Roman's plan in ruins as the Chelsea fans revolt!
-
Roman Abramovich is plotting a new home for Chelsea
ROMAN'S EMPIRE ... Abramovich is ready to move Chelsea out of Stamford BridgeROMAN ABRAMOVICH is set to turn his back on 106 years of history and move Chelsea away from Stamford Bridge.
He has spent almost £1million on ideas to re-develop the ground — including knocking it down and starting again.
But the only real option is to sell up and build a 60,000-capacity stadium nearby which would generate an estimated extra £50m-a-year in revenue.
Abramovich does NOT however own The Bridge — the pitch and stands belong to thousands of fans who formed Chelsea Pitch Owners plc to stave off developers 14 years ago.
And last night the Russian billionaire made the first move to get the ball rolling.
He has made a £10m offer to buy back the freehold from the fans who bought £100 shares to raise around £1.5m and pay off a further £8.5m loan.
The Bridge boasts 13 acres of prime West London real estate and Abramovich wants the income.
That's why he will pay off the outstanding loan and buy back the shares at the original £100 purchase price.
It does mean the fans — who will vote at an EGM on October 27 — would not make a penny profit.
Chairman Bruce Buck said: "Chelsea should always be grateful to those who invested in CPO. But I hope all shareholders vote in favour of the proposal."
-
Where Roman Abramovich might move Chelsea
FULL POWER ... Battersea industrial estate is one option for ChelseaROMAN ABRAMOVICH has looked at it from every angle — including demolishing Stamford Bridge and starting all over again.
Now the Chelsea owner believes there is only one option — a new home.
Abramovich hired experts to see if any or all of the four stands could be rebuilt and even looked at rotating the stadium to run east to west rather than north-south.
But railway lines, surrounding buildings, limited exits, planning restrictions and old-fashioned designs mean virtually all are either impossible or mega-expensive, even for a billionaire.
So the inevitable conclusion is to leave the 42,000-capacity Bridge — the eighth biggest stadium in England but 60th in Europe — for a 21st Century home.
Abramovich wants to be No 1 not No 8 and definitely not No 60.
It will infuriate some fans, who will believe it is heresy to leave their one and only home since the club was first formed in 1905.
But if Chelsea are to remain as one of the big-hitters at home and in Europe there are 50 million reasons why they should move. A new 60,000-seater stadium would bring in an extra £50million a season — a Fernando Torres every summer — but the problem has been finding a suitable 20-acre site.
Chelsea have scoured the capital for a suitable venue as they want to move no more than three miles away from their SW6 home.
EALR STAY ... Chelsea could make Earls Court their homeAn offer to move near Wormwood Scrubs has been rejected due to a lack of transport links.
But the Earls Court/Olympia site two stops down the district line is owned by Capital and Counties, who would accommodate Chelsea.
Another option is White City, close to Shepherd's Bush and White City tube stations and the M40, but Chelsea are not keen.
It is believed they much prefer Battersea/Nine Elms and an iconic stadium alongside the Thames.
First, though, Abramovich has got to buy the Bridge from the fans' consortium who own the land on which the ground and pitch have been built.
But will his £10m offer — £1.5m to buy their shares and writing off an £8.5m loan — be enough?
-
Unhappy Chelsea supporters plot campaign to save Stamford Bridge
Home sweet home: Some fans do not want Chelsea to leave Stamford Bridge
Chelsea fans are organising a campaign to save Stamford Bridge after the club launched a proposal to buy back the freehold for parts of the ground from the Chelsea Pitch Owners group established in the Nineties to protect the land from property developers.
CPO shareholders are unhappy they have been given less than three weeks before the vote on the matter at an EGM, planned for the morning after an away game at Everton.
Various fans' groups will meet next week to canvass opinion.
-
a big club needs a big stadium.
if chelsea want to be bigger they need to move to a bigger stadium.
-
precisely
some shareholders said that the stadium now is not filling to the brim, so why should they build a bigger capacity? but the problem lies with the expensive tickets... with a bigger stadium, the prices will reduce as well
-
i wonder if they can fill the bigger stadium.
