Chelsea Plan to Sell The Bridge

[Tim Over Whelmed]

I hope these guys stay strong otherwise they could end up in the mire, this was always their insurance policy against Abramovich.

Chelsea take first step towards leaving Stamford Bridge for new home | Football | The Guardian

 

[Deleted member 18477]

I hope they f***ing rot!

They started the whole money over pride saga in the first place. They took the pride of playing for a club right out of players and changed the way players now choose their clubs. Pathetic excuse for a football club ruined by a russian idiot! I feel sorry for their real fans! The ones pre 2003!

 

[beorhthelm]

bit of a rock vs hard place. great plan of there's to buy the pitch so avoid what happen to us, but if they dont sell back to Chelsea FC, they cant get a bigger ground.

or can they? Abramovich can buy elsewhere and build new stadium then sell the old ground once done, shirely?

 

[Colossal Squid]

I hope they f***ing rot!

They started the whole money over pride saga in the first place. They took the pride of playing for a club right out of players and changed the way players now choose their clubs. Pathetic excuse for a football club ruined by a russian idiot! I feel sorry for their real fans! The ones pre 2003!

Bollocks they did. This was going on LONG before 2003. If you want somebody to blame, try Murdoch and Sky

 

[Rookie]

I hope these guys stay strong otherwise they could end up in the mire, this was always their insurance policy against Abramovich.

Chelsea take first step towards leaving Stamford Bridge for new home | Football | The Guardian

Insurance policy against Abramovich? They were purchased long before he came along.
Why would they end up in the mire? Money is there to build new stadium (in as yet to be defined place but will be local according to every report) and the money they would get from selling the land would be huge in that area

 

[Bold Seagull]

Insurance policy against Abramovich? They were purchased long before he came along.
Why would they end up in the mire? Money is there to build new stadium (in as yet to be defined place but will be local according to every report) and the money they would get from selling the land would be huge in that area

I think the point being that Abramovich could at any moment decide he wants nothing more to do with Chelsea and call in all his I.O.U's that all his contributions have effectively been. At present he can't get his hands on this particular asset. The deal itself makes sense as you've said, but worrying when a single person would effectively have a power to do what they want.

 

[Brovion]

Bollocks they did. This was going on LONG before 2003. If you want somebody to blame, try Murdoch and Sky

Why blame Murdoch and Sky? As far as 'grabbing all the money' is concerned blame the big clubs who changed the rules (back in the 1980s) so that for League games the home clubs now keep all the gate receipts. Prior to that change they were shared between the two clubs (a bit like Cup games).

 

[Storer 68]

Bollocks they did. This was going on LONG before 2003. If you want somebody to blame, try Murdoch and Sky

errrrrr nuffing to do with Murdock or sky. But plenty to do with cuddly Ken Bates

 

[Nathan]

Bollocks they did. This was going on LONG before 2003. If you want somebody to blame, try Murdoch and Sky

Or try Jack Walker, who bank rolled Blackburn in 1995 to win the prem league.

 

[Storer 68]

bit of a rock vs hard place. great plan of there's to buy the pitch so avoid what happen to us, but if they dont sell back to Chelsea FC, they cant get a bigger ground.

or can they? Abramovich can buy elsewhere and build new stadium then sell the old ground once done, shirely?

welcome back to the Wimbledon / MIlton Keynes arguments.

they are exactly the same if somwhat magnified in this respect

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Have they thought about dropping the pitch?

 

[Storer 68]

Or try Jack Walker, who bank rolled Blackburn in 1995 to win the prem league.

eh?

Not a tactic that worked for Sir Jack hayward and Wolves.

and Jack Walker was at least a long term and committed Blackburn Rovers FAN who completelty rebuilt the club and the ground from a two bob also ran in the old second division to a club that can attract the some of the best in the Premier League.

Oh, and I think their Premier League seccess owed slightly more to Alan Shearer and Kenny Dalglish than it did to Jack Walker.. Bit like saying bthat Tony Bloom was resposible for BHA winning the League last season.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary and Blackburn's Labour MP, said:

"Jack Walker did more than any other individual in the last century to enhance the self-confidence and the prosperity of his home town. He was completely committed to the town and its people. Blackburn Rovers was in many ways the love of his life. His contribution to the club was enormous but that was based in turn on the prosperity he created through his astonishing development of Walker Steel and of many other investments in the area. I salute a great local hero and shall miss him very badly."

 

[readingstockport]

I thought the pitch at SB was owned by hundreds of individuals who bought it during the time of bates to stop him from seeling the ground.

 

[Nathan]

eh?

Not a tactic that worked for Sir Jack hayward and Wolves.

and Jack Walker was at least a long term and committed Blackburn Rovers FAN who completelty rebuilt the club and the ground from a two bob also ran in the old second division to a club that can attract the some of the best in the Premier League.

Oh, and I think their Premier League seccess owed slightly more to Alan Shearer and Kenny Dalglish than it did to Jack Walker.. Bit like saying bthat Tony Bloom was resposible for BHA winning the League last season.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary and Blackburn's Labour MP, said:

"Jack Walker did more than any other individual in the last century to enhance the self-confidence and the prosperity of his home town. He was completely committed to the town and its people. Blackburn Rovers was in many ways the love of his life. His contribution to the club was enormous but that was based in turn on the prosperity he created through his astonishing development of Walker Steel and of many other investments in the area. I salute a great local hero and shall miss him very badly."

