Stamford Bridge Thread

[OhForAGreavsie 6,057]

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.

[strong centreback 157]

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.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

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

[GoldChelsea 7]

Bonjour, est qu'on va agrandir le stade?

[iseah100 5,612]

Bonjour, est qu'on va agrandir le stade?

Bruh

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

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.

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

Bruh

what lol...

[GoldChelsea 7]

??

[mrparkersdogbite 15]

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

[Unionjack 7,531]

To be honest I really couldnt give a toss what they want to call the stadium. WE all will still call our home The Bridge. It didnt make me happy when we got kicked out of the shed. I remember we couldnt agree where we was going to go so after not coming to agreements during meetings (well piss ups at the So Bar) we all ended up spitting up round the ground which buggered up the atmosphere (which is a big reason why we have a good vocal away cause allthe noisey gits are together .

But its no skin off our nose what someone wants to call it. Theyre going to build us a nice big shiney home (and yes I hope its going to hold more than 60k. We might as well go big if we are gonna do it) If its going to stay where it is it shall always be known as Stamford Bridge)

But what can we do about safe standing? Thats a bigger thing for me rather than what we call the place.

[We Hate Scouse 10,326]

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

They've already bought a lot from what I understand. The previous owners are been given a year to live there free as well.

Not sure exactly what properties have been purchased currently though.

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

They've already bought a lot from what I understand. The previous owners are been given a year to live there free as well.

Not sure exactly what properties have been purchased currently though.

So official announcement on September?