Ding dong ding dong ding dong ding dong, past the roof tops and the crown.

[crouchea.livejournal.com]

Chelsea take first step towards leaving Stamford Bridge for new home

Dominic Fifield
For all the multi-million-pound players purchased by Roman Abramovich over his money-flushed eight-year ownership of Chelsea, the one thing the oligarch has never possessed is the pitch upon which his team have strutted. Now the Russian, the man who has everything else, finds himself in the bizarre position of having to appeal to the better nature of 12,000 small shareholders, who stand to make no capital gain on their original investment, if his club is at some stage to consider a move to a brighter, bigger home.

The offer made on Tuesday morning to Chelsea Pitch Owners plc (CPO) represents Abramovich attempting to draw a line once and for all under the Ken Bates era. CPO is a legacy of a previous era, having been formed when there was a real prospect of the club being rendered homeless, scarred as they had been by the sale of Stamford Bridge to Marler Estates (subsequently Cabra Estates) in 1984, and with the intention that the stadium could never again be sold to property developers. Chelsea are not currently speaking to any such developers over a potential move, and have not been approached by any seeking to buy the current ground, but the motivation behind reacquiring the land is clear. Without the prospect of redeveloping their home since 1905, there would be no prospect of upgrading.

The club's current capacity of 41,800 is simply not competitive enough for a setup that has long since made clear its ultimate intention to rival clubs such as Manchester United off the pitch as well as on it. A move to a ground that can hold up to 60,000 would hoist them into a different league. The chairman, Bruce Buck, has estimated that Arsenal's revenues have increased by around £35m every year since their move to the Emirates Stadium. Chelsea fear that figure may be nearer to £50m when other sources of revenue, from catering to merchandising, are taken into account.

"Our stadium is the eighth largest in the Premier League at the moment," the chief executive, Ron Gourlay, says. "If you look at some of the activity at other stadiums, you'll definitely see us slipping down that table away from eighth. And I think we're round about 60th in terms of stadiums in Europe when it comes to our size, so our current stadium is restrictive."

Everything is delivered with the caveat that no decision, as yet, has been made to leave the only home Chelsea have ever had, though the reality suggests there is no decision to be made at all. With studies conducted by two architectural firms – at a cost of around £700,000 – to examine the viability of developing the current site having concluded that expansion is impractical, hemmed in as the ground is by railway lines, flats and hotels, the long-term future can only be relocation if the commercial revenues are to increase.

Of the sites potentially available, Battersea Nine Elms, an area on the south bank of the Thames stretching from Chelsea Bridge to Lambeth Bridge, would appear the most convenient in terms of potential availability and size. A site of at least 18 acres would be needed for a 60,000-seat arena, and there will most likely be competition from Queens Park Rangers to build on another potential site, on QPR's doorstep at White City, while it would take a radical shift in stance at Capital & Counties plc, the owners of Earl's Court and Olympia, to make that area another real option for Chelsea to exploit. Yet any move would require the finances generated by the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge into residential or office complexes, together with funding presumably from Abramovich or a compliant bank. To make that possible, the pitch, turnstiles and freehold at Stamford Bridge must surely be Chelsea's again.

And so, the small shareholders at CPO are empowered. There will be natural resistance within the 12,000, most of whom own only a single share bought for £100, to any notion of change. The very nature of Chelsea has changed radically under Abramovich and, where some laud the silverware and newfound profile the team enjoys, others inevitably pine for the days when the club was genuinely theirs rather than a global entity. The idea that, by agreeing simply to accept a payment that matches their original outlay, they may be smoothing the way for the club to move to a new home will horrify some.

