Bearing in mind that ours will be the only new ground in recent history to be built on the same site it wont really matter what the money men want to call it as it will always be Stamford Bridge to us.

I will never agree with selling naming rights to the highest bidder. ever.

We pimp out the club shirt to kit manufacturers and sponsors, what's the difference with the ground?

We could do a City and have the owner sponsor it for above market value to cook the books

Not keen on naming rights at football grounds personally. I'd prefer them to stick with traditional names like 'the Bovril Gate' 

 

Yup, agree with you here, but it's a reality these days. 

 

They sponsored the FA Cup did they not? I honestly can't remember, everybody just calls it the FA Cup.

 

Stamford Bridge will always be known by its rightful name. In this sense, we're lucky we're developing on the same site, should it happen.

Can I ask why? It's never bothered me, simply because it will be a corporate name that will have nothing to do with us fans. They can call it whatever they want but it will still be Stamford Bridge. Calling it "pedigree chum" stadium will have pretty much zero impact on fans. Unless it helps bring ticket prices down of course. Oh look, a pig in the sky....

 

Exactly. I know its a different sport but in the NFL there are countless iconic stadia that have been renamed but the fans still refer to them as their classic names. 

We could do a City and have the owner sponsor it for above market value to cook the books

 

Bingo.

Not keen on naming rights at football grounds personally. I'd prefer them to stick with traditional names like 'the Bovril Gate'

Just realised I missed your joke. D'oh!

We could do a City and have the owner sponsor it for above market value to cook the books

 

They're just too clever aren't they?

They should keep Stamford Bridge name!

 

I agree, i don't want us to do a City and name it something stupid like the Ethihad Stadium. I want it to feel like it's ours. City have removed everything that made them who they was as a club, i don't want us doing the same.

Dont get the problem with naming rights, in fact I hardly ever use the term 'stamford bridge'

Going to a game '- The bridge' - 'at home' - or just plain 'chelsea' is what I and mostly likely most people say

Pedantic I know!

From the London Evening Standard. According to the Standard. the FA is open to both us and the Spuds using Wembley whilst our grounds being redeveloped. Whilst the FA may be open to two clubs using Wembley -and this is being reported by the Standard, not the most reliable paper - I'm not sure if the local council will agree to both teams playing there. There would be 38 league games plus cup and European matches.

 

The article mentions that Chelsea hasn't given up hope of continuing to play at the Bridge during redevelopment. I can't see that happening given that the plan is to drop the pitch by four metres. 

 

If Wembley is to be used, will those people who have Wembley Club tickets be able to watch our games? I hope not but it will be interesting to see if that is possible under the terms of their tickets.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/fa-open-to-chelsea-and-tottenham-making-short-term-move-to-wembley-stadium-a2944161.html?

Edited September 10, 201510 yr by Boyne

From the London Evening Standard. According to the Standard. the FA is open to both us and the Spuds using Wembley whilst our grounds being redeveloped. Whilst the FA may be open to two clubs using Wembley -and this is being reported by the Standard, not the most reliable paper - I'm not sure if the local council will agree to both teams playing there. There would be 38 league games plus cup and European matches.

 

The article mentions that Chelsea hasn't given up hope of continuing to play at the Bridge during redevelopment. I can't see that happening given that the plan is to drop the pitch by four metres. 

 

If Wembley is to be used, will those people who have Wembley Club tickets be able to watch our games? I hope not but it will be interesting to see if that is possible under the terms of their tickets.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/fa-open-to-chelsea-and-tottenham-making-short-term-move-to-wembley-stadium-a2944161.html?

 

Only concern I have with Wembley is that we can't use the full capacity. It will be utterly weird to play a CL semi final (I am an optimist) or a match against United in front of a half empty stadium. It would be great if we could negotiate a quota on games we can play in front of a full house.

Even being optimistic, I'm not so sure we'd get even close to 90'000 in for a home game against United or anyone else. The only way I could see that happening is if the tickets were cheap and on full blown general sale - and then there would probably be 20'000 United fans scattered around the upper tier.

