Abramovich Puts Super Stadium Plans On Hold and Looks to sell Naming Rights Instead

Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich had been making tentative plans to leave Stamford Bridge, home of 106 years, and move to a new purpose built 60,000 stadium at Earls Court, but the land that had been looked at is set for new housing once next years Olympic Games come to an end.

It does not mean that there will be no new stadium for Chelsea, plans have just been put on hold for now. Attention will now turn to finding a sponsor for Stamford Bridge as Chelsea look to follow Manchester City and rename Stamford Bridge to the highest bidder.

Samsung are currently Chelsea’s shirt sponsor and they would be the most likely candidates if it came down to a bidding war. Plans are also being put in place to rename all the stands at Stamford Bridge as Chelsea try and secure some much needed funds.

Chief Executive Ron Gourlay is working tirelessly to secure a deal, and is desperate to match the £10million per season that Manchester City are reported to be getting from their sponsor Etihad Airways.

Current capacity at Stamford Bridge is 42,000 depending on segregation and ticket allocations, but the ground is simply not big enough for the plans of Roman Abramovich, and he fears his beloved club are lagging behind not just Manchester United, but Manchester City now as well.

link

Gah, I see why they want to do this but renaming grounds after sponsors is so seedy.

I wouldnt mind a bigger stadium purely because I think our pitch is too small imho for us to really get the best out of these new "passing" players eg josh or modric or pastore, who pass into space. At the Bridge there really isnt much space compared to the likes of barca or RM and United, and the bigger pitches enables them to break teams down easier imo

I don't like the idea of renaming the stands either,but I suppose we will all still refer to them by their original names(well I always will)

Stands as well:-

Cheese triangle stand do your job, dosen't sound right somehow.

Cheese triangle stand, Cheese triangle stand do your job

Cheese triangle stand do you job.

Gah, I see why they want to do this but renaming grounds after sponsors is so seedy.

I remember when the idea of putting a sponsor on the shirt was considered abhorrent.

Money drives everything, no? Personally, I have no problem selling the name of the stadium (which would probably be something like Lucozade Stamford Bridge) or the stands.

But I think the only way Chelsea is going to permanently compete with the big boys is to have a very large new stadium... and then fill it. Is it up for debate which is the more difficult challenge, do you think?

Stadium with difficulty from 1-10 10 the most difficult.

A) Find suitable location (10)

B) Build new supersized stadium and fill it (9)

C) Expand Stamford Bridge to max allowed by Council, Cant remember how much we are allowed to expand to with access etc (4)

D) Make lucrative money sponsorship deals for stadium and stands (1)

My preference C+D

Im not sure what idea i hate more, moving from SB or selling our naming rights to the stands. It shouldnt really bother me but it does for some reason.

Don't have to much of a problem with the stands being named after sponsors tbh. The Shed Stand afterall was sponsored by Umbro for a few years after it was built. Not sure if they would attempt to rename the Matthew Harding given his financial input got the stand constructed. The biggest stumbling block for the club is naming rights for the whole stadium. Sure it can be done for newly built grounds like the Emirates and Stokes Brittannia Stadium. But who apart from the corporate types would call an old, established ground with a famous name by it's new title? It would remain SB to everyone else no matter how much signage they put up. And potential sponsors don't want that reaction.

Edited July 26, 201114 yr by Bovis Messroom

Whatever is the best for the club is fine by me. Sure, it would be great if we could stay at Stamford Bridge forever and keep it's name, but nowadays money is very important.

C) Expand Stamford Bridge to max allowed by Council, Cant remember how much we are allowed to expand to with access etc (4)

I thought capacity was maxed out at the Bridge. Am I wrong?

I thought capacity was maxed out at the Bridge. Am I wrong?

I`m sure I read somewhere it can get to around 50k max, which isnt really worth spending the money to achieve. The payback would be a long time.

"The CPO also owns the name Chelsea Football Club Ltd, which is licenced back to the club on condition that the first team play their home matches at Stamford Bridge. This means that should Chelsea move to another stadium in the future, they would not be able to use the name Chelsea Football Club without permission from 75% of CPO shareholders."

What about this? Could it end up being a problem?

Personally, I never like it when clubs move about to plastic stadiums, with no connection to their origins. Chelsea somewhere else than at SB sounds very strange to me.

Can we not bull doze the surrounding buildings off out of the way? :)

Unless we are playin S<<<S this ground looks nice but is sh*t..If n when we move we should have a ground that has every end accoustically built like the K

OP..Then ALL the fans will be encouraged to shout a bit more..Oh yes and a bit of a place only allocated for spud sh*t that allows rain to drown the bar stewards..We hate tottenham...we hate tottenham

"The CPO also owns the name Chelsea Football Club Ltd, which is licenced back to the club on condition that the first team play their home matches at Stamford Bridge. This means that should Chelsea move to another stadium in the future, they would not be able to use the name Chelsea Football Club without permission from 75% of CPO shareholders."

What about this? Could it end up being a problem?

As I understand, it, no. They're on good terms with the club and would probably be agreeable to a move to a larger stadium.

As I understand, it, no. They're on good terms with the club and would probably be agreeable to a move to a larger stadium.

Or we could be renamed as FC Chelsea, Simples....

Where could we move to? Battersea has been mooted in the past which I suppose would be ok, Earl's Court would be fine but the Exhibition Centre will apparently be transformed into appartments after the Olympics. I've also heard White city mentioned - please no.

It's a difficult one for sure because nothing can be done to Stamford Bridge - Tube line to the east, Fuham Road to the south, Brompton Cemetery to the north, and those relatively new house built to the west of the Bridge just by the Broadway shopping complex. The only option would be to knock it down and build upwards but I don't know how feasible this is in itself. Alsot I'm sure any new stadium that Abramovich would sanction would have to have all sorts of exclusive Hotels/Restaurants/Spa's etc too.