Chelsea not getting their new stadium then

[Sussex Nomad]

If they levelled the Bridge, dug down a bit then they could easily achieve a 60k stadium if that is what they want, keep the East and West stand roof heights at the same height in order to not get embroiled in another building plan argument with the noisy neighbours. I think they would fill it for Prem games and big European ones, but anything else they would struggle. But that kind of building operation would be a huge undertaking.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

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.
Incorrect - they are sold out for season tickets year in and year out with waiting lists.
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.
Incorrect, they have made huge strides into the Asian market and you will probably see as many people wearing Chelsea shirts as Liverpool shirts in that part of the world 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.
Quite simply Liverpool as an entity and a plot of land is not worth anything near Chelsea with respect.
That is Roman and chelski's problem.
The only 'problem' at Chelsea is the one you perceive my friend.

 

[Rookie]

think the bit people are missing is at the moment they make a loss each season and in a few years time (or whenever they kick in) the new UEFA financial fair play rules kick in the losses will have to be cut back. New stadium will mean less loss (infrastructure costs are not taken into account)

 

[Sussex Nomad]

think the bit people are missing is at the moment they make a loss each season and in a few years time (or whenever they kick in) the new UEFA financial fair play rules kick in the losses will have to be cut back. New stadium will mean less loss (infrastructure costs are not taken into account)

Hence the reason I said I guessed they could always level the Bridge and start again.

 

[Meade's Ball]

think the bit people are missing is at the moment they make a loss each season and in a few years time (or whenever they kick in) the new UEFA financial fair play rules kick in the losses will have to be cut back. New stadium will mean less loss (infrastructure costs are not taken into account)

Just the point i was about to make. Without a 60k seater they can't even become close to breaking even, and without a lessening of their losses, they'll lose money-earning places in the major tournaments - if some of the rulings are enforced in the near-ish future - and then it's a helixical fall from there. Overspending is a must right now in a bid to beat future equality. Hence the likes of Liverpool spending a fortune on some standard-at-best British turnips in the summer.

 

[Storer 68]

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?

Best not win the European CUp soon then, juding buy this in the Telegraph...................


Figures for Chelsea’s holding company published on Thursday reveal that Abramovich’s total loans to underwrite the football club had reached £739.5 million by the end of the 2009-10 season.

The loans are interest fee and repayable on demand within 18 months if Abramovich were to withdraw his support, though he shows no sign of walking away as long as his ambition to lift the European Cup is unfulfilled.

The scale of his remarkable personal investment has already increased further as a result of the £73 million January purchase of Fernando Torres and David Luiz, both bought to help secure Europe’s premier competition in mind.

The accounts for Fordstam Limited, Chelsea’s ultimate holding company, reveal that the oligarch was required to pour in a further £13 million last season even as the club won the Premier League and FA Cup Double and made a net loss of just £1 million on transfer business.

Despite last season’s success, the club lost £70.9 million, up from £44 million in 2008-09, largely because of a wage bill of £172.5 million, which increased almost £20 million on the previous season and now accounts for 82 per cent of club turnover.

The revelation that Abramovich continues to make massive loans to Chelsea’s holding company also puts the club’s claim to be “debt-free” into context.

Since buying the club from Ken Bates in 2003 Abramovich had been lending money to the holding company, initially called Chelsea Limited but now renamed Fordstam Limited, which in turn passed it down the chain to the football club to fund his massive investment.

Last year the club announced that Abramovich had converted those loans, which then stood at £726 million, into equity to help the club deal with the looming challenge of Uefa’s financial fair-play regulations.

In fact, as the latest accounts make clear, the loans were converted to shares at just one level of the complex company structure, Chelsea FC Plc.

At holding company level however, and another company in the group, loans remain, and grew by almost £13 million last year.

Intriguingly figures also published this week for a company that sits below Chelsea FC Plc, Chelsea FC Limited, show it has an outstanding inter-company loan from Fordstam of £545.3 million.

Fordstam Limited is at the top of a chain of companies that control the football club and the wider Stamford Bridge development project, and a Chelsea spokesman said yesterday that the £13 million increase in its debt to Abramovich was not attributable to core football activities.

The spokesman also stressed that the club owed no significant amounts to external parties beyond Abramovich, and that his loans were comparable to those a father might make to his children.

The latest figures underline the depth of Abramovich’s commitment to funding Chelsea, and place the club’s challenge in meeting Uefa’s financial fair play regulations into sharp focus.

Former chief executive Peter Kenyon famously declared that Chelsea would break even by 2010 and the club have spent the last two years imposing a cost-cutting regime intended to make that process.

