even though it is far from certain that Chelsea would be able to fill a 55,000-60,000 stadium

 

 

It may be true that Chelsea may not able to fill a 60,000 seat stadium with London Chelsea Suppporter, however They will certainly be able to fill-in with world-wide Chelsea supporters. Especially, Chelsea has become a major EPL powerhouse brand since Abramovich bought the club.

There are many overseas supporters who has a difficulty to get a ticket to match, even if they are willing to pay 100$ per seat easily for any matches. I haven't talked about the booming of Chelsea supporters in far-east yet (china, hongkong, etc). It will be a huge money income to the club.

Even, it can't meet the capacity, it will lead to the ticket price reduction which means a win-win situation for Chelsea fans.

 

In short summary, filling capacity is not a big problem, finding the location is.

Remember, ticket prices will probably go down and will be made much more accessible if we have a bigger capacity so I don't think we'll have a problem filling 95% of the stadium. Bearing in mind a 60k capacity stadium mean 3000 - 6000 tickets for Away support. 

Remember, ticket prices will probably go down and will be made much more accessible if we have a bigger capacity so I don't think we'll have a problem filling 95% of the stadium. Bearing in mind a 60k capacity stadium mean 3000 - 6000 tickets for Away support. 

 

I think that is a nice idea but realsitically that is a pipe dream.

Ticket prices would go up, no doubt about that in my mind.

 

Also, we would still only give the away team 3000 I would imagine, can't think of any exmaples where teams with larger stadiums give away more than that and I certainly wouldn't want us to. Can you imagine 6,000 away fans for the big games; it would be awful.

I think that is a nice idea but realsitically that is a pipe dream.

Ticket prices would go up, no doubt about that in my mind.

 

Also, we would still only give the away team 3000 I would imagine, can't think of any exmaples where teams with larger stadiums give away more than that and I certainly wouldn't want us to. Can you imagine 6,000 away fans for the big games; it would be awful.

 

I said 3000 - 6000 because some the away fan allocation is 5 - 10% depending on the game. Arsenal just gave us 9000 tickets for the CoC game. That's more than 10%. 

 

The reason why I said the prices would go down is because our prices are already quite high compared to the Manc clubs and Liverpool clubs. I'm not talking a massive difference. Perhaps £5 cheaper on PL matchdays. Season tickets I immagine will remain the sameish. 

I said 3000 - 6000 because some the away fan allocation is 5 - 10% depending on the game. Arsenal just gave us 9000 tickets for the CoC game. That's more than 10%. 

 

The reason why I said the prices would go down is because our prices are already quite high compared to the Manc clubs and Liverpool clubs. I'm not talking a massive difference. Perhaps £5 cheaper on PL matchdays. Season tickets I immagine will remain the sameish. 

 

Of course in cup games the away allocation would be bigger, just as it is at the Bridge where they get 6,000 (at reduced prices I would add) however for the Premiership games which is the bread & butter in terms of revenue I think the allocation would be no greater than 3,000.

 

I'm not sure, I think if prices stayed the same we would have done very well out of the situation but realsitically I think they would go up. I know the circumstances are different but look at Arsenal, the prices they pay there are ridiculous.

Of course in cup games the away allocation would be bigger, just as it is at the Bridge where they get 6,000 (at reduced prices I would add) however for the Premiership games which is the bread & butter in terms of revenue I think the allocation would be no greater than 3,000.

 

I'm not sure, I think if prices stayed the same we would have done very well out of the situation but realsitically I think they would go up. I know the circumstances are different but look at Arsenal, the prices they pay there are ridiculous.

 

Arsenal are paying for the entire thing themselves though, they dont have much choice. Im sure Abramovich will take some of the heat for a new stadium

Arsenal are paying for the entire thing themselves though, they dont have much choice. Im sure Abramovich will take some of the heat for a new stadium

 

Sure, circumstances are different as I said.

Abramovich may invest heavily in the project (most likely in the form of an interest free loan), I still don't think ticket prces would go down.

From the clubs point of view the purpose of the operation would be to compete with the biggest clubs when it comes to match day revenue and whilst there are of course numerous things to consider I just don't see them reducing ticket prices.

 

The only scenario in which I could see that happening would be if they feared that the ground wouldn't sell out and then they would reduce prices enough to fill the ground. UnfortunatelyI think the more likely scenario is that with a shiny new stadium they would manage to fill the ground however the extra numbers would come from more day trippers and tourists who want to catch a football game while they are in the capital. The nett result would be a terrible atmosphere and more of the oldschool diehards priced out and driven away.

