5 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

Spurs officially earn more revenue than Chelsea. 

That's the negative take Sconnie ... 

The figures released by Deloitte show us with revenue of £512.5m in 22/23 ... which is the highest revenue figure we've ever had.

Not bad at all considering it was a season marked by poor performance on the pitch ... !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68081262

1 minute ago, Sexyfootball said:

That's the negative take Sconnie ... 

The figures released by Deloitte show us with revenue of £512.5m in 22/23 ... which is the highest revenue figure we've ever had.

Not bad at all considering it was a season marked by poor performance on the pitch ... !

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68081262

What I was getting at was wondering how much impact stadium revenue is generating, given that the CPOs are crippling us from expanding. 

4 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

What I was getting at was wondering how much impact stadium revenue is generating, given that the CPOs are crippling us from expanding. 

Also thought this was interesting. In essence, what Clearlake looks to be doing. 

Quote

As clubs appear to no longer be able to rely on exponential broadcast revenue growth, creating a more commercially focused business model will support them to achieve greater control over their financial stability.

In the coming seasons, European clubs may look to further diversify their revenues in order to gain control over a larger proportion of their total revenue. This will enable clubs to not only protect themselves from the variability of on-pitch performance, but also wider challenging macroeconomic conditions and changes to the football system.

At a time when clubs face a greater degree of financial regulation, striking the right balance between securing the best on-pitch talent with sustaining a sound financial foundation through commercial activities will be key.

 

3 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

What I was getting at was wondering how much impact stadium revenue is generating, given that the CPOs are crippling us from expanding. 

Yes that's a fair point.

21/22 Spurs had £106m in match day revenue, vs £69m for us ... 

It will be interesting to see what the gap is for 22/23. Spurs overall revenue was £444m in 21/22 so they've added about £105m ... suspect mostly TV revenue etc from being in the CL. 

 

Don’t really know what the best answer is, whether we stay or move and what the overall financial  contribution to the revenues would be. 
However it is essential that Chelsea update and remain relevant in World football. If we stand still in our ground and image we will get left behind.

Personally think the timescale and cost of redevelopment for the Bridge means it won't happen. With CPO so far not willing to let us move I believe we will be at the Bridge with little change to it when the 10 year period of Grace is up for the owners and they look to sell. 

Next custodians problem.

I see a few saying that the CPO is dragging us. I see it differently, they are stopping Roman, Todd or whoever is next from doing to us what it was done to West Ham. If there was a serious option which is not moving the club from the area, I bet that they’d agree, but Earls Court is not available (as the council is not willing to accept it) what other serious options are there?

23 minutes ago, RMH said:

I see a few saying that the CPO is dragging us. I see it differently, they are stopping Roman, Todd or whoever is next from doing to us what it was done to West Ham. If there was a serious option which is not moving the club from the area, I bet that they’d agree, but Earls Court is not available (as the council is not willing to accept it) what other serious options are there?

I can't help but feel we missed out on the perfect long term home for us in Battersea Powerstation. Obviously some objected to crossing the river but such a historic and unique  building so close to the Bridge was as good a solution as we'll ever have.

The CPO are a problem for the club, there's a reason no other club or their fanbases want any kind of similar model. They have the best of intentions but we're stuck in the same limbo we've been in for over a decade because there's no solution that will satisfy the CPO. unless we invent a way to bend a railway line staying at the Bridge is likely to see us left behind in the future.

 

Edited January 25, 20242 yr by Whats_The_Mata?

18 minutes ago, Whats_The_Mata? said:

I can't help but feel we missed out on the perfect long term home for us in Battersea Powerstation. Obviously some objected to crossing the river but such a historic and unique  building so close to the Bridge was as good a solution as we'll ever have.

The CPO are a problem for the club, there's a reason no other club or their fanbases want any kind of similar model. They have the best of intentions but we're stuck in the same limbo we've been in for over a decade because there's no solution that will satisfy the CPO. unless we invent a way to bend a railway line staying at the Bridge is likely to see us left behind in the future.

 

CPO are club protectors. As vile a man as Ken bates became, he did that one thing right in stopping property developers selling us up and moving on. To the point billionaires like Todd and Roman had to work with developing the ground... Others will explain better why Battersea and Earls court fell through, Battersea power station would have been immense, fully wanted it, but the bridge is home and the place to be every other Saturday so happy.. 

5 minutes ago, olderschoolcfc said:

CPO are club protectors. As vile a man as Ken bates became, he did that one thing right in stopping property developers selling us up and moving on. To the point billionaires like Todd and Roman had to work with developing the ground... Others will explain better why Battersea and Earls court fell through, Battersea power station would have been immense, fully wanted it, but the bridge is home and the place to be every other Saturday so happy.. 

Regarding the Earl's Court site, this is what @Boyne says was mentioned in the last CPO meeting (neither the Council nor the owners of the Earl's Court site are keen on us moving there):

On 22/01/2024 at 13:18, Boyne said:

Not sure what happened there. @Sexyfootball and @nonotnowjim thanks for posting a link and the article in full.

Here is a note about the CPO AGM. There was about fifty people in the meeting at the Bridge and a number - not sure of the figure - who joined remotely.

The CPO announced an operating profit of £14,000 which is up on the previous year. There was an increase in the sale of CPO shares but that was due to the recent purchase of part of the Oswald Stoll Estate and the change of ownership. The board reported that the relationship with the current owners is better than that it had with the previous owners. The CPO Board stated that the believed that the previous owners saw the CPO as an irritant. I'm not convinced about that.

