If you’re moving to Wembley for 6 years it will be a mare.
Yeah,
The cynic in me feels these guys are only about the money,First they are what they are Investment bankers, secondly owners of what they call sporting franchise's.
Look im sure they want/ need the club to succeed, but first comes the investment, its not unreasonable!
Im sure that they do not like the CPO's stake in the clubs ground & naming rights.
Im also sure that they are ballsy enough to consider relocating & renaming. It gives them total control.
For the money they've got invested total control would seem like the only option.
Im sure there is a strong case for relocation in their thinking.a state of the art events entertainment venue and numerous avenues for improved income streams all of which would strengthen the clubs competitive edge.
Relocation would also present development opportunities at the Stamford bridge/ Oswald Stowell site.
The issue that they have now is trust with the support and the CPO.
Their track record to date does not inspire.
We'd be better off at Twickenham
I'd see no reason why a new stadium wouldn't take 6 years either...it's got problems all round it...rail, road, noise pollution, general pollution posh area entitled caants
Agree Sheriff, playing at Twickenham might make real men of our young boys !
Jw, Can you really see these guys being happy with the CPO oversight & rights ?
No way imo.
We'd be better off at Twickenham
I'd see no reason why a new stadium wouldn't take 6 years either...it's got problems all round it...rail, road, noise pollution, general pollution posh area entitled caants.
Easy mate i come from round there, back in the day it was not all glamour
This is it, 6 years? seriously, that depends on how you set the development up.
It could easily be done in 3/4 from when they break ground.
The 6 year timescale gives them reason to favour relocation.
Ok, so where are on this scenario?
Todd and the CPO cant agree.
Todd buys Earlscourt and sets up the club in a new incarnation Chelsea south west london cubs Fc.
The CPO dig in we become Chelsea AFC and start working up the pyramid.
Your owners have been nothing short of a disaster so far, whatever decision is ultimately made here it is very likely to be the wrong one based on what we have seen so far
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Chopper,
I really feel that the ownership will want the CPO off their back, when you consider the sums involved.
They will not want to relocate & invest a further 1- 2 bln and not own their 4/5 bln asset out right.
By relocating without the CPO they consolidate their investment.
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone told me once, ask a stupid person a question........ expect a stupid answer.
#strikemugmuppet
Chelsea will not be in a new ground this side of 2030, whatever option they take. Mudryk may have settled in by then
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone told me once, ask a stupid person a question........ expect a stupid answer.
#strikemugmuppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who is yet to make an intelligent contribution to ja606
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone told me once, ask a stupid person a question........ expect a stupid answer.
#strikemugmuppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence why no one asks you anything
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone told me once, ask a stupid person a question........ expect a stupid answer.
#strikemugmuppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who is yet to make an intelligent contribution to ja606
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A West Ham fan pretending to be a Wolves fan, it really is pathetic
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club I suspect. Yes a bigger ground means more revenue - but why not first of all try and build a side capable of qualifying for euro competition, lay foundations for future success with your playing squad and then build the ground.
They seem to constantly be trying to fast track everything - spend a fortune on underwhelming players, chop and change managers, remove all the football people from behind the scenes.
It’s like they bought Chelsea with a view to an excellent return in a very short period of time - it rarely ever works like that in football though, it’s just too competitive
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 13 seconds ago
Epic bites!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This should be ban worthy, when a poster is incapable of responding with anything wittier/original or truer than this then it should automatically result in a one week ban. Otherwise it wastes a valuable couple of seconds of a persons life to read that drivel
Devon,
I would not be surprised if Boehly- Clearlake opted to relocate & rename if the CPO were not prepared to step aside.
I dont believe for one second that they would be happy investing into Stamford bridge under going a 6 years development , costing in ? 1 bln there abouts and still not own or have full control of their asset & investment.
But I can envisage them relocating, renaming, owning & having full control of their 4/5 bln investment.
On this basis they would also be in a position to develop the land/ property surrounding Stamford bridge that they have been buying up.
What would this mean? in the long run it would strengthen & stabilise the club and its economy and to some extent make sense of their investment.
The stadium rebuild and the opportunity to redevelop in the heart of SW London was more than likely the real focus of their willingness to buy CFC.
This route would consolidate their investment, it would recover the damage they have done in the first 24 months.
