be needed for a 60,000-seat arena, and there will most likely be competition from Queens Park Rangers to build on another potential site, on QPR's doorstep at White City, while it would take a radical shift in stance at Capital & Counties plc, the owners of Earl's Court and Olympia, to make that area another real option for Chelsea to exploit. Yet any move would require the finances generated by the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge into residential or office complexes, together with funding presumably from Abramovich or a compliant bank. To make that possible, the pitch, turnstiles and freehold at Stamford Bridge must surely be Chelsea's again.

And so, the small shareholders at CPO are empowered. There will be natural resistance within the 12,000, most of whom own only a single share bought for £100, to any notion of change. The very nature of Chelsea has changed radically under Abramovich and, where some laud the silverware and newfound profile the team enjoys, others inevitably pine for the days when the club was genuinely theirs rather than a global entity. The idea that, by agreeing simply to accept a payment that matches their original outlay, they may be smoothing the way for the club to move to a new home will horrify some.

Chelsea will spend the next four weeks ahead of the extraordinary general meeting attempting to justify their strategy. They are well aware that CPO has the contractual rights to the name Chelsea Football Club so, should the club move to another stadium, they would not be able to use the name without the permission of 75% of shareholders. Yet Buck argues that the offer, with the perks of priority rights to purchase season tickets and a roll of honour at a new stadium, is fair. After all, CPO granted Chelsea a 199-year lease to play on its land and, with that agreement taken into account, an independent valuation of the pitch and land upon which the stands are built recently claimed it to be worth only £20,000. The stakes over which this club is currently playing are very much higher.
Chelsea's options

1) Stamford Bridge

Chelsea have been exploring the possibility of expanding their existing ground since 2004 but have consistently hit the buffers. The expansion of the East stand, built in the 1970s, would require a cantilever over railway tracks. The South stand has hotels and private flats on the site, with potential costs to buy out and redevelop prohibitive. The West stand is built at its maximum capacity, while the North stand could be expanded by around 6,000 seats, but only at unrealistic cost, and there would be health and safety issues in terms of exits. The site encompasses some 13 acres, with a 60,000-seater stadium likely to need an 18-acre site if built from scratch.

2) Earl's Court and Olympia

Chelsea had first considered the site when it was owned by Anthony Lyons. It is now in the hands of Capital & Counties plc, which submitted an application for planning consent in June to develop the site for residential and commercial purposes: more than 7,500 new homes, offices, a hotel, a primary school, library, health centre and retail space, together with 23.5 acres of public open space. There has been dialogue between Chelsea and Capital & Counties, but the latter were resistant to the idea of putting a stadium on the site. That stance would have to shift if Chelsea were to pursue the site.

3) Imperial Wharf

The site, on the banks of the Thames, has been examined by Chelsea as a potential site for relocation but is generally considered to be too small to meet their needs for a 55,000- to 60,000-seater stadium.

4) White City

The area, just off the West Way, has been classed as another Opportunity Area in central London and would provide the necessary 16-18 acreage required for a new ground. Like Stamford Bridge it is in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, with whom Chelsea enjoy healthy relations. Yet Chelsea could potentially face competition from Queen's Park Rangers, whose new owner, Tony Fernandes, has already indicated a desire to move away from Loftus Road, for a site which is on QPR's doorstep.

5) Battersea Nine Elms

Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea was identified as a development Opportunity Area some two years ago with the site, which incorporates the now disused Battersea power station, stretching from Lambeth Bridge in the north to Chelsea Bridge in the south-west on the south bank of the Thames. The area would boast the necessary space, though transport links would need to be improved, and the football club would need to convince the boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth that the space should be used for a football stadium. Yet, given the obstacles elsewhere, the site does seem the likeliest relocation opportunity.

© 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

I’m guessing that one or more of Chelsea\Fulham\QPR will end up at Old Oak Common. That will be a fascinated place to see develop.
It would be possibly decades before that site’s viable I imagine.

Taking that information above, you could specualte that were Chelsea to build at Battersea, QPR at White City, and Spurs build their stadium, then 5 of the major clubs in London could have new grounds in the space of 15 years, with Arsenal already at the Emirates, West Ham set to move to the Olympic stadium in a few years, and even in addition to those 5, Crystal Palace have been looking into moving back to where the athletics stadium is.

Exciting times, even if, at the moment, it's merely speculation!

Chelsea to leave Stamford Bridge?


Chelsea have taken steps which reports suggest could presage a move away from Stamford Bridge.

They have made an offer to acquire the land their pitch sits on, which was sold thirty years ago to a group of supporters called the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) as a move to protect the ownership of the pitch at a time the club faced possible bankruptcy.

