The problem really lies in the fact that Chelsea is one of the most expensive and sought after places to live in the UK Not a hell of a lot of spare ground available. When you look at the size of all the land at the Bridge, including the Hotels, restaurants etc, is there really not enough space to build a ground where the Hotels and restaurants are incorporated into the design ?? Cricket lovers who have visited the Melbourne Cricket ground for the boxing day test will have seen this is exactly what they did, and for the same reason. I suppose this is stating the obvious, and has already been considered and rejected. Still think Hammersmith and Fulham Council hold the key to any solution to be found.Would I be right in thinking that any move from SB will mean the whole place needs to be sold off ??
Wasn`t aware they had spent this money on studies, it does seem strange though that other clubs are able to redevelope complete stands with minimal disruption yet you would have to move out for three years to gain 10k seats. Perhaps you consulted the same people Liverpool did when it cost them 35 million for a conceptual designe.
Dear Ken, Thanks for everything, but can you sell the lease to Roman please and stop being a ****? Yours SW6
It's easy to say knock down the hotel but that makes money therefore knocking it down actually reduces the clubs income even more and therefore puts the cost of adding seats at an even higher rate and thus makes it cost prohibitive as the club has explained. It's not the physical knockdown that's the problem but any seats built don't increase revenue they just replace revenue we already have.The idea is to increase revenue.
Does the hotel contribute significantly to Chelsea FC, as it is part of the copthorne Group? In my mind the idea is to increase capacity of the stadium, not sustain any half cocked commercial ventures bolted onto it.
I thought it was to increase income for FFP. The hotel makes money. Every penny made would have to be added on to the already high cost of each seat. I really don't understand why people don't believe RA and the club when they say they are not going to do it.
That was BEFORE the current configuration and current codes which simply will not allow that anymore. Even the Council have admitted we'd have to move out to add their hopeful,though still not produced, 8k addition.
@ Diego Do you think that had anything to do with you buying a 20 acre plot of land to expand on to? And you did reduce capacity during the early renovations.
Of course we had to reduce capacity for a short period during each redevelopement, you can`t have people sitting in a building site but most of the work was completed out of season causing minimal disruption. Most of the 20 acre site you mention was for car parking and offices unless i have my plot of land mixed up.
The income through gate receipts would be increased, the hotel revenue would decrease, but the hotel isnt operated by CFC, it is part of a global chain of hotels...so... Are we just getting a fee from them, or are we on a profit share/ rev share deal? Btw - I dont expect you to have the answers but if we can make as much money from more seats as we can from having less but with a **** hotel/ nightclub/ restaurant on the premises then it's a no brainer for me... Less seats is what excludes us from bigger gates, and also excluded us from the Olympics as a venue for example which could have been a spinner in itself!
People are STILL missing the significant point regarding re-development of Stamford Bridge - 1. There are health and safety issues regarding the exiting of the ground either after a match or due to an emergency. All egress flows onto the Fulham Road and with increased capacity this is not sufficient. The council have already stated this and are looking at other ways to exit the ground. 2. The hotel has long term lease holders so cannot be demolished without them being bought out anyway. That's of course if they want to be bought out!
You expanded the stand on to it and during construction it was used to store the building materials etc. We have nothing like that anymore.
I think you're missing the point. We all know that more seats means more money but if the cost to get those seats is so high that it wipes out any profit for 30 years then you gain nothing. RA is trying desperately to get us a bigger stadium so we can compete for the longterm but he isn't an endless pit and no one should expect him to be. If you want to stay in a 40K stadium and not compete under FFP then fine but don't dress it up as RA being the bad guys for not spending hundreds of millions MORE of his own money for NOTHING.
