Sign In
Create Account
0
The simple fact of the matter is that if we move we won't be called Chelsea anymore. I don't understand how we can get around that.
Back to top
#42
Posted 03 August 2010 - 06:16 AM
-
- Members
-
In the Ressies
nofizzleforshizzle, on 02 August 2010 - 10:51 PM, said:
The simple fact of the matter is that if we move we won't be called Chelsea anymore. I don't understand how we can get around that.
The CPO changes it's mind.
#43
Posted 03 August 2010 - 08:42 AM
-
- Members
-
On the Bench
There is nothing stopping the CPO changing its mind as far as i know, it was only put in place to safeguard the clubs future so something that would help the club longterm like a bigger ground should'nt be a problem.
I still think a bigger ground preferably at the bridge is a must, like i said earliar i'd rather have 80,000 people paying £20 than 40,000 people paying £40(just an example by the way, i'm not saying we need an 80,000 seater stadium).
Many people have been priced out of football, many of the people who used to go to games years ago dont go anymore 'cos they cant afford it. I'm quite lucky that i have a decent job and an understanding MRS but i have 3 young sons and i dont know if or how were all going to go in the future.
All i know is that the more of something there is the less its likely to cost, thats a basic rule of supply and demand that can be applied to almost anything including tickets to a football match.
I'd even go back to terracing, i bet there is about 6000 people paying £50 ahead to sit in the MH lower tier. In the same space you could probably get 15,000 standing(safely of course) all paying £20 ahead. The club technically has gained nothing because the net income is still £300,000 but the diffference is theres another 9000 people all buying programmes, pints, burgers etc so the club are quids in that way. Plus you have opened the door to fans who otherwise are priced out and you have improved the atmosphere in the ground 10 fold.
Sounds like a win win to me.
I still think a bigger ground preferably at the bridge is a must, like i said earliar i'd rather have 80,000 people paying £20 than 40,000 people paying £40(just an example by the way, i'm not saying we need an 80,000 seater stadium).
Many people have been priced out of football, many of the people who used to go to games years ago dont go anymore 'cos they cant afford it. I'm quite lucky that i have a decent job and an understanding MRS but i have 3 young sons and i dont know if or how were all going to go in the future.
All i know is that the more of something there is the less its likely to cost, thats a basic rule of supply and demand that can be applied to almost anything including tickets to a football match.
I'd even go back to terracing, i bet there is about 6000 people paying £50 ahead to sit in the MH lower tier. In the same space you could probably get 15,000 standing(safely of course) all paying £20 ahead. The club technically has gained nothing because the net income is still £300,000 but the diffference is theres another 9000 people all buying programmes, pints, burgers etc so the club are quids in that way. Plus you have opened the door to fans who otherwise are priced out and you have improved the atmosphere in the ground 10 fold.
Sounds like a win win to me.
Edited by c3blu, 03 August 2010 - 08:44 AM.
#44
Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:31 PM
-
- Members
-
On the Bench
bluegraham, on 29 July 2010 - 06:01 PM, said:
behind the east stand your have a railway line also behind the north stand you have the distrct line,so that only leaves 3 ways out via the britiania gate the stamford gate entrance and the brovil gate. which all goes on to the one road being the fulham road thats what guillt4 i think is trying to say.
What if you were to build a pedestrian overpass over the railway?
#45
Posted 04 August 2010 - 04:38 PM
-
- Members
-
First Team Squad
KrazyTea, on 04 August 2010 - 04:31 PM, said:
What if you were to build a pedestrian overpass over the railway?
thats been tried buy master bates lol did nt get the go ahead
#46
Posted 05 August 2010 - 01:48 AM
-
- Moderators
-
First Team Squad
A helipad me tells 'ya! At 10 fans a pop, it would only take 4,200 trips!
Cheers,
Butch
Cheers,
Butch
#47
Posted 07 October 2010 - 04:21 PM
-
- Members
-
Youth Team
Bump.
Bruce Buck says a stadium move is "not at the front of our agenda" and that we'll make up the shortfall in revenue with new media and sponsorship deals. Doesn't completely rule out the idea though.
Can't say im surprised, but I personally would be for a new, bigger stadium in the future, especially when financial fair play kicks in to keep us competitive. I'm sure we'd fill it if tickets were easier to get a hold of.