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 13 seconds ago
Epic bites!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This should be ban worthy, when a poster is incapable of responding with anything wittier/original or truer than this then it should automatically result in a one week ban. Otherwise it wastes a valuable couple of seconds of a persons life to read that drivel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuming!!
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 4 minutes ago
Devon,
I would not be surprised if Boehly- Clearlake opted to relocate & rename if the CPO were not prepared to step aside.
I dont believe for one second that they would be happy investing into Stamford bridge under going a 6 years development , costing in ? 1 bln there abouts and still not own or have full control of their asset & investment.
But I can envisage them relocating, renaming, owning & having full control of their 4/5 bln investment.
On this basis they would also be in a position to develop the land/ property surrounding Stamford bridge that they have been buying up.
What would this mean? in the long run it would strengthen & stabilise the club and its economy and to some extent make sense of their investment.
The stadium rebuild and the opportunity to redevelop in the heart of SW London was more than likely the real focus of their willingness to buy CFC.
This route would consolidate their investment, it would recover the damage they have done in the first 24 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would the fans feel though, would they protest about moving from Stamford Bridge?
You lot at Wembley will be a nightmare as well - can’t imagine Poch fancying doing all that again
Strike,
The club I suspect. Yes a bigger ground means more revenue - but why not first of all try and build a side capable of qualifying for euro competition, lay foundations for future success with your playing squad and then build the ground.
They seem to constantly be trying to fast track everything - spend a fortune on underwhelming players, chop and change managers, remove all the football people from behind the scenes.
It’s like they bought Chelsea with a view to an excellent return in a very short period of time - it rarely ever works like that in football though, it’s just too competitive;
I think the immediate success on the pitch ship has sailed.
Now its about saving the investment and dare i say focusing on their real objectives.
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 5 minutes ago
Strike,
The club I suspect. Yes a bigger ground means more revenue - but why not first of all try and build a side capable of qualifying for euro competition, lay foundations for future success with your playing squad and then build the ground.
They seem to constantly be trying to fast track everything - spend a fortune on underwhelming players, chop and change managers, remove all the football people from behind the scenes.
It’s like they bought Chelsea with a view to an excellent return in a very short period of time - it rarely ever works like that in football though, it’s just too competitive;
I think the immediate success on the pitch ship has sailed.
Now its about saving the investment and dare i say focusing on their real objectives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I suspect you are right but again they are going into an incredibly competitive market. Let’s say they want some of the NFL money, they are competing with us, Wembley and Twickenham. They want the boxing, again competing with us, concerts - us, the 02, etc.
So what facilities are they looking to provide for new income streams? They are going into a now saturated market - West Ham can’t get much going at their bowl and the Emirates is as dead as ever. Spurs and Wembley are all over these other events, Chelsea coming in to that market would need to be offering something truly special.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
How would the fans feel though, would they protest about moving from Stamford Bridge?
You lot at Wembley will be a nightmare as well - can’t imagine Poch fancying doing all that again.
The reality is Boehly- Clearlake own the club, not the local support.
They can actually what they wish, so far they have done an exemplary job at alienating the support, they are not psychologically far from going the whole hog.
Im sure that this is not what they would have initially set out to do, but situation is what it is.
I can see a case for them relocating, and renaming if the CPO do not step aside.
If that happens local support will divide, sections alining with the CPO, other looking at the relocation as natural evolution & necessary progression to ensure the clubs future.
More importantly for the ownership , global support will not understand the true implications, and simply see moving into a bright new stadium with a slightly different new name as great and all part of the journey.
London will have a new central London landmark events venue & the die hards will be part of sometype of Chelsea Afc starting at the bottom of the pyramid.
I would bet on that opposed a six year Stamford bridge development costing north of a 1 bln & the ownership still not totally owning the and stadium.
Any way anything can happen, we will see.
Sign in if you want to comment
Apparently Todds stadium redevelopment
Page 1 of 2
posted on 6/3/24
If you’re moving to Wembley for 6 years it will be a mare.
posted on 6/3/24
Yeah,
The cynic in me feels these guys are only about the money,First they are what they are Investment bankers, secondly owners of what they call sporting franchise's.
Look im sure they want/ need the club to succeed, but first comes the investment, its not unreasonable!
Im sure that they do not like the CPO's stake in the clubs ground & naming rights.
