Stamford Bridge Thread

[xPetrCechx 13,565]

  On 14/06/2015 at 18:46, iseah100 said:

Bruh

what lol...

[GoldChelsea 7]

??

[mrparkersdogbite 15]

  On 14/06/2015 at 17:03, We Hate Scouse said:

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 10,291]

  On 14/06/2015 at 19:12, mrparkersdogbite said:

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 13,565]

  On 14/06/2015 at 19:17, We Hate Scouse said:

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?

[We Hate Scouse 10,291]

  On 14/06/2015 at 19:19, xPetrCechx said:

So official announcement on September?

Not sure if my mate meant officially announced to the staff or to the public but we will know more in September, yes.

[strong centreback 157]

  On 14/06/2015 at 18:36, Rhino said:

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.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

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.

[strong centreback 157]

  On 14/06/2015 at 19:48, Rhino said:

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.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

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.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,916]

  On 14/06/2015 at 18:36, Rhino said:

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.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

Think as we are staying ....it will always be Stamford Bridge. Had we gone to EC or 9 elms then of course...but as it stand most match going support will call it SB no matter what

[We Hate Scouse 10,291]

  On 14/06/2015 at 20:25, OhForAGreavsie said:

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.

[strong centreback 157]

  On 14/06/2015 at 20:22, Rhino said:

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.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

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

[strong centreback 157]

  On 14/06/2015 at 21:00, Rhino said:

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.

[Rhino's Skin 972]

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