Comments on: GOURLAY CONSIDERS RENAMING GROUND TO PLEASE ROMAN

By: Joe Stratton

Joe Stratton — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:19:47 +0000

I’ve been a chelsea fan through the 24 years of my life, and used to visit the bridge regularly. I am now at uni in Nottingham and haven’t been to the bridge in several years, as i can’t afford/justify spending 100 quid on ticket and travel to see us against wigan or bolton, luckily i have a contact at the fa who can get tickets for games at wembley, so I managed to go to the cup final and community shield. the bridge has always been an expensive place to go, as far back as i can remember. but the change that has happened over the past 6-7 years is unbelievable, i feel that in a way we’ve already lost a bit of our character. of course it’s brilliant to see world class football every week (apart from the exception of wigan), but i do miss the chelsea i grew up with leboeuf, petrescu, zola etc sitting in the old west stand.

sadly, i think the voice has spoken and stamford bridge will end up being renamed as football moves forward. the main thing is for us the fans to know it as stamford bridge, which i most certainly know i will never call it anything other than.

By: Bruce byron

Bruce byron — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:43:24 +0000

Is there nothing sacred Stamford bridge should remain Stamford bridge there are some things more important than money. Chelsea and all the other premier league teams have sponsorship and advertising coming out their ears. Stick another billboard on add a fee pages to the programme or ? Heaven forbid, cut the wages of these players whom I can assure you I idolise as much as the next supporter but please can we get a perspective. Global economic meltdown mass unemployment footballers earning £150,000 a week
spot the odd one out.

By: LDSKris

LDSKris — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:04:25 +0000

I have been a Chelsea fan since 1947. Stamford Bridge has changed beyond recognition. Football is a business, Fans are its customers and our current capacity does not support the running costs or the ever increasing financing of transfers. Until a new stadium can be built whether at Stamford Bridge or even elsewhere the reality is the money is needed. If the stadium is called for example say: ‘Samsung Stamford Bridge’ why not? If it can bring in “£100 million” (Daily Mail 6/11/09)and we are able to buy players that will help to cement our place amongst the elite teams of the world, then we should support it.

If the ‘luddites’ know of a better alternative perhaps they should let us know. The mentioned walkway is old news, it was opposed by local residents and the Council. Your support the Manager point has some validity, however I still question Mourino’s role in his sacking, heresy perhaps but I feel that he himself did not help the situation. I believe that it is still too soon to judge Arneson and our youth development; we have some excellent players coming through and it is important to recognise that teenagers rarely break into teams at the highest level. As to the wages paid, in modern football we have to accept that market forces will prevail. In the past I would not have given Deco or Ballack tuppence yet now they play a valuable part in the team.

Finally you refer to a figure of £25m (one off payment) as a quarter of the £100m. That gives us £75m for developing the Club and more importantly this is repeatable income! Get real, come into the 21st century and we can all join together and have some fun watching Chelsea dominate the world stage.

By: Fordmeister

Fordmeister — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:59:05 +0000

I am afraid times change and I know corporates who will pay and the roof of both the East stand and West Stand have revenue possibilities. Providing its one of our key sponsors then I am not so sure its a bad thing.

I know for a fact that by 2012 most grounds in the Premier League will have sponsored names.

Old Trafford was almost there with AIG and the naming rights were stripped only at the end of negotiations.