Chelsea will spend the next four weeks ahead of the extraordinary general meeting attempting to justify their strategy. They are well aware that CPO has the contractual rights to the name Chelsea Football Club so, should the club move to another stadium, they would not be able to use the name without the permission of 75% of shareholders. Yet Buck argues that the offer, with the perks of priority rights to purchase season tickets and a roll of honour at a new stadium, is fair. After all, CPO granted Chelsea a 199-year lease to play on its land and, with that agreement taken into account, an independent valuation of the pitch and land upon which the stands are built recently claimed it to be worth only £20,000. The stakes over which this club is currently playing are very much higher. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/03/revenues-chelsea-stamford-bridge-move

And here are four locations Chelsea are considering re-locating to, thanks to The Guardian paper:

I'm sooo in two minds about this. On one hand, Stamford Bridge is all I've ever known. It's far and away my football ground and whilst I get that it ain't as big as the ~majestic grounds~ of Old Trafford and the Emirates (urgh, after our boshing of Arsenal at home last season, some clown tweeted "Chelsea are not the pride of London. To be the pride of London you have to have history and a ground bigger than my house" which made me feel the #needtostab, I like how cosy it is, and its closeness to Fulham Broadway tube station. But idk. I recognise Abramovich's point of view as well. Also, if they moved to Battersea Nine Elms, it would be even closer to my house, so, score! \0/

What do you think about this, girlies?




&a nice article about Daniel Sturridge's humility at the weekend, with more than the odd allusion to football & sex, hehe:



As weird as the article is, with its analogising scoring goals to having orgasms, I bunged it up because I believe Mr Sturridge deserves plaudits for the classy way he carried himself on Sunday. :)  The fact of the matter is, when he went on loan to Bolton, being with them allowed him to realise his full potential, and, whilst the team reaped the benefits of starting him in terms of goals (many of them match-winners), Sturridge himself grew, not only as a player, but made the rocky transition from boy-to-man at the Reebok. He ran Lampsybung close for Man of the Match, yet the way he still showed Bolton and their fans respect was refreshing to see. In the quite literal sense, boy has been quality this season.

Comments

[grrliz.livejournal.com]

It's early so maybe I missed it in this article, but I thought there was a rule somewhere about how if Chelsea ever moved from Stamford Bridge they could not retain the name Chelsea FC? I can't remember where I read this.

In other news, as a burned Meireles fan, I love how because he is the biggest fanboy on any team and loves to be the first one in to celebrate goals with his team mates, he features heavily in all these Chelsea pics. :(

[crouchea.livejournal.com]

Oh yesss. He has definitely replaced John Terry as Chelsea's "zelig" figure -- the one who's quickest to run to the goal-scorer and celebrate with them, haha.

[candyrushh.livejournal.com]

yep. something like samsung stadium. it was a while ago where samsung wanted would build a new stadium as long as we called it that. LIKE LOL. seriously an emirates stadium is bad enough, i dont even want to think about a stadium called samsung

[grrliz.livejournal.com]

No, I don't mean naming rights for the stadium being tied to its being built, I mean for the team itself. I thought I was going crazy so I did some Googling and on the Chelsea website itself it says (http://www.chelseafc.com/page/ChelseaPitchOwnersDetails/0,,10268~2467982,00.html): Within the lease agreement between CPO and Chelsea is the provision for CPO to have contractual rights in respect of the name Chelsea Football Club in the event that Chelsea were to relocate from Stamford Bridge, that is that coupled with whatever I read when I first heard about this, the name Chelsea FC apparently lies with whoever currently occupies Stamford Bridge and that moving jeopardizes their contractual rights to be called that.

[sukha4.livejournal.com]

I think if the CPO sell to the club, then they can have the name?

[bluemeadow13.livejournal.com]

CPO has the contractual rights to the name Chelsea Football Club so, should the club move to another stadium, they would not be able to use the name without the permission of 75% of shareholders.

