Fulham @ Stamford Bridge? A foreshadow of things to come?

It's only temporary and it's been done before by different teams.

I don't think it's any indication of what's to come.

 

You'll see Rangers and Celtic groundsharing Hampden before you see Spurs and Arsenal sharing a ground.

Fulham and Chelsea becoming West London United, well, that's slightly more possible. Slightly.

 

Not while lunatic blue Ken Bates is there. Al Fayed is looking for some return from his massive investment over the past five years at Fulham. Selling Craven Cottage for £115m is perfect business sense. I'm all for business in sport, but when the business begins to outweigh the sport as in this case, my palms begin to itch.

Spurs's owners are also 'Business' with a capital 'B'. I'm not saying I want the Leeds style foolishness at the Lane, but there is a time when you have to speculate to accumilate. Ken Bates was spot on about Enic. Within the next five years Spurs WILL quit the Lane unless different ownership is found. The current proprieters are hell bent on moving out of Tottenham and Haringey (it being a dump of an area), even resorting to loaded questionaires handed to fans and complaints about transport to the stadium. I personally have never had any problem getting there.

Stupid, stupid Enic.

 

Bates will never give up any degree of power in Chelsea-especially to that man.They have a bit of a history of trying to "one up" each other.
Besides all Fayed can get is a 9.9% stake in Chelsea because of the premier league by laws about an owner having an interest in two clubs being a conflict.

This deal i suspect has been going on for some time and i just wonder if the special permission that the shareholders gave to release up to 10% more shares is linked to this deal as the request for that permission was a few weeks ago-the idea even further back i assume.Shades of plenty of back room murky dealings going on here, right up Bates' and Fayeds alleys.

As Jumhed pointed out the cloth top has poured millions into that little club in an effort to get them some recognition and a decent team.
To some degree he has accomplished that.However he seems to have tired of his new toy and now wants out whilst trying to recuperate much of his outlay.Or perhaps that was his plan all the time because if he sells craven cottage now he will make a tidy profit.
Redeveloping costs to exceed 100million quid my arse.St Marys is a state of the art place for about 1/3 of that.All smacks of him trying to wriggle out of it with some money in his pockets and this is his way to the exit sign.Serous question are being asked if he really only wanted it for flats in the first place.A prime piece of west london turf for what he has put into the place is still a steal if he can build posh flats there.

And what of the team?
Nobody wants to go and play for them and their manager is gonna do a runner in the off season.They may well get relegated and then what?Do CFC still have to "take care" of them?
Nationwide teams play more league games, we will have cup runs and (hopefully) European ties as well as replays to arrange around their matches.
What happens when/if they have a decent run in a cup with a few replays?
I suspect all these ins and outs haven't been sorted out yet as they would seem to favour telling FFC to fuck off.

Thay pay the loftus road outfit 1 million per season.I suspect CFC would want substancially more than that-could they afford it if Fayed uped and efed off?Would CFC then have to house them for nothing at the request of the PL?

The beambacks would have to be cancelled, thus ticking off many loyal fans.Sharing seats would not go over well-especially at the "away" game as the lads would have to sit in the east stand and look at some FFC tosser in his, or her, seat.
Hammersmith and Fulham council will have to be sold on the idea as CFC have a strict stipulation in their original planing permission for the west stand that the ground would not be used every week with scheduled games-obviously rescheduled games were given a waiver.Not an easy task to get the locals to see why they should have to put up with the extra annoyance.Ask the Arse lads what local opposition can to to grand plans.

However, all that being said, i think that it will go through in some form or other-much to the chagrin of the supporters.Whilst CFC have far more assets, both tangible and intangible, than Leeds and thus can get loans to avoid the sell off they had, there is no doubt that the extra money in the coffers will be the selling point.No smoke without fire as they say and there have been simply to many stories of our massive debt for some of it not to be true.Bates as usual will deny everything even as CAG post damning document after document about it.

Others may be happy to play Fulham there though.
Tottenham may finally get a Premiership win at Stamford Bridge

 

england is a small country yet it has a gazillion stadiums.

it would be good if liverpool and everton shared a new stadium, instead both want to build new ones for themselves. What you will see is a lot of empty seats.

it would be great to see arsenal or tottenham play at the new wembley. A new stadium, so few games, a waste in my opinion. They were rumoured to want to play in it til they got their new stadiums. Maybe tottenham can stay in wembley (as arsenal moves to its own new stadium)

 

You've obviously never been to a game if this is what you think.
There is a sence of identity that will be lost forever if that happened.
Many years ago when Chelsea started the disastrous East stand and it ran the club into the ground, both financially and otherwise, there was a campaign that got underway by the supporters.
The "save the Bridge" effort was one of the reasons that it never went under.Credit must i suppose be given to Bates as well for diging out in the end.
Point being that fans want their own stadium-and often will go to extraordinary lengths to keep it.

