Anfield or New Anfield

[andrew78]

I probs neva gunna reed wat u say agen,

 

So what your saying is none of that is true

[dirk grout]

It sounds like a serious and comprehensive bid on the part of Chelsea - FSG take note:

 

If by 'FSG take note' you mean buy a football team and announce stadium plans nine years later then, please FSG, do not take note.

[dirk grout]

Some of our fans need to have a word with themselves. Chelsea haven't announced any plans for a definite move - merely an idea to move to another site in London for which several other parties have expressed an interest. Just a few things:

 

1 - they don't own the freehold to their existing stadium so cannot up sticks without buying it back first;

2 - they need to get agreements in place before they can even consider purchasing the site;

3 - their bid needs to be accepted;

4 - they need to come up with a stadium design. Simply giving a brief statement about a 15k-capacity single-tier stand and a load of retail space is not the same thing as having an actual design;

5 - they need to consider transport links;

6 - they need to cost the whole thing;

7 - they need to finance the whole thing. Just because Abramovich has thrown money at the club, it doesn't automatically follow that he'll throw money at a new stadium just like that;

8 - they need the build the bloody thing.

 

The way some of our fans are going on about it is as if Chelsea have got the damn spade in the ground already. I understand a lot of it stems from our own stadium situation being up in the air and that millions in expenses have been written off according to the latest set of accounts, but bloody hell! Read the situation for what it is. Don't any of them wonder why they've announced this the day before a cup final against us? Only a couple of days after our own financial results (and stadium expenses) were published? It's about PR and creating some sort of feelgood factor around their club at a crunch time in the season.

 

Also, Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003 and still hasn't sorted it.

[xerxes]

Some of our fans need to have a word with themselves. Chelsea haven't announced any plans for a definite move - merely an idea to move to another site in London for which several other parties have expressed an interest. Just a few things:

 

1 - they don't own the freehold to their existing stadium so cannot up sticks without buying it back first;

2 - they need to get agreements in place before they can even consider purchasing the site;

3 - their bid needs to be accepted;

4 - they need to come up with a stadium design. Simply giving a brief statement about a 15k-capacity single-tier stand and a load of retail space is not the same thing as having an actual design;

5 - they need to consider transport links;

6 - they need to cost the whole thing;

7 - they need to finance the whole thing. Just because Abramovich has thrown money at the club, it doesn't automatically follow that he'll throw money at a new stadium just like that;

8 - they need the build the bloody thing.

 

The way some of our fans are going on about it is as if Chelsea have got the damn spade in the ground already. I understand a lot of it stems from our own stadium situation being up in the air and that millions in expenses have been written off according to the latest set of accounts, but bloody hell! Read the situation for what it is. Don't any of them wonder why they've announced this the day before a cup final against us? Only a couple of days after our own financial results (and stadium expenses) were published? It's about PR and creating some sort of feelgood factor around their club at a crunch time in the season.

 

 

It’s about vision Trumo, and it is a coherent one.

 

On point one, they do own the freehold to the stadium, it is the pitch that is in separate ownership. There is nothing stopping them upping sticks.

 

On 2/3/4/5, it’s a bid, not a detailed planning application. Contributing to transport infrastructure costs is a big plus.

 

On 6/7/8 no-one doubts Abrahamovic’s capacity to finance and deliver the project. Stadium costs are not subject to FFP, he can inlay it with gold and diamonds if he fancies, but crucially, income is.

 

Man City have shown the way with deaaling with FFP with their sponsorship and infrastructure plans, Chelsea are now following suit - over to FSG.

[xerxes]

Also, Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003 and still hasn't sorted it.

 

The Chelsea proposal is driven by FFP, which is a recent development.It does not daye from 2003.

 

Our stadium requirements reflect two decades of inertia in response to underproviding for our historic support, and a failure to respond to increased attendance trends.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Was there talk when Roman took over of a new Stadium ? I can't remember ? With regards to us we all know we have needed one for two decades. I don't know how far along the Chelsea idea is, could be just at the embryo stage like Trumo says, but I pray ours is sorted soon. Thanks to the lack of regeneration of Anfield my Mother inlaw now lives closer.

[Trumo]

It’s about vision Trumo, and it is a coherent one.

 

Really? How is it coherent when they've only given hints at what they might do, rather than spell out what they actually will do IF they acquire the site. It wasn't that long ago they were making noises about moving to Earl's Court, and there wasn't anything substantial in that either.

 

On point one, they do own the freehold to the stadium, it is the pitch that is in separate ownership. There is nothing stopping them upping sticks.

 

The freehold ownership of the whole stadium resides with CPO which is why Chelsea want to acquire it so badly. They also want to acquire it so they retain the rights to the name Chelsea FC. The don't want to move away and have the same issues as MK Dons and their 'history'.

 

On 2/3/4/5, it’s a bid, not a detailed planning application. Contributing to transport infrastructure costs is a big plus.

 

Since they've not got down to the dirty business of explaining exactly how they plan to do this, at the moment it is not that far removed from Lyle Lanley and his monorail scheme.

