From Stamford Bridge to ...

[Hutch]

our stadium will always be spoken of as Stamford Bridge anyway so we would get nowhere near as much as Arsenal got if we choose to stay.

How so? Nobody calls The Emirates "Highbury", Eastlands isn't referred to as "Maine Road" or The Stadium Of Light "Roker Park", nor Pride Park "The Baseball Ground", the Ricoh Arena "Highfield Road", the Riverside Stadium "Ayresome Park" ... in fact I can't think of a single example of a club who've moved to a new stadium but have retained the name of the old ground. The nearest, I think is the New Den.

 

[Eggy McMuffin]

How so? Nobody calls The Emirates "Highbury", Eastlands isn't referred to as "Maine Road" or The Stadium Of Light "Roker Park", nor Pride Park "The Baseball Ground", the Ricoh Arena "Highfield Road", the Riverside Stadium "Ayresome Park" ... in fact I can't think of a single example of a club who've moved to a new stadium but have retained the name of the old ground. The nearest, I think is the New Den.

Hutch, I believe he was saying the opposite of this. If we were to stay at Stamford Bridge, and get a sponsored name, we would be likely to receive less than other teams, such as Arsenal have, because to us Stamford Bridge will always be Stamford Bridge. I think that's what he meant, anyway.

 

[Dorset]

Stamford Bridge is unrecognisable from when I first went (over 50 years ago now) and a move away would still be hard to accept. In effect, it would be a very similar move to the one Arsenal made and like the majority of their fans reflecting on Highbury, we’d all prefer to stay at the Bridge too, given half a chance and an extra 20,000 seats. But the club has to think of the future and nobody can deny that Roman has always had the fans best interests at heart in all that he has done for the club to date, so he will not discount the views of the more traditional supporters [feeling the wrench a great deal more] without massive consultation.

Bluebeard’s response is the nostalgic counter-balance to the so-called ’plastic’ fans who we often accuse of making up the numbers at the Emirates, but it is also, in reality, all part of an unsustainable argument, especially as the years go by and when, even if they had a tenuous allegiance initially, these individuals become the type of supporters we like to think we’re attracting every time ticket prices are reduced for Carling Cup games. My initial reaction was very similar to Bluebeard‘s, but in the cold light of day, with no opportunity to increase our ground capacity and in order to maintain our present level of success for years to come, we should think of a move to a bigger stadium as less of an option and much more of an inevitability.

Let’s look on the bright side for a moment… by virtue of being a successful club and sustaining the progress made, there is a whole new generation of younger Chelsea fans out there who will be able to go to games and the contention that Chelsea couldn’t fill a 60,000 seat stadium now or in the future would soon be shown up for what it was … the pure invention of those who cannot stomach Chelsea’s achievements nor the thought that there is probably huge latent support for the team in London and outlying districts just waiting to turn up on a new doorstep that is actually in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

 

[Hutch]

Hutch, I believe he was saying the opposite of this. If we were to stay at Stamford Bridge, and get a sponsored name, we would be likely to receive less than other teams, such as Arsenal have, because to us Stamford Bridge will always be Stamford Bridge. I think that's what he meant, anyway.

You could well be right, but I took his post to mean that the new stadium would always be referred to as Stamford Bridge, even if we moved (to a new stadium with a new name), which just about any precedent I can think of is anything to go by, almost certainly won't be the case.

Over to you Sindre.

 

[Sindre]

How so? Nobody calls The Emirates "Highbury", Eastlands isn't referred to as "Maine Road" or The Stadium Of Light "Roker Park", nor Pride Park "The Baseball Ground", the Ricoh Arena "Highfield Road", the Riverside Stadium "Ayresome Park" ... in fact I can't think of a single example of a club who've moved to a new stadium but have retained the name of the old ground. The nearest, I think is the New Den.

I think you misunderstood. What i did mean was that if we choosed to stay at SB and sold our naming-rights to our current stadium we would get nowhere near as much for those rights as we would do if we moved to a new stadium and sold the naming-rights to that one. Pardon my english, but i hope you understood.

Our new stadium would NOT be spoken of as Stamford Bridge just to clarify. And yes, Eggy got it.

 

[Hutch]

I think you misunderstood. What i did mean was that if we choosed to stay at SB and sold our naming-rights to our current stadium we would get nowhere near as much for those rights as we would do if we moved to a new stadium and sold the naming-rights to that one. Pardon my english, but i hope you understood.

Got you now. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[HazardsLeftPeg]

From the official site:

NO PLANS TO MOVE STADIUMS

Chelsea have no plans to move stadiums despite reports to the contrary today concerning Earl's Court Exhibition Centre.

A club spokesman said: 'We don't have any plans to move stadium at this time.

'We get two or three of these proposals a year it seems, we have a look at them but we have no plans to move stadiums.

