Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Stamford Bridge thread


 Share
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi. Here is a first *rough* colour render. I've so many things to fix on this image, but thought I'd show you what progress has been made.

The design of the four new stands will take their inspiration not from the uniform style of most recent stadiums, but from the buttresses, pillars and gothic architecture of Westminster Abbey in whose

It'll be close to 65k. 2 Bridges, 1 to West Brompton and 1 to the back of Fulham Broadway. They will lower the ground. Wembley is looking the most likely temp ground.

Posted Images

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

surely in regards to sponsors rejecting the naming, the proof is in the pudding, 6 years on from first looking and nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Chelsea FC had a rethink, change of plan etc etc. Because somewhere like Cobham which is state of the art one of the best in the world could have easily attracted training ground spinsorship.

SB is not a decrepid old stadium either...looks quite modern as you approach it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or Chelsea FC had a rethink, change of plan etc etc. Because somewhere like Cobham which is state of the art one of the best in the world could have easily attracted training ground spinsorship.

SB is not a decrepid old stadium either...looks quite modern as you approach it.

Thats not the point though, it may be new for the bulk of it but crucially it has always been called stamford bridge, the club didnt change their mind as gourlay 3 years after starting the search gave updates on how it was going, it was reported that sponsors were not interested in sponsoring an old (as in not brand new) stadium for the kind of money we were looking for, ask dave whelan and mike ashley how it is going in finding a sponsor for an existing stadium.

Id imagine that the training ground name will be bundled in with the ground name for £20m+ a season for 10 years, which should be achievable on a new stadia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to these 'reports'...you seem very certain and i am playing devils advocate but see no proof on the table....just speculation.

The success of the club means we have been very sponserable ....SB included I would have thought.

I think new rules about sponsors and how they could rebrand grounds had a lot to do with it otherwise Abramovich could have used his influence over his companies to sponsor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

None of the existing stands are 1905 originals but it's still Stamford Bridge. :)

As for rejections, I've no idea of course but it must be reasonable to guess that, since the stadium does not have a sponsor, no potential partners have been interested. At least not at a price acceptable to Chelsea. Personally, I don't have a problem with naming rights, I hope it happens and the sooner the better. New stadium or no new stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the existing stands are 1905 originals but it's still Stamford Bridge. :)

As for rejections, I've no idea of course but it must be reasonable to guess that, since the stadium does not have a sponsor, no potential partners have been interested. At least not at a price acceptable to Chelsea. Personally, I don't have a problem with naming rights, I hope it happens and the sooner the better. New stadium or no new stadium.

No evidence of this, but I think it was a lot like the Turkish Airways saga with Gourley whereby he had someone lined up but it was either a pony company or what they were offering was right and it got rejected by the board.

The stadium sponsor and TA saga is probably what lost him his job.

The fact that we were clearly very eager for a sponsor suggests to me that we will again try to obtain a name right deal on the new build.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Links to these 'reports'...you seem very certain and i am playing devils advocate but see no proof on the table....just speculation.

The success of the club means we have been very sponserable ....SB included I would have thought.

I think new rules about sponsors and how they could rebrand grounds had a lot to do with it otherwise Abramovich could have used his influence over his companies to sponsor.

2009 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/6510291/Chelsea-to-sell-Stamford-Bridge-naming-rights-to-compete-with-elite-clubs.html

2011- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2058862/Chelsea-close-Stamford-Bridge-naming-rights-deal.html

the club have seemed very keen to build a new ground, not just redevelop shed/mh ends to get to 60k, so logically to me it seems they want a new stadia part of that has been mooted as to be as they could sell the naming rights to offset some of the cost of the build.

