|
Post by harlowranger on Oct 3, 2011 19:45:03 GMT
Chelsea take first step towards leaving Stamford Bridge Chelsea want to buy back the pitch and stands at Stamford Bridge in a major step towards leaving the ground. And chairman Bruce Buck admitted the club could be in race with QPR to find a suitable site in West London.The Blues insist no decision has yet been made over whether to shift from their SW6 home of 106 years. But Roman Abramovich's club now admit any redevelopment of Stamford Bridge is too expensive and the choice is now whether to keep the existing 41,800 capacity - or move. And to be ready to complete a deal, Chelsea must first buy back the freehold of the land which was "sold" to Chelsea Pitch Owners plc (CPO) in 1993 despite potential opposition from some supporters. Buck said: "We believe that some fans will not react positively to this. "I think we will have a group of fans saying: 'This is a precursor to Chelsea moving and we don't want Chelsea to move'. But as a business, we have have to be at least prepared for a move if something right comes along for Chelsea. "Over the next several weeks we will try and speak to shareholders about why we are trying to do this." But part of the proposal to the CPO sees shareholders being offered the right to buy season tickets in any new stadium and their names on a roll of honour. Chelsea will also agree not to move more than three miles of Stamford Bridge before 2020, though the club said this is because all available sites will be taken by then. The club have looked at sites at Earls Court, White City, and Battersea but insist no negotiations are currently taking place. But QPR's desire for a new stadium means Buck said they will be looking for at the same locations. " White City is a natural [option]," he said. "I read that Fulham and QPR would consider groundsharing. We have not considered it and I don't think it is something Mr Abramovich would consider."Chelsea want to buy back the 15,000 shares in CPO for the same £100 price - a total of £1.5m- to lay the groundwork for a move.The CPO's 12,000 shareholders will receive a letter today (tues) inviting them to vote on the offer at an egm on October 27. Chief executive Ken Gourlay said the club had spent £700,000 on plans to expand the Bridge. "I wouldn't say we have given up but after five or six years of looking at it, I would say that we are doubtful that we could do something at reasonable cost that would give us a reasonable return both financially and for the fans," he said. Read more: www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Chelsea-take-first-step-towards-leaving-Stamford-Bridge-for-a-new-ground-article807880.html#ixzz1ZkXfw9Cu Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Oct 3, 2011 19:56:53 GMT
a big
FU*K OFF
|
|
|
Post by scarletpimple on Oct 3, 2011 20:36:51 GMT
I'm with you maud.......
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Oct 3, 2011 20:41:32 GMT
Well seeing as TF has been talking up a new ground in the close proximity to Loftus Rd i guess he better pull his finger out and go buy some land PDQ. If the scum buy and build anywhere close by that will be it for QPR as a west london club, we will end up down the A40 somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by superckat on Oct 3, 2011 21:08:18 GMT
As long as we stay where we are White City and the BBC site can't be an option for Chelsea. So realistically if the site is to be sold to a football club it can only be to us. Sure there's a ruling that says a club cannot move within a certain distance of another club.
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Oct 3, 2011 21:13:30 GMT
Perhaps we should let Orient know this superckat, they would interested to know.
|
|
|
Post by marianqpr on Oct 3, 2011 21:14:46 GMT
What Maude said with knobs on ;D
|
|
|
Post by superckat on Oct 3, 2011 21:17:16 GMT
Hogan, I believe Mr Hearn is trying to fight the West Ham move based on that ruling. Don't know how succesful he's been, but here's section 6.5 of ground registration from the Premier League handbook
Ground Registration 5. Each Club shall register its ground with the Secretary and no Club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. 6. In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall not consent unless reasonably satisfied that such consent:
6.5 would not adversely affect Clubs (or Football League clubs) having their registered grounds in the immediate vicinity of the proposed location
|
|
|
Post by Hogan on Oct 3, 2011 21:29:52 GMT
Thanks superckat, thats interesting indeed according to rule 6.5 Orient have a strong case.
|
|
|
Post by jayrigg on Oct 3, 2011 21:35:25 GMT
I would rather go down than let the scum on our patch. TF must act soon on this.
cheers,
Jay.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 3, 2011 21:58:11 GMT
They won't be allowed to move to our manor.