Having fallen woefully short of that target — and Abramovich’s sanctioning of the £50 million purchase of Torres indicates his definition of cost-control is elastic in the extreme — the challenge now is to reduce losses so they do not breach Uefa’s guidelines.

Financial fair-play requires clubs to break even over a three-year period starting in 2011-12. They will be allowed losses of £38.5 million in each of the first two seasons.

Chelsea are hopeful that an enhanced commercial programme, including the search for a £100 million naming rights deal, will help close the gap. With wages continuing to rise faster than revenue however the day is approaching when Abramovich may not be able to ease his on-field frustrations with ever-larger loans to the network of companies that control his pet project.[/I]

 

[Sussex Nomad]

All seems pretty run of the mill top end Prem business to me [MENTION=19176]Storer 68[/MENTION], although Man City will struggle for this Financial fair play more than any other club! And I'll be interested to see how UEFA deploy it in three seasons, do they really want to lose their big revenue makers such as Real Madrid, Chelsea and I am sure a lot more of the bigger clubs in the ECL?

 

[Albion Dan]

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.

I think you will find Utd were trading at a profit and the Glaziers took them into debt to finance the takeover. Completely different scenario.

 

[clapham_gull]

Hence the reason I said I guessed they could always level the Bridge and start again.

Apparently not - due to access to the site and some other Health and Safety regulations. They can't build a 60,000 stadium there for instance.

I wouldn't confuse ticket season sales (and waiting lists) with selling out either. Depends very much on the ratio to total seats.

A good example is Liverpool. Don't know the figures now, but they went for years in the past often not selling out, but all the time had a very long season ticket waiting list.

In theory they could have cleared it over a few years, but it didn't make economical sense to do so.

However - one very good reason for empty seats at big clubs is the very high "pay on the gate" ticket price. With a bigger stadium it gives the opportunity to offer a range of ticket prices and fill the seats with fans put off by the current price.

That's why Chelsea want to move and West Ham too.

Applies to Brighton too. My season ticket went down £100 this year...

 

[the wanderbus]

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.

£739.5 million [/B]by the end of the 2009-10 season.

The loans are interest fee and repayable on demand within 18 months if Abramovich were to withdraw his support, .[/I]

As I said , up shit creek.

 

[Albion Dan]

All seems pretty run of the mill top end Prem business to me [MENTION=19176]Storer 68[/MENTION], although Man City will struggle for this Financial fair play more than any other club!

City have sold naming rights for the stadium to Etihad for £10m a season to help close the fair play rules gap. When your owners own a country with many state businesses it must be quite easy to find reasons for them to buy services from your club to bolster income.

 

[Southern Scouse]

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.
Incorrect - they are sold out for season tickets year in and year out with waiting lists.
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.
Incorrect, they have made huge strides into the Asian market and you will probably see as many people wearing Chelsea shirts as Liverpool shirts in that part of the world 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.
Quite simply Liverpool as an entity and a plot of land is not worth anything near Chelsea with respect.
That is Roman and chelski's problem.
The only 'problem' at Chelsea is the one you perceive my friend.

Firstly this is not a "Mine is bigger than yours" comment. To be fair you do fill the ground at most matches with your current capacity. LFC have a waiting list of over 20 years with about 25k people on that list. I have been on that list for 11 years, since my dad did not renew it when I moved down south 30 years ago. You will never be able to fill a stadium with 60/70k supporters week in, week out, BUT you don't need to. This is obviously down to the price difference in Liverpool and London.
They have increased market share in Asia. The current leaders are Real Madrid, manure and LFC. Why do you think LFC have been able to maintain the massive level of support throughout the world having not won the Pl or old Div One in 20 years? I would suggest that Chelsea would never be able to attain or maintain anywhere near that level of support.
"Quite simply Liverpool as an entity and a plot of land is not worth anything near Chelsea with respect". Not quite sure what you are trying to say? Are you talking about cost of living? Land prices/ House prices?
Obviously you are not talking about Football success so you will have to explain.
The problem you have, like citeh will be in fulfilling UEFA's new finacial regulations. You spent £50m on torres simply because you were not sure you would be allowed to do so in the next 12 months. Panic buy.
Citeh have broken the rules as the holding company of the football club is not allowed to finance itself through advertising as per the nameing rights for the stadium. I think you will find most of the Pl are against this and have written to UEFA to stop this, including Chelsea. You simply do not have the time to build up the kind of support you need to maintain your money driven level of success.
LFc have spent heavily but could double that expenditure and easily still conform to the new regulations. At present in the PL only Arsenal, manure and LFC are able to meet the new regulations.
Personally I have nothing against chelsea. They mean nothing to me. They will come and go, as Blackburn did, leeds etc.
I hope they do well this year for a very selfish reason, but you need decades to earn the animosity of supporters such as LFC or manure.