'There are quotes out there today from the investment director for the site developers for Earl's Court which state they have merely been keeping us up-to-date on progress for the site because we were interested a number of years ago, but they are committed to their original plan. They will be moving forward on the housing project.

'We have had talks with them but we have no plans to move.'

LINK

 

[amART]

NOO !!!

STAMFORD BRIDGE !!

 

[dkw]

So basically a company or regional council want us to move to their turf, the Grauniad get hold of it, completely rewrite it and say we are looking to move from the Bridge. Quelle surprise...

 

[Barry Bridges]

I have spoken in favour of expanding Stamfordbridge. Yet if that is unattainable we must cast aside our fanciful notions and face the reality in which we live.

Obviously we would all love to have Stamford Bridge remain the grounds Chelsea plays in forever.... but then again every parent wants their child to be 8years old forever too. Nobody wants to move on from the good memories but I suppose thats partly why they call it growing pains. You want your child to always need you and be your little boy or girl, but ultimately you know that for their sake they have to move onwards and upwards. In the end it is just selfish to hold them back for sentimental reasons no matter how good your intentions. For them to have succesful lives they must change with the times and occassionally cut strings with the past.

It is better to fill 60k seats every big match and only 45k with 15k empty in the others, than just 42k at capactity every match. Its about revenue not empty seats, personally Ive never cheered less at a sports match because there were a few empty seats in the stands. You can complain that it will be soulless and sitting plastic fans (which I dont agree with) but remember the big/successful clubs are only so because of the tens/hundreds of millions these plastic fans spend to fill the coffers. In addition, unless you are born into a family of Chelsea fans like I and many of us were, every die hard Chelsea fan started as a "plastic fan". Those new to a sport will follow those who are beautiful on the pitch or are in the headlines due to success. In the modern game both of these are reliant on revenue.

A name change? Likely. Yet even if Stamford Bridge is not our future it will always be part of our history. Perhaps they could even incorporate it in to the new name such as "Samsungs Stamford Bridge". Not ideal but we must live according to the practical.... would any o fus truely wish to sacrifice the success of the club purely for a name? As Shakespeare once said

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet;

So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,

Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Without that title."

The shirts, sweaters and scarfs I wear say "Chelsea FC", not Stamford Bridge. I may not have as many memories of the stands asmany of you, but I do posses enough to hold it dear to me also. If we can all agree that no player is bigger than the club then perhaps we must realise no stadium is either.

 

[Barn]

Good post Barry and I do agree. My big concern though is that we're in the early stages of a recession, there are already more and more empty seats at grounds and it's a likely to be a growing trend.

 

[Gypsyblue]

Good post Barry and I do agree. My big concern though is that we're in the early stages of a recession, there are already more and more empty seats at grounds and it's a likely to be a growing trend.

As a Fifty something, all of my memories of the bridge are from the 70s. Dont get over from Dublin much now. Last there in early 09. Couldnt believe the extent to which the ground had changed. Not only inside, but outside and around Fulham Broadway as well. It was already like going to a different ground, as there was verry little to relate to what it was like in 72/73.

I used to live on Rylston Road, and sometimes used to get the tube one stop from Brompton Road just for the buzz of getting off with the fans and coming out onto Fulham Road. Probably a lot of guys my age can relate to this. In 2009 I found very little atmosphere around the ground even for a Wednesday night game under lights. At this stage all the great memories are locked inside the head, and sad to say I found the new Bridge a bit soul-less anyway especially compared to the buzz (different buzz in more ways than one) of the 70s which is gone forever. So I say lets move on a bit more if its whats best for the now.

 

[Hutch]

As a Fifty something, all of my memories of the bridge are from the 70s. Dont get over from Dublin much now. Last there in early 09. Couldnt believe the extent to which the ground had changed. Not only inside, but outside and around Fulham Broadway as well. It was already like going to a different ground, as there was verry little to relate to what it was like in 72/73.

I used to live on Rylston Road, and sometimes used to get the tube one stop from Brompton Road just for the buzz of getting off with the fans and coming out onto Fulham Road. Probably a lot of guys my age can relate to this. In 2009 I found very little atmosphere around the ground even for a Wednesday night game under lights. At this stage all the great memories are locked inside the head, and sad to say I found the new Bridge a bit soul-less anyway especially compared to the buzz (different buzz in more ways than one) of the 70s which is gone forever. So I say lets move on a bit more if its whats best for the now.

I can relate to just about all of that. Stamford Bridge is pretty much unrecognisable from the ground we knew and loved back in the '70s and '80s. Even Fulham Broadway station has been redesigned. And the White Hart is now a wine bar. The list goes on. In fact, all that's left of the old Stamford Bridge (apart from the East Stand) is the location and the name.

My initial reaction was "no way", and I still feel that moving to a new ground would be a hell of a risk, to say the least of it. Having said that, I'm a little surprised at how much support there is for a move. I know the club say it's all paper talk, but I think it would be interesting to put up a poll to gauge opinions, in the General section perhaps. I'd do it myself, but on the one and only time I tried to put a poll together, I managed to mess it up big time!