The fans that own the bits of the pitch won't sell it either, that was the purpose of the sale.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 3, 2011 22:23:19 GMT
This is a job for Mr. Mittal...who's a lot bigger and richer and more popular and has better ties in London....
|
|
|
Post by canadaranger on Oct 3, 2011 22:38:04 GMT
Perhaps Mr. Mittal could offer 200 pounds per share, and then move their ground to Weymouth... OK, I'm asking too much...
|
|
|
Post by 5hourslateR on Oct 3, 2011 22:44:36 GMT
Perhaps Mr. Mittal could offer 200 pounds per share, and then move their ground to Weymouth... OK, I'm asking too much... : Not at all, that is quite reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 3, 2011 22:44:53 GMT
Not far enough...Siberia!
|
|
|
Post by blueeyedcptcook on Oct 3, 2011 23:07:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Oct 4, 2011 0:00:10 GMT
Chelsea can go kiss my arse if they think they're moving to W12. If they were to build a stadium in White City it would soon become the most vandalised building in London.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 4, 2011 7:13:59 GMT
GUARDIAN/Dominic Fifield
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 fansChelsea 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." www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/03/chelsea-stamford-bridge-new-home
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 4, 2011 7:15:54 GMT
INDEPENDENT
Chelsea ready to leave Bridge as 60,000-seat stadium plans are revealed
Club take first step on road to new ground with offer to buy site's freehold from fans
By Sam Wallace, Football CorrespondentChelsea announced last night that they are taking the first major steps to building a new London stadium to rival Arsenal's Emirates home, by buying back the freehold on their pitch and stadium from a supporters' group. Chelsea's options: click here to download full graphic (1Mb) The club have written to all Chelsea Pitch Owners shareholders to tell them that they wish to buy back the freehold for the Stamford Bridge pitch and four stands so that they can redevelop the ground if they suddenly decide that they are in a position to acquire a new site. Without the agreement of the CPO shareholders, the club cannot sell Stamford Bridge and build a new stadium elsewhere, partly financed by the profits. Asked whether that was the case yesterday, chairman Bruce Buck said: "This is the only way we can move. That is the bottom line, yes." The club want the option of building a stadium with a capacity of around 55,000-60,000 to compete with the likes of Manchester United and Arsenal. Although they have not yet decided whether they will leave Stamford Bridge, which has a capacity of 41,800 (reduced for Champions League nights) they are keen to have that option. The site at the top of their list is the Battersea Nine Elms area next to the famous decommissioned power station, with views of the River Thames. However they have looked at sites all over west and north-west London including redeveloping Earls Court, as well as White City, Imperial Wharf, Wormwood Scrubs and Old Oak Common. They have been reluctant to give any details of a possible move until now, when the issue with CPO has forced their hand. Since 2004, the club have looked at how they might expand Stamford Bridge, spending around £700,000 on two architectural firms who have both come to the conclusion that none of the four stands can be significantly increased in size. The club have hit barriers in terms of health and safety rules and buying out the owners of private flats on top of two hotels on the site, as well as the fact that the 12 to 13-acre area is too small. They have even commissioned a report into re-aligning the pitch from north-south to east-west but each plan is either unworkable under safety legislation or prohibitively expensive. A new stadium would be funded in part by the sale of the existing stadium and site, Chelsea's home for their entire 106-year history, into a residential and office complex along with investment from Roman Abramovich and bank loans. Under Uefa's financial fair play rules, investment on stadiums does not count towards overall expenditure. First of all, the club have to persuade the estimated 12,000 shareholders in CPO to sell back the company Chelsea Stadium Limited that they bought from the club in 1997. The plan was devised then to keep the freehold in friendly hands so the stadium could never be sold out from under the club. It cost £10m, £8.5m of which was borrowed from the club by CPO, and was never meant to be a profit-making scheme. There will be a meeting of CPO shareholders at Stamford Bridge on 27 October to vote on the issue and the club need 50 per cent of attendees or those who have arranged to vote by proxy to support their plan. The club propose paying £10m, to clear the debt and recompense the £1.5m invested by shareholders. If the club gets the vote in its favour it will make a pledge not to move more than three miles from Stamford Bridge, located in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, should it build a new stadium before 2020. It will also promise that 10 per cent of tickets at the new stadium will be priced for families and under-21s. Those CPO shareholders who vote in favour of selling the freehold will have their names inscribed on a "roll of honour" at any new stadium. They would also have priority in buying season