Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Chelsea not getting their new stadium then
- Thread starter Rookie
- Start date
wardy wonder land
Active member
- Dec 10, 2007
- 785
don't quite get the pitch owners thing........
a man of Roman's wealth could surely build a completly new ground without having to sell the 'bridge ?
knock down the stands and sell small plots of land
then the pitch owners are left with a share of a small london park.......
How did the pitch owners deal com about in the first place and was it pre or post the Goldstone demise ?
a man of Roman's wealth could surely build a completly new ground without having to sell the 'bridge ?
knock down the stands and sell small plots of land
then the pitch owners are left with a share of a small london park.......
How did the pitch owners deal com about in the first place and was it pre or post the Goldstone demise ?
the wanderbus
Well-known member
good, with a bit of luck it'll be the begining of the end for Abramovich at chelsea. Once he goes they'll be right up shit creek.
I understand that the pitch owners also own the rights to the name 'Chelsea FC'.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Somehow I think you are a little ill informed regarding Chelsea's worth without Abramovich, and the fact they would get another wealthy owner in. They are a highly sellable club.
[MENTION=2095]Commander[/MENTION], do you not think he would sell the club for the price of his input c.£800 million?
There are people here that think more about a club being ruined than looking at the overall picture. Anyone that thinks Chelsea would somehow struggle are seriously deluded.
Albion Dan
Banned
Chelsea were effectively bankrupt when Roman came in, and are trading at a massive loss. They would need a similar character to the Russian should he move on as the club is not attractive as a trading entity in its own right.
Rookie
Greetings
- Feb 8, 2005
- 12,324
Yes it is unlikely if it would happen how I said, but I said it would be funny, not it was going to happen.
But saying that, I don't think he'd find it that easy to sell for £800 million, and there are more attractive clubs to buy than Chelsea who don't have the whole stadium development issue that they have.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
And neither were Man Utd when the Glasiers bought them off the back of a loan against the club but they seem to be doing fine. Chelsea are a hugely viable sale on the richest plot of football real estate in the country, if not the world. They are also seen as a top European side and I would imagine there would be some huge bidding from the rich around the world to grab a piece of the pie. And as for running on a loss, Arsenal excepted, tell me one Prem club that is running on a profit.
Wolves were the only Premier League team that made a profit last season (there was an article about this on NSC a few months back). This year, due to the building of a new stand, even Wolves will make a loss.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Precisely so [MENTION=316]Albion Dan[/MENTION]'s argument is pretty redundant really.
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
Out of interest, and I genuinely have no idea here, how important is a big stadium in the great scheme of things, when you ship merchandise all over the world, get Sky premiership money, have individual deals with foreign tv stations, and regularly make the late stages of the Champions League? Its not like Stamford Bridge is falling apart or is an embarrassment...
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
I tend to agree, outside of the Prem games Chelsea rarely fill their stadium as it is.
Gritt23
New member
Surely it depends on who he sells it to. For every foreign owner who throws money into the pot, there have been a whole load who don't. A change of owner for a Premiership clubs looks like a roll of the dice to me these days, and with the "fit and proper" test being a complete shame, you could find yourself owned by some former political leader who finds his wealth frozen and being deported to stand trial within a few months of taking over.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,859
another 20k seats at say £40 a pop is ~20m a year.
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
Once you minus the money it costs to build, plus the upheaval etc, is that a lot in terms of a club like Chelsea's budget? They will happily splash out 50mil on one player!
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
They could find themselves in that situation, just as they could find rather unscrupulous owners like the Glasiers that literally put no money into Old Trafford yet the success keeps on rolling. They could end up with a character like this Arsenal guy (Kroenke?) who seems to have his head screwed on, or they could end up with a Man City style ownership. So yeah it is always a lottery whoever takes over whatever club. Look at that Knight bloke that was going to buy Man Utd, ended up with Carlisle where he then went on to also manage them and play for them! They ended up in the conference with huge debts. But I tend to think a club with the potential of Chelsea would probably not be taken over by a Portsmouth type owner. But who knows, right now it is hypothetical until Abramovich either throws his toys out or accepts the decision, time will tell. They could of course knock down the Bridge and its 'village' and build a 60k stadium on the land they have, there's enough of it!
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Which is small change to Abramovich.
I'm really not sure why they want this 60k stadium. Its debatable whether they'd fill it, and they don't exactly NEED it in order to be "competative" with the two Manchesters and Arsenal - they already are. They're certainly not reliant on bums on seats to fund their spending.
Guess they could argue they need a bigger stadium to fall in line with this "Financial Fair Play" malarky ?
Southern Scouse
Well-known member
- Jul 21, 2011
- 2,076
Chelski struggle to fill their ground all the time anyway. It is the business customers they want as they do not have the fan base to fill out a 60k stadium every week.
Not so sure about the easy to get "£800m" for the club. They are not a famous worldwide club and would need another Roman to inject the money. They could sell the stands but without the green bit in the middle any new owner would have to deal with the same custodians as they do now.
When LFc was up for sale Mansor looked at both Liverpool and Citeh. The fact he did not have to pay £400m for a new stadium whereas the light blues had a rentable 21st century stadium available without the cost helped swing the argument. Far easier to spend the £400m on players and wages to get the silverware than create a legacy.
That is Roman and chelski's problem.
Not so sure about the easy to get "£800m" for the club. They are not a famous worldwide club and would need another Roman to inject the money. They could sell the stands but without the green bit in the middle any new owner would have to deal with the same custodians as they do now.
When LFc was up for sale Mansor looked at both Liverpool and Citeh. The fact he did not have to pay £400m for a new stadium whereas the light blues had a rentable 21st century stadium available without the cost helped swing the argument. Far easier to spend the £400m on players and wages to get the silverware than create a legacy.
That is Roman and chelski's problem.