Stamford Bridge Thread

[Slam Dunk 1,442]

Lol, Battersea. "We will dip our opponents in a Sea of Batter and deep fry them".

You reckon you could buy stuff from Stamford Bridge when it gets demolished? Like the front desk or a door?

Don't want to think about it too much

(A lot of it will be auctioned off though i'd imagine).

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Chelsea open up over stadium plans:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1029843/chelsea-open-up-over-new-stadium-plans?cc=4716

[Kezza 1,965]

Don't want to think about it too much

(A lot of it will be auctioned off though i'd imagine).

It was very hard to write the 'd' word!

[The Rising Sun 710]

hey everyone, i might be wrong, and please correct me if i am....

expanding stamford bridge means a 10-20000 seat expansion , and since the seating will not be horizontal enough, expanding would mean going more vertical upwards which will not make viewing as good, therefore the ticket prices for the upper seats will not be able to be priced high.... that means the money spent on building will take forever to be recovered as revenue from that extra seating will not be enough....

with FFP coming in, that expense will probably mean we have much less or nothing{?} to spend....

i am in the real estate business in india, and i cant specifically recall, but i discussed with a colleague who is a epl fan, that in london/england, there are laws regulating how a building renovation/ new building/stadium construction affects properties around it, such as sunlight blocking, traffic volumes, road capacities around the stadiums etc....

even though it is possible for chelsea to build on stamford bridge, if city councils allow it, firstly the surrounding vicinity owners have to give a no objection certificate and will have to be paid,legally, hefty amounts to them for such a move.

on the other hand, if we build a new stadium, it will cost a whole lot, and even though arsenal have not spent much since the emirates, the FFP were not applicable then. Their loss of quality due to less money does show. they create stars and then they leave.

If we build a new stadium, that means we have a long time to recover costs, and FFP wont allow roman ro bankroll as it has been.

So is it not a loss-loss both ways?

however if we do move, since the CPO presently dont want to sell, the club should calculate stadium costs, and based on that if a Pitch owner has 10 shares now, not to reduce their investment, but since only chelsea/roman will be investing, take that into account and instead of 10 shares, that person will have maybe 3-4 shares, since that person has made no further investment in the new stadium and new pitch.

[Slam Dunk 1,442]

FFP rules do not consider 'tangible fixed assets' (such as the building of a new stadium) as part of a club's expenditure, therefore FFP isn't relevant when building a new stadium. Matchday revenue on the other hand is counted towards a club's income. Therefore the potential building of a new stadium is win/win for Chelsea when you talk about the FFP rules.

2 - Relevant expenses is defined as cost of sales, employee benefits expenses and other operating expenses, plus either amortisation or costs of acquiring player registrations, finance costs and dividends. It does not include depreciation/impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation/impairment of intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations), expenditure on youth 34 development activities, expenditure on community development activities, any other non-monetary items, finance costs directly attributable to the construction of tangible fixed assets, tax expenses or certain expenses from non-football operations.

[Billy. 2,742]

Already linked my bad

Edited March 2, 2012 by carefree88

[Kostas 1,468]

The analysis presented seems awfully thorough and detailed (at least by the standards of our website) but probably serves no other purpose than shutting all those against the relocation up. I've been led to believe that SB choices were explored and rejected way before the saynocpo thing so this is little more than a PR move, underlined by how desperately the door to staying at the Bridge is kept from being closed.

Is property more expensive at Fulham than Battersea?

[We Hate Scouse 10,286]

The analysis presented seems awfully thorough and detailed (at least by the standards of our website) but probably serves no other purpose than shutting all those against the relocation up. I've been led to believe that SB choices were explored and rejected way before the saynocpo thing so this is little more than a PR move, underlined by how desperately the door to staying at the Bridge is kept from being closed.

Is property more expensive at Fulham than Battersea?

Battersea Power Station site was acquired for £400 million in 2006...The company that currently owns it is in debt so I'm assuming we'd get it around that price. Stamford Bridge is worth £750 million.

In terms of housing. A house in Fulham/Chelsea would cost in the region of £1 million, where as a house in Battersea you're looking in the region of £250,000. It's amazing what difference a couple of miles can make.

[middleoftheshed 388]

The analysis presented seems awfully thorough and detailed (at least by the standards of our website) but probably serves no other purpose than shutting all those against the relocation up. I've been led to believe that SB choices were explored and rejected way before the saynocpo thing so this is little more than a PR move, underlined by how desperately the door to staying at the Bridge is kept from being closed.

Yes thats right, the club have always said they have looked at all of the possibilities but supporters were arguing they've never seen any evidence of it - so here it is.

[Kezza 1,965]

"Chelsea currently ranks sixth in Europe by turnover.

"Our performance is also affected by the fact that admission prices at Stamford Bridge are among the highest in the Premier League."

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Blues rule out new stadium:

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2012/03/03/chelsea-rule-out-600m-new-stamford-bridge-stadium/

Not sure what their source is, though.

[Laylabelle 9,357]

Not surprising can see why they've said that.Like said where would they play for 3 years while they rebuild? Then with the issues with the surronding area

[BlueLion. 21,491]

We wouldn't sell out a 60,000 seater stadium against Wigan. Should stay at Stamford Bridge and play big EPL and UCL games at Twickenham.

[Peace. 4,352]

Gourlay and co should rather concentrate on splashing cash on players, rather than on this stadium. Because if we don't fix our problemS right now, in a few years Stamford Bridge would be too much big for us... Such a shame they have $$ in their eyes.

[Fulham Broadway 16,851]

Thats true Peace. At the moment we really need a 60 000 seater, it'll be full to the rafters when we're playing Rotheram and Shrewsbury

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

TICKET PRICES FROZEN

Chelsea Football Club today (Thursday) announced a policy of no rise in ticket prices for the 2012/13 season for all seats at Stamford Bridge, including all hospitality areas.

The price freeze covers season tickets, matchday tickets for members and general sale seats for adults, juniors and senior citizens.

Prices for all categories of Barclays Premier League games (AA, A and B will remain the same as the current 2011/12 season.

The long-standing policy of discounted tickets for FA Cup and Carling Cup matches continues as prices for those competitions will also be frozen.

http://www.chelseafc...2640974,00.html

[LDN Blue 7,903]

Fair enough.

[Badboy 1,526]

We can't even sell out Stamford Bridge, they are sell match tickets in the box office to random people without memberships lol, chill out Roman !