-
Roman Abramovich’s stand-off with worried Chelsea fans
BATTLE OF THE BRIDGE ... Blues fans will fight to stay at HQWORRIED Chelsea fans last night announced they will fight to stop owner Roman Abramovich moving the Blues away from Stamford Bridge.
Supporters are concerned after the Russian billionaire tabled a £10million offer to buy out the shareholders who own the 41,800-seat ground.
That would leave him free to redevelop the 13-acre SW6 site for residential and commercial use and move the team to a new home nearby.
But one leading fan, who asked not to be named, said: "The great thing about Chelsea is that the ground is owned by the fans so nothing can happen here without our agreement.
"Chelsea Pitch Owners bought the land 14 years ago to see off the property developers and their bulldozers back then because this is the home of Chelsea Football Club and always has been.
"The intention was always to keep the club here at our spiritual home — and nothing's changed.
"So we will be writing to all the shareholders urging them to remember why we acted in the first place — and asking them to vote against Mr Abramovich's proposals at the CPO emergency meeting on October 27."
-
i understand their concern.
they cant keep the stadium there forever. how is chelsea going to grow?
maybe they can asked RA to agree the same thing at the new home.
-
Well the fans think they can receive abramovich's money while still remaining in a mid-sized stadium. Haha wait till he pulls the plug.
-
Originally posted by Y_Shun:
precisely
some shareholders said that the stadium now is not filling to the brim, so why should they build a bigger capacity? but the problem lies with the expensive tickets... with a bigger stadium, the prices will reduce as well
haha.. with a bigger stadium, the price will reduce, that will never happen la.
since when we got a newly renovated kopitiam with more seats, will the price of food goes down??
-
Originally posted by dragg:
i understand their concern.
they cant keep the stadium there forever. how is chelsea going to grow?
maybe they can asked RA to agree the same thing at the new home.
well, if Roman wants, he can BUILT a new stadium, move the whole team over, and just left the old one for the reserves or etc.. can't he?
anyway, Let's see whether these chelsea fans are "real" fans or will they just subcummb to the russian roubles??
any bets??
-
Yeah, with a new stadium the intention is to have more seats and earn more $ to increase revenue... See what happen at Arsenal, more seats but pay more too.
Mr Abramovich is looking to earn money and not keep losing it... Cos it has been more than 8 years and he is still having to pop up the club financially... I think when he first came in, he expected to lose for a few yrs only then see it generate and sustain itself... Then CEO Kenyon said by 2010 they can break even but clearly from current records it's still a long way from breaking even... So the extra yearly $50m (provided they can fill it) from the new stadium could go a long way to helping them reduce the deficit... Even if Roman can pay, the new Uefa rule coming only allow them to lose $45m a year and after the next 3 years is up, they will be expected not to be a money losing club anymore if they still want to play in the champions league...
Currently, Chelsea have the biggest wage bill per season at £174m... So they will need to cut some fat cats off their books to balance it.
-
RA wont keep throwing good money away. its only a matter of time he gives up. this is the right way to go. run the club the way a club should be managed.
-
Originally posted by iceFatboy:
haha.. with a bigger stadium, the price will reduce, that will never happen la.
since when we got a newly renovated kopitiam with more seats, will the price of food goes down??
its basic economics leh... i highly believe tickets prices will be more competitively priced to fill the stadiums.
its expensive now thats why its not filled to the brim. they were defintely be more packages for the season tickets holders too.
-
Ken Bates set to oppose Roman Abramovich over Stamford Bridge
EYES ON THE PRIZE ... Ken BatesKEN BATES could come back to haunt Chelsea in the battle for ownership of Stamford Bridge.
Members of Bates' family are still part of the Chelsea Pitch Owners scheme.
And it is believed the Leeds owner will oppose Roman Abramovich's plan to buy the ground back from Blues supporters at the vote on October 27.
Bates, 79, banked £17million when he sold Chelsea to Abramovich as part of a £140million takeover deal in 2003.
Yet he still owns a penthouse flat at Stamford Bridge and organisers of supporters' groups hope he will back their campaign to keep Chelsea at their present home.
Abramovich wants to buy all 14,000 CPO shares to bring ownership of the club under one roof.
But anxious fans fear that would pave the way for Chelsea to leave the Bridge and plan to distribute 10,000 protest leaflets at Saturday's home game against Everton.