To me it seems pretty clear that the club have failed to sell the naming rights to the bridge it was even a rumoured part reason behind gourlay being moved on, just as dave whelan failed to sell his and mike ashley failed to sell his the logical pattern it seems is old stadia and would explain the 6 years looking yet no deal for us even though we are one of the top 5 clubs in world football over the last decade or so and could of offered said company the opportunity to be first in line on a new stadia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no proof that there have been rejection from a company. Seen all these clips before..Boring

Chelsea are hardly likely to turn round and say you know what its been 5 years we have said twice that we will announce a sponsor in the coming months but it was actually rubbish and we have failed to find anyone willing to sponsor us for the amount we want on our current stadium, that would never happen and thats the only time youd have proof that thats the case, the most simple answer is usually the right one nobody wants to pay the going rate for a ground name on a established stadia, the closet thing you would have to proof is when the bridge is rebuilt and some american/asian business has their companys name plastered all over the place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no proof. It would have got iut like everything normYally does. You, me or any normal punter does not know that nobody wants to pay or whether other plans were put in place. Just because a sponsor didnt happen doesnt automatically mean there were rejections....just pure speculation by you unless you are privy toboardroom conversations

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-15/champions-league-win-may-determine-samsung-s-backing-of-chelsea

Hwang also said his company has turned down opportunities for naming rights to various stadiums, including Chelseas Stamford Bridge. The Blues have failed to sell naming rights for several years and want to find a sponsor as part of proposals to move to a new stadium. The club said May 4 that it was bidding to acquire the Battersea Power Station site in London.

Our experience is that even though we put the Samsung name on that, no media mentions Samsung but just the stadium name, so that was the actual reason, said Hwang.

Samsung rejected chance to sponsor stadium, common sense says they would of been offered the chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the clubs website

https://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2015/06/update-on-consultation-process.html

A year ago a study of the area from Fulham Broadway to Stamford Bridge and beyond was commissioned by Chelsea Football Club owner Roman Abramovich to examine the potential of upgrading the streetscape.

The study also began to assess the feasibility of an expansion of the stadium capacity within the existing historical site boundary, based on the principles of improving site access, benefiting the neighbourhood and enhancing the spectator experience.

Mr Abramovich has appointed a professional team to assess, in more detail, the feasibility of expanding the existing stadium capacity at Stamford Bridge Grounds.

The process now enters a further local consultation phase. This will include an explanation of the rationale for expansion, driven by spectator demand for more seats and the need to increase stadium revenue to remain competitive with our major rivals, this revenue being especially important under Financial Fair Play rules.

Technical solutions for stadium capacity expansion are being investigated initially.

This stage of the consultation will focus at present on discussing the rationale and technical solutions for expansion with residents and match-going spectators.

Local stakeholders, neighbours, season ticket holders and club members will be invited to comment on the potential expansion.

This feedback, which to date has assisted our progress in earlier stages, will continue to inform the next stage of the study.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-15/champions-league-win-may-determine-samsung-s-backing-of-chelsea

Hwang also said his company has turned down opportunities for naming rights to various stadiums, including Chelseas Stamford Bridge. The Blues have failed to sell naming rights for several years and want to find a sponsor as part of proposals to move to a new stadium. The club said May 4 that it was bidding to acquire the Battersea Power Station site in London.

Our experience is that even though we put the Samsung name on that, no media mentions Samsung but just the stadium name, so that was the actual reason, said Hwang.

Samsung rejected chance to sponsor stadium, common sense says they would of been offered the chance.

all that says is Samsung reasons for not sponsoring any stadium whether new, old, or whatever at that time ....not just Stamford Bridge.

Did they actually enter negotiations about it? I doubt it as they seem very clear at that time about doing shirts over buildings

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day naming rights or not, providing we stay at the present ground it should always be called Stamford Bridge.

The bridge over a sand creek that was a tributary of the River Thames is still the hallow ground the stadium and rail track was built on.

Would be deplorable if it was renamed and the words Stamford Bridge were dropped but because its still on the same land, most supporters going to the match will still refer to it as "going to the bridge" etc.

Can understand with the reasons that posters above have given and quoted from media articles that it has been difficult to obtain naming rights but in all essence, what will have changed?

Upto 3 new stands but still on same land....still Stamford Bridge

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/chelsea-stamford-bridge-expansion-study-9455949

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2015/06/update-on-consultation-process.html

Got my invite.

Hope Roman lays on a decent buffet and likes all the lego and cardboard models I have made from drawings on the back of fag packets

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...