Jump to content

Recommended Posts


This is controversial and perhaps I'm overly dejected about the current state of the Club, Antonio Conte's future etc...But I'm genuinely beginning to wonder whether there is any real sense in building this new stadium. Obviously, CFC would make more matchday revenue from ticket sales, megastore purchases etc, but that's becoming less relevant season after season given the gargantuan tv deals and corporate sponsorships which the clubs receive. Also, I'm beginning to wonder if the Club's relative frugality in the transfer market these days is directly linked to the future financing of the new stadium. It seems like Abramovich's plans for the stadium are very expensive and as a result we can no longer compete for the elite players in the market; We are clearly falling behind Man United and Man City in this sense, and I worry that what happened to Arsenal from 2006-2012 could easily happen to us if there were large debts which would need to be repaid. Lastly, as a current Season Ticket Holder, I think spending 3 seasons at Wembley/The London Stadium would be truly awful in so manys ways and I fear that our core, matchgoing support would diminish at a faster rate than it currently is at the moment. 

As I say, perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic in light of the current situation at the club, but I just don't see the new stadium making a lot of sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can compete if/when the club want to. Sure Neymar is out of the equation but we just spent 70m on Morata and seemed like we were also willing to spend another 70m on Sandro. The days of simply outbidding competition are probably over but thats also down to the lavish sums a handful of clubs can somehow manage to outlay every season. 

One thing all of those clubs have in common is a stadium much larger than SB at the moment. Plus if your logic is correct, once the stadium is built and starts paying itself off we're back to spending. 

4 hours ago, Celery1989 said:

This is controversial and perhaps I'm overly dejected about the current state of the Club, Antonio Conte's future etc...But I'm genuinely beginning to wonder whether there is any real sense in building this new stadium. Obviously, CFC would make more matchday revenue from ticket sales, megastore purchases etc, but that's becoming less relevant season after season given the gargantuan tv deals and corporate sponsorships which the clubs receive. Also, I'm beginning to wonder if the Club's relative frugality in the transfer market these days is directly linked to the future financing of the new stadium. It seems like Abramovich's plans for the stadium are very expensive and as a result we can no longer compete for the elite players in the market; We are clearly falling behind Man United and Man City in this sense, and I worry that what happened to Arsenal from 2006-2012 could easily happen to us if there were large debts which would need to be repaid. Lastly, as a current Season Ticket Holder, I think spending 3 seasons at Wembley/The London Stadium would be truly awful in so manys ways and I fear that our core, matchgoing support would diminish at a faster rate than it currently is at the moment. 

As I say, perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic in light of the current situation at the club, but I just don't see the new stadium making a lot of sense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have a gut feeling that the new stadium will end in tears. 

Keep the East and West Stands, increase capacity by redeveloping Shed and Matthew Harding- one at a time- ( bollox to all singing, all dancing 60,000 capacity)

The way things are going it might be an idea if the stands don't actually face toward the pitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Celery1989 said:

This is controversial and perhaps I'm overly dejected about the current state of the Club, Antonio Conte's future etc...But I'm genuinely beginning to wonder whether there is any real sense in building this new stadium. Obviously, CFC would make more matchday revenue from ticket sales, megastore purchases etc, but that's becoming less relevant season after season given the gargantuan tv deals and corporate sponsorships which the clubs receive. Also, I'm beginning to wonder if the Club's relative frugality in the transfer market these days is directly linked to the future financing of the new stadium. It seems like Abramovich's plans for the stadium are very expensive and as a result we can no longer compete for the elite players in the market; We are clearly falling behind Man United and Man City in this sense, and I worry that what happened to Arsenal from 2006-2012 could easily happen to us if there were large debts which would need to be repaid. Lastly, as a current Season Ticket Holder, I think spending 3 seasons at Wembley/The London Stadium would be truly awful in so manys ways and I fear that our core, matchgoing support would diminish at a faster rate than it currently is at the moment. 

As I say, perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic in light of the current situation at the club, but I just don't see the new stadium making a lot of sense.