Chelsea will not fill a 60000 seater stadium with current prizes no way.

Abramovich may invest heavily in the project (most likely in the form of an interest free loan), I still don't think ticket prces would go down.

From the clubs point of view the purpose of the operation would be to compete with the biggest clubs when it comes to match day revenue and whilst there are of course numerous things to consider I just don't see them reducing ticket prices.

 

This. There's no logic to any club forking out £500m for a new stadium and then reducing ticket prices. It would barely be worth moving in the first place. The aim is to generate as much income as possible, plus the stadium will have to be paid for on top of all the other expenses. I think a lot of fans are going to end up disappointed if they're expecting a new stadium to result in cheap tickets.

This. There's no logic to any club forking out £500m for a new stadium and then reducing ticket prices. It would barely be worth moving in the first place. The aim is to generate as much income as possible, plus the stadium will have to be paid for on top of all the other expenses. I think a lot of fans are going to end up disappointed if they're expecting a new stadium to result in cheap tickets.

Can you see a 60000 seater stadium selling out with the current ticket prices? I can't. Chelsea will hope to make money of hospitality tickets. Its all guessing at the moment.

Can you see a 60000 seater stadium selling out with the current ticket prices? I can't. Chelsea will hope to make money of hospitality tickets. Its all guessing at the moment.

 

But then 60,000 people paying £30 to get in would generate barely more matchday revenue than we do currently. From the club's point of view, moving to a new stadium has to be worthwhile financially, otherwise why bother? An extra 10,000 fans paying current prices would probably be worth more.

 

Think how massive the shed end could be if the Chelsea village and those residential houses were not there.

But then 60,000 people paying £30 to get in would generate barely more matchday revenue than we do currently. From the club's point of view, moving to a new stadium has to be worthwhile financially, otherwise why bother? An extra 10,000 fans paying current prices would probably be worth more.

Nobody said £30. It would never be that cheap. Of course it has to be worthwhile financially just can't see it selling out at current prices. The move of stadium would be to get new fans and even older fans back going again with current prices it won't sell out.

Nobody said £30. It would never be that cheap. Of course it has to be worthwhile financially just can't see it selling out at current prices. The move of stadium would be to get new fans and even older fans back going again with current prices it won't sell out.

 

The main aim of a new stadium would be to generate as much money as possible, not win back older fans with cheaper tickets. I'm not sure we'd sell out 60,000 at current prices either. Who knows, another ten years as successful as the last ten and maybe we will. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I fully expect them to charge as much as they can get away with and still have a reasonably full stadium.

The main aim of a new stadium would be to generate as much money as possible, not win back older fans with cheaper tickets. I'm not sure we'd sell out 60,000 at current prices either. Who knows, another ten years as successful as the last ten and maybe we will. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I fully expect them to charge as much as they can get away with and still have a reasonably full stadium.[/quot

I read an article from Bruce buck about the stadium move and he was speaking strongly about the importance of getting a younger fan base I can't see that happening if they charge the prices they do now. With out a younger fan base the club would struggle. Apparently our current match going fan base is quite old. We are losing fans both young and old because the price of the tickets. I know many people living in the Fulham area who had to give up season tickets and can't afford to go anymore. Not saying the prices will drop but if they want to fill it they will have to reduce them. Unless you want a stadium full of tourist on a day trip. Champions leauge games are sold out because the prices went down but yet you will still see pockets of away fans in the likes of the west lower and upper. I can't see chelsea selling out a new stadium with Stamford bridge prices that's just my view.

That younger lot also spend a sh*t ton more on overpriced beer and other assorted odds and ends. The extra price of our beer alone pays for 350,000 wages a year compared to other teams. Now just add another 15-20,000 thirsty lads n lasses.

Chelsea’s only realistic hope of matching the £ millions earned by United and Arsenal would be to move to a larger stadium. Chelsea’s chairman, Bruce Buck, pointed out that Stamford Bridge was only the eight largest stadium in the Premier League and 60th biggest in Europe.

More than that, the club is scared of being left behind by others’ developments, even though it is far from certain that Chelsea would be able to fill a 55,000-60,000 stadium. Even Buck expressed some doubts, “Maybe with digital media and whatever, match day crowds will stay flat or, who knows, even go down.”

