Stamford Bridge Thread

[Rhino's Skin 972]

To be honest I doubt the majority of the catering staff are going to treck over the other side of London to sell hotdogs once a fortnight for minimum wage though.

yeah...because thats their only work at the moment and they all live within walking distance of SB ;-)

[Unionjack 7,531]

I saw this report on WAGNH this morning. I didnt even think about going down (LOL Sovenia just scored) It would clear up alot of the probems of residents skylines and surrounding ares eh!

As for going to Wembley I cant see why not if they let us. Right now unfortunately I spend alot of time 80miles up the A1 from home which means a 80mile trip down town (only missed 1 home game this season and 3 away) so a trip to Wembleys no skin off my nose. I know its being homeless for 3 years but wouldnt that be worth it to get a brand new home?

I think whats as important is we try to push forward the whole safe standing debate. It would create a so much bigger capacity and bigger takings for all the shareholders. Anyone whos travelled abroad knows how well this works and I really cant see any problems with it myself even thinking negatively.

Ive not looked too far back in this thread but have we considered a sponser for building the new Bridge?

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

I saw this report on WAGNH this morning. I didnt even think about going down (LOL Sovenia just scored) It would clear up alot of the probems of residents skylines and surrounding ares eh!

As for going to Wembley I cant see why not if they let us. Right now unfortunately I spend alot of time 80miles up the A1 from home which means a 80mile trip down town (only missed 1 home game this season and 3 away) so a trip to Wembleys no skin off my nose. I know its being homeless for 3 years but wouldnt that be worth it to get a brand new home?

I think whats as important is we try to push forward the whole safe standing debate. It would create a so much bigger capacity and bigger takings for all the shareholders. Anyone whos travelled abroad knows how well this works and I really cant see any problems with it myself even thinking negatively.

Ive not looked too far back in this thread but have we considered a sponser for building the new Bridge?

Stadium Name Sponser?

No, and hope that never will.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

Stadium Name Sponser?

No, and hope that never will.

depends what happens with FFP....if it sticks I could easily see certain naming rights at SB and possibly Cobham being sold off.

However FFP is in a mess at the moment so its safe at the moment.

The Yokohama Bridge or the The Gazprom training ground dont sound right ;-)

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

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.

[Unionjack 7,531]

depends what happens with FFP....if it sticks I could easily see certain naming rights at SB and possibly Cobham being sold off.

However FFP is in a mess at the moment so its safe at the moment.

The Yokohama Bridge or the The Gazprom training ground dont sound right ;-)

And a sponsership for training kit.

[strong centreback 157]

Stadium Name Sponser?

No, and hope that never will.

thats niave to think it wont happen, new ground name will be sold, otherwise why not just redevelop the shed end and if possibile add a tier to mh? for a complete rebuild the stadia name will be sold to the highest bidder, they have been trying for years to sell the bridges name but had no buyers due to it being an old stadia with a new stadia you will have a bidding war, especially as roman will build the most state of the art stadia in the country.

[strong centreback 157]

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.

fulham broadway is the obvious one id assume unless the club fancy building a stadium specific station a bit further up to easy congestion.

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

fulham broadway is the obvious one id assume unless the club fancy building a stadium specific station a bit further up to easy congestion.

Yeah that seems the logical option. Would be pretty cool if they could make an underground passage to Parsons Green as well.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

thats niave to think it wont happen, new ground name will be sold, otherwise why not just redevelop the shed end and if possibile add a tier to mh? for a complete rebuild the stadia name will be sold to the highest bidder, they have been trying for years to sell the bridges name but had no buyers due to it being an old stadia with a new stadia you will have a bidding war, especially as roman will build the most state of the art stadia in the country.

Really??? Have never seen anything about SB name being sold in the time Abramovich is here.

No mention of it in end of year and pre season reports by the board or in fan club meetings with the them.

Do you have links? Would be interesting to see this

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

Really??? Have never seen anything about SB name being sold in the time Abramovich is here.

No mention of it in end of year and pre season reports by the board or in fan club meetings with the them.

Do you have links? Would be interesting to see this

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

Ron Gourlay actually said it was pretty much done.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

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

Ron Gourlay actually said it was pretty much done.

thanks...remember now.but rejections due to age of ground?

Never seen that

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

depends what happens with FFP....if it sticks I could easily see certain naming rights at SB and possibly Cobham being sold off.

However FFP is in a mess at the moment so its safe at the moment.

The Yokohama Bridge or the The Gazprom training ground dont sound right ;-)

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.

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

Just please tell me that the capacity will exceed 60k ...

@WHS ?

[We Hate Scouse 10,260]

Just please tell me that the capacity will exceed 60k ...

@WHS ?

Not a clue I'm afraid.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

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