I love the idea of the new stadium but I have my concerns. However, more than whether we will be able to compete with Manchester teams in transfer money spent, I am more worried about the capacity to fill it with supporters. Other than the obvious London and top 4 rivals, I am watching empty seats in many games, for example the Bournemouth match and there were still tickets available yesterday for the West Brom game on Monday, and there are still tickets for the Hull FA Cup. How are we going to sell out a Stamford Bridge with much larger capacity?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RMH said:

I love the idea of the new stadium but I have my concerns. However, more than whether we will be able to compete with Manchester teams in transfer money spent, I am more worried about the capacity to fill it with supporters. Other than the obvious London and top 4 rivals, I am watching empty seats in many games, for example the Bournemouth match and there were still tickets available yesterday for the West Brom game on Monday, and there are still tickets for the Hull FA Cup. How are we going to sell out a Stamford Bridge with much larger capacity?

Great question. I don't think we'll have that much of an issue for most League games, but we won't fill it for early rounds of the Cups unless it's a big opponent. European group and early round League Cup games in particular would be tricky being on weeknights. 

 

16 hours ago, TheChelseaBlues said:

One thing all of those clubs have in common is a stadium much larger than SB at the moment. Plus if your logic is correct, once the stadium is built and starts paying itself off we're back to spending. 

 

Very valid counterpoint, and of course it makes perfect economic logic that the new ground would pay for itself. But look how far Arsenal, who needed at least 6 years to pay off their debts, have fallen since they moved to the Emirates? And since paying off the debts, and spending money on some big signings, have they challenged for the title even once? No. I know there is the Wenger factor there as well but there's a decent chance that we could be hamstrung financially for many years and allow other clubs to get ahead of us in the pecking order in the same way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just running a few back of fag packet calculations, based on the speculative one billion price tag.

Im guessing we would be looking at matchday revenues of approx 1.3 million per game. ( Arsenal with a 60,000 capacity and 9,600 corporate seats generate one million per game, we intend to cater for 17,000 corporate tossers, so an educated guess suggests we might receive 1.3 million)

Average season 30 home games, equals 40 million per year.

A billion equates to 25 years at 40 million; ticket price inflation over that period hasn't been factored in, however if the stadium build is financed by dept, that dept would also be subject to inflation.

In a nutshell, it would take twenty five years to pay for itself by my admittedly crude reckoning, which doesn't make financial sense. The numbers don't add up.  Abramovitch, benefactor aside is a businessman. I just can't see him financing something of that scale as a vanity project.

 

 

Edited by Ewell CFC
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Ewell CFC said:

Just running a few back of fag packet calculations, based on the speculative one billion price tag.

Im guessing we would be looking at matchday revenues of approx 1.3 million per game. ( Arsenal with a 60,000 capacity and 9,600 corporate seats generate one million per game, we intend to cater for 17,000 corporate tossers, so an educated guess suggests we might receive 1.3 million)

Average season 30 home games, equals 40 million per year.

A billion equates to 25 years at 40 million; ticket price inflation over that period hasn't been factored in, however if the stadium build is financed by dept, that dept would also be subject to inflation.

In a nutshell, it would take twenty five years to pay for itself by my admittedly crude reckoning, which doesn't make financial sense. The numbers don't add up.  Abramovitch, benefactor aside is a businessman. I just can't see him financing something of that scale as a vanity project.

 

Are we meant to assume that you and your fag packet have unearthed a huge financial white Elephant ? 

"Sack the financiers Roman, Ewell's here with his Lambert and Butler."

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, coco said:

 

 

Are we meant to assume that you and your fag packet have unearthed a huge financial white Elephant ? 

"Sack the financiers Roman, Ewell's here with his Lambert and Butler."

Quite right. When he's skint, living in a dustbin and nicking food of bird tables, he might just reflect on the wisdom of the Lambert and Butler man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ewell CFC said:

Amendment to the above; I've just seen a projected figure of 11,000 corporate seats as opposed to 17,000 ( unsure what number is correct)

If this is the case our matchday revenue would be similar to Arsenal at 1 Mill per game, which amounts to the stadium paying for itself after a mere thirty three years.

 

I'm not sure where you plucked those figures from but officially arsenal made about £120m in matchday revenue in the 15/16 season, so a lot more than £1m per game, nearer to £5m if we base it on 25 games. 

Our matchday revenue last season was around £70 I think, which again is more than the £1m you estimated for the new stadium. 

Edited by dkw
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ewell CFC said:

Just running a few back of fag packet calculations, based on the speculative one billion price tag.

Im guessing we would be looking at matchday revenues of approx 1.3 million per game. ( Arsenal with a 60,000 capacity and 9,600 corporate seats generate one million per game, we intend to cater for 17,000 corporate tossers, so an educated guess suggests we might receive 1.3 million)

Average season 30 home games, equals 40 million per year.

