Chelsea are not like Arsenal and shouldn’t leave Stamford Bridge
Call me cynical, but I can’t help but wonder whether the timing of Chelsea’s recent announcement that they are trying to buy the Battersea Power Station site for a new stadium was very deliberate.
Make the announcement that the club is planning to move away from its home of 107 years the day before the FA Cup final and maybe the fans will be too busy with Wembley preparations to
notice.
And once we’ve beaten Liverpool, they will be too happy about the result to worry about much else.
“I don’t want to leave our spiritual home. It’s as simple as that.”
Certainly the reaction of some of the fans I spoke to about it at Wembley was along the vague lines of ‘Oh, yeah, I heard something about that…’
But it’s massively important to anyone who cares about the club’s history and traditions.
Chelsea are not like Arsenal, who like to think they are London’s great footballing aristocrats but have played at four grounds in different parts of London, under more than one name and with different colours.
We’ve always been Chelsea, playing in blue and white at Stamford Bridge.
I don’t want to leave our spiritual home. In all honesty, it’s as simple as that – I just don’t want to leave Stamford Bridge.
It is where Chelsea have always played and where we are meant to play.
You could throw tradition like that away if the club was in a terrible mess, the stadium was falling to bits and was woefully ill-suited to what we need. But it’s not.
Yes, it would be great if it could be a bit bigger. But the deputy leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council Nick Botterill reacted to the Battersea news by saying: “We want the Blues to stay at Stamford Bridge and – if it can be done sensibly without negatively affecting local people – increase the ground’s capacity so they can retain their position as one of Europe’s top clubs.”
So there is obviously some chance of that happening.
And what would happen if we did move to a 60,000-seater stadium at the power station site on the other side of the river?
About 18,000 more fans paying about £55 apiece to come to 19 league games a season. That’s just under £19m a year. If you take cup games into account it’s £20m.
That’s not to be sniffed at. But it’s also not life-changing.
The stadium would cost hundreds of millions to build, so it would take years of extra ticket sales and income to break even.
Who wants to be saddled with Arsenal-style stadium-building debt?
Chelsea have paid tens of millions of pounds in compensation to sacked managers over the past few years.
The upheaval which followed the departure of the manager who won us the Double will have cost us our accustomed place in the Champions League if we don’t manage to beat Bayern Munich, which would cost the club a fortune.
So if we’re looking for ways to bring in a few million pounds, then building a new stadium and breaking more than a century of tradition isn’t the only way.
See also: A move to the ‘Battersea Bridge’ makes sense for Chelsea
Should Chelsea buy the Battersea site? Click here to vote?
James Clarke is the author of Moody Blues: Following the second-best team in Europe
01/06/2012 @ 8:55 am
Do you know what would happen if Chelsea erects a new stadium in Battersea, Chelsea easily attract majority of the new footie fans in South London, apart from Fulham, both Crystal Palace and Charlton are miles away. Easy access business opportunities. and how much would Roman get if he sell SB?
21/05/2012 @ 4:41 pm
what battersea is also unaware of is that corporate match day income dwarfs normal ticket match day income, so if we get a proper corporate set up at battersea we wont be generating £18-30m extra – but more like £50-60m extra
thats like getting the money for winning the CL every year
18/05/2012 @ 11:37 am
Since we are dealing with facts Battersea Blue, I suggest you get yours straight before commenting. Abramovich cannot give money to chelsea without paying tax – but he can LOAN it to them, and that is what he has done. Interest free. Which means while he has lost a substantial amount of money already given current inflation, yet is willing to “loan” more. Added to this the 1Billion cost of a new stadium is exempt from FFP, which means he can “loan” more money to chelsea. Again interest and tax free. I should also point out that while a 60k stadium may only generate 8million more per year (actually 18million is more likely, as stamford bridge cannot be renamed, but a new stadium could hold naming rights – City make 10million, while some nfl teams are earning 400million over 25 years). A stadium last a minimum of 50 years. That means a 60k stadium will make 400million more plus inflation over its lifetime, minimum.
17/05/2012 @ 3:28 pm
Lets deal in facts not guesses.
Last year CFC match day revenue was £67.5m over 42k seats (less than half will pay full £55 ticket price) = £1,607 per seat.
Therefore a 60k seat stadium should generate £96.4m (£29m extra).
However, 55k seats would generate £88.4m – and both CFC and H&F council say that can be achieved at Stamford Bridge – without the need for a £1B + redevelopment cost of a new stadium at Battersea !
No brainer.
And all these congratulations to Abramovich for his investments – would that be the £740m he has LOANED to CFC’s holding company ?!?
15/05/2012 @ 10:17 pm
If we were moving to a khazi like old oak common I could agree with this article – we aint – we have the prospect of moving into maybe the most iconic stadium on the planet – in an amazing setting
we should be applauding our owner for his ambition and willingness to spend big yet again
instead its negative vibes and accusatory tones as if the club is somehow out to con us in some way
i sometimes think we are our own worst enemies – yes I love the bridge – but its on a 12 acre site – way too small we need at least 20 to build a stadium that will allow us to compete – battersea has 39 acres
15/05/2012 @ 12:12 pm
You sounds like a West Ham or Liverpool fan. ‘Tradition’, ‘history’ and ‘memories’ are terms I often hear from their fans and it bores me to tears.
If we want to be challenging in the future and making ‘history’, ‘traditions’ and ‘memories’ for the next generation of Chelsea fans to brag about, we need to move on and if Battersea is more of a realistic prospect then the Bridge then I’m all for it.
The thought of building a new iconic stadium like no other in the world excites me. Sure I will miss the Bridge and the memories of JT lifting the cup but those memories will always remain and seeing Josh lifting the Premier League trophy in front of the 4 chimneys in 6-7 years time if something I look forward to!
15/05/2012 @ 11:50 am
Stamford bridge is nothing more than a place of business!
a move is no problem for this fan of 45 years!
15/05/2012 @ 11:50 am
first of all you’ve got your figures completeley wrong. if we get an extra 18,000 people into the stadium its not just tickets.. take into account the average amount that people may buy extra… £3 programme, a pint maybe? something to eat? i would say that the average is £60 a person that they would spend at chelsea in one game. (£55 ticket) we played 30 games at home this year 18,000 x 60 x 30…. this would bring in around 30 mil. bearing in mind the financial fair play rules. this would be a big chunk of our profits.. add the name rights to the stadium 10 mil a year maybe.. reduce our wages… increased champions league and premiership revenue… we will not only be breaking even but making a profit! take note that building a stadium will not affect the FFP.. as it waves all building upgrades.
Personally as a season ticket holder id rather see us competing for a title than europa league at our home of stamford bridge. so please treat this with a bit of common sense.. we will never forget our history at stamford bridge.. and we should never take our eye off the future.