My post was not a comparison of the two men, more the fact that Jack Walker invested a load of money into the club to make it successful. Without his money they would still be a lower league club. The fact they could afford Shearer and Dalglish was down to walker. Without Abramovich's money chelsea would not be as successful as they are, as they wouldn't be able to attract the players they have.

One of the earlier posts said that chelsea are to blame for the way players now chose there clubs - i say it started before chelsea, and possibly with Blackburn in 1995.

 

[BensGrandad]

Did they not suggest some years ago that they were going to sell up and looked at buildinga ground on what is or was Chelsea Barracks.

On Jack Walker at Blackburn he left money in a trust for them to keep them going for many years but apparently due to excessive spending on wages etc that has all gone.

 

[strings]

I blame those pesky Northeners. Football has gone downhill ever since they invented their professional 'football league'.

 

[readingstockport]

I thought it was.

Chelsea Pitch Owners - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If chelsea move then they could potentially lose the right to use the name Chelsea as well.

edit to add.

Abramovich will need to come up with something good to convince 75% of the shareholders to agree I would think, and I doubt money alone will suffice.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Abramovich will need to come up with something good to convince 75% of the shareholders to agree I would think, and I doubt money alone will suffice.

Something like THIS perhaps?

(from yesterday's BBC online)

BBC News - Abramovich Boris Berezovsky over Sibneft

'Abramovich 'intimidated' Boris Berezovsky over Sibneft

Roman Abramovich intimidated a fellow Russian oligarch into selling him shares in an oil company at a large discount, the High Court has heard.

Boris Berezovsky made the claims about the Chelsea football club owner with regards to Russian oil firm Sibneft.

He alleges breach of trust and breach of contract and is claiming more than £3.2bn in damages.

Mr Abramovich, who is worth an estimated £10.3bn, has denied the claims by his former business partner.

The Chelsea Football Club owner sold Sibneft to Russia's state-owned gas monopoly Gazprom in a multibillion-dollar deal in 2005.

Both men attended the first day of the trial, which is expected to last for more than two months.

They sat at either end of the packed courtroom.

Laurence Rabinowitz QC, who represents Mr Berezovsky, told Mrs Justice Gloster both men had worked together to acquire Sibneft and became friends.

He said the pair remained friends until Mr Berezovsky "fell out with those in power in the Kremlin and was forced to leave his home and create a new life abroad".

Mr Berezovsky is now exiled to the UK.

The barrister said his client had been "betrayed" after falling out with Russian political leaders and leaving Russia in 2000.

'Threats'

"It is our case that Mr Abramovich at that point demonstrated that he was a man to whom wealth and influence mattered more than friendship and loyalty and this has led him, finally, to go so far as to even deny that he and Mr Berezovsky were actually ever friends," he said.

Mr Rabinowitz went on: "Mr Berezovsky's case in relation to Sibneft is that Mr Abramovich intimidated him into selling his very substantial interest in Sibneft to Mr Abramovich himself at a very substantial under value and that he did so in effect by making threats.

"The threats being... that unless Mr Berezovsky... sold those interests to him, he, Mr Abramovich, would take steps with a view to the interest being effectively removed from them by those in the Kremlin, led by President Putin, who had come to regard Mr Berezovsky as his enemy."

The barrister claimed that Mr Abramovich had also threatened to "take steps with a view to preventing" the release from prison of a close friend of Mr Berezovsky.

Mr Rabinowitz said his client contended that as a result of "this intimidation", he was pressured into selling his Sibneft interest to Mr Abramovich for "very substantially less" than it was worth.

The case continues.'

 

[Storer 68]

This might make it a bit more interestting.....................

Ring any bells anyone No, I'll prompt you..................... Archer, Stanley , £56.25...............................................

What bets on a change to the terms of the "strictly defined proviso ".............................

Bates v Abromovich - should be entertaining!

Mr Samrah!! Over to you..................................

The Chelsea Pitch Owners
The future of the stadium (and hence the club) was only secured in 1992, when the property developers were bankrupted by a market crash, allowing the then-chairman Ken Bates to do a deal with their bankers and to regain control of the stadium for the football club. Following this, Chelsea Pitch Owners was created, and in 1997 it purchased the Stamford Bridge freehold, the turnstiles, the pitch and the Chelsea FC name for £10 million, with the aid of a non-recourse loan of £8.5 million from Chelsea Village plc, the parent company of the club.[1][2]

The CPO in turn granted the club a 199 year lease on Stamford Bridge

The company is a non-profit organisation and is not listed on any Stock Exchange.[1][3] Its purpose is to raise the money needed to pay off the loan and then lease the freehold back to the club, on the strictly-defined proviso that the ground may only be used for football purposes. Fans are encouraged to purchase shares in order to secure the club's future. Club captain John Terry is the current President of the CPO[/FONT]

 

[Storer 68]

Abramovich will need to come up with something good to convince 75% of the shareholders to agree I would think, and I doubt money alone will suffice.

I think you'll find it will!