 

True, clanblue. I can understand, up to a point why the Wimbledon owners want out of London, but moving a club like Spurs or the Arse out of their respective areas is just gay. Particularly the Spurs board, who seem to be doing it only (regardless of what they say) because Tottenham is such a crime filled, refugee stuffed, bum hole of an area. They're not really trying to improve the situation. And asking Haringey to pay for improved transport services is retarded. Haringey residents already pay the highest council tax in the country because of the crappy Alexandra Palace, aka White Elephant.

 

This post makes no sense.

First of all, both clubs consistently sell out their home games, which indicates demand exceeds supply. (Liverpool average 43,400 in a ground that seats 45,000, while Everton average 37,990 in a ground that seats 40,000.) Stats from:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance?league=ENG.1&year=2,002&cc=5901

So playing somewhere that seats more people makes sense. If the city builds one stadium that seats 65,000, or they each build stadia that seat 65,000, they will still draw whatever crowd will come. You are just as likely to see empty seats in a shared stadium as you are in a same-sized one team only stadium.

A case could be made that they should reduce expenses by sharing a stadium, but frankly with fixture congestion, Cup replays, and European competitions, there aren't enough days to cover all the games.

 

If pretty sure ENIC(?) who own Spurs also own Slavia Prague. They moved them out of their traditional ground (now partially demolished and covered in weeds) and put them into the Strahov. Looks like their view is that groundsharing is a cheaper option.

The transport links thing is a red herring. The area seemed to cope fine when WHL held 48,500 up until the 80s, and 60,000 up to the 70s. They also know that there's absolutely no way the local council will build extra transport facilities for the club, so it gives them a fine excuse to move.

 

And AEK Athens and a sizable portion of Glasgow Rangers. i never thought I'd say it, but i'd like Alan Sugar back.............

 

Groundshare WILL happen

Leaving aside the (usual and predictable) comments from "horrified in North London" (the average football fan) groundshares between top teams IS the future and it WILL happen.

If you'd have said, fifteen years ago, that a TV station was be responsible for organising the fixture list, that sponsor logos would be commonplace on football shirts, that clubs would be listed on the stock market, and a myriad of other things people would have laughed heartily at you. Yet those changes, few for the betterment of the game, have all become realities.

The Premiership, if not the football league, bears no resemblance to the game I grew up with. The simple facts are that groundsharing makes complete economic sense, and economic sense is both the present and future of football. Debating things like passion, history, and tradition -- none of which play any productive role in the quest for profitability which now defines the game -- is pointless. Get used to it.

 

Re: Groundshare WILL happen

I don't think you could say that groundsharing made total economic sense to the two (other) clubs that have shared selhurst park. Charlton's crowds were awful when they shared, and Wimbledon's were only boosted because they could give half of the stadium to away supporters. Ground sharing can work, but only if it's a neutral ground in a neutral area. Anyone moving to a ground owned by another club leaves themselves in a very vulnerable position, and any club which moves from its area to anothers (as was the case with Charlton) effectively loses its whole point for existing. How can a club represent Charlton or Wimbledon if they don't play in Charlton or Wimbledon? I don't think you'd be so keen on groundsharing if Palace announced that the solution to its financial troubles was to sell selhurst park and move in with Millwall. And that, with the possible exception of the situation in Liverpool, has been the situation being presented as way groundsharing should go - Fulham sharing with Chelsea. Spurs moving into Arsenal's stadium. I can't think of a single groundsharing scheme anywhere in the world where a thriving club shares a ground owned by another club.

 

Re: Re: Groundshare WILL happen

With the proviso's you've added, I don't disagree with your argument(s) but the fact is, those provisos are no longer the primary motivating force driving the game forward. In an abstract sense (and money is abstract...the nature of the quest for profit is defined on the balance sheet, not on the football pitch)...groundsharing does make total economic sense which (sic transit gloria mundi) means it'll happen. If, to make it work, new (and neutral stadia) are the result, then that's what'll happen. The fact that the majority of top English sides' stadiums are presently both too small and largely antiquated makes it all the more likely this'll happen. It'd be ridiculous for Spurs to share Highbury, yes, and ridiculous for Arsenal to share White Hart Lane too. But given the economic involved, it'd be even more ridiculous for both to build £100 million stadiums ten minutes apart.

I suspect we will see a number of groundshares, and possibly a number of merged clubs (in the lower divisions) in the coming years. The endless trail of clubs entering administration is going to stop at some point when they start no longer emerging from the process, and I suspect that one failure will open the floodgates. I think groundshares will be the route for at least a few "big" teams (probably through new stadia being built) and mergers will be the future for the likes of, say, Chester and Tranmere, discussions about which have as far as I know already taken place.

As for Palace, well, I support my local team and always will no matter what. But I have long stopped kidding myself that indulging in romantic notions that supporters have some say in the future of football is anything but a myth.

 

mergers in theory make sense - many Italian clubs for example were formed by mergers of team - but it only make sense with a single town/city. Probably the most likely would be the two sheffield clubs, or the two in Bristol or Stoke. What you can't really do is merge two clubs from different towns or you just end up with a takeover. chester's proposed (and easily rejected) takeover of Tranmere was not really a merger at all, just an attempt to buy a league place. There's no chance that the Tranmere board would agree to it as it would just be the end of Tranmere. It would in effect be an asset-stripping exercise. Robert Maxwell treid to do a similar thing with Reading & Oxford in the early 80s. Although billed as as merger, knowing how Maxwell operated, it would have just seen Reading shut down and the ground sold, with the cash most likely going straight into Maxwell's fat wallet.