Bruce Buck says a stadium move is "not at the front of our agenda" and that we'll make up the shortfall in revenue with new media and sponsorship deals. Doesn't completely rule out the idea though.
Can't say im surprised, but I personally would be for a new, bigger stadium in the future, especially when financial fair play kicks in to keep us competitive. I'm sure we'd fill it if tickets were easier to get a hold of.
#48
Posted 07 October 2010 - 05:02 PM
-
- Members
-
First Team Regular
c3blu, on 03 August 2010 - 08:42 AM, said:
There is nothing stopping the CPO changing its mind as far as i know, it was only put in place to safeguard the clubs future so something that would help the club longterm like a bigger ground should'nt be a problem.
I still think a bigger ground preferably at the bridge is a must, like i said earliar i'd rather have 80,000 people paying £20 than 40,000 people paying £40(just an example by the way, i'm not saying we need an 80,000 seater stadium).
I still think a bigger ground preferably at the bridge is a must, like i said earliar i'd rather have 80,000 people paying £20 than 40,000 people paying £40(just an example by the way, i'm not saying we need an 80,000 seater stadium).
A bigger stadium would increase gate takings, but a bigger stadium would take years to pay off, and would be a crippling drain on the club's finances for all that time. Just look at Arsenal, who haven't spent anything on transfers since they left the library (their deals show a net profit in that time).
And they've won sod all in their shiny new ground.
#49
Posted 07 October 2010 - 05:44 PM
-
- Members
-
First Team Regular
Backbiter, on 07 October 2010 - 05:02 PM, said:
I think most people would, but how would the extra fans actually finance the extra seats with pricing like that?
A bigger stadium would increase gate takings, but a bigger stadium would take years to pay off, and would be a crippling drain on the club's finances for all that time. Just look at Arsenal, who haven't spent anything on transfers since they left the library (their deals show a net profit in that time).
And they've won sod all in their shiny new ground.
A bigger stadium would increase gate takings, but a bigger stadium would take years to pay off, and would be a crippling drain on the club's finances for all that time. Just look at Arsenal, who haven't spent anything on transfers since they left the library (their deals show a net profit in that time).
And they've won sod all in their shiny new ground.
Now that they are making those profits they will be able to act heavily in the transfer windows without going into debt or having a rich owner. They also have a very stable and young squad of highly talented players for the most part, they can be taking trophies in no time.
Anyways, I will trade a few trophies for that situaton any day. A self sufficient club capable of economic sustainability and attractive football at the highest levels.........surely thats more valuable than a piece of shiny metal?
Classic situation of short term sacrifice for long term gain.
Edited by Barry Bridges, 07 October 2010 - 05:55 PM.
#50
Posted 07 October 2010 - 05:54 PM
-
- Members
-
whatsamatayou, hey
I think Arsenal's particular drain has come with the scheme to sell off plots of Highbury as high end condos (I would think owning one of those would be a dream for any gooner) and in a better financial climate that wouldve been what eased the burden of their borrowing and building. Since they didnt sell as well as had been hoped, and then the recession hit worldwide, they have had to cut things pretty fine.
As far as Chelsea goes, I've seen many alternate proposal sites on wikipedia, things like Earls Court exhibition center and Battersea power station (which in fairness is a shell, but you can imagine if money was no object you could build a pretty sweet ass stadium with the four stacks and keep the whole facade of the place) just do not seem real unless Roman were to quadruple his fortune and throw financial caution to the wind. And even then, that wouldnt get into the immorality of moving the club from the site where it has been over a century.
The only thing I will say about my own opinions is that (and this is childish I know) is that the hotel at the shed end kinda bothers me in the long shots, and that any redevelopment should start there as a natural point, but the numbers are what the numbers are and I guess there is no changing that.
As far as Chelsea goes, I've seen many alternate proposal sites on wikipedia, things like Earls Court exhibition center and Battersea power station (which in fairness is a shell, but you can imagine if money was no object you could build a pretty sweet ass stadium with the four stacks and keep the whole facade of the place) just do not seem real unless Roman were to quadruple his fortune and throw financial caution to the wind. And even then, that wouldnt get into the immorality of moving the club from the site where it has been over a century.
The only thing I will say about my own opinions is that (and this is childish I know) is that the hotel at the shed end kinda bothers me in the long shots, and that any redevelopment should start there as a natural point, but the numbers are what the numbers are and I guess there is no changing that.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