tickets at a potential new stadium. Chelsea's difficulty is that they do not know how many of the 12,000 shareholders will turn up to the meeting, although private estimates are around 300-400. Buck said yesterday that the club had looked extensively at rebuilding the existing Stamford Bridge stadium since Abramovich bought the club in 2004. "We have a 12-13 acre site and if you want a 60,000-capacity stadium, you need an 18-20 acres site," the Chelsea chairman said. "We have had two architectural firms look at it over six years. I wouldn't say we have given up but we are doubtful we could do something for a reasonable cost that would give us a reasonable return." Buck said that there were always "rumours" about Chelsea acquiring certain sites but given the uncertainty of the future, and the possibility that a new digital age might see a reduction in the number of people who attend games, there had been no definite decision yet that the club would leave Stamford Bridge. "At the moment we have had no discussions ongoing with any developer," Buck said. "We still have not made the decision that yes, Chelsea want to move. More significantly we are looking at whether our stadium might be the right size. With people [potentially] watching matches on their wristwatches in the great digital unknown, do we know what the right size is for Chelsea or any other club? "At the moment I am saying we are happy at Stamford Bridge. We have no concrete intentions to move but just like any business looking at the future we look at anything that comes along. "I think we will have a group of fans who will say 'Is this [buying back the freehold] the precursor to Chelsea moving' and 'We don't want to move'. As a business we have to be prepared for a move if something right comes along for Chelsea. This [buying the freehold] is something we should have done five years ago but we were clearing up the financial housekeeping of Chelsea then, like the Eurobonds issue, that wasn't appropriate for the club." The Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay said that Chelsea currently had the eighth biggest stadium in the Premier League and the 60th biggest in Europe, with 30,000 season ticket holders. The club are concerned that as rivals move to bigger stadiums over the next decade they could slip down that list. Who are the CPO? Should Chelsea make the decision to move to a new site they might have to move quickly, and to be able to redevelop their existing site they need to recover the freehold for the pitch and four stands. In 1993, a decision was made to put the pitch and stands at Stamford Bridge into friendly hands to ensure they could never be at risk of developers who wanted to get rid of the club. A group was formed under the name Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) and in 1993 they began raising funds to acquire the freehold. By 1997, they had raised only £1.5m – issuing 15,000 shares – so the club's holding company at the time, Chelsea Village PLC, leant them £8.5m to make the purchase. Having made the purchase of Chelsea Stadium Limited (CSL), CPO granted a 199-year lease back to the club for a peppercorn rent. The shares were never intended to be an investment for people to make money, simply a way of safeguarding the club's future. Chelsea propose paying CPO £10m to refund those who invested and clear the debt. CPO will hold a general meeting on 27 October to vote. Groundhog Day: stadium issues for top clubs Arsenal Moved into the Emirates in 2006 having spent £390m. Highbury held less than 40,000 and the move to a 60,000-seat arena has seen them double match-day revenue. Spurs and West Ham Spurs must develop White Hart Lane or move to the Olympic Stadium. The Lane holds 36,240 – the Northumberland development Project would increase that by 20,000. Man City City were handed what is now the Etihad Stadium in 2003. The stadium cost £110m. City switched from Maine Road which held 32,000 to a state-of-the-art 48,000 ground. Liverpool and Everton Everton have twice tried to move but both fell through. Liverpool are looking at a new £400m ground in Stanley Park. www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-ready-to-leave-bridge-as-60000seat-stadium-plans-are-revealed-2365214.html
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 4, 2011 7:16:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 4, 2011 7:25:28 GMT
The fans that bought sections of the pitch did so in order to ward any other form of development of the ground, other than as a football stadium. Some of those that purchased are all over the globe. This was a deliberate plan to kybosh any such move as this.
To now say that a CPO majority can overide ownership seems very wrong to me and against the purpose of the sale. Not sure they can legally do this. Legally!!! When has that word stood in Abramovic's way?
Each and every plot of land owned must be purchased and not "sold off" through some percentage rule change.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Oct 4, 2011 17:59:57 GMT
I remember reading - as mentioned here - that the pitch owners were £8 million or more in debt to the Club, so it was hard to take the PR about the pitch owners independence seriously.
Assuming that the Club can use that liability to bring them into line with the owner's requirements.
PS Couldn't tell from maude's rather ambiguous response whether he is in favour of Chelsea coming to White City or not.
