• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

New Stadium Plans

Recommended Posts

Sciatika   

The handiest thing about it may simply be that the site is in LBKC, not LBHF. It's always good to keep the local authorities competing for tax dividends that arise from football stadia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ham   

This might be the reason the stadium build was put on hold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ham said:

This might be the reason the stadium build was put on hold. 

Possible but I doubt it. I still believe RA was strongly advised against the SB rebuild due to a potential runaway budget situation so pulled the plug. The visa thing became an ideal face saving opportunity

Lets see how hard he goes at this site.

 

I assume CPO would green flag this one though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasonb   

I don't think anything productive will happen this season, I think it is just as likely that RA will sell the club. I think he feels betrayed by the British Establishment.

As a wealthy businessman he can move and is currently protecting his asset with  a new manager and players while he considers what to do.

Hopefully my assessment is wrong as I also think Earls Court would be a good move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
synavm   
On 01/08/2018 at 7:12 AM, Ham said:

Interesting comments on the skyscraper city site about how Earls Court might not actually be dead in the water due to issues over the plans and a massive drop in the projected value of the CapCo project.  

Would be perfect if possible. The same beautiful new stadium on a larger footprint, symmetrical and without the massive extra expense of building on the tiny site.

Additionally, and more importantly, no need to play at Wembley during construction.

That would leave us free to sell the SB site upon completion. 

Just hypothetical at this moment but would be a perfect solution...... If the owner was actually allowed into the country.....

....... Or if Jim Jeffries goes ahead and buys as the Secret Footballer alleged.

Precisely what I suggested a little while back. The perfect site for us IMO. Gives incredible scope for design and capacity, for additional facilties, for ingress and egress, better transport links and still in the area where we are rooted. Also, critically for our owner, much better return on investment. I've never been fully sold on remaining at the Bridge with a shoe horned extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, synavm said:

Precisely what I suggested a little while back. The perfect site for us IMO. Gives incredible scope for design and capacity, for additional facilties, for ingress and egress, better transport links and still in the area where we are rooted. Also, critically for our owner, much better return on investment. I've never been fully sold on remaining at the Bridge with a shoe horned extension.

Agreed, this is the best option. With a little bit of work you can have entrances from 3 separate tube stations, with the whole place less than half a mile from home.

I'll jump on the happy clappy, optimistic bandwagon and think that this is the reason for the postponement of the SB redevelopment, not Abrahmovich's visa issues. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   
On 02/08/2018 at 8:15 AM, r.bartlett said:

I assume CPO would green flag this one though?

 

I can't speak for the other 15000 or so obviously but I would imagine that it would be fine as long as the share is transferred to the new pitch. I think, for some, we want to ensure we keep the rights over the pitch and club name as we have them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

I can't speak for the other 15000 or so obviously but I would imagine that it would be fine as long as the share is transferred to the new pitch. I think, for some, we want to ensure we keep the rights over the pitch and club name as we have them.

That raises an interesting question I have read the cpo faqs and it's a bit woolly. Perhaps there is a legal binding document available which lays out the specifics but till then:

Cpo was formed to stop unscrupulous owners selling SB (?) for non footballing purposes. (The cpo faq says 'our ground' and doesn't appear to name SB specifically hence the woolly remark.)

 

If it cpo sanctions a move then it betrays its whole raison d'etre. ?

By doing so it also should not have any basis to  seek wish or try to have any claim or interest on the relocated pitch as it wasn't formed to protect other playing surfaces in other areas.(mission creep)

If It doesn't have "any Chelsea pitch anywhere in perpetuity"  in its remit so why does it believe it has any claim on NSB?

I'm certainly not knocking cpo as I believe it was set up and has been run on an altruistic basis. I admire Bates for it and it's a useful watching eye  but this possibly seems a "we want our cake and eat it because we can" thing.?

 

Edited by r.bartlett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

There are legally binding documents about what is owned by CPO and what is owned by the club. I don't have them to hand at the moment but I suspect you can find them on the web. Try https://www.chelseafc.com/en/cpo/the-longer-history-and-legal-documents. It's not a dark secret or anything. The simple statement is as follows:

The CPO itself is a limited liability company. Anyone can buy one or more shares but voting rights are limited so no one individual can exercise control over the company. Last I heard there were about 21000 shares issued and I think there are a few people with quite a few shares but mostly it is small numbers. I have always had the view that we should maximise the number of different shareholders. Each share is £30. They used to be £100 but we made them cheaper to encourage more people to buy. They never pay a dividend and they always have no more than face value. You cannot make money out of them. They are owned by current and ex-players, managers, staff and fans. Even journalists have bought shares because they give a right of entry to CPO meetings. I have only been to a couple of AGMs including the extraordinary one everyone was talking about a few years back. I vote every year on resolutions by post. There have been a number of administrative problems in the past but mostly now ironed out. The CPO owns its assets (as described below) but has a debt of about £10m to the club that it pays off by fundraising and selling shares. Actually, there is little impetus to repay the whole loan because it is interest-free and the club cannot demand repayment.

The main asset of the CPO is the pitch at SB. Conceptually, the club owns a ring around the stadium and the CPO owns the land inside the ring. The club cannot sell the land owned by CPO because they do not own it and no one would buy the land owned by CPO (even if we sold it) because it's inaccessible without the land owned by the club. CPO charge the club a tiny rent to use the land for the purposes of football. The lease was extended from 99 years to 999 years recently to assist the club in getting investment to upgrade SB. CPO also own the name Chelsea Football Club and do not allow that name to be used for teams playing elsewhere than SB. CPO could change these articles by a vote of its shareholders.

The purpose of CPO was to avoid a situation where the club's ground could be sold for property development. We wanted to ensure that there would continue to be a football club called Chelsea FC playing in the area. If we were to move to a new ground, the club must have the ability to sell the old ground (and to use the name Chelsea FC in the new ground). I would say the quid pro quo would be to transfer the rights. That way, CPO is still defending the club's ground to ensure a continuation of football in the area (I.e. its primary purpose).

This should not be seen as holding the club to ransom. CPO and the club work in partnership to ensure that the people of West London continue to be served by the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now