Pretty sure the Beeb (who put the figures together that we have quoted so far amidst a lot of "hush hush") believed that running amenities and policing costs were being covered by the stadium owners as well rather than West Ham. So the £2m per year they were paying in rent just about covered running costs Prem clubs have to pay anyway.
Anyone agree with this? Chelsea are set to play all their home games at Wembley while their ground is being re-developed. Stamford Bridge's revamp, taking its capacity to 60,000, is expected to keep the venue out of use for three seasons, starting with the 2017-18 campaign. The Premier League are expected to give Chelsea the go-ahead, subject to planning permission being granted for the new-look Bridge project. The west London club are two-thirds of the way through the process after publishing plans and staging a meeting to canvas local opinion about the project. If the plans get the green light, the re-vamp will start in May 2017 – which is when Chelsea will make the national stadium their temporary home, at a cost of around £12million a year. http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/chelsea-close-wembley-deal-3-6299699
Just another reason for me to hate that ****ing club! And the ****ing government! It's all a joke Signed, tweeted and facebooked
Depends if they're taking all of the match day revenue. No way in hell they'll be given Wembley exclusively though, the stadium makes more than £12m per year as it is.
Interesting if they get to a cup final or two. Couldn`t be classed as a neutral venue if they play their home games there.