A billion equates to 25 years at 40 million; ticket price inflation over that period hasn't been factored in, however if the stadium build is financed by dept, that dept would also be subject to inflation.

In a nutshell, it would take twenty five years to pay for itself by my admittedly crude reckoning, which doesn't make financial sense. The numbers don't add up.  Abramovitch, benefactor aside is a businessman. I just can't see him financing something of that scale as a vanity project.

 

 

 

No offence, but you are (at your own admission)  literally just throwing a few random numbers at this and then saying it doesn't add up. 

The figures you mention could be incorrect my insane proportions, and there are so many potential  variables to consider (sponsorship, naming rights to name just two) that regardless of your numbers being rougher than sandpaper, any conclusion would have to rendered meaningless. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hands up. The "1 million per game match revenue at Arsenal" figure I lifted from Hazards Right Foots post - that's the last time I take notice of that thick .... ( joking)

A bit like copying someone else's homework and getting it wrong.

Please feel free to use my stadium finance thesis as lavatory paper-  I know I will!

The revised calculation based on 3/4 million per game, now means we will pay off the stadium in roughly a fortnight. Sorry for the confusion guys.

  

Edited by Ewell CFC
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through earlier posts about the acquisition of nearby properties/land around Stamford Bridge. I would rather they utilise that bit of land to increase leg room or depth so that it is more comfortable to walk in and around the stands than increase the number seats/capacity. Since I saw a few numbers suggesting minimal leg room compared to other modern stadia due to how cramped and contained SB is thanks to its location. 

Edited by zes
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zes said:

Reading through earlier posts about the acquisition of nearby properties/land around Stamford Bridge. I would rather they utilise that bit of land to increase leg room or depth so that it is more comfortable to walk in and around the stands than increase the number seats/capacity. Since I saw a few numbers suggesting minimal leg room compared to other modern stadia due to how cramped and contained SB is thanks to its location. 

It may be thought that cramming in as many fans as possible is the over-riding consideration way above all else.  But the actual plans and proposals don't bear that out.  Yes, it's true the legroom will not match the Emirates and Wembley.  But many would say that those stadiums went over the top,  resulting in a lower tier that is to shallow, especially at Arsenal and effecting the atmosphere.  But the legroom and seat widths will be larger and in certain areas much larger than in the present Stamford Bridge.  The pitch will be marginally bigger as will the surrounds.   Much of what is present at Stamford Bridge just wouldn't be built now with the current regulations and guidelines.  Remember, there are other failings beyond a need for a bigger capacity.  The swathes of seated areas with 'restricted views'.   The shortfall of spaces and choice for disabled fans.   The  parking space issue for multiple media trucks resulting in restricted capacity's for CL knockout phase matches.  So it's not just a case of simply being able to tack another tier on top of the existing stands.  There is a height issue which is why the proposed new stadium would have the pitch and lower tiers below ground level. You need additional circulation space and exit points with an increased capacity so the decking over the railway lines would need to be done anyway.   

As regards comparisons with other clubs and their experiences as well as our own in the early 1970's.   There are differences.   Arsenal apparently had this so-called 'war-chest' for years before they finally spent big on Ozil then Sanchez.   Gooner fans started getting riled in the first place because they reckoned Wenger was in cahoots with the shareholders by just doing enough to earn CL qualification and the monetary rewards but not actually competing for the title as they once did.  Are folk on here really trying to suggest our fanbase is so much smaller than Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham, if at all?  The latter may have cheapo season tickets but they are, by and large, filling that stadium with all it's problems and a poor team as well.   I find it hard to believe that a club that historically has the sixth (and up until recently fifth) highest All Time Average Attendances in England and on top of 20 years of pretty good times is not worthy of a stadium to match the best.   

I don't know how much the building of a new stadium would adversely effect team rebuilding.   Spurs (and I hate to say this)  may have won bugger all of late but they have somehow remained a competitive outfit with one of the lowest net spends in the PL over the last decade.   It's been about minimising the transfer mistakes and also putting some faith in their own academy.   I think the club should continue to import real quality signings but look to the excellent youth products a bit more rather than the middling, journeyman transfers they have been involved in as of late.  By doing that, they could actually have more funds to compete for the real top signings.  