Those in the audience were asked if they had any questions. Not sure why those who joined by Zoom weren't invited to ask questions especially given that the time of the meeting was changed to an afternoon to allow them to join.

The CPO board was asked about the move to Earl's Court. The local council i.e. Hammersmith and Fulham isn't keen on that and it is not in the current plans of the owners of Earl's Court.

There was a number of questions and debate about how to publish the CPO more and it was suggested using the women's team and advertising in supporters magazines. A couple of people from supporters groups offered to advertise for no fee.

It was mentioned by the board the difficulty to have pre-match presentations of CPO shares by players. Part of that problem is the reluctance of players to be involved in presentations and to sign them. One of the excuses is they don't have time. In my view that is disappointing and poor. Someone in the audience suggested that those players be named and shamed. For me the players who would sign are Tiago Silva, Reece James and Conor Gallagher. I could be wrong though.

There was a straw poll in the audience about whether we should stay at a redeveloped Stamford Bridge or move to a nearby area. Some people abstained but the winner was to stay.

After the meeting four of us went for a few beers and a curry and discussed the CPO AGM and one of the topics of discussion was whether or not we would fill a larger stadium. This is something @bluehaze has touched upon. I have to say I'm not sure. 

43 minutes ago, olderschoolcfc said:

but the bridge is home and the place to be every other Saturday so happy.. 

This in essence is why many are against the CPOs. 

If the club's goal is to be self sustainable, we need a larger stadium. If it means moving away from the Bridge, we shouldn't subscribe to nostalgia as a reason not to. 

4 hours ago, RMH said:

I see a few saying that the CPO is dragging us. I see it differently, they are stopping Roman, Todd or whoever is next from doing to us what it was done to West Ham. If there was a serious option which is not moving the club from the area, I bet that they’d agree, but Earls Court is not available (as the council is not willing to accept it) what other serious options are there?

Indeed. The year is 2032, Reece James is manager of Chelsea having retired at 27 due to chronic hamstring problems. It's the season opener - Chelsea Lions vs Tottenham All Stars, venue: New Stamford Bridge, capacity: 120,000, location: Los Angeles.

17 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

This in essence is why many are against the CPOs. 

If the club's goal is to be self sustainable, we need a larger stadium. If it means moving away from the Bridge, we shouldn't subscribe to nostalgia as a reason not to. 

Until the broadcast bubble pops, clubs make  most wedge through TV rights, TV revenue absolutely dwarfs match day revenue. Fans going to games are simply there to increase atmosphere and boost match day revenues. 

I'd simply point to the shenanigans of Coventry city as a reason not to let owners get what they want. Any suggestions on where to move to because most sites will be out of London. 

I'd like to know how much the NFL pay Spurs to rent the stadium for their games. A win-win for Spurs given they also keep 100% of the catering, merchandising, etc, for the games. Said to amount to close to £1m a game. The NFL also contributed to the stadium build. And then there's the income from concerts, etc. They built a money-spinner.

On 26/01/2024 at 12:12, dermott said:

I'd like to know how much the NFL pay Spurs to rent the stadium for their games. A win-win for Spurs given they also keep 100% of the catering, merchandising, etc, for the games. Said to amount to close to £1m a game. The NFL also contributed to the stadium build. And then there's the income from concerts, etc. They built a money-spinner.

Think there are anumber of gigs and boxing matches as well. Smaller gates, granted, but probably part of an overall events strategy that probably adds a lot to the coffers without many realising.

Interesting clip about SB rebuilding / relocation options

 

So why exactly are the CPOs against the move to Earls Court?

4 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

So why exactly are the CPOs against the move to Earls Court?

The council and the owners of the Earls court project are not interested in the idea of it becoming the new home of Chelsea FC either.

18 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

So why exactly are the CPOs against the move to Earls Court?

Think that's more down to local council rather than CPO's.

I have said it before, and will say it again, with the rising costs of building, and more land being required, amongst other issues, redeveloping Stamford Bridge to be profitable for this ownership is impossible.

If Roman deemed it too expensive and time consuming, and he was not interested in making his fortune invested back, why would an ownership who's very model is designed to make money for their various investors, do so?

9 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

I have said it before, and will say it again, with the rising costs of building, and more land being required, amongst other issues, redeveloping Stamford Bridge to be profitable for this ownership is impossible.

If Roman deemed it too expensive and time consuming, and he was not interested in making his fortune invested back, why would an ownership who's very model is designed to make money for their various investors, do so?

Why would more land be required if Roman had managed to get a plan for a bigger, beautiful stadium at the Bridge? I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that more land is required.

Also, if the investors had any investment made in building companies, why wouldn't they make money from rebuilding Stamford Bridge?

We really are stuck then. 

DOn't see the problem. We're too sh*t at the moment to get 10s of thousands more people turning up every week.

On 25/01/2024 at 14:05, goose said:

Don’t really know what the best answer is, whether we stay or move and what the overall financial  contribution to the revenues would be. 
However it is essential that Chelsea update and remain relevant in World football. If we stand still in our ground and image we will get left behind.

Well, Spurs made £35 million match day revenue more than us over the season quoted by someone back in the thread.

I'm not sure spending over £2 billion and years away from the Bridge is worth it .  

1 hour ago, RMH said:

Why would more land be required if Roman had managed to get a plan for a bigger, beautiful stadium at the Bridge? I'm not sure I follow the reasoning that more land is required.

Also, if the investors had any investment made in building companies, why wouldn't they make money from rebuilding Stamford Bridge?

Roman wanted a cathedral of football. The new owners want a state of the art entertainment complex to be more than just football games, concerts, NFL games, Wrestlemania etc etc.