 

On 6/7/8 no-one doubts Abrahamovic’s capacity to finance and deliver the project. Stadium costs are not subject to FFP, he can inlay it with gold and diamonds if he fancies, but crucially, income is.

 

He would have jumped at it if it were so simple because the Stamford Bridge site, as a piece of real estate, is worth far more than the Battersea Power Station site. If he could have gone about it by controlling the freehold and selling Stamford Bridge, it is not unreasonable to presume that the proceeds would have more than covered any outlay in Battersea. It would have made Arsenal's Highbury scheme pale into insignificance and set Chelsea up superbly. Why would someone with so much cash to flash not have tied up all those little loose ends long ago?

 

Man City have shown the way with deaaling with FFP with their sponsorship and infrastructure plans, Chelsea are now following suit - over to FSG.

 

Key difference being that Man City and their owners not only have ideas for development around the stadium, but actual plans and developmental agreements in place. Also, the resources available to Man City are far greater and at a much higher level than either Abramovich or FSG. I don't deny I would like FSG to make a firm commitment, outline it and act on it decisively.

 

The Chelsea proposal is driven by FFP, which is a recent development.It does not daye from 2003.

 

This proposal might be more recent, but, as I said at the top, they've been toying with similar basic ideas that pre-date FFP.

 

Our stadium requirements reflect two decades of inertia in response to underproviding for our historic support, and a failure to respond to increased attendance trends.

 

Again, I also want us to get moving on the stadium situation, but we have to accept that the current regime are having to tie up the mess created by the inertia of one previous regime and the extreme wastefulness of another. And that is without discussing whether the club and/or the local authority have been deliberately stalling or pushing different agendas (the dreaded G-word).

 

Back in the mid-to-late-90s when I was in college, I was involved in an economics group project on the feasibility of building a new stadium in Portsmouth. The scheme was called Pompey Parkway. Nothing ever came of it but it did prompt Southampton to look at how The Dell was meeting their needs. LFC and FSG can use the latest news from Chelsea to refocus their efforts on the stadium front in much the same way. They don't need to be foolish and respond immediately though, even though our needs must be resolved as a matter of urgency.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Chelsea have wanted to expand Stamford Bridge for years, as far as I've heard.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Chelsea have wanted to expand Stamford Bridge for years, as far as I've heard.

 

Yeah and it was the last expansion and 'village' project that nearly sent them into administration and opened the door for Abramovich to buy them. Back in 2006/07 they were talking about further expansion :- BBC SPORT | Football | My Club | Chelsea | Chelsea plan Bridge redevelopment

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

Transport links are already sufficient for them if they go to Battersea - it's only one stop from Clapham Junction to Battersea. There are tube lines nearby, both north and south of the river. There's loads of land there (the USA embassy is moving near there as well). There might be some objections about the power station site, but London has been waiting for it to be developed for years and Wandsworth Council will be happy with the financial income from that area.

 

It would be a great move for Chelsea - most of their fan base is south London and Surrey anyway.

[xerxes]

Really? How is it coherent when they've only given hints at what they might do, rather than spell out what they actually will do IF they acquire the site..............etc

 

 

 

Chelsea have made a bid, with the proposals as per the press release. They look good to me. They are simply not at detailed consent stage.

 

The previous bid to buy out the Chelsea Pitch Owners did not fail because the CPO did not want to move- but because the CPO were not prepared (quite reasonably) to sell the ground with nowhere acceptable to go to. Whether the bid is accepted, and the proposals are acceptable, remains to be seen.

 

The dynamic of the sale value of Stamford Bridge, and the acquisition and development costs of Battersea are difficult to judge. Site value is unquestionably greater at Stamford Bridge. Stadium build and associated infrastructure improvements are very likely to significantly surpass the Stamford Bridge site value. Would Abrahamovic redevelop Stamford bridge himself to take the development profit? It would make sense. Would he invest in associated commercial and residential development at Battersea? It would make sense. No-one is suggesting that a billion pound combined scheme would be simple.

 

We agree that Man City have laid out a shrewd vision for the future. I think that you are being harsh on Chelsea and their stadium proposals. Since FFP became a reality Chelsea have publicly explored redevelopment options, and revealed their costs as well as publicly exploring two site alternatives. FSG have done nothing that they have gone public on other than to say they can’t afford what they have a consent for and don’t own the land to redevelop and have no proposals to buy it.

 

Abrahamovic is worth around $12bn. If Abu Dhabi Utd are worth more ( as they may be), it is irrelevant , $12bn is sufficient backing to deliver whatever project he reasonably chooses. The average FSG investment is £10m. Abrahamovic to date has pumped around £800m into Chelsea. Sadly, the firepower is in a different league.

 

I remember the Pompey proposals – the way it has played out is chilling, isn’t it? Southampton are now back in the PL with a stadium which allows them to compete as a middle ranking club. Pompey, despite their recent playing history find themselves in the third tier, with a ground that isn’t even the best there.

 

Our Council have given us a site (two if you include the Kings Dock proposals), and three planning consents (two separate stadium plus Anfield Plaza). They have turned down nothing.They can do no more. Successive LFC owners could have done a lot more.

 

I share your hope that Chelsea (and Spurs) will finally prompt our owners to drag our stadium provision into the 2st Century.