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Oct 4, 2011 21:50:02 GMT
Chelsea fans get the Blues over Bridge move Chelsea were today facing pressure from their fans to stay at Stamford Bridge. The Blues unveiled plans yesterday which could see them leave the ground they have occupied for the last 106 years. Blues chairman Bruce Buck revealed yesterday that the club had offered to buy out the 15,000 shares owned by fans in a group called the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO). The CPO bought the shares in the pitch and the stands at Stamford Bridge in 1993 when then-owner Ken Bates was trying to stave off the threat from property developers in the plush area of south-west London. Although Chelsea were keen to stress that they had not yet decided whether they should leave Stamford Bridge, chairman Bruce Buck said his hopes of renovating the stadium were "doubtful" after several years spent looking into its feasibility. The club are looking at other sites in Battersea and Earls Court and have promised the CPO members that if they agree to sell their shares, the club will not move more than three miles away from their current home before 2020. CPO members will vote on October 27 whether they intend to sell their shares to club owner Roman Abramovich, but there was mounting concern about any potential move from Stamford Bridge today. Fans forums were awash with comments criticising the plan, and although some agreed a change of home would be beneficial, a Facebook page called Save the Bridge was set up where supporters aired their concerns. One fan wrote: "CPO shareholders should remember why they bought their shares in the first place" and another posted: "CFC have been at Stamford Bridge 106yrs; CPO been running 18yrs; Abramovich has been here 8 years. But (we have) only 24 days to decide the future of Stamford Bridge. Why?" But another fan countered on Twitter: "I think if £CPO reject the proposal, surely that's like spitting in Roman's face after (all) he's done for the club." Chelsea insist it is entirely up to the CPO members to decide whether they want to sell their shares. Buck revealed yesterday that if the CPO do decide to sell, their shareholders will receive priority for season tickets and will have their names written on a "walk of honour" at any new stadium. Read more: www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/New-Chelsea-ground-proposals-Fans-get-the-Blues-over-Bridge-move-article808138.html#ixzz1ZqtmAioJ Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here
|
|
|
Post by Bushman on Oct 4, 2011 22:08:49 GMT
I remember reading - as mentioned here - that the pitch owners were £8 million or more in debt to the Club, so it was hard to take the PR about the pitch owners independence seriously. Assuming that the Club can use that liability to bring them into line with the owner's requirements. PS Couldn't tell from maude's rather ambiguous response whether he is in favour of Chelsea coming to White City or not. I had the same problem ingham with maudes response.
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Oct 4, 2011 22:46:00 GMT
for ingham and the bman:
To clarify,
i would not particularly favour a proposed move by chelsea football club to the area of W12, or would i welcome there support if proposed move was implemented.
so for me it's a big...
F*CK OFF
;D
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Oct 5, 2011 13:26:31 GMT
There he goes again, Bushman. Can't seem to make up his mind.
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Oct 5, 2011 14:33:28 GMT
I don't want to lose our only asset that protects us against insolvency. We've got new owners and everything forever is going to be plain sailing from now on isn't going to dissuade me in my thinking one bit for that is only a short term scenario and I want my grandkid's grandkids turning up at QPR and losing the stadium significantly weakens that possibility. I don't want another team's badge up on our walls but for those who like to point out that we are a business (when we lasted for 109 years previously as 'just a football club') there are other partners we can groundshare with outside of sports that could utilise the stadium and required infrastructure all year round returning higher ticket sales from higher individual ticket prices and we would be able to increase seating capacity outside of the football season as well by using the pitch area. Don't worry about the grass with the higher returns we would be able to afford a new relaid pitch each season, some teams at the moment relay more than 2/3 times in a season so it can't be that expensive or detrimental to the quality of the pitch. Sharing with a music promoter such as Live Nation or a large events promoter for example would fit that bill and also mean that we won't have another teams colours, or badge on our stadium. You could even throw in the naming rights as well. Considering we don't even sell out at the moment, where is the need for a bigger stadium and all the noise calling for it coming from? Mainly from the people who would financially benefit from the sale and an over-excited fan base eager to spend the new owners money to make us a 'bigger' club whilst willing to ignore such realities as this: www.qpr.co.uk/page/TicketNews/0,,10373~2472925,00.html Almost sold out. Against C*****a at home. This month. And we need a bigger stadium? As far as sharing with C*****a is concerned, Maude actually ends where I begin and if Ingham and Bushman don't understand that, may I politely request you read Maude's original post one more time.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Oct 5, 2011 14:58:45 GMT
Hey Maude, bushman and Ingham, there is some land available in Perth for stadium development. Would that be far enough away from W12 for you?
