• Current Donation Goals

CFCnet Admin

New Stadium Plans

Recommended Posts

I think Dan is just getting hits in between season end write ups and the transfer sags beginning.

Sounds like it was totally dreamt up nonsense and speculation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

The problem with SB has always been the size of the site and the way that it has only one exit and is crammed between railway lines and residential housing. From the way I look at it, the only way we get 60,000 (which I reckon would be the minimum the club would be looking for) is if we can do all of the following: a) build over the railway lines (shouldn't be too much of a problem compared to the other obstacles), b) build a tunnel or some sort of bridge to allow another exit (I don't really know how this would be done and if it can be it would be uber expensive) and c) we get a purchase order (I really cannot see this happening). As a result, I am not too sure how this is going to be achieved unless a serious amount of money is put in to grease a number of palms.

The biggest problem with the walkway exit is complexity. You have to get the buy-in of two local councils, TFL, Royal Parks, Mayor's office, GLA and, probably, others. Royal Parks is a particular problem because conservation is central to their remit. You can't go north or east or south. You could expand by buying the Stoll building, but the idea of uprooting war veterans wont appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine the media outcry if we got a cpo of the stoll my god the hacks would be wanking themselves silly of that for years.

indeed

Edited by sebcfc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the West and East Stands are adequate, despite the East being 40 years old- knock down Bateses folly- the diminutive shed plus hotel- Ditto the Matthew Harding, and rebuild with 3 tier cantilevers. Can't see that bringing us another 17000 seats, so I reckon we will have to settle for 55,000.

Walkway over Brompton Boneyard to provide the all important exit point other than Fulham Road- New Station at the rear of the East Stand.

Ps up until the war there was indeed a station at that very position- think it was called Fulham and Chelsea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I grew up around there, the station was just the other side of Stamford Bridge (the one on the Fulham Road, over the railway, not the stadium). A tower block was built in the site in 1950s/60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we don't sell the land, I doubt that expansion of the current site is financially viable. Based on an increase of 13000 per home game, how long is it going to take to pay off the £400m to increase the capacity and the associated works? Where does the £400m come from? Surely the whole thing rests on selling 13 acres of very expensive SW6 and buying 20 acres of much cheaper Twickenham or Isleworth or similar? It's just my opinion, but I think redeveloping SB is a non-starter, not because of the planning issues, but because of the financial ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lzheyi   

If we don't sell the land, I doubt that expansion of the current site is financially viable. Based on an increase of 13000 per home game, how long is it going to take to pay off the £400m to increase the capacity and the associated works? Where does the £400m come from? Surely the whole thing rests on selling 13 acres of very expensive SW6 and buying 20 acres of much cheaper Twickenham or Isleworth or similar? It's just my opinion, but I think redeveloping SB is a non-starter, not because of the planning issues, but because of the financial ones.

I have the same thoughts too.

Yes potentially we can increase to 60000 seats but what about 10 years later? Can Stamford Bridge still be able to expand to 800000 at that stage if we continue to be successful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we don't sell the land, I doubt that expansion of the current site is financially viable. Based on an increase of 13000 per home game, how long is it going to take to pay off the £400m to increase the capacity and the associated works? Where does the £400m come from? Surely the whole thing rests on selling 13 acres of very expensive SW6 and buying 20 acres of much cheaper Twickenham or Isleworth or similar? It's just my opinion, but I think redeveloping SB is a non-starter, not because of the planning issues, but because of the financial ones.

I don't think any stadium development at Chelsea would be about making profit, rather it would be about getting around FFP to get more money into the club through "allowed" sources. I say this as from my understanding of FFP (correct me if I am wrong) , the club (or owner) can invest what they want into ground development and it doesn't effect FFP, but the revenue that is then gained from the development can be ploughed into the club.

If that is correct then I don't see why the club wouldn't develop. For instance, let's say for arguments sake that the development would cost £700m (which is very top end), a lot of this could be offset. the biggest offset would obviously be naming rights, as a complete new build will interest parties a lot more, whilst I do not have any doubts that Roman has enough contacts to pull off something like City did (which let's not forget was Coty of Manchester for a number of years Before its sponsorship). Thus, owing to our location and based on what City did I reckon this would bring in £400-500m (I am basing this on Roman greasing palms) for a 10 year contract. On top of this, I also fully believe that if we were to develop a 60k+ seater stadium we would be in pole position for the NFL team that is due in the next five years. I say this as we are located closest to Central London, are in a wealthy area, could have the stadium designed to mitigate the damage to the pitch in advance (hence £700m) and have pretty much a direct tube line to Heathrow. If this could be achieved this would also bring in some serious cash and would in all likelihood push up the sponsorship levels to record highs as the stadium would play host to both of the two biggest grossing sports leagues in the world and as a result you are probably looking at increase revenue of £25m minimum from increased ticket sales, merchandise etc, which over 10 years is another £250m minimum.

Now of course if we could sell SB and bought land in Twickers or a similar area you could also add development income which would probably bring in absolutely astronomical money, whilst allowing us to do everything I have outlined above. However, their is a couple of things that means this will not happen. The first is the CPO, as let's face it, without the club telling us the plans first, I very much doubt they'll get the votes, due to no locations being near enough that can be had. Another thing to also consider is that Roman is a Russian oil billionaire and if Russian oil billionaires are on thing, it's ostentatious. Thus, the SB location with a super stadium linked to an NFL franchise is the epitomey of this and I can see this appealing to Roman a lot.

Obviously all of this presumes Roman is happy to part with £700m, however due to FFP it means he pretty much cannot invest on the sqaud anymore directly, so if he does want to invest he is going to have to do it through other means. And if we go by what Roman has invested in his first 12 years, £700m for the next ten years, especially when you apply inflation, is a significant drop. Also by building the stadium and bringing in "legitimate" revenue through a stadium, it means the club will cement its status as a top spending team and if handled properly would mean we are set for the long term and would require Roman to dig deep again.

Finally things like this should be looked at as big picture. Now whilst stumping up £700m is serious stuff it should be remebered that by investing in such a thing the asset (this being Chelsea PLC) will increase in vaule. Thus, whilst the club is worth £700m (approx) now, if it had a new super stadium bringing in massive revenue then the assets vaule is going to increase significantly, and as a result Roman would get a significant proportion of his money back through the vaule of his asset, which for someone like him is probably better than cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^,^^

I wouldn't get too excited about the revenue from increased seating.

As anyone who has been to Wembley knows, if you increase seating beyond 60 000, some people end up with a lousy view. The increased numbers might mean a new lower price category will be needed.

As I understand it right now Match day revenue is about a quarter of all revenues. TV revenues (which is tied with footballing success) is the biggest part. TV revenues and sponsorship are growing rapidly.

At present a 50% increase in capacity, if fully sold might still only lead to a 30% increase in Match day revenue (because of pricing) which equates to just a 7.5% increase in revenues. In a few years time the % impact might well be smaller.

There are plenty of good reasons to get excited about a bigger stadium. Future gate revenues isn't one of them.

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