[Guest San Don]

Chelsea have made a bid, with the proposals as per the press release. They look good to me. They are simply not at detailed consent stage.

 

The previous bid to buy out the Chelsea Pitch Owners did not fail because the CPO did not want to move- but because the CPO were not prepared (quite reasonably) to sell the ground with nowhere acceptable to go to. Whether the bid is accepted, and the proposals are acceptable, remains to be seen.

 

The dynamic of the sale value of Stamford Bridge, and the acquisition and development costs of Battersea are difficult to judge. Site value is unquestionably greater at Stamford Bridge. Stadium build and associated infrastructure improvements are very likely to significantly surpass the Stamford Bridge site value. Would Abrahamovic redevelop Stamford bridge himself to take the development profit? It would make sense. Would he invest in associated commercial and residential development at Battersea? It would make sense. No-one is suggesting that a billion pound combined scheme would be simple.

 

We agree that Man City have laid out a shrewd vision for the future. I think that you are being harsh on Chelsea and their stadium proposals. Since FFP became a reality Chelsea have publicly explored redevelopment options, and revealed their costs as well as publicly exploring two site alternatives. FSG have done nothing that they have gone public on other than to say they can’t afford what they have a consent for and don’t own the land to redevelop and have no proposals to buy it.

 

Abrahamovic is worth around $12bn. If Abu Dhabi Utd are worth more ( as they may be), it is irrelevant , $12bn is sufficient backing to deliver whatever project he reasonably chooses. The average FSG investment is £10m. Abrahamovic to date has pumped around £800m into Chelsea. Sadly, the firepower is in a different league.

 

I remember the Pompey proposals – the way it has played out is chilling, isn’t it? Southampton are now back in the PL with a stadium which allows them to compete as a middle ranking club. Pompey, despite their recent playing history find themselves in the third tier, with a ground that isn’t even the best there.

 

Our Council have given us a site (two if you include the Kings Dock proposals), and three planning consents (two separate stadium plus Anfield Plaza). They have turned down nothing.They can do no more. Successive LFC owners could have done a lot more.

 

I share your hope that Chelsea (and Spurs) will finally prompt our owners to drag our stadium provision into the 2st Century.

 

What palpable pap! Neither chelshit nor spurs stadium builds if they go ahead, will have anything to do with prompting FSG to re develop or new build.

 

Same old tune, just a different rythme.

[Guest ShoePiss]

You're a limtied company owner san don, I take it you never pay attention to your competitors, never try to match or beat them or gain an advantage through being one step ahead.

 

Oh and chelshit? have a word with yourself you embarrassment.

[Guest San Don]

You're a limtied company owner san don, I take it you never pay attention to your competitors, never try to match or beat them or gain an advantage through being one step ahead.

 

Oh and chelshit? have a word with yourself you embarrassment.

 

Says the man calling himself 'shoepiss.' You really couldnt make it up except you can.

 

Tell you what I do as a limited company owner, I dont spend more than I can afford just because my competitors have spent more than they may be able to afford.

 

Course, you being a dickhead and all that wont know that, would you?

[Guest ShoePiss]

Says the man calling himself 'shoepiss.' You really couldnt make it up except you can.

 

Tell you what I do as a limited company owner, I dont spend more than I can afford just because my competitors have spent more than they may be able to afford.

 

Course, you being a dickhead and all that wont know that, would you?

 

Haha you're a thick gobshite.

[Guest San Don]

Haha you're a thick gobshite.

 

If you say so. But everything you say is a lie. :whistle:

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Haha you're a thick gobshite.

 

Woah, dude, he owns a limited company; you can't speak to him like that, because owning a limited company is really, really hard. Well, when I say hard, I actually mean 'anybody can do it'.

[lifetime fan]

Stadiums dont come under FFP, what's to stop clubs paying players backhanders through stadium build or redevelopment?

 

EDIT: Just remebered UEFA couldn't give a fuck about FFP and will never implement it.

[lifetime fan]

Joe Bernstein in todays Hate Mail;

 

"They hope, however, to announce a ground naming deal soon to give their next manager much-needed funds in the market".

[Horus]

Hmmmmmmmmmm.....Anfield or New anfield?

 

I vote neither, because I'm fucking fed up of feeling continually let down.

[ternando_forres]

They've been hoping this for a while.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Joe Bernstein in todays Hate Mail;

 

"They hope, however, to announce a ground naming deal soon to give their next manager much-needed funds in the market".

 

To give the next manager funds? That would have to be sponsoring Anfield then rather than a new stadium. I suppose it's just a journalist filling out half a story...

[SlugTrail]

To give the next manager funds? That would have to be sponsoring Anfield then rather than a new stadium. I suppose it's just a journalist filling out half a story...

 

Or the other alternative is they will borrow money against the future income of a new stadium.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I read that late last night, woke up this morning and thought i'd dreamt it.

 

Weird thing to sling on the end of an article, but considering the source it's likely bollocks.

 

Didn't FSG once say they wouldn't rename Anfield? Not that that counts for much.

[beejay]

It's the Air China twitter rumours that the Mail have as their source I bet