The purchase was part-funded by a £8.5m loan from the club which it is now offering to write off as part of the re-purchase.

Owning the pitch once more would allow in principle the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge, and a move for the club to a new stadium with a larger capacity than their present 41,000. The club would be following Place West London away from the venue - our 2009 and 2010 events were held there, but for 2011 we have moved to Olympia.

There have been persistent rumours about potential moves to Earls Court, as part of the CapCo regeneration, or White City, where a number of landowners including the BBC and Helical Bar are proposing a major regeneration scheme. There has even been speculation that Hammersmith's other two premier league clubs - QPR and Fulham - could ground share in the new stadium, allowing the redevelopment of their Shepherds Bush and Fulham Riverside locations.

Chelsea are reported to have pledged to CPO not to move more than three miles away from Stamford Bridge until after 2020 at least, although this is a relatively minor restriction in what would be a major project.

Whether Chelsea will leave Stamford Bridge is unclear, but Abramovich could it seems, be following Place West London's lead.

CapCo, Helical Bar and many others will be at Place West London on October 11. Book your place now to hear top speakers like Boris Johnson, and to learn more about developments at Earls COurt, White City and elsewhere

General
Hammersmith & Fulham 05 Oct 2011

http://www.placewestlondon.co.uk/page.cfm/action=Archive/ArchiveID=17/EntryID=2959

Battersea Power Station: a new home for Chelsea FC?
Oct 05 2011 Published by clockword under Battersea Power Station

Roman Abramovich is looking to relocate Chelsea FC from Stamford Bridge to the disused Battersea Power Station (BPS). The current site only has capacity for 41,800 spectators and hence it is unable to host an anticipated 60,000. Therefore the Russian oligarch has recently injected a huge sum of money into researching alternative venues.
Apart from BPS, Earls Court & Olympia, White City and Imperial Wharf are all potential sites currently under consideration. However, BPS seems to be most sensible choice due to its convenient size and availability, The Guardian writes.

The final “yes” or “no” is not only up to the Russian as once again Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) are exercising their contractual rights. 12,000 shareholders are legally entitled to the name Chelsea Football Club and if it moves elsewhere, Abramovich needs the CPO’s permission to use this well-known trade name. In order to get them on his side, the oligarch made an offer to CPO on Tuesday promising to give perks of priority rights to purchase season tickets and a roll of honor at the new stadium.
It might be worth mentioning that the US Embassy’s future offices could be right next to Chelsea FC’s new stadium in Battersea and one may wonder if anyone asked the American diplomats for their opinion on rubbing shoulders with football fans…

http://www.spectacle.co.uk/spectacleblog/battersea-power-station/battersea-power-station-a-new-home-for-chelsea-fc/

<SNIP>
It might be worth mentioning that the US Embassy’s future offices could be right next to Chelsea FC’s new stadium in Battersea and one may wonder if anyone asked the American diplomats for their opinion on rubbing shoulders with football fans…

http://www.spectacle.co.uk/spectacleblog/battersea-power-station/battersea-power-station-a-new-home-for-chelsea-fc/

Never mind what the yanks think, just imagine the British security services views on a 60k sports stadium being built next to what would be a magnet for terrorists.

Any would be attackers would be able to mingle with the crowds then launch an assault on the embassy. They could kill scores of football fans in a diversionary attack to distract the security services, while the real target of the embassy was taken out. Or just use the crowds as camouflage in their escape.

Even discounting terrorism, the US embassy is a popular hangout for all sorts of demonstrations. Again this would cause policing/crowd control issues.

The whole scenario does not bear thinking about and as a result i suspect plans would get knocked back at the insistence of the home office.

Never mind what the yanks think, just imagine the British security services views on a 60k sports stadium being built next to what would be a magnet for terrorists.

Any would be attackers would be able to mingle with the crowds then launch an assault on the embassy. They could kill scores of football fans in a diversionary attack to distract the security services, while the real target of the embassy was taken out. Or just use the crowds as camouflage in their escape.

Even discounting terrorism, the US embassy is a popular hangout for all sorts of demonstrations. Again this would cause policing/crowd control issues.

The whole scenario does not bear thinking about and as a result i suspect plans would get knocked back at the insistence of the home office.

This is London not Lebanon.

This is London not Lebanon.

Its neither London, nor Lebanon. Even Kabul may be a bit of a stretch for Tommygod´s imagination.

Too much Spooks, but it could happen

Abramovich will not be amused, but will he win the war?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15481301

Abramovich will not be amused, but will he win the war?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15481301

What war? The pitch owners have asked questions and the club have been very vague. They also don't believe this 'all the options have been exhausted' is true.