Slam Dunk 1,442 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 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. Term-X 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy. 2,742 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Already linked my bad Edited March 2, 2012 by carefree88 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kostas 1,468 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
We Hate Scouse 10,327 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 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. Kostas 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleoftheshed 388 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kezza 1,965 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 "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." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHOULO19 24,332 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laylabelle 9,536 Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueLion. 21,491 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 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. Badboy and capriccioso 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post! Peace. 4,352 Posted March 4, 2012 Popular Post! Share Posted March 4, 2012 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. Liquidator, francozola, Fulham Broadway and 4 others 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulham Broadway 17,333 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 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 capriccioso 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xPetrCechx 13,573 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 TICKET PRICES FROZENChelsea 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDN Blue 7,903 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badboy 1,526 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 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 ! Peace. and Fulham Broadway 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulham Broadway 17,333 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 They'd be really struggling if they'd increased prices - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulsterchelsea 3,221 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 BluesChronicle@H&F Council has issued a strong statement in-favour of Chelsea remaining at Stamford Bridge & saying an extension in capacity is possible. termninja 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujo101 75 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/feedarticle/10135463* Council says Bridge rebuild would cost less than a move * Deputy leader wants Chelsea to remain at 107-year home (Adds quotes, background) By Tony Jimenez LONDON, March 9 (Reuters) - It would cost Chelsea much more money to move away from Stamford Bridge than it would to rebuild their 107-year home to accommodate a 60,000 capacity, the local council said on Friday. A week ago the west London club said a reconstructed 60,000-seat stadium at Stamford Bridge was an unlikely prospect before adding the planning risks would probably be "insurmountable". However, the local authority, Hammersmith and Fulham Council, believe an expanded venue is possible at the site. "Stamford Bridge is Chelsea's historic home and the council believes it should be their future home," said deputy leader Nick Botterill in a statement. "We want the Blues to stay at Stamford Bridge and, if it can be done sensibly without negatively affecting local people, increase the ground's capacity so they can retain their position as one of Europe's top clubs. "We cannot comment on the financial conclusions CFC (Chelsea FC) have drawn but it is very likely any move away from Fulham would cost far more than either the 600 million pounds ($948.96 million) the club claim it would cost to rebuild their ground or the cost of upgrading and expanding the existing structures." Among the obstacles to an expansion of the stadium are two conservation areas to the south and east and the fact Stamford Bridge is bounded by railway lines on two sides. There are also several listed buildings close by, a cemetery to the east containing listed monuments, and a number of residential properties adjacent to the site. "It is clear to the board a complete new build of a 60,000-seat stadium has little chance of acceptability," Chelsea said last week. "We believe that, after discussions with the council, they have (also) come to the same conclusion." COUNCIL'S PRIDE Botterill, though, said the council would keep talking to the club to examine ways of keeping Chelsea at Stamford Bridge. "We are proud to be the only borough in the country with three Premier League clubs (Chelsea, Fulham and Queens Park Rangers) and we do not want our local businesses and residents to lose out on the economic and social benefits this brings," he added. "CFC are a thriving business contributing significant benefits to the area and we will continue to work closely with CFC to explore all possible avenues for keeping the club at their original home." Chelsea made a proposal to buy the freehold of Stamford Bridge last year to clear the way for a possible move but it was rejected by Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO). CPO was set up in 1993 when the now mega-rich club were in financial difficulties and the fan group acquired the freehold of the pitch to protect Stamford Bridge from developers. Chelsea feel the existing 42,000 capacity puts them at a financial disadvantage compared with rivals such as Manchester United (76,000) and Arsenal (60,000). Chelsea said matchday revenue at Arsenal more than doubled when the club moved to the 60,000-capacity Emirates Stadium in north London from nearby Highbury (38,000). Some supporters, though, were concerned Russian owner Roman Abramovich wanted to build a new stadium well away from west London and feared selling back the freehold would remove an important safety net for Chelsea. The Stamford Bridge club have won the Premier League three times and the FA Cup three times since billionaire Abramovich took over nine years ago. Fifth-placed Chelsea, who host Stoke City in the Premier League on Saturday, also reached the 2008 Champions League final. ($1 = 0.6323 British pounds) (Editing by Ken Ferris) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDN Blue 7,903 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 It makes sense H&L are going to try and get Chelsea to stay, we provide them a lot of money by staying there. This clash of projected finances should be interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xPetrCechx 13,573 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Council question Chelsea claims Council feel it would be cheaper to redevelop Stamford Bridgehttp://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/7582419/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquidator 5,176 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 apparently the dugout area is going to be refurbished this Summer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.