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

[sarahsayssoo.livejournal.com]

they can't expand because of the location. there are businesses and houses around and making the stadium bigger would infringe on those properties right

and although regular ticketholders are important, there is way more money in the luxury boxes and corporate sales which chelsea is really well-positioned to take advantage of. That is why arsenal is doing so well. and arsenal's average attendance for BPL matches is like 60,000+ which isn't sell-out but it is huge