Jump to content

junio_oscarSY

Our New Stadium


Recommended Posts

This is a really exciting time for us and the stadium will no doubt bring in extra revenue similar to the Arsenal making £1 million per home. As others have said big players want to play in big stadiums.. I just hope it didn't mean 3 to 6 years.of limited transfer budget

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a new stadium presuming we don’t lose any atmosphere.

However I have heard that almost 20,000 of the 60,000 will be corporate meaning virtually none of the increased capacity will be available to standard members or season ticket holders?

Can anyone confirm that? Or has heard the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jamesc88 said:

I like the idea of a new stadium presuming we don’t lose any atmosphere.

However I have heard that almost 20,000 of the 60,000 will be corporate meaning virtually none of the increased capacity will be available to standard members or season ticket holders?

Can anyone confirm that? Or has heard the same?

Heres the figures.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/11/chelsea-given-permission-500m-60000-capacity-stamford-bridge-stadium

The new ground would have more than 13,000 extra seats for general admission, while corporate seating would double to 9,200. There would also be expanded provision for disabled supporters, but the seats afforded to visiting fans would remain the same, at 3,000.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The club have stated there will be approximately 11,000 hospitality seats, about 18% of capacity.  There are also a number of the 'Club' seats and it's a bit vague what that entails.  The legroom of these seats looks the same as 'General Admission' on the plans so maybe they just get their own designated lounges and cash bar in a sort of semi-corporate arrangement. 

Interesting too, this latest development where Chelsea are negotiating with the neighbouring Stoll Foundation to purchase some two acres of their property.  This of course has some potential major benefits for the proposed new stadium.  It could result in a revision of the western side of the ground with likely an increased capacity.  It would also create a much larger circulation space and frontage on that side of the stadium with possibly an additional access/egress point next to Wansdown Place.

https://www.stoll.org.uk/news-post/proposal-provide-new-homes-support-services-homeless-vulnerable-veterans-across-country/

As regards finance.  I think it's blatantly obvious that Roman seems to be on a mission with this.  If there were major worries over the costs, a far less extravagant or landmark design would have been settled on.   So this isn't your normal scenario where £ per seat is worked out and dismissed if not viable.  Likewise, the amount of years for the stadium to have paid for itself would appear to be far less a consideration that with venues elsewhere.  The 2012 feasibility report the club commissioned basically said the difficulties with the site made a 60,000 stadium un-economic (as well as unattainable).  But the alternative options have melted away and so here we are.  Funny how the impossible becomes a possible when you want it badly enough.  Of course, if outside backers are being looked at, then a schedule of a return on their investment has to be serious but I get the feeling Abramovich wants to leave a lasting legacy for the club.  And this particular design is something that has a longevity about it as well as being a stadium quite unlike any other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bovis Messroom said:

The club have stated there will be approximately 11,000 hospitality seats, about 18% of capacity.  There are also a number of the 'Club' seats and it's a bit vague what that entails.  The legroom of these seats looks the same as 'General Admission' on the plans so maybe they just get their own designated lounges and cash bar in a sort of semi-corporate arrangement. 

....and maybe a cushion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bates has to take a lot of the blame for this the Shed only holding 6,000 so he could build the hotel was ridiculous. On the other hand Bates was originally on the committee for the new Wembley and he did recognise the amount of flats and businesses that could be built around the stadium. I can't remember what was at Wembley apart from the stadium a car park and some waste ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, bluehaze said:

I think Bates has to take a lot of the blame for this the Shed only holding 6,000 so he could build the hotel was ridiculous. On the other hand Bates was originally on the committee for the new Wembley and he did recognise the amount of flats and businesses that could be built around the stadium. I can't remember what was at Wembley apart from the stadium a car park and some waste ground.

True, but the economics of football were so different back then. He saw the potential of club income streams like hotels, a fitness club and a travel agency (not to mention a fashion brand!) as being more lucrative than gate receipts, based on match ticket prices and crowds back then. He had no idea how ticket prices would shoot up along with crowds during the 90s. Back then hardly anyone was getting weekly attendances of 40000.

I've no idea how much (if any) profit those sideline businesses brought into the club, but however much it is, it would have been dwarfed by the extra income from having a Shed End the same size as the Matthew Harding for the past twenty years.

Say 25 home games a year with an extra 5000 seats. That would be about £200 000 extra income per game (plus of course extra income from programme sales, refreshments, the megastore etc), which would have brought in £5m a year, or an extra £100m in the past 20 years (plus all the other sales income).

That could have easily balanced out all the money we've spent on left backs since we lost Ashley Cole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's great news!!!! Extra land means there is a possibility of expanding the capacity to 65k rather than 60k. 70k would be a bit too good to be true since I assume the land will be mostly used to facilitate entry and exit from the stadium. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Backbiter said:

He had no idea how ticket prices would shoot up along with crowds during the 90s. Back then hardly anyone was getting weekly attendances of 40000.

We were the most expensive club in the country even when we were in the second division. Bates was the instigator of high price tickets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to believe that additional free areas will allow to rebuild the northwestern corner of the stadium because the third tier in the corner looks small and flawed. I hope the capacity will increase to 65 thousand spectators, and this will be more than that of Totenham and Arsenal and will bring more money for the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stels_DM said:

I want to believe that additional free areas will allow to rebuild the northwestern corner of the stadium because the third tier in the corner looks small and flawed. I hope the capacity will increase to 65 thousand spectators, and this will be more than that of Totenham and Arsenal and will bring more money for the club.