I don't really think it'll be an issue though because CPO is made up of Chelsea fans, not investors. So I can't imagine they would force the club to change its name

[candyrushh.livejournal.com]

i know a lot of Chelsea faithful who have been going to games do not want to move at all, thus all the CPO business and Chelsea trying to buy it back.
i love Stamford bridge, it would be weird having another home since its been our only stadium ever. but i mean, the the FFP its going to be hard having a 42 thousand seat stadium and still make all the revenue that clubs with bigger stadiums have. And I'm pretty sure y'all remember when we played Bayer Leverkusen in the UCL how many empty seats there were and people protesting how expensive 40 pounds was and so they didnt go. I mean, its only going to get more expensive if our capacity is 42 thousand.
If we move, i hope its close to stamford bridge

[sarahsayssoo.livejournal.com]

it's important to have a big stadium in order to comply with FFP. any money spent on infrastructure is not counted as debt, but the higher gate receipts count as revenue and can hep pay for players or offset other debts. 41,000 isn't tiny, but for the big club that chelsea wants to be, a bigger stadium would be useful

[bloolikejazz.livejournal.com]

what do you mean with "for the big club chelsea wants to be"

[sukha4.livejournal.com]

It sucks having to decide whether to leave your stadium.

Liverpool are in the same situation as well and I can't stand the thought of us leaving Anfield, but sometimes you have to move on and think of the future.

[guingel.livejournal.com]

I don't have any strong feelings about Chelsea or their stadium except that I think Stamford Bridge is the coolest stadium name. Can I have it if they're not using it?

[toadclubber.livejournal.com]

i dnw to move from stamford bridge i dnw i dnw i dnw
but i'm sure the new stadium will be great, too. /sigh

[cojos-revenge.livejournal.com]

Why though? So much history.

[desienfree.livejournal.com]

ooooooooooooo, u r so witty and funny!!!!!!!! burrrrrrn etc

[cojos-revenge.livejournal.com]

Thanks! It must be why you're so obsessed with me. I don't recall asking you, though.

[bloolikejazz.livejournal.com]

People give us shit for not having history (idk what that even means) but the little that we managed to scrap together since we established way back in 2003- it's all at the bridge.

not to be rude but since when does the size of the stadium define what team is better. smaller stadiums allow a more personal atmosphere.
if Chelsea is shit and arsenal is the pride of London... well then.

i still don't get the need to sell the bridge? as far as i've known the reason for the move is the lack of seating. are there previous owners involved with a legitimate reason to get the ground back or what? idgi :(

[bloolikejazz.livejournal.com]

or maybe... would it be possible to buy a new stadium nearby and keep the bridge for training facilities, women's team, reserves and youth?
and have a part of it dedicated as a museum like at camp nou? granted it will be a very small museum only so much can happen in 8 years.

[raincitygirl.livejournal.com]

I doubt it. THe money from redeveloping and then selling the land Stamford Bridge is on would likely have been built into their cost projections for how to fund the new stadium. That's how Arsenal managed to fund building Emirates: by building apartment blocks on Highbury and selling them.

The move may not even happen. Convincing 12,000 diehard football fans to agree to sell their shares is going to be a very tall order.

[sumrndmgrl.livejournal.com]

that idea would be awesome if it could happen. it sucks when megastructures are used then just abandoned.

[sumrndmgrl.livejournal.com]

maybe i'm stupid but new stadium =/= sold out seats nor does it equal more fans. financially, it could just be a bust. times are hard and fans can be fickle.

[problematique.livejournal.com]

it isn't just about the increase in seats that is important about a new stadium

you improve all of the facilities that come inside of one. it's generally much more cost effective to build something new instead of upgrades to an older structure. also take into account that when you do upgrade older stadiums you have to get many more work permits and you have to take into account the possible demolition of homes, roads and businesses. it's a messy situation.

i'm quite sure the vast majority of chelsea supporters would like to stay at the bridge (much like a lot of lfc fans want to stay at anfield) but logistically it isn't possible.

also as noted above the debt you take on in building a new stadium is "good" debt and the kind that you want your club to have.

[sumrndmgrl.livejournal.com]

yeah, that's true. under the right circumstances it can be a good investment: improved training grounds, maybe more VIP seats for profit, reputation that might attract better staff such as medical team or coaches, etc.

[problematique.livejournal.com]

fans need to accept that most clubs are going to move away from their current stadiums if they have not already. and that name rights are here to stay.

it's the financial climate that we live in and given that most of the stadiums are located around businesses and homes it makes it logistically impossible to expand. cheaper and takes less time to just build something new.