The club paid £700,000 to two architectural firms to look at the possibility of expanding the Bridge, but both concluded that this would be unworkable and prohibitively expensive, even though the local Hammersmith and Fulham council is supportive.

 

According to Buck, a new stadium would cost £550-600 million with Chelsea hoping to fund around a third of that by redeveloping Stamford Bridge. They wanted to facilitate this approach by buying back the freehold from a company called Chelsea Pitch Owners that had been set up many years ago to prevent the ground from falling into unfriendly hands. However, the club failed to convince the required 75% of CPO shareholders of their plans (though 61.6% voted in favour), so that avenue of funding has been closed – at least for the time being.

Chelsea’s preferred site appears to be Nine Elms, next to the famous old Battersea power station, and they have commissioned developers to study a possible move, despite the CPO setback. Other sites considered have included Earls Court, Olympia, White City, Imperial Wharf and even Wormwood Scrubs. Chelsea’s search is made more difficult by the lack of readily available sites in the local area and has been complicated by QPR’s new owner, Tony Fernandes, also talking about a stadium move in the vicinity.

Whatever happens, there would be many hurdles to overcome, including planning permission, and a new stadium would not be ready for many years, so this is very much future music in terms of additional revenue.

 

A little piece taken from the Swiss Ramble,

Link, http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=chelsea

 

I thought the Battersea option was off the table?  I remember we were all going nuts over that prospect with a Dortmund style stand behind the goals and the incorporated chimneys.  Would have been magnificent, but I thought it went to residential developers or something? 

 

Looks immense. Thought it was dead in the water also...

Looks immense. Thought it was dead in the water also...

 

I did a bit of reading and it seems we're waiting in the wings if things break down with the Malaysian developers who currently have the bid.  I don't see why they wouldn't award it to us considering we wanted to restore the iconic building as part of the design.  I would have thought the council would have prioritised that.  But it seems unlikely we'll ever get to see that.  Would have been the best stadium in Europe IMO. 

If we get outbid theres not much we could do perhaps. The prototype sketch up looks sweet and I know its only an example, but I wouldnt like the pitch to be that far from the fans.

If we did move battersea would be amazing

The battersea ground got sold to someone last year, didn't it?

 

Don't wanna leave the Bridge, but that battersea thing could've been great and maybe that's the best option if we have to leave.

I did a bit of reading and it seems we're waiting in the wings if things break down with the Malaysian developers who currently have the bid.  I don't see why they wouldn't award it to us considering we wanted to restore the iconic building as part of the design.  I would have thought the council would have prioritised that.  But it seems unlikely we'll ever get to see that.  Would have been the best stadium in Europe IMO. 

It's nothing short of scandalous the way the BPS site has been allowed to rot and fall apart since the mid 1980's. Ever since then it has changed hands more times than I care to remember, always in the hands of speculators and developers who came up with grand schemes that amounted to jack.

 

The Malaysian conglomerate who outbid us this time are just the latest in a long line of chancers who hoped to build a Dubai-on-Thames type  development and to hell with the local community and its roots. I hope they get their fingers seriously burnt.

 

Personally I would prefer us to stay at Stamford Bridge if we could increase the capacity to 50-55,000. For all their talk though the LB of H & F are never going to allow that. So basically the Clubs hands are tied by a council that pretends it gives a fig but really doesn't, and a Mayor who's main aim seems to be giving the go ahead for overseas speculators to build properties no ordinary Londoner can ever afford to rent or buy, and which will probably lay empty for years to come.

 

Nice use of a prime site eh ? Sickening.

I did a bit of reading and it seems we're waiting in the wings if things break down with the Malaysian developers who currently have the bid.  I don't see why they wouldn't award it to us considering we wanted to restore the iconic building as part of the design.  I would have thought the council would have prioritised that.  But it seems unlikely we'll ever get to see that.  Would have been the best stadium in Europe IMO. 

I thought it was a done deal ?....last proposed move I saw suggested was to Lille Bridge, just to the north of us...It's a train yard, big site too...There used to be a stadium there at one time, but got destroyed in a riot !!!...Battersea would have been ideal though

I thought it was a done deal ?....last proposed move I saw suggested was to Lille Bridge, just to the north of us...It's a train yard, big site too...There used to be a stadium there at one time, but got destroyed in a riot !!!...Battersea wouldl have been ideal though

It's mad to think cup finals where played at lille bridge depot