 

Using only the bottom tier we've got to find an extra 8'000 people to fill it and it remains to be seen whether the proposed relocation will have any neagtive effect on our core south west London fan base going to Wednesday night home games against say Sunderland.

From the London Evening Standard. According to the Standard. the FA is open to both us and the Spuds using Wembley whilst our grounds being redeveloped. Whilst the FA may be open to two clubs using Wembley -and this is being reported by the Standard, not the most reliable paper - I'm not sure if the local council will agree to both teams playing there. There would be 38 league games plus cup and European matches.

 

The article mentions that Chelsea hasn't given up hope of continuing to play at the Bridge during redevelopment. I can't see that happening given that the plan is to drop the pitch by four metres. 

 

If Wembley is to be used, will those people who have Wembley Club tickets be able to watch our games? I hope not but it will be interesting to see if that is possible under the terms of their tickets.

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/fa-open-to-chelsea-and-tottenham-making-short-term-move-to-wembley-stadium-a2944161.html?

 

Makes no sense that we would be looking to stay at Stamford Bridge during the redevelopment. 

 

We're gutting the whole place and starting from scratch essentially, I would imagine it's almost impossible for us to remain there. 

 

End of the day if both us and Spurs are willing to put forward the rumoured £12m a year for playing at Wembley I don't think the FA will turn their nose up at it. 

 

How match scheduling would work if we were in the Champions League and they were in the Europa League would be anyone's guess, you could be looking at 4 games within the space of 7 days being played there... Can't imagine that would do much good for the playing surface. 

Makes no sense that we would be looking to stay at Stamford Bridge during the redevelopment. 

 

We're gutting the whole place and starting from scratch essentially, I would imagine it's almost impossible for us to remain there. 

 

End of the day if both us and Spurs are willing to put forward the rumoured £12m a year for playing at Wembley I don't think the FA will turn their nose up at it. 

 

How match scheduling would work if we were in the Champions League and they were in the Europa League would be anyone's guess, you could be looking at 4 games within the space of 7 days being played there... Can't imagine that would do much good for the playing surface. 

 

Agree, staying at the Bridge during redevelopment makes no sense at all. With the dropping of the pitch and the design of the stadium, continuing to play there could get in the way of the builders and delay the completion of the new ground. I don't remember anything being said at the presentations about playing at the Bridge during redevelopment. I can't recall reading anything about that on this forum either.

 

As you say, the FA won't turn their nose up at the money. Playing all the extra games especially during the winter months won't help the pitch. I know that the three play-off games at the end of May are played on consecutive days but at that time of the year the chances of the pitch recovering should be greater than due the winter months. I remember when Wimbledon and Palace shared Selhurst Park for a while, the pitch ended up like a quagmire. 

 

If we and Spurs both use Wembley it will bring in lots of extra money to local businesses but will the council and residents be happy? If they are they could turn round and say that we can both play there but maximum capacity will be x e.g. 50,000.

I'm quite surprised to see how apathetic a lot of you are about changing the name of the stadium. Chelsea are one of the few English clubs still playing at our original ground. To me that is special and Stamford Bridge has had its name since 1877. To sell off the name and that history for a few quid seems pretty crass in my opinion. Some things are worth more than money and Chelsea already exhaust every single possible financial revenue.

I'm quite surprised to see how apathetic a lot of you are about changing the name of the stadium. Chelsea are one of the few English clubs still playing at our original ground. To me that is special and Stamford Bridge has had its name since 1877. To sell off the name and that history for a few quid seems pretty crass in my opinion. Some things are worth more than money and Chelsea already exhaust every single possible financial revenue.

I'd agree with that George but I won't be surprised if they sale the naming rights

I'm quite surprised to see how apathetic a lot of you are about changing the name of the stadium. Chelsea are one of the few English clubs still playing at our original ground. To me that is special and Stamford Bridge has had its name since 1877. To sell off the name and that history for a few quid seems pretty crass in my opinion. Some things are worth more than money and Chelsea already exhaust every single possible financial revenue.

