Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Facts are IF we don't expand either at the bridge or a new stadium, theres only one outcome massive increase in ticket prices. Because of the ffp RA can't bank roll us anymore, the club are working hard on off the pitch income but if we want to stay at the top, employing the best players, and attracting the best transfers in, wheres the money going to come from,

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the club handled it as well as they could

 

If that was the best they could do I would hate to see the worst! 

 

It was an absolute fiasco. A shambles. It was there for the taking and they absolutely blew it. A total and utter balls up on behalf of the club.

 

Like I think CB mentioned I was a little surprised that someone's head didn't roll for that (or for the appointment of the FSW while we're at it but apparently you can cock up massively with impunity over some issues at Chelsea but not others).

 

Buck and Gourlay were obviously completely out of touch with the issue and oblivious to what they were dealing with. They ended up just getting it plain wrong. Buck's supposed to be some hot shot lawyer? On that evidence I wouldn't want him representing me. He completely misread the jury.

 

I honestly think that just a little less arrogance and a little more sympathy to most people's feelings over the matter would have won the day. Even a change in demeanour on the day might have worked wonders. I'm really not sure they needed any more than that. But they thought they had it won beforehand, I heard Gourlay say that to someone at the end of the meeting. They were both genuinely taken aback and surprised and that says to me that they were woefully out of touch with the feelings of many of those who attended.

 

Of course offering me a brick as well would have helped.  :laugh2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Juve sell out most weeks, they have a strong team, and are in the top 10 in Deloitte's money league. They aren't doing too badly with a smaller stadium than SB.

They don't compete in Europe at all. My point is attendances in Serie A are down overall in general compared to a decade ago. It's no surprise juventus sell out, being arguably the biggest and best club
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest RFC_CFC

55-60k would be ideal.

However it's simply too small as is, we will be in the bottom half of the EPL soon in terms of stadium capacity and for a club who want to be number 1 in the world then it's not going to be good enough.

It's alright saying Juve are doing ok but they are not Chelsea and Italian football is on it's arse attendance wise...all you need to do is tune in to the highlights every week and see half empty stadiums.

Roman won't be here forever and we need to make sure we can maximise our profits to stay where we are today and that means a higher gate at home games.

Ideally it will be here at the Bridge but if not then we have to accept it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said earlier I agree that we may have to move particularly if we want to continue to compete against other top clubs.

 

How that move, if any, is handled should be being discussed with the CPO NOW. If they get a yes vote that would also strengthen their hand with the council and poss british rail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

55-60k would be ideal.

However it's simply too small as is, we will be in the bottom half of the EPL soon in terms of stadium capacity and for a club who want to be number 1 in the world then it's not going to be good enough.

It's alright saying Juve are doing ok but they are not Chelsea and Italian football is on it's arse attendance wise...all you need to do is tune in to the highlights every week and see half empty stadiums.

Roman won't be here forever and we need to make sure we can maximise our profits to stay where we are today and that means a higher gate at home games.

Ideally it will be here at the Bridge but if not then we have to accept it.

I was at inter v Lazio and the ground looked empty but yet it had over 50,000 in it. The likes of Rome's Olympic stadium and the san siro are huge stadia and will only sell out for derbies and big European games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

55-60k would be ideal.

However it's simply too small as is, we will be in the bottom half of the EPL soon in terms of stadium capacity and for a club who want to be number 1 in the world then it's not going to be good enough.

It's alright saying Juve are doing ok but they are not Chelsea and Italian football is on it's arse attendance wise...all you need to do is tune in to the highlights every week and see half empty stadiums.

Roman won't be here forever and we need to make sure we can maximise our profits to stay where we are today and that means a higher gate at home games.

Ideally it will be here at the Bridge but if not then we have to accept it.

 

The Premier League (and Championship and League One for that matter) are also full of shiny new stadiums that are half empty every week. City are the champions and there were empty seats at their games last season. West Ham will soon have a bigger capacity than us, yet do you see West Ham attracting 54,000 every week? Do you see them attracting 54,000 ever? Ironically it will end up like Italy, where clubs have huge stadiums they can't fill.

 

The point about Juve still stands. They manage to be a rich and successful club without having an enormous stadium. In fact they gave up their enormous stadium to move to this one. Bayern have a much larger stadium than we do, yet get lower gate receipts than us because of their lower ticket prices. They both cope.

 

Like I said above 42,000 at the Bridge isn't ideal, yet as it stands only four clubs in Europe get higher gate receipts than us. A huge stadium isn't the be all and end all that we just have to accept. Especially if it means accepting Old Oak Common or Ladbroke Grove.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it opens it up for people to choose nearer the date of the game if they want to go then I think we'll stand a much better chance of filling it.  Another way to increase attendance is to sell people a ticket in a stand rather than a specific seat, that will allow people to sit with their mates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to convert stamford bridge into a huge stadium. I think 50,000-60,000 would be ideal as we still want it to have that enclosed, intimidation factor to it.

 

You clearly haven't been to Stamford Bridge lately if you think being small makes it intimidating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no economist, but I would of thought having stadium so close to the West End would attract concert promoters.

Other sporting events, exhibitions etc. would increase revenue for the club, local shops as well as the council.

Let's hope a sensible study is made and all avenues are explored.

Arsenal overcame huge obstacles to build The Emirates, we don't want to lag behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no economist, but I would of thought having stadium so close to the West End would attract concert promoters.

Other sporting events, exhibitions etc. would increase revenue for the club, local shops as well as the council.

Let's hope a sensible study is made and all avenues are explored.

Arsenal overcame huge obstacles to build The Emirates, we don't want to lag behind.

But how many top drawer concerts would we be able to attract, let's not forget we've got Wembley, Twickenham, Hammersmith Odeon, Earls Court and I'm sure a few more on our doorstep who can all offer facilities at least comparable to anything we'd be able to offer with adequate parking for most of them on top.

 

I think we'd be better off just concentrating on keeping the football side of things at the top of our agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A redevelopment at SB really would be a massive compromise and half-measure.

 

Ultimately the club wants (indefinitely) more seats for bums, better corporate facilities, something iconic and a bigger playing surface.

 

We'd get to partially address the first and second aspirations, but the last two we can kiss goodbye to and ultimately at far greater cost than simply selling SB and moving elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A redevelopment at SB really would be a massive compromise and half-measure.

 

Ultimately the club wants (indefinitely) more seats for bums, better corporate facilities, something iconic and a bigger playing surface.

 

We'd get to partially address the first and second aspirations, but the last two we can kiss goodbye to and ultimately at far greater cost than simply selling SB and moving elsewhere.

Something iconic well good luck with that. Let's not forget what the name of this forum is. And if we move to our bigger stadium with it's super corporate facilities will we be sitting in the Waitrose end shouting Harrod's Harrod's give us a song.

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, 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!