Chelsea Move: Is Leaving Stamford Bridge a Good or Bad Idea?

Today it was announced that Chelsea plan to buy the shares of Chelsea Pitch Owners, a group set up in the early 1990s by fans who wanted to help the club financially by buying Stamford Bridge, the pitch, and the rights to the name "Chelsea Football Club."

If Chelsea's current owners wanted to move, they would either have to get the blessing of CPO or buy them out, as leaving Stamford Bridge would mean that they would no longer be allowed to be called Chelsea Football Club.

Fifteen-thousand shares are owned by 12,000 people. The original shares were bought for just £100, and Chelsea hope to buy them for a similar price. In return for buying them at a relatively low price, Chelsea will offer CPO members new incentives, such as promising to not move more than three miles away from Stamford Bridge.

Chairman Bruce Buck stated Monday, "We are here at Stamford Bridge, have no plans to move, but like any good business looking at the future we are looking at everything that comes along and might make sense.”

There are obvious benefits of moving to a new stadium, such as increased capacity, meaning increase revenue. Many clubs have done this over the last few years, often with mixed results. Despite expensive building costs, many clubs feel the positive financial impact straight away. They also feel the benefit of the profit earned by selling the site of the old stadium, which is often redeveloped into housing or a supermarket. But is moving always a good thing?

Many fans are initially against moving to a new stadium, especially considering the rich history, traditions and special memories some stadiums may have, such as the Chelsea fans at Stamford Bridge.

Traditional British football stadiums have always been built in the city or town, or relatively close to the town center; it is only the last 15 years or so that when a club decides they want to increase capacity, they move to a new stadium instead of develop their current stadium.

Sometimes it takes a while for a club to find form as they get used to their new surroundings. This happened when Arsenal moved from Highbury to The Emirates—you could even argue that this is still the case with the England national team at the new Wembley.

If Chelsea do decide to move, they have promised to stay close to the area of Stamford Bridge, which is good news for the fans, but bad news for the nostalgics amongst them. They will also have to hope that their new home is a stunning building, not another soulless new stadium of which there are too many in Britain at the moment. 

"If they approve the buy-back, shareholders will be given preference in buying season tickets and will have their names in a walkway or on a roll of honour at any new stadium," writes Jason Burt of the DailyTelegraph.

"Chelsea will guarantee that if they move before 2020 it will be to a ground within three miles of the Bridge with 10 per cent of seats made available to children and under-21s."

It is another setback for the traditionalists of the British game, which have seen so many clubs move from their historical homes into stadiums which are more in tune to the stadiums of their American cousins. 

Is this the future for British stadiums? Financially it makes sense, but in terms of history and fan satisfaction, it may be seen as a negative thing.