 

[disillusion]

Can´t help but think what if we build a new stadium and share it with Fulham. Obviously they will find it difficult to fill but Bayern and 1860 Munich do that and it works out quite well. Obviously would prefer staying but if we need to move why not bring our neighbours with us. Then the income from the matchday will stay the same but building and other expenses will be split.

 

[bonetti]

I know I've said it before, but if we leave Stamford Bridge it will be the end of Chelsea Football Club so far as I'm concerned.

Stamford Bridge has always been our home, something we should be proud of - not many clubs can say they've never moved stadiums. Three FA Cup Finals have been held at the Bridge, England have played there at both full and under-23 levels, and the stadium has played host to a number of other sports events, including greyhound racing, speedway racing, athletics, cricket and many others - the place is home to loads of history.

I've loved Stamford Bridge ever since my first visit in 1967 - even though it still had a greyhound track surrounding the pitch! Ever since I was a kid I wanted Chelsea to play in a ground where the fans were close to the pitch, but when that dream finally came true, it turned into a kind of nightmare - all seats, no terraces, f*ck the Taylor Report!

Even so, I've got over forty years of great memories of Stamford Bridge, and if we leave, we'll just turn into another club with an anonymous stadium named after some poxy sponsors. The club will have finally sold it's soul, something I want no part of.

I think that CFC (like most of the other Premier League Clubs) sold their souls a long time ago

I first went to the Bridge in 1962 and loved feeling part of the event (sometimes for the 'wrong' reasons), now all I feel is I'm part of the revenue stream.

Every season I find it harder to justify the cost - not because I'm broke but because of what I decreasingly get back in return.

You stopped going some time ago Steve, I reckon you made the right decision!

 

[Luckydevil]

No!

Wasn't it the same time last year the rumours about moving to Earls Court started??

And what about the Chelsea Pitch Owners? They hold the name rights don't they?

So when we move to EC are we stilll allowed to be Chelsea FC?

 

[Eggy McMuffin]

No!

Wasn't it the same time last year the rumours about moving to Earls Court started??

And what about the Chelsea Pitch Owners? They hold the name rights don't they?

So when we move to EC are we stilll allowed to be Chelsea FC?

I believe we'd be allowed to keep the name Chelsea FC, but only with full approval of the CPO. I'm not 100% on that one, though.

 

[TheWestwayWonder]

as is the potential embarrassment factor. We all know how the media love to gloat when we don't sell out the Bridge, smug, sneering w**kers that they are. Imagine having 25K in a 60K stadium for a mid-week CC match or a meaningless CL group match against the bottom team of our group when we are already confirmed as group winners. What would that CNUT Green say all the way through his Radio 5 scouse-suck-up-a-thon?

Kev, I actually love your posts. Its like getting my dose of good old Lofty when you post.

 

[TheWestwayWonder]

Re: the bad economy and timing right now. I would think, with a wealthy owner, now is the time to strike for expansion. Building companies must be a little more desperate for work, lending rates lower, and . If we had to borrow the money to do it, it would be a different story. But the land could be bought now, for cheap, and any potential move consigned to the future when rates for selling current land would be much higher.

Re: Earls Court Center. Am not a londoner but I always assumed it was a kind of iconic landmark in west london. But I am guessing from the news that its just to be torn down and residences developed that I was way off? Unless they are going to keep the edifice of it like the gooners did with Highbury.

Well, it has to be done. As long as we can`t expand Stamford Bridge we really don`t have any other choice.

We are "loosing" millions of millions of pounds every season because we have a much smaller stadium than our main rivals(Arsenal, United) and if we want to break-even and still be a contender for the title in years to come we eighter have to find a way to expand SB(preferably of course) or move to a new stadium.

Here is the problem I have with that logic, and other comments like it. Look at Spurs. They sell out 3 point lane (far smaller than SB) have huge waiting lists for tickets, and get massive revenues off corporate boxes. Look at the money they spend. Despite numerous missteps in the transfer market, years of failure, and so many high profile blunders and losses, they are still raking in money hand over fist. And only now, when they are certain of the demand and the income potential for a new stadium, are they going ahead with plans.

The point being that you dont need to have a huge ground to have huge revenues, as other people here have said. I have read that eventually, man utd want to fill in their last short grandstand and bring their capacity to 92-95k. But lord knows enough tourist fans are coming through that the demand for tickets will probably always exist. The fact that we are coming in second to them with revenues and we play in a ground a litlte over half the size is pretty damn good. There is no need to rush into something hasty now, especially when its a decision on which hundreds of millions of pounds will hinge.

 

[jcm28]

I know we all love stamford bridge, but I believe we should use any opportunity we have of going to a stadium that can give us more money.

Remember, Roman won't last us forever and once he is gone the club will need the extra money. We should take advantage that he is the owner now to get a new stadium with more seats.