Redevelopment?

[synavm 4]

If we didn't sell our entire allocation for Inter Milan match last year, I'd love to know where all the tickets were being sold!

I can only remember a handful of games that haven't shown up as sold out on the website over the past few seasons, also, add that to our demand for Season Tickets and the nature at which must games sell out (at one ticket per member), and I think we could sell around 55,000 tickets for about 90% of matches. My view is that the club has grown hugely over the past few years and we need to take advantage of that.

[strong centreback 157]

Just heard on SSN that the attempt to sell the naming rights to the bridge has failed to attract any serious bids, we are apparently after 100m for it, maybe the moving options have been looked at again because the naming rights dont look like being taken up? as that is one of the areas the club wants to pursue whilst at the bridge and maybe during discussions with potential sponsors they have said that they would only be interested in naming rights to a new stadia, hence making the club look at a move again with more than just a glance.

[strong centreback 157]

Just to add to my previous post, link,

£100m Bridge bid bites the dust

CHELSEA'S grand plan to sell the naming rights to Stamford Bridge has failed to get a single serious bid.

Now the Blues face a financial rethink following the £100million flop.

It is 17 months since chief executive Ron Gourlay announced he was ready to open talks on stadium sponsorship.

But dozens of blue-chip companies have baulked at Chelsea's price of £100m for a 10-year deal.

Gourlay admitted: "The issue is not going to be resolved in the near future and we are still looking for a suitable partner.

"If that doesn't happen we will go down a different route."

Last line seems significant if an actual quote from gourlay, what I said in my previous post if we cant sell naming rights to the bridge than the club may be forced into serious discussions about a stadia move with naming rights then sold, as a way to make more money from matchday revenues, as its not just the extra 10-15k tickets a new stadia would bring in money wise it is everything else that goes with it, higher corporate prices, more merchandise/ food/drink sold its alot of extra money to make whilst not affecting the financial fair play rules.

[Madmax 9,219]

Just to add to my previous post, link,

£100m Bridge bid bites the dust

CHELSEA'S grand plan to sell the naming rights to Stamford Bridge has failed to get a single serious bid.

Now the Blues face a financial rethink following the £100million flop.

It is 17 months since chief executive Ron Gourlay announced he was ready to open talks on stadium sponsorship.

But dozens of blue-chip companies have baulked at Chelsea's price of £100m for a 10-year deal.

Gourlay admitted: "The issue is not going to be resolved in the near future and we are still looking for a suitable partner.

"If that doesn't happen we will go down a different route."

Last line seems significant if an actual quote from gourlay, what I said in my previous post if we cant sell naming rights to the bridge than the club may be forced into serious discussions about a stadia move with naming rights then sold, as a way to make more money from matchday revenues, as its not just the extra 10-15k tickets a new stadia would bring in money wise it is everything else that goes with it, higher corporate prices, more merchandise/ food/drink sold its alot of extra money to make whilst not affecting the financial fair play rules.

Interesting.

It's quite logical from the pov of those companies tbh. Why would they pay that much per annum for those rights, considering even with the whole naming rights business, we'd still need to move in the future.

This is the best thing that could have happened in this situation. Now the board will be forced to move in order to secure our long term financial future and not look at naming rights as a short term solution. Breaking even and non-reliance on Roman's handouts will happen quicker.

[synavm 4]

Personally I'd be looking at something like a 56,000-60,000 seater stadium complete with naming rights, although not necessarily as high as £100 Million over ten years.

[strong centreback 157]

Personally I'd be looking at something like a 56,000-60,000 seater stadium complete with naming rights, although not necessarily as high as £100 Million over ten years.

On a new stadium id be wanting north of 100m over 10 years if I were the club, wengers perennial bottlers get 10m a season for having their stadia named after an airline, and that deal is what 4 years old now, id hazard a guess that for naming rights for a new stadia you could get a bidding war going between a few companys, imho opinion that is the reason renaming the bridge has failed to deliver anything yet a company would be willing to shell out that kind of cash but only for something that is new and has no name already attached to it.

[synavm 4]

On a new stadium id be wanting north of 100m over 10 years if I were the club, wengers perennial bottlers get 10m a season for having their stadia named after an airline, and that deal is what 4 years old now, id hazard a guess that for naming rights for a new stadia you could get a bidding war going between a few companys, imho opinion that is the reason renaming the bridge has failed to deliver anything yet a company would be willing to shell out that kind of cash but only for something that is new and has no name already attached to it.

But the thing is, didn't that 100m include shirt sponsorship as well? I certainly think we should be looking at Arsenal's business model a bit closer, perhaps with not quite as much emphasis on youth development.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Just host big EPL games and UCL knockout matches at Twickenham?

[strong centreback 157]

But the thing is, didn't that 100m include shirt sponsorship as well? I certainly think we should be looking at Arsenal's business model a bit closer, perhaps with not quite as much emphasis on youth development.

Yep it did and it was for 15 years after doing abit of research, their ground will keep the name the emirates till atleast 2021, that deal was done in 2004 though and if you look at the upward trend of football sponsorship (see bayern munich as a great example) since then despite the recession, id say 120m over 10 years would be obtainable on a brand new stadia on one of the most famous clubs in world football, also take into account by the time any new stadium was built/finished (at least 3 years from start to finish) that the economy (globally) may be in better health which would also give the club a better footing in negotiations.

[strong centreback 157]

Just host big EPL games and UCL knockout matches at Twickenham?

Wasn't that was mooted when bates was still in charge whilst the bridge was being redeveloped the last time? certainly wouldn't be a bad idea although im not sure how good the playing surface would be at certain points through the season.

[steve5221 91]

Just host big EPL games and UCL knockout matches at Twickenham?

Interesting point and makes sense but thier would be uproar from other clubs and how much would English Rugby want for the hire of the ground??

[spuz 143]

The Arse played at Wembley for their first CL games,however it affected results.