bogey77

If you build a new stadium, at least some prices will go up. If you are lucky, the additional seats are the lowest price levels. It really depends on how many more seats a new stadium would produce. Hopefully adding some kind of corporate suites would allow for the ticket prices to not raise dramatically. How much higher are Arsenal tickets compared to Chelsea?

I agree, plus Lukaku came come on as a sub later in games. I wouldn't be surprised if they could even play at the same time if we are desperate for goals. Imagine what last season would have been if Cavani and Lukaku were the two strikers rather than Torres and Ba/Sturridge.

I think this is a situation where the club should tell Terry that they do not want him to go (assuming that is the case). But if they do not plan on offering him a new contract they should tell him now and let him know that if he wants to pursue the money in Monaco they will make the deal. Let him know that he is wanted but let him make the decision. If he chooses to stay, respect for him goes even higher. Also, lets the players know that the club was up front with the player.

I don't care what its called. I am just happy to be able to attend.

That's what I have been trying to point out.

The Blackhawks aren't trying to get fans into the arena over other sports teams. They are trying to get fans into the arena in general (particularly younger fans). The Blackhawks are one of the six original hockey teams in the NHL. Their fanbase as of 7 years ago, were the diehard fans that were fans from the 1960's. The problem is that they no longer went to games or bought merchandise. Then when the Blackhawks started playing well and growing their fanbase, those diehard fans complained about raising ticket costs and all the "new fans who don't know anything about the game". Does that sound familiar? You say that all the fans attending the matches every week are not fans but then you say that "new" fans are not attending every week. They may not be the same fan every week but they are paying to get in the stadium of a team they support at least financially. Realistically, most fans can't afford to attend every game because it is price prohibitive (which supports your point). How a fan supports their team is up to them. If I spend more to support Chelsea from Chicago than another fan that is local, who is the better supporter? It just depends on who you ask. I would never consider myself a bigger supporter than a local fan but if the local doesn't buy product I can assure you that the club would consider me the better supporter. The questions becomes, do you want the team to be a top team every year? If that is the case, you will have to accept that for a team to be competitive every year, the team needs to sell merchandise and pricey tickets. With that will come the many inconveniences that you are experiencing. The other option is to go back to the way things were before Roman. He is a billionaire, but it is better business if he can increase the revenue of the team and not have to fund player purchases by himself. If the Bridge held 10,000 extra seats and sold them for the 19 home PL games at 40 per seat that is an extra 7.6 million. That is not including the shirts, food and extras that come with attending a match. Figure another 40 per person in extra costs and you are looking at 15 million per year. Plus all the other matches that aren't Premier League. That's an extra player.

That's the trick isn't it? The team wants to turn new fans into its core fanbase, making that fanbase larger. The larger fanbase means that even when people leave if things go wrong there are still plenty of fans to support the team. That leaves a larger core fanbase (new and old). Not all longstanding fans will live forever. I do understand what you are saying. In Chicago, we had no fanbase for the professional hockey team 6 years ago, even though it is one of the oldest in the league. Through a change in marketing that bought us a league championship three years ago, the fanbase grew astronomically. A couple less successful years followed and interest started to wane off of the peak numbers. This year they had the best record in the league and are challenging for the championship again. Now the support is twice what it was in the championship year. In order to keep the increased fan support, the team has to be competitive each year. However, to do that the team must put the best team on the ice all the time. Fan support is required to be able to accomplish that objective. However, each successful year will cement the support of the fanbase. Therefore enlarging its core fanbase and exposure everywhere.

Its only an 8 hour drive!

Got my tickets a couple days ago! I am very excited about the game and getting the benefit of seeing Jose coaching the team. I am trying to recruit some buddies to go with me but don't have many fans of football (soccer over here) as friends.

I will try to say this without stirring up too much trouble....But be careful about assigning levels of fans based on time following a club. New fans are usually beneficial to a club. They also tend to be more active in positively supporting the club (especially financially). A longer history with the club does not mean that they are a better or smarter type of fan. Positive support is still positive support. Without continual positive financial support, the team can't grow. Why do you think Chelsea is trying so hard to build a big fan base in the states? New fans = new money.