I wonder if they do get the extra land, will the stadium be rotated around with the goals west and east instead of north and south ?

 

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if the club can just tack on an extra 5K seats to the capacity just because we have new land to play around with.

Its likely it will be used as a wider open space for the increased footfall of fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Delnino said:

I dont know if the club can just tack on an extra 5K seats to the capacity just because we have new land to play around with.

Its likely it will be used as a wider open space for the increased footfall of fans.

Whats the point of the further expense if it's just for fans to wander around on. It will be pretty simple for the architects to adjust things at this point in time. I hope we can get every last inch out of the site and maximise our attendance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coco said:

Whats the point of the further expense if it's just for fans to wander around on. It will be pretty simple for the architects to adjust things at this point in time. I hope we can get every last inch out of the site and maximise our attendance.

The problem is our building application will have specified the capacity, any changes to that or the structural design will mean a reapplication and having to go through processes again, peer reviews etc. That would add a hell of a lot of time to the build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dkw said:

The problem is our building application will have specified the capacity, any changes to that or the structural design will mean a reapplication and having to go through processes again, peer reviews etc. That would add a hell of a lot of time to the build.

I'll have to take your word on that, as I know zero about planning stuff. But i can imagine Roman wanting a bigger stadium with more seats, like having the biggest boat, sexiest wife, best club in London.....just wish he wanted the best players like the old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, coco said:

I'll have to take your word on that, as I know zero about planning stuff. But i can imagine Roman wanting a bigger stadium with more seats, like having the biggest boat, sexiest wife, best club in London.....just wish he wanted the best players like the old days.

Can we just squeeze in a few more seats than the spuds, to take away their bragging rights.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its already been answered but with the plans being signed off at 60k, theres no way we can just shoe horn an extra few thousand seats in just because we could have stumbled upon a bit more space on the site.

It would be ideal if we could just do that and add another few thousand seats, more revenue and all that jazz but its not happening.

Anyway, at this stage, I just want work to commence on the project and to see some progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Delnino said:

Its already been answered but with the plans being signed off at 60k, theres no way we can just shoe horn an extra few thousand seats in just because we could have stumbled upon a bit more space on the site.

It would be ideal if we could just do that and add another few thousand seats, more revenue and all that jazz but its not happening.

Anyway, at this stage, I just want work to commence on the project and to see some progress.

Never say never. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the statement made by the chair of the CPO Board at yesterday's CPO AGM. My thoughts and comments about the meeting to follow later.

http://www.chelseafc.com/content/dam/cfc/pdf-word-documents/CPO/CPO AGM 2018 Chair Statement Final.pdf

Results of the voting yesterday:

No automatic alt text available.

Details of resolutions are below.

 

img026.jpg

Edited by Boyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/03/2017 at 15:10, coco said:

So whats that about £40m per season, x10 years = (£400m) almost the price of the whole stadium(£500m) paid for in 10 years, just from the extra revenue from those 20k seats. Probably quicker depending on the rate of price increase on those seats in the future.

Apologies to the Mods and whoever was affected: while scrolling through this, I accidentally touched the report post button, but I don't know whose post. This brought up a dialogue box which froze the screen, and when I refreshed, the dialogue box had gone so the post must have been reported.

Sorry - there was no intention to report anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more about the deal with Oswald Stoll Mansions next door to the ground. From Building Design magazine;

 

PRP picked for veterans' homes funded by Chelsea FC deal

By Elizabeth Hopkirk2 February 2018

 

Charity would sell part of site to football club.

PRP has landed the job of designing new social housing for veterans next to Chelsea FC’s Stamford Bridge stadium.

The project is being billed as a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity made possible by Chelsea’s plans to rebuild its stadium to a design by Herzog & de Meuron.

The redevelopment would be funded by selling part of the prime west London site to the football club.

Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions currently contain 157 mostly one-bed flats behind an imposing Victorian façade on Fulham Road

The façade would be retained but the residential blocks would be bulldozed and replaced by 103 new flats for veterans, plus improved support facilities such as therapy rooms and shared recreational amenities.

The money raised by the deal with Chelsea would also pay for up to 300 veterans’ flats in other parts of the country, said Stoll, the charity that runs the accommodation, and secure its long-term sustainability.

“Improving the current estate would cost millions of pounds and this is the only chance we have to pay for the improvements that are needed,” said Stoll in its consultation documents.

“The scale of the potential investment on offer is a ‘one off’ given the Chelsea stadium redevelopment and we would not be able to renew the estate without this investment.”

 

Stoll said it considered selling the whole site but ruled this out as too disruptive for tenants. It also ruled out a simple refurbishment because of the age and condition of the existing stock.

Tenants would get £7,000 compensation for the disruption – or £16,000 for those who decide to move out.

The amount of outdoor space and gardens would be “slightly reduced” by the sale, but PRP’s design proposes more communal space inside as well as three new landscaped areas, including a roof garden. The scheme would have 881sq m of private garden space.

The charity’s board is set to make a decision in April after the consultation has closed. If the plans proceed, the scheme would not complete before 2021.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...