100% agree that's what separates the Stamford Bridges, Old Traffords and Anfields from the likes of the etihad, Emirates and Reebok amongst others. The name and everything that's associated with it. If you asked people around the world to name English football stadiums I bet the Bridge would be in the top 5-10 most mentioned

I'd agree with that George but I won't be surprised if they sell the naming rights

I'm quite surprised to see how apathetic a lot of you are about changing the name of the stadium. Chelsea are one of the few English clubs still playing at our original ground. To me that is special and Stamford Bridge has had its name since 1877. To sell off the name and that history for a few quid seems pretty crass in my opinion. Some things are worth more than money and Chelsea already exhaust every single possible financial revenue.

 

Except we don't exhaust every possible revenue, because of our restricted capacity. The only way we can compete in terms of match day income is to expand, and who foots the bill for the expansion, and how much does it cost?

 

Roman doesn't get help from anyone, not from you, not from me, not from the great British taxpayer, not from central or local government, not from transport authorities. People are saying this rebuild will cost £500m. For me, that's a very conservative estimate. As anyone who's had builders in knows, the price only goes upwards, not downwards. How much has he spent already on exploring possible avenues for expansion, for relocation etc? A lot. How much has already been spent on the current project? A lot. Don't underestimate the money that's gone into it already.

 

Would you rather play at SB with the current capacity or elsewhere with a larger one? Opinion will be divided on that, but the ideal scenario for most Chelsea fans would be what seemed impossible not so long ago, a 60k ground at SB. 

 

So, would you rather stay at SB with the current capacity (and design) and name, or stay at SB with a state-of-the-art stadium with a larger capacity and a different name (even though it will always be SB unofficially)?

 

Before you say you'd rather stay at SB with the new stadium and the same name, we'd all like that, but who could begrudge the man footing the bill if he happened to chase a sponsor for a few quid? If he does that, I won't begrudge him one bit. He may be minted, but if this project costs him nearer one billion quid than a half a billion, as I suspect, then that dents a serious hole in his pocket, far more than we have any right to expect.

How much do Chelsea stand to make then Davey? I've heard estimates of around £15-20m a year (I've no idea how accurate that is. Please correct me if I'm wrong). For that kind of amount, I don't think it'd be worth it. The club are seemingly happy to take major financial hits in the transfer market (Torres, Cuadrado for example)...so I don't think selling off the club's historical stadium for a few bob makes sense. By the way, I'm eternally grateful to Abramovich, I just think some things should be sacred. I don't have to agree with every decision he makes.

How much do Chelsea stand to make then Davey? I've heard estimates of around £15-20m a year (I've no idea how accurate that is. Please correct me if I'm wrong). For that kind of amount, I don't think it'd be worth it. The club are seemingly happy to take major financial hits in the transfer market (Torres, Cuadrado for example)...so I don't think selling off the club's historical stadium for a few bob makes sense. By the way, I'm eternally grateful to Abramovich, I just think some things should be sacred. I don't have to agree with every decision he makes.

Fair enough, I understand your point, but for me it would be a small hit in relation to staying on the site with a better and bigger ground.

It's been mentioned before but 'The Roman Coliseum' does have a ring to it.

How much do Chelsea stand to make then Davey? I've heard estimates of around £15-20m a year (I've no idea how accurate that is. Please correct me if I'm wrong). For that kind of amount, I don't think it'd be worth it. The club are seemingly happy to take major financial hits in the transfer market (Torres, Cuadrado for example)...so I don't think selling off the club's historical stadium for a few bob makes sense. By the way, I'm eternally grateful to Abramovich, I just think some things should be sacred. I don't have to agree with every decision he makes.

 Well then could I borrow a few bob?  5 million will see me sorted, thanks.

I think people are getting carried away, acting as if the stadium build is a foregone conclusion

It wouldnt surprise me if we saw at lest 5-10 years of planning delays, our neighbours have deep pockets, with a much smaller expansion allowed at the end ofit all

Missing out on Battersea was a disaster, a huge brownfield site in an iconic setting, we could built something truly amazing there, instead we will have something shoehorned into a tiny plot, hidden behind a row of houses

Edited September 11, 201510 yr by enders game