 

Watch the home crowd at Stamford Bridge this weekend for the home game against Rovers.There are some protestations planed, including many banners that they (the fans) are going to try and sneak into the stands with a distinct anti-ground share theme, to be unfurled at what they hope will be camera catching moments.

 

Why is it that banners larger than 1x1 metres are not allowed inside English grounds?

 

Love or Hate Him: Ken Bates at his Best

The news today from SW6 is that chairman Ken Bates has ruled out a ground share with homeless neighbors Fulham, because.... it would damage the new pitch!

Frankly, this is disingenious genious and Bates at his best/worst depending on whether you are a Chelsea or Charlton supporter. Father Christmas has told the authorities, in the best pseudospeak and nonthreatening manner, what he thinks of their fine for the unplayable pitch fiasco with Charlton earlier this season.

Bates has stated he would love to help his forlorn neighbors, but he doesn't want them tramping on his new 1.5 million pound front garden. There are so many other reasons why ground share won't happen in 2003-2004, that this is a blatant pie in the face of the authorities. One can only guess at Bates' ecstasy when the thought occured to him, and his sheer delight in announcing the sad news to the world.

Of course, the local council will take at least another 6 months to decide on the issue, which almost certainly rules out ground sharing next term (especially considering 6 months from now, will be after the start of next term). Many Chelseas and Fulham supporters are also dead set against the deal. And Bates has pulled off a public relations tour de force by noting the impossibility of the move, and yet sticking with his "concerns for the pitch" statement.

Those outside of the Bridge cringe when Bates makes these types of statements, but for Chelsea fans its a deserved slam of the FA and the Premiership, all done by one of the shrewdest men in English football. Bates shows his true colors are blue, and blue and Chelsea fans take heart at the blue collar sensibility of their chairman.

Or perhaps I'm reading too much into this. Undoubtedly 50 league and cup ties at the Bridge would devastate the pitch. And Chelsea certainly aren't in a position to throw money away on grass seed. Uncle Ken might just be telling it like it is, which means no recourse for the authorities! Or perhaps, he's just stating his opening bargaining position. IE. any ground share agreement must include that Fulham will pay 1.5 million pounds to have the pitch redone every year.

Either way you read it, Bates is the winner and Fulham and the authorities are in for a rethink.

 

craven cottage?

forgive me on this its gone over my head a bit
why exactly are fulham not playing @ the cottage anymore?
i really hope fulham can stay at cottage its history
and tradition at stake what would johnny haines say?

 

Re: craven cottage?

Craven cottage has only got about 7000 seats, the rest is terracing. Under the 3 year rule (for converting terracing to seats) they could not use the terracing any more. Just putting seats onto the terracing would be pretty cheap & nasty (and would only give another 10000 seats at best) so the plan was to rebuild the stadium. This plan has fallen foul of NIMBY protests from people complaining about a football stadium on their doorstep (even though it's been there for 100 years and will almost certainly look better once rebuilt than now). I'd like Al Fayed to sell it to a sewage works instead to really pee the NIMBYs off.

 

If two world-class sides such as Inter and ACMilan can groundshare, I don't see why English clubs can do the same things.

 

Inter and AC don't have any choice in the matter.They don't own the stadium, the city does.
It works out well for them and they are established.

Now, if-or more likely when, more on that later-Foolham were to come to Stamford Bridge, the home of Chelsea football club, who do you think should be in charge?Somebody simply has to have the last say on matters.In Italy the city has the last say-period.

With the whole CFC-FFC thingy too there is also the matter that CPO (Chelsea pitch owners) actually own the turf that the games are played on.This is also a plc and must have a vote from the shareholders if any groundshare is to be allowed to use their pitch for games.
Of course the stadium itself is owned by Chelsea Village today after being bought from the Bank of Scotland, which eventually ended up with it after the nasty business during the 80's and 90's when the club almost lost it's ground...people today forget how bad things were in my day at home.
We were a fuckin dire football club.Rubbish was the daily serving on the pitch and we almost went down to div 3 in the early 80's.Average attendance was about 15,000 or so i believe, if i remember right.There were people outside the ground at every home game with blue buckets from the "save the Bridge campaign".Bates came in and became director in '81 and to be fair to the man he turned it around over time...whether he has done so legally or above board has never been answered.His long time ally Tollman has been indicted by the FBI and is currently in hiding.The famous "off shore investors" are slowly being found out to be no more than fronts.

Anyways, back to the point at hand.Why the fuck should FFC be allowed to come into Stamford Bridge and expect equal treatment?
Did they help out in our hour (generation would probably be a better word here) of need?No they bloody well did not and they can fuck off now that they need help.

The Americans have a great saying for things like this..."what goes around, comes around"

(rant over )