Those tickets that the "tourist" obtained are available to anyone and likely came from a season ticket holder that sold their ticket. Are you saying that a season ticket holder that sells some of their games to supplement the cost of the season ticket is not a true fan because they are letting a "tourist" buy their tickets? I am from the states and if I ever make it to a match at the Bridge, I will be a day tripper. Does that make me less of a fan? Most athletic teams target the prime earning individual for their tickets sales. That is the 25-50 year old fan. Unfortunately that limits that attendance of the younger fans. It is part of the price that is paid to have a high wage team. As fans, you should want the games sold out at a high price per ticket to ensure that your team can continue to bring in the best players. Here in the states, I just recently gave up our season tickets that we have had for 30 years to the Chicago Bears because I got tired of paying for them. I could afford the tickets but I just got tired of paying for them or trying to sell them. My choice but another fan bought the rights to the tickets and they can start their season ticket experience. I will still buy individual games as I choose but the important thing is that someone is going to the game. Not everyone can afford a season ticket, but that is not the fault of the team. The team has to make as much as they can while still filing the stadium so they can put the best team on the pitch. If Chelsea could sell out a 65,000 seat stadium, then that is what all fans should hope for as it will provide for the best possible team year after year. Sorry if this hurts the feelings of some fans but being a fan with low income does not mean the team should take less money for a ticket just to make you happy when there is another fan (or attendee) willing to pay more.

Why would they want to get back money for a spending spree when selling Luiz would only require another purchase? It seems to me that they need two defensive purchases (CB, DM) already. If you sell Luiz, you would need at least three purchases and maybe four since Luiz can cover both of those positions. You may be able to buy two 20-25 mil players by selling Luiz, but would you be getting replacement players of top quality? If they want to sell Luiz, it is better to find the replacements for him first before selling him. Otherwise, you risk not finding the replacement and hurting the squad.

Would Dzeko, Lukaku and either Torres or Ba work? As long as Lukaku was a first or second choice. Especially if we could unload Torres.

This last season Dzeko scored on a little over 16% of his shots in the PL. In comparison, Aguero hit a little over 14.6% of his shots in the PL. Aguero had about 100 more minutes of playing time than Dzeko. Draw whatever conclusions you wish from this, they are just stats. Figured same team and similar minutes made an interesting comparison. The majority of top scorers in the PL seem to score on a little above 18% of their shots. Suarez 13.1%, Bale 13.3% and Ba 12% are significantly lower because of the amount of shots they take and miss. For those curious Messi 28.5%, Ronaldo 14.7%, Falcao 25.6% in La Liga. Lewandowski 24.4%, Cavani 18.4% These are all just in their respective league games.

Maybe there are worries that others will want to buy him next year if he has a good season and the price will actually go up. Release clause just means they have to sell, not that they can't find the highest paying team. Hasn't Chelsea tried to buy Schurrle before and not succeeded? If they really want him, get him. Chelsea already has KDB locked up. 5 mil won't make a difference to FFP, it will get spread out over his contract length.

Even if KDB goes on loan this year and we get Schurrle, we could end up with both next year. I don't see how it hurts us except in Roman's pocketbook.

I agree. If the entire team needs to be turned over in order to succeed, then the manager would be very one dimensional. With a top manager, only a few changes should be needed. With the talent that the Chelsea squad currently has, Jose should be able to adapt his tactics to the players. Fill in the weak spots in the roster. It would only make sense to sell Luiz if there was already a top replacement coming to the team. If Jose sold Luiz without having a replacement in place, he takes a risk that is unnecessary. The CB position is weaker without Luiz if no replacement has been bought. Regardless of if you feel Luiz is a great player or not, having only Brana, Terry and Cahill on the roster is not a reassuring feeling. Now if Jose signs a top CB then we could start getting serious about whether Luiz is on his way out.

He has a fantastic jogging style!

Now that article makes sense. Why would any manager come in with a predisposition to a player? You can always sell the player after you see them train for a few weeks. Not that "sense" plays a part in most of these articles.

Had to look that up to see what it meant! Just trying to understand tactics and enjoy watching the matches more. I appreciate all the explanations. I see all the talent that Chelsea has but didn't understand why the results were not there. Is there any worry that a new manager won't fit with the players currently with the team? Or should the new manager be able to succeed with the current players? I understand there are positions of need that have to be addressed. But would you expect or worry about a formation change?

How much influence can the manager have in improving the team? With the talent that Chelsea currently has, can a change to a better manager put them into the top two of the PL? Assuming a new manager is given time to actually manage the team properly, how long does it usually take to see results from the team? In most sports in the US it takes more than a year to see results. Curious as to how it works in Europe.

I am new to watching football (about six months) and I have become a fan of Chelsea. I have noticed when watching Chelsea games that the players don't seem to have the spacing that I see when I watch other teams. Most of the champions league teams keep greater distances between their players when attacking. Is Chelsea not holding proper form or are they playing a different style?