I think that we were allowed to wear the badge for 1 or maybe 2 PL matches.
Well, found an article about PL being unfair to LFC. Surprise! (Note that one of the source quote in the article was from S*n as well, so there you go.)
1 Like
Interesting in reading a round up of the supposed interested parties that Red Bird have been mentioned. How does that work legally? Would they have to sell, or is the idea they are far enough removed from ownership of the club (do they own a part of the holding company rather than of Liverpool) that they can do both without a conflict?
1 Like
I don’t know the PL/League/FA rules about that, but given it is a minority, non-controlling interest in a holding company with multiple interests, it is probably permitted - perhaps some requirement on the part of any board representation to recuse themselves from football discussions, the way Di Benedetto was required.
2 Likes
Wow, how odd. The PL treating LFC differently to their darlings.
1 Like
This is whom I’m hoping buys Chelski. He’s like the Glazers but only worse. haha
4 Likes
NFL owners have historically not done well with football club ownership. But, you do get the feeling they’re all generally in favour of a more level playing field and clubs standing on their own two feet rather than being funded by the owners which would be a good thing.
If he’s successful then hopefully he turns them into the equivalent of the Jets in just a couple short years because they are garbage.
6 Likes
They are all interested in fleecing the fan base and using the pretense of competing as a way to make money.
1 Like
I love the Chelsea fans issuing requirements for the new owners.
ie Must be willing to spend unlimited sums of money, source of money not important
It’s pretty simple; rich and malicious
1 Like
This would concern me if I was a Chelsea fan rather than make me happy, Chelsea’s ground is a lucrative area of London with fair bit of space, the place were the women play is similar.
If you’re thinking about it logically and rationally, the sensible thing to do if you’re Chelsea owner is knock down Stamford Bridge, sell the land for absolute shitloads of money, and build a new 60k stadium further out.
1 Like
They can’t do that. Whilst the club own the stadium, the pitch is not included and is owned by a seperate identity (if I remember correctly) - or some weird deal that goes back many years but ties the club to playing at S.B.
This was one of the issues RA faced when he looked at building a new stadium, but can’t remember the exact issue
4 Likes
As @aussielad alluded to, that isnt viable. Bates sold the land to an independent group and included a clause that committed Chelsea to staying there through the length of the 200 year lease. Any attempt to move (permanently) would force Chelsea to relinquish the name Chelsea FC. So, it would either require an additional expensive buy out of a group who have no interest in selling, or some high stakes legal wizzardry to get out of that restriction.
3 Likes
Does it tie Chelsea mens team to playing there or does it tie any Chelsea to playing there, as I said it’s quite spacious around the stadium.
I don’t remember it being that much space around the stadium, as there are a couple of hotels and several estates right on the door steps, so I think any new works on the stadium would mean building up, not out
I visited in 2015 and it looked oddly spacious compared to the other London grounds I went that day (bar Arsenal).
I believe that Fulham Broadway complex sits right next to it, you could buy that and expand you only have to supplant an alternative entrance to the station.
On the other side you are right I think. I’d have to go and look again maybe it’s a bit like Anfield where it has space in the wrong places.
Thing is could they move Chelsea mens and play the womens there with a smaller stadium and move elsewhere. Maybe it’s just me but when I hear property developer and football club I have alarm bells.
I’m 99% sure the women’s team didnt exist when the deal was struck so Id imagine there is some legal fuckery that could be followed. But even outside of that sort of loophole, the situation with their freehold drastically limits their ability to raise revenue from the existing land to fund the new stadium. Unless Im misunderstanding what you’re thinking about.
2 Likes
It more boils down to every club that’s ever had a property developer buy them.
Apparently he is a consortium of 20 though how that looks is beyond me, similar to FSG I guess.
Hopefully they get along like Hicks and Gillett 
2 Likes
1 Like