As I said in a earlier post, this stadium and it's costing's / viability doesn't really follow the normal trend.   Because Stamford Bridge doesn't sit on a normal site.  In fact, if no stadium was already in place on that plot of land, there'd be a cold day in hell's chance that one could be built there now, given the nature of the neighbourhood.   So while there is a need for a bigger capacity ground and other possible sites have gone by the way,  it's all become about both necessity and legacy.  Roman wants a grand stage for his club to call home.  That doesn't mean there is little consideration to it paying for itself at all.  Of course it will in time.   Think I read somewhere that the current West Stand earns more revenue on a match-day than the other three stands combined.    That's hospitality for you and another reason why they want an upgrade all over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ewell CFC said:

Just running a few back of fag packet calculations, based on the speculative one billion price tag.

Im guessing we would be looking at matchday revenues of approx 1.3 million per game. ( Arsenal with a 60,000 capacity and 9,600 corporate seats generate one million per game, we intend to cater for 17,000 corporate tossers, so an educated guess suggests we might receive 1.3 million)

Average season 30 home games, equals 40 million per year.

A billion equates to 25 years at 40 million; ticket price inflation over that period hasn't been factored in, however if the stadium build is financed by dept, that dept would also be subject to inflation.

In a nutshell, it would take twenty five years to pay for itself by my admittedly crude reckoning, which doesn't make financial sense. The numbers don't add up.  Abramovitch, benefactor aside is a businessman. I just can't see him financing something of that scale as a vanity project.

 

 

"Corporate tossers" brilliant description

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, zes said:

Reading through earlier posts about the acquisition of nearby properties/land around Stamford Bridge. I would rather they utilise that bit of land to increase leg room or depth so that it is more comfortable to walk in and around the stands than increase the number seats/capacity. Since I saw a few numbers suggesting minimal leg room compared to other modern stadia due to how cramped and contained SB is thanks to its location. 

Yes, stop the discrimination of us fat buggers! We’re people too (some of us are the size of two!). If you sell all the pies you can’t make me feel bad for eating them! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chelsea want to be considered a big team, we're going to have to expand the Bridge.

42k every week is pathetic, from a money generating P.O.V.

If your stadium can make you nearly 1.5/2m a more from each home game, we shold be going down that route.

We can write the stadium build off under FFP and on the flipside, any extra money we generate from the expanded stadium is counted under FFP, allowing us to spend more on players.

Theres a cause and affect in spending on a the new Bridge, for the 3 years we'll lose some money in matchday revenue to renting Wembley for 3/4 years but in the following 3/4 years at the new Bridge we'll be raking in serious money, some 40/50m more a year than we were in the old Bridge.

I think it has to happen and the sooner the better or else we'll be left behind by the tinpot sides like Liverpool, City and maybe Everton, if they get their new build done in the next 5-7 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea kicks off search for stadium builders
By Louise Dransfield, Dave Rogers 13 February 2018

Premier League club’s new stadium will have 60,000 capacity when built

Chelsea has begun the hunt for the first contractors to get involved with building work at the £1bn redevelopment of its Stamford Bridge ground.

The first tranche of work is expected to include the decking platforms to be built over the District Line to the north west of the stadium and a mainline railway used by Southern trains to the east.

These platforms will be used to help create the areas for fans to mill about outside the new ground which has been designed by Herzog & de Meuron, the Swiss architect behind the Tate Modern extension.

A winner is expected to be announced by the middle of the year.

Last month, the west London club headed off a legal threat to its 60,000 seat development after Hammersmith and Fulham Council sided with it amid a row with neighbouring residents who complained the project would block their daylight.

The Premier League team’s current capacity is 41,600 and the new ground will mean its capacity will be on a par with Arsenal’s Emirates stadium but behind Spurs’ 61,559 when its new ground, being built by Mace, completes this August.

The wider project team includes Arcadis as cost manager, WSP as transport consultant with the firm also providing engineering services along with German structural engineer Schlaich Bergermann which has worked on stadia at the last three World Cups.

Chelsea has been contacted for comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are Carillion being invited to tender?

Ps It may be a little late in the day alas, but the common sense move would be for us to swap places with Brompton Boneyard next door. There's loads of space there for us to construct a new ground, whilst all the stiffs could be relocated in a big hole roughly where the centre circle now lies. Forgive me for being logical.

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...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups or video adverts, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!