-
why do they insist on keeping the ground at the expense of expansion?
if bates oppose, RA should ask if he want to buy back chelsea.
-
keb bates sold chelsea off to cheaply to roman in 2004 lol. he could have at least treble the price to 420m then.
-
D-Day for Chelsea as decision due in Stamford Bridge ownership fight
Home sweet home: Stamford Bridge has been Chelsea's ground since 1905
Chelsea will learn today whether they have succeeded in buying back the freehold of Stamford Bridge in what is being seen as the first step towards a move to a new 60,000-seater stadium.
An increasingly-bitter campaign between those who support the club's plans to re-aquire the land they sold to fan-led group Chelsea Pitch Owners in the 1990s and those who oppose it will draw to a close during an extraordinary general meeting at the Blues' home ground.
Both sides have waged a public relations war in a bid to rally support for their cause since Chelsea first announced their proposal on October 3.
The plans are seen as a precursor to a move to a new stadium, something that could help the club better compete in terms of matchday revenue with the likes of Manchester United and Arsenal under the constraints of Financial Fair Play.
Chelsea have insisted they have not yet decided whether to relocate, but say they need to have the ability to sell the land on which Stamford Bridge sits before negotiating with developers at any new site - with Earls Court, Battersea and White City all possible destinations.
Messages: Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck
While not opposed in principle to a move, those against the buyback proposal - spearheaded by the 'Say No CPO' (SNCPO) campaign - have accused the club of not giving enough notice of the vote, a lack of transparency, and have demanded that the existing CPO agreement be transferred to any new ground.
Chelsea say they have been open and transparent throughout and believe the threat which led to CPO's formation - a fear of the club being made homeless by property developers - has disappeared forever because the Blues are now worth more than any land a stadium would occupy.
Both sides have spent the past three weeks attempting to woo CPO shareholders as well as encouraging their supporters to buy up as many shares as possible.
Indeed, the last week before trading was suspended saw more than £200,000 spent on the £100 shares - around 10 per cent of the entire shares in issue - with more sold during that period than during the previous seven years.
SNCPO fear most of those have been bought by those with loyalties to the club and they were not optimistic yesterday about the outcome of the vote.
Time for celebration? Chelsea want to play in front of 60,000
A spokesperson said: 'Around £250,000 worth of shares were sold in the last week before they went off sale. My assumption would be that most of them are yes votes.'
Chelsea were taking nothing for granted, insisting they had no idea how the vote would go.
The outcome will be determined by the number of owners of the near 18,000 shares who turn up or vote by proxy, with SNCPO confident of a guaranteed 1,000-1,500 supporters worth around 3,000 votes.
There will be opportunities for shareholders to quiz the CPO board at today's meeting, with SNCPO distributing a list of suggested questions beforehand in bid to get their concerns addressed prior to the vote.
-
Roman's plan in ruins as the fans revolt! Chelsea lose fight for stadium ownership
BRIDGE OF SIGHS ... Chelsea owner AbramovichIT was the sort of occasion when Roman Abramovich must long for the way they did things in Mother Russia back in the good old days.
If you were rich and powerful and wanted something to happen, it happened.
Any dissent would be crushed ruthlessly. Money talked.
But trying to railroad a passionate group of football fans into giving up the very rights which once saved their club is not nearly so easy, even in the moneybags world of the 21st Century Premier League.
There were shouts of 'resign', 'corrupt' and 'sham' before Chelsea and Abramovich failed to win the 75 per cent of votes they needed from the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) organisation to buy back the freehold of Stamford Bridge.
And the amazing thing is that the majority of the people in the room — even the most militant — accept that Chelsea will probably need to leave their home of 106 years in order to remain competitive.
But the way the club went about trying to regain control of the earth beneath the pitch and stands led them into a totally unnecessary conflict.
The two biggest issues were allegations of vote-rigging and the uncertainty over what would happen to the club if Abramovich were no longer around.
Suspiciously, 20 individuals bought the maximum 100 shares each at £100 a time AFTER Chelsea announced their proposal three weeks ago, fuelling conspiracy theories.
One long-standing shareholder, Clint Steele, said: "Why buy £10,000 of shares if it was not to over-ride the 'no' vote?"