Im also sure that they are ballsy enough to consider relocating & renaming. It gives them total control.
For the money they've got invested total control would seem like the only option.
Im sure there is a strong case for relocation in their thinking.a state of the art events entertainment venue and numerous avenues for improved income streams all of which would strengthen the clubs competitive edge.
Relocation would also present development opportunities at the Stamford bridge/ Oswald Stowell site.
The issue that they have now is trust with the support and the CPO.
Their track record to date does not inspire.
posted on 6/3/24
We'd be better off at Twickenham
I'd see no reason why a new stadium wouldn't take 6 years either...it's got problems all round it...rail, road, noise pollution, general pollution posh area entitled caants
posted on 6/3/24
Agree Sheriff, playing at Twickenham might make real men of our young boys !
posted on 6/3/24
Jw, Can you really see these guys being happy with the CPO oversight & rights ?
No way imo.
We'd be better off at Twickenham
I'd see no reason why a new stadium wouldn't take 6 years either...it's got problems all round it...rail, road, noise pollution, general pollution posh area entitled caants.
Easy mate i come from round there, back in the day it was not all glamour
This is it, 6 years? seriously, that depends on how you set the development up.
It could easily be done in 3/4 from when they break ground.
The 6 year timescale gives them reason to favour relocation.
posted on 6/3/24
Ok, so where are on this scenario?
Todd and the CPO cant agree.
Todd buys Earlscourt and sets up the club in a new incarnation Chelsea south west london cubs Fc.
The CPO dig in we become Chelsea AFC and start working up the pyramid.
posted on 6/3/24
Your owners have been nothing short of a disaster so far, whatever decision is ultimately made here it is very likely to be the wrong one based on what we have seen so far
posted on 6/3/24
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/3/24
Chopper,
I really feel that the ownership will want the CPO off their back, when you consider the sums involved.
They will not want to relocate & invest a further 1- 2 bln and not own their 4/5 bln asset out right.
By relocating without the CPO they consolidate their investment.
posted on 6/3/24
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
posted on 6/3/24
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone told me once, ask a stupid person a question........ expect a stupid answer.
#strikemugmuppet
posted on 6/3/24
Chelsea will not be in a new ground this side of 2030, whatever option they take. Mudryk may have settled in by then
posted on 6/3/24
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone told me once, ask a stupid person a question........ expect a stupid answer.
#strikemugmuppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who is yet to make an intelligent contribution to ja606
posted on 6/3/24
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone told me once, ask a stupid person a question........ expect a stupid answer.
#strikemugmuppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence why no one asks you anything
posted on 6/3/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 1 minute ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone told me once, ask a stupid person a question........ expect a stupid answer.
#strikemugmuppet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Says the guy who is yet to make an intelligent contribution to ja606
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A West Ham fan pretending to be a Wolves fan, it really is pathetic
posted on 6/3/24
Epic bites!!
posted on 6/3/24
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 1 hour, 21 minutes ago
Strike wrong for ?
The supporters? or The investment?
Someone told me once, to make an omelette you've got to break eggs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The club I suspect. Yes a bigger ground means more revenue - but why not first of all try and build a side capable of qualifying for euro competition, lay foundations for future success with your playing squad and then build the ground.
They seem to constantly be trying to fast track everything - spend a fortune on underwhelming players, chop and change managers, remove all the football people from behind the scenes.
It’s like they bought Chelsea with a view to an excellent return in a very short period of time - it rarely ever works like that in football though, it’s just too competitive
posted on 6/3/24
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 13 seconds ago
Epic bites!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This should be ban worthy, when a poster is incapable of responding with anything wittier/original or truer than this then it should automatically result in a one week ban. Otherwise it wastes a valuable couple of seconds of a persons life to read that drivel
posted on 6/3/24
Devon,
I would not be surprised if Boehly- Clearlake opted to relocate & rename if the CPO were not prepared to step aside.
I dont believe for one second that they would be happy investing into Stamford bridge under going a 6 years development , costing in ? 1 bln there abouts and still not own or have full control of their asset & investment.
But I can envisage them relocating, renaming, owning & having full control of their 4/5 bln investment.
On this basis they would also be in a position to develop the land/ property surrounding Stamford bridge that they have been buying up.
What would this mean? in the long run it would strengthen & stabilise the club and its economy and to some extent make sense of their investment.
