test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Steve

Stamford Bridge

Started by Steve,

2,592 posts in this topic

depends what happens with FFP....if it sticks I could easily see certain naming rights at SB and possibly Cobham being sold off.

However FFP is in a mess at the moment so its safe at the moment.

The Yokohama Bridge or the The Gazprom training ground dont sound right ;-)

And a sponsership for training kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stadium Name Sponser?

No, and hope that never will.

thats niave to think it wont happen, new ground name will be sold, otherwise why not just redevelop the shed end and if possibile add a tier to mh? for a complete rebuild the stadia name will be sold to the highest bidder, they have been trying for years to sell the bridges name but had no buyers due to it being an old stadia with a new stadia you will have a bidding war, especially as roman will build the most state of the art stadia in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah another thing rather than 1 bridge to West Brompton there's going to be 2 bridges. Don't know where the 2nd one is going at the minute.

fulham broadway is the obvious one id assume unless the club fancy building a stadium specific station a bit further up to easy congestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fulham broadway is the obvious one id assume unless the club fancy building a stadium specific station a bit further up to easy congestion.

Yeah that seems the logical option. Would be pretty cool if they could make an underground passage to Parsons Green as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats niave to think it wont happen, new ground name will be sold, otherwise why not just redevelop the shed end and if possibile add a tier to mh? for a complete rebuild the stadia name will be sold to the highest bidder, they have been trying for years to sell the bridges name but had no buyers due to it being an old stadia with a new stadia you will have a bidding war, especially as roman will build the most state of the art stadia in the country.

Really??? Have never seen anything about SB name being sold in the time Abramovich is here.

No mention of it in end of year and pre season reports by the board or in fan club meetings with the them.

Do you have links? Would be interesting to see this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really??? Have never seen anything about SB name being sold in the time Abramovich is here.

No mention of it in end of year and pre season reports by the board or in fan club meetings with the them.

Do you have links? Would be interesting to see this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2058862/Chelsea-close-Stamford-Bridge-naming-rights-deal.html

Ron Gourlay actually said it was pretty much done.

Rhino's Skin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

depends what happens with FFP....if it sticks I could easily see certain naming rights at SB and possibly Cobham being sold off.

However FFP is in a mess at the moment so its safe at the moment.

The Yokohama Bridge or the The Gazprom training ground dont sound right ;-)

Irrespective of FFP changes the club will want to sell naming rights where possible. What's more I hope they succeed and that the deals are very lucrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks...remember now.but rejections due to age of ground?

Never seen that

It's not about the age in and of itself. It's more about the fact that the existing name is too well established.

Had Emirates Airlines bought naming rights to Highbury, everyone would have ignored it and gone right on calling the ground by its traditional name. The value of the arrangement, from the sponsors point of view, would therefore have been much reduced. On the other hand it's hard to imagine anyone calling the new ground anything other than Emirates Stadium. Indeed, if and when Arsenal need to attract a new sponsor, they may find companies reluctant to spend big because the place is so strongly associated with The Emirates.

It'll be interesting to see how it goes with us if we do put up a new stadium at The Bridge. It'll be a new building for sure but it'll also be at the old ground and with, I suppose, a section of the fan base insisting on continuing to use the old name. In fact Chelsea may well want to sell a name like The XYZ Stadium at Stamford Bridge but I'd expect buyers to want to use their brand name only. If and when the time comes, I hope we manage to square that circle and get a good deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks...remember now.but rejections due to age of ground?

Never seen that

Not age of ground, the fact it has already had a name for the last 100 odd years lol, sponsors are not stupid they know full well that if stamford bridge was renamed or had something added to the front of stamford bridge it would still only be known as stamford bridge, a new stadia with new history a blank slate even if built on top of the old site would sell like hot cakes as it would only be known as the new name.

Its like trying to rename chewbacca as nigel nobody would call him nigel he would still be called chewbacca to 90% of people.

We Hate Scouse likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrespective of FFP changes the club will want to sell naming rights where possible. What's more I hope they succeed and that the deals are very lucrative.

Not age of ground, the fact it has already had a name for the last 100 odd years lol, sponsors are not stupid they know full well that if stamford bridge was renamed or had something added to the front of stamford bridge it would still only be known as stamford bridge, a new stadia with new history a blank slate even if built on top of the old site would sell like hot cakes as it would only be known as the new name.

Its like trying to rename chewbacca as nigel nobody would call him nigel he would still be called chewbacca to 90% of people.

It's not about the age in and of itself. It's more about the fact that the existing name is too well established.

Had Emirates Airlines bought naming rights to Highbury, everyone would have ignored it and gone right on calling the ground by its traditional name. The value of the arrangement, from the sponsors point of view, would therefore have been much reduced. On the other hand it's hard to imagine anyone calling the new ground anything other than Emirates Stadium. Indeed, if and when Arsenal need to attract a new sponsor, they may find companies reluctant to spend big because the place is so strongly associated with The Emirates.

It'll be interesting to see how it goes with us if we do put up a new stadium at The Bridge. It'll be a new building for sure but it'll also be at the old ground and with, I suppose, a section of the fan base insisting on continuing to use the old name. In fact Chelsea may well want to sell a name like The XYZ Stadium at Stamford Bridge but I'd expect buyers to want to use their brand name only. If and when the time comes, I hope we manage to square that circle and get a good deal.

So still no proof that sponsors actually rejected the renaming then.

I agree with what you say in principle but the poster did actually state that sponsor deals of renaming/rebranding SB were rejected by potential sponsors.

What if say the West Stand stays and the other 3 stands are rebuilt/remodeled? Its still Stamford Bridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main objective is to add as much corporate seats as possible. It's less about getting another 18k.

Arsenal with their 60k has the second biggest income in Europe in matchdays with 100.2m£. Man United has 16k more in capacity but only 8m£ more in income. Barcelona has 97.7£ with almost 100k capacity and Real 95.2m£ with 85k. It's because Arsenal has new stadium with the most corporate seats there. Real are planning to spend 400m€ to add only 8k in capacity but want to improve corporate seats and stick shopping centre and hotel to the stadium.

Chelsea isn't THAT far behind with 71m£ income from matchdays. It's 37m£ less than United and 29m£ less than Arsenal but it isn't SUCH a huge deal now. With new Yokohama sponsorship and Champions League prize money it's 45m£ more season and season out. And with new Premier League deal from 2016 it's another 55m£ more each season.

Therefore it isn't that much of the deal now when majority of the income come from elsewhere. Though The Sun states that will bring extra 40m£ for the club. That would mean that Chelsea matchday income will be highest in Europe. Is that possible when Arsenal has already 60k stadium which brings "only" 29m£ more ? But surely they calculate it will bring a lot more than 29m£ because otherwise I can't see they'd splash 400-500m£ or whatever number on the new stadium when broadcasting deal alone would double that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah another thing rather than 1 bridge to West Brompton there's going to be 2 bridges. Don't know where the 2nd one is going at the minute.

Any idea if the club are planning to buy any of the properties surrounding Stamford Bridge? If they could then it will be easier to understand how they'll manage to fit a 60k stadium onto a very restricted site.

Excellent ITKing regardless

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.