Chelsea Seized

[Best_loser]

The Stamford bridge land alone must be worth a few billion , next owners might build on it and construct a new stadium on some cheaper land somewhere , maybe that's why the candy brothers want to buy it , same could be done with Fulham

 

[Professor]

The Stamford bridge land alone must be worth a few billion , next owners might build on it and construct a new stadium on some cheaper land somewhere , maybe that's why the candy brothers want to buy it , same could be done with Fulham

A small 4 bedroom house in SW10 near the Bridge is over 2.5M. I lived very close by (what was the old College of St Mark and St John) when it was part of King's College London in the 1980s. That's all flats now with the old lovely gardens of the college. They are over 2 million a pop and one of the houses recently went for 9 million.

So with the hotel and the ground -redeveloped as a few apartment blocks you are well into the billions, though would depend on any covenants for use. Nice views of Brompton Cemetery too.

 

[airedale]

To make a decent profit they could build the new stand just outside Preston.

 

[JackSomething]

The Stamford bridge land alone must be worth a few billion , next owners might build on it and construct a new stadium on some cheaper land somewhere , maybe that's why the candy brothers want to buy it , same could be done with Fulham

Whoever buys the club will not be buying the stadium. It's owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners plc, a non-profit organisation. They purchased the freehold of the stadium in 1997 with the intention of ensuring it could never again be sold to property developers.

The club tried to buy back the freehold in 2011, but not enough of the CPO shareholders voted for it. Ironically, the club claimed that the CPO was no longer needed as the club would never be in danger of losing the stadium under Abramovich's ownership.

It means that there should always be a Chelsea Football Club at Stamford Bridge, despite the current concerns over the future of the club.

 

[CygnusX1]

The Stamford bridge land alone must be worth a few billion , next owners might build on it and construct a new stadium on some cheaper land somewhere , maybe that's why the candy brothers want to buy it , same could be done with Fulham

Whoever buys the club will not be buying the stadium. It's owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners plc, a non-profit organisation. They purchased the freehold of the stadium in 1997 with the intention of ensuring it could never again be sold to property developers.

The club tried to buy back the freehold in 2011, but not enough of the CPO shareholders voted for it. Ironically, the club claimed that the CPO was no longer needed as the club would never be in danger of losing the stadium under Abramovich's ownership.

It means that there should always be a Chelsea Football Club at Stamford Bridge, despite the current concerns over the future of the club.

They must be the only club not to own it’s own name.
If the club did move, (as when they tried to move to Battersea in 2012) they would no longer be called Chelsea FC

 

[airedale]

Whoever buys the club will not be buying the stadium. It's owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners plc, a non-profit organisation. They purchased the freehold of the stadium in 1997 with the intention of ensuring it could never again be sold to property developers.

The club tried to buy back the freehold in 2011, but not enough of the CPO shareholders voted for it. Ironically, the club claimed that the CPO was no longer needed as the club would never be in danger of losing the stadium under Abramovich's ownership.

It means that there should always be a Chelsea Football Club at Stamford Bridge, despite the current concerns over the future of the club.

They must be the only club not to own it’s own name.
If the club did move, (as when they tried to move to Battersea in 2012) they would no longer be called Chelsea FC

So if I bought the name ‘Chelsea FC’ off whoever owns it and started a football club in Upper Brynamman I’d be well within my rights to call it Chelsea FC if I wanted to?

Don’t think the Chelsea club owners would be too bothered mind, they would just call themselves something else.

(That’s not ‘something else FC’ btw)

 

[CygnusX1]

They must be the only club not to own it’s own name.
If the club did move, (as when they tried to move to Battersea in 2012) they would no longer be called Chelsea FC

So if I bought the name ‘Chelsea FC’ off whoever owns it and started a football club in Upper Brynamman I’d be well within my rights to call it Chelsea FC if I wanted to?

Don’t think the Chelsea club owners would be too bothered mind, they would just call themselves something else.

(That’s not ‘something else FC’ btw)

Not quite.

Chelsea Pitch Owners plc own the pitch and the name Chelsea FC. They allow the club the play there and any use the name while they play at that ground. It’s to stop a Wimbledon to MK situation.

I like your idea though

 

[CygnusX1]

So if I bought the name ‘Chelsea FC’ off whoever owns it and started a football club in Upper Brynamman I’d be well within my rights to call it Chelsea FC if I wanted to?

Don’t think the Chelsea club owners would be too bothered mind, they would just call themselves something else.

(That’s not ‘something else FC’ btw)

Not quite.

Chelsea Pitch Owners plc own the pitch and the name Chelsea FC. They allow the club the play there and use the name Chelsea FC while they play at that ground. It’s to stop a Wimbledon move to MK situation at worst, or to move the club away from its ‘home’.
In 2012 the CPO had a vote to see if they would allow The club to use the name Chelsea FC if it moved to Battersea as was the plan at the time. They voted No

I like your idea though

 

[airedale]

So if I bought the name ‘Chelsea FC’ off whoever owns it and started a football club in Upper Brynamman I’d be well within my rights to call it Chelsea FC if I wanted to?

Don’t think the Chelsea club owners would be too bothered mind, they would just call themselves something else.

(That’s not ‘something else FC’ btw)

Not quite.

Chelsea Pitch Owners plc own the pitch and the name Chelsea FC. They allow the club the play there and any use the name while they play at that ground. It’s to stop a Wimbledon to MK situation.

I like your idea though

Ah right I get it ta.

 

[TheLoneRanger]

Thomas Tuchel at the end of the season, when Chelsea have no funds to pay his salary.


View attachment IMG-20220310-WA0008~2.jpg

 

[Darran]

lol

https://twitter.com/skysportsnews/status/1502349858472177674?s=21

 

[airedale]

Hope he visited the hole in the wall beforehand.