Chairman Bruce Buck, who bought 100 shares himself in the spring and has complained about one opponent of the plans, said: "During the course of the three weeks, there have been people who have come up to us at Chelsea and said, 'What can we do to help?' and we said, 'Vote in favour if you have shares or want to buy shares'.
"If we wanted some kind of a conspiracy on this particular issue, we would have bought them some months ago."
But the damage had been done. The hostile crowd also refused to accept Buck's assurances that Abramovich would make sure no one could sell out a new ground from under Chelsea if the Russian oligarch disappeared from the scene.
"He could go under a bus tomorrow," said one fan, no doubt mindful of the helicopter crash which killed former Chelsea director Matthew Harding 15 years ago last week. Why not allow the CPO to have a similar arrangement at a new stadium? The questions kept coming. Why had Chelsea given CPO shareholders only the legal minimum of three weeks to consider the plans?
Why the 'shabby' scheme to create a roll of honour at a new ground for those who voted yes?
Chief executive Ron Gourlay weathered the storm better than tetchy Buck but even he cracked when one shareholder suggested everyone was on same side — Chelsea's.
Gourlay said: "Maybe I don't get the feeling you are on the same side as me."
The huge boos and the odd call of 'resign' told their own story.
Amid all the fire and the fury, there were touching reminders of what Chelsea and other football clubs mean to those who devote their lives to them.
Among the 700 or so who had queued to have their say in 'the most important decision in the 106-year history of the club' was a man who had travelled from Vancouver to be there. And another who revealed he had taken his wife to a Chelsea game on their first date — a 2-0 defeat by Arsenal — and had since brought children and grandchildren to Stamford Bridge.
But mostly there was a lot of anger and resentment.
And then relief and joy when CPO chairman Rich King, who seems likely to resign today, announced Chelsea had lost.
The whole day called to mind that episode of Blackadder III when Pitt the Even Younger reveals his horror at being defeated by Baldrick in a by-election.
The teenage Tory fumes: "I smeared my opponents, bribed the Press to be on my side and threatened to torture the electorate if we lost.
"I fail to see what more a decent politician could have done!"
Abramovich and Chelsea did not go to those lengths.
But the Russian billionaire will want to know why he did not get his way.
-
why dont he sell chelsea and buy newcastle?
-
This is what he gets for bankrolling chelsea all these years lol. Yeh, might as well turn his sights on swansea. Both sea right haha.
-
He spent 1 million pounds on ideas.
This beats Singapore's $400,000 idea to rename Marina Bay.
-
stupid fans
w/o a big stadium how to get revenue and self sustain? shld make roman build all this things while he still3 can pay
-
Roman also have to think for the fans... It's not so much they want to stay at the Bridge but Roman is offering to buy back their share not at a very attractive value.
On the one hand if you want to redevelop the Bridge into condos and sell for good money, you must also give them the benefits as they have bought or invest at a time when nobody wanted or valued it highly... They deserve their fair share of the profits i think after keeping it for so many years...
They were also willing to transfer their ownership onto the new stadium but the Chelsea board or Roman won't allow... So what else is there for them to do? Sell cheaply back to the club?
Those fans without the shares may blame them because they don't stand to lose anything... But for those who invested their money for years or decades... They may be fans but cannot expect them to be short-changed too right? Roman must come up with a better offer and I am sure they will accept it.
-
Originally posted by zocoss:
Roman also have to think for the fans... It's not so much they want to stay at the Bridge but Roman is offering to buy back their share not at a very attractive value.
On the one hand if you want to redevelop the Bridge into condos and sell for good money, you must also give them the benefits as they have bought or invest at a time when nobody wanted or valued it highly... They deserve their fair share of the profits i think after keeping it for so many years...
They were also willing to transfer their ownership onto the new stadium but the Chelsea board or Roman won't allow... So what else is there for them to do? Sell cheaply back to the club?
Those fans without the shares may blame them because they don't stand to lose anything... But for those who invested their money for years or decades... They may be fans but cannot expect them to be short-changed too right? Roman must come up with a better offer and I am sure they will accept it.
I think the shareholders of the stadium just want a "good" price, if you know what I mean.