Mind you if they did want to move here, I would welcome the with a big......
wait for it........
F*CK OFF
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 6, 2011 6:26:06 GMT
Probably for the first time in my life, I have to say: "Good Luck, Chelsea Fans!" Guardian Fans voice fears over Chelsea's plan to buy Stamford Bridge freehold • Chelsea Pitch Owners receive offers to purchase land • Shareholding fans to meet club at an EGM on 27 October Dominic Fifield Chelsea supporters' groups are to mobilise as they seek to block attempts by the club to buy back the freehold for the land on which Stamford Bridge is built, a tactic perceived as the first step towards moving to a new 60,000-seat stadium. Shareholders at Chelsea Pitch Owners plc (CPO), a company founded in 1993 to safeguard the club's future at a ground that has been their home since 1905, on Tuesday received details of an offer to repurchase the pitch, turnstiles and land on which the stadium's stands are constructed. Chelsea say no dialogue is under way with developers or potential owners of alternative sites but the chairman, Bruce Buck, has conceded that any possible move would be dependent on the ability to redevelop their current home. CPO is made up of around 12,000 shareholders, most of whom bought their shares at £100 each between 1993 and 1997 in an attempt to prevent the ground ever falling into the hands of property developers. They will consider the club's offer – Chelsea are offering shareholders their original money back and writing off an £8.5m loan initially made to the company – at an extraordinary general meeting on 27 October, though some of their number, together with members of the Chelsea Supporters' Group, fanzines and other fans' groups, intend to meet next Monday to discuss how best to make their reservations clear to the club. "Chelsea have set up a meeting in just three weeks' time to discuss an issue that is fundamental to the future of the club," said Tim Rolls, a CPO shareholder since 1994 and a home and away season-ticket holder. "The fact that the EGM is scheduled for 11.30am on the morning after the Carling Cup tie at Everton, from which fans can expect to return at anything up to 3am, also seems remarkable but, apart from the timing, there are concerns over a lack of clarity in what the club intends to do longer-term. There were huge gaps in the letter we have received in terms of information and explanation. "What happens if Roman Abramovich ever seeks to leave the club? People are genuinely grateful for what he has done for us in the last eight years, but there is a recognition that CPO's existence has provided a safeguard for the club to ensure Stamford Bridge remains our home. If the freehold was bought back, the club's owner would call all the shots and, while Mr Abramovich has always done the right thing by the fans, generally speaking, he will not be around forever. CPO's foundation was designed to prevent Chelsea FC ever becoming homeless and offered the fans some power at our club. So the ownership of the pitch is a safety we should be reluctant to give up." Chelsea admit they have tentatively explored the possibility of moving to four alternative sites – Earl's Court, Battersea Nine Elms, White City and Imperial Wharf – having paid two architectural firms some £700,000 to explore the possibility of expanding Stamford Bridge, yet there are concerns within the fan base as to whether all options aimed at increasing the 41,800 capacity have been scrutinised. There is resistance, too, over any prospective move to a new ground. "This is an emotional issue, inevitably, because Chelsea is Stamford Bridge and Stamford Bridge is Chelsea," said Rolls, who attended his first game in 1967. "For most of us, moving is not something we want. Most of the CPO shares were sold 15 years ago so very few under-35s are going to be involved. It'll be an 'old school support' who have the vote – a lot of other fans would be against selling up, but they're not shareholders and don't have a voice – and working out the demographic of those shareholders will be difficult. Some won't turn up, others won't be attending Chelsea any more, some might even be dead. So there's an issue with the potential turn-out at the meeting itself, regardless of the Everton match the night before. "This is obviously an enabling act and, as it stands, I will vote no. This is not a financial issue – though I would have liked the club to have at least offered to take into account inflation over the last 15 years in their offer – but we would like more clarity as to what the club intends to do in the long-term before we relinquish the one remaining influence we retain in Chelsea. We need them to be up front."" www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/04/chelsea-fans-freehold-stamford-bridge
|
|
eskey8
Dave Sexton
www.cycle2austria.com
Posts: 2,274
|
Post by eskey8 on Oct 6, 2011 8:33:37 GMT
Chelsea fans are up in arms about the propsed move from Stamford Bridge - A Chelsea Spokesperson said 'You can't just bulldoze 10 years of history'
|
|