The stadium rebuild and the opportunity to redevelop in the heart of SW London was more than likely the real focus of their willingness to buy CFC.
This route would consolidate their investment, it would recover the damage they have done in the first 24 months.
posted on 6/3/24
comment by Striketeam7 - There used to be a football club over there (U18109)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by WeekendOffender (U22920)
posted 13 seconds ago
Epic bites!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This should be ban worthy, when a poster is incapable of responding with anything wittier/original or truer than this then it should automatically result in a one week ban. Otherwise it wastes a valuable couple of seconds of a persons life to read that drivel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuming!!
posted on 6/3/24
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 4 minutes ago
Devon,
I would not be surprised if Boehly- Clearlake opted to relocate & rename if the CPO were not prepared to step aside.
I dont believe for one second that they would be happy investing into Stamford bridge under going a 6 years development , costing in ? 1 bln there abouts and still not own or have full control of their asset & investment.
But I can envisage them relocating, renaming, owning & having full control of their 4/5 bln investment.
On this basis they would also be in a position to develop the land/ property surrounding Stamford bridge that they have been buying up.
What would this mean? in the long run it would strengthen & stabilise the club and its economy and to some extent make sense of their investment.
The stadium rebuild and the opportunity to redevelop in the heart of SW London was more than likely the real focus of their willingness to buy CFC.
This route would consolidate their investment, it would recover the damage they have done in the first 24 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How would the fans feel though, would they protest about moving from Stamford Bridge?
You lot at Wembley will be a nightmare as well - can’t imagine Poch fancying doing all that again
posted on 6/3/24
Strike,
The club I suspect. Yes a bigger ground means more revenue - but why not first of all try and build a side capable of qualifying for euro competition, lay foundations for future success with your playing squad and then build the ground.
They seem to constantly be trying to fast track everything - spend a fortune on underwhelming players, chop and change managers, remove all the football people from behind the scenes.
It’s like they bought Chelsea with a view to an excellent return in a very short period of time - it rarely ever works like that in football though, it’s just too competitive;
I think the immediate success on the pitch ship has sailed.
Now its about saving the investment and dare i say focusing on their real objectives.
posted on 6/3/24
comment by ifarka, (B-C- out) (U8182)
posted 5 minutes ago
Strike,
The club I suspect. Yes a bigger ground means more revenue - but why not first of all try and build a side capable of qualifying for euro competition, lay foundations for future success with your playing squad and then build the ground.
They seem to constantly be trying to fast track everything - spend a fortune on underwhelming players, chop and change managers, remove all the football people from behind the scenes.
It’s like they bought Chelsea with a view to an excellent return in a very short period of time - it rarely ever works like that in football though, it’s just too competitive;
I think the immediate success on the pitch ship has sailed.
Now its about saving the investment and dare i say focusing on their real objectives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I suspect you are right but again they are going into an incredibly competitive market. Let’s say they want some of the NFL money, they are competing with us, Wembley and Twickenham. They want the boxing, again competing with us, concerts - us, the 02, etc.
So what facilities are they looking to provide for new income streams? They are going into a now saturated market - West Ham can’t get much going at their bowl and the Emirates is as dead as ever. Spurs and Wembley are all over these other events, Chelsea coming in to that market would need to be offering something truly special.
posted on 6/3/24
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/3/24
How would the fans feel though, would they protest about moving from Stamford Bridge?
You lot at Wembley will be a nightmare as well - can’t imagine Poch fancying doing all that again.
The reality is Boehly- Clearlake own the club, not the local support.
They can actually what they wish, so far they have done an exemplary job at alienating the support, they are not psychologically far from going the whole hog.
Im sure that this is not what they would have initially set out to do, but situation is what it is.
I can see a case for them relocating, and renaming if the CPO do not step aside.
If that happens local support will divide, sections alining with the CPO, other looking at the relocation as natural evolution & necessary progression to ensure the clubs future.
More importantly for the ownership , global support will not understand the true implications, and simply see moving into a bright new stadium with a slightly different new name as great and all part of the journey.
London will have a new central London landmark events venue & the die hards will be part of sometype of Chelsea Afc starting at the bottom of the pyramid.
I would bet on that opposed a six year Stamford bridge development costing north of a 1 bln & the ownership still not totally owning the and stadium.
Any way anything can happen, we will see.
Page 1 of 2