Chelsea Stadium Debate: 5 Reasons the Blues Need a New Home

If you’re a Chelsea fan, you are not too happy with your team right now. Dropped points over the last couple matches, including an embarrassing defeat at home to Arsenal, have the blues sitting in precarious fourth place in the league heading into this mid-November International break.

Things are a mess on the pitch at Stamford Bridge as the debate over Andre Villas-Boas’ high line system has exposed Chelsea to one of their worst defensive performances in years and the wide attack of flanking wingers is just not producing the kind of goals necessary to outgun the big dogs.

But while Villas-Boas goes over hours of footage and time in the meeting rooms with his coaches, attempting to decipher the Premier League, there is a much more heated debate—one that has more implications for the club moving forward than anything the team could do—just down the hall.

Chelsea executives for over a month now have publicly been exercising and lobbying for the building of a new stadium to replace Stamford Bridge. There have already been various articles on this site and others that have given reason why or why not Chelsea needs a new home.

Here are five reasons that may have not been explored before, but should be taken into consideration as the debate moves forward.

Need for More Seats

Yes, I know that I just said that these are five things that have not been been discussed yet, but this is the most obvious and poignant reason why Chelsea need a new stadium. Since it has already been exhausted to ad nauseam I will keep in brief:

Of Europe’s “big” clubs, Chelsea has by far the smallest stadium and in the modern game where money wins championships, it is difficult to compete with the likes of Barcelona, Madrid and Manchester United who can nearly double their income through the turnstiles alone.

Not even to mention the way the energy of 75,000+ can incite fervor into your team to pull out victories. It is impossible to quantify, but I think it would be safe to assume that all those many late winners United have had over the years is as much owed to the fans of Old Trafford as the players on the pitch.

Need for More Executive Suites

It is a hard pill to swallow, but if there was one reason that a new stadium is to be built, it would be to accommodate this. I live in the States and have seen far too often this be the driving force behind new stadiums being built.

The NFL team the Dallas Cowboys built a new stadium that has more luxury boxes than any other in the world at 414. The San Diego Chargers are threatening to leave San Diego without a new stadium being built for them, citing their inability to attract enough corporate sponsorship due to lack of high quality luxury boxes. Even historical Yankee Stadium was torn down as a new one was erected across the street which houses 68 luxury boxes as opposed to the old figure of 16.

Examples exist across the pond as well. Manchester City’s stadium has recently expanded to 68 executive suites. Arsenal’s Emirates has an amazing 152. Chelsea’s own number of Luxury boxes does not even approach these and the quality of the accommodations is sub-par.

This is the way of business in modern sports. The ability to sell as many executive suites as possible is what drives finances. With 10-20 people paying well over the price of a single seat you are already making a profit. On top of that many are there with a great amount of wealth and wish to impress, putting no limits on their purchasing of food and drinks. Add the potential for corporate sponsorships; you have a recipe that financially cannot be beat.

Multiple Uses=More Revenue

The motivations for building a new stadium are simple—the club wants to make more money. And who could blame them? As I already stated, you can no longer win without being a big spender and you can’t really compete without bringing in a tremendous amount of revenue.

New programs, like the correctly established Financial Fair play rules, require that clubs control their spending in regards to their income. In this respect Chelsea are already at a disadvantage, with their lack of seating limiting their income at the gate. But what may be even more detrimental  to Chelsea trailing in the financial race is the that that gate is only coming from Chelsea themselves.

Other stadiums such as Emirates, Etihad, Nou Camp, Allianz and Old Trafford all serve multiple purposes. Whether it be a concert of a world famous musician or another sporting event such as the Olympics, rugby or cricket match, these are all sources of extra revenue that the clubs are able to pipe back into the club and help balance their books.

Stamford Bridge is just not suited to host any of these events. If an entertainer or event is going to come to London to perform, they will always choose to drive 20 minutes north to Emirates just for the capacity alone.

Modernization

Since Abramovic took over in 2003, there have been seven different managers who have served under him. However, the first six all have very similar philosophies toward the game. Not ever the ones willing to sacrifice defense for a strong attack, everyone from Raneri to Ancelloti won on the backs of a nearly impenetrable back line.

Those days are gone. Teams like Barcelona and Madrid are now running attacks that a defense is to approach with the attitude of limiting damage, not dominating to a shutout.  There are many reasons why the game has taken this turn. You could blame it of officiating being more strict on challenges or the cry for more goals from fans, either way, winning on defense is becoming more and more difficult.

Chelsea’s hiring of Andre Villas-Boas was done so to usher Chelsea into this modern age of the game. His high attack 4-3-3 formation encourages play in the oppositions half and sweeping forward movement that is meant both to get results and entertain.

Villas-Boas is expected to “re-brand” Chelsea football.

Re-branding cannot be complete without a new home. Consider the aesthetics of Stamford Bridge. Not that I am against tradition and history, but the aesthetics of the Bridge do little justice to the brand of the game that the team wishes to play.

Blunt terminology such as “The Shed” or East and West stands, as well as the simple rectangular seating arrangement, lends itself more toward the fortress mentality of past defensive minded teams, rather than the free-flowing total game they wish to play today.

End of the CPO

This may be a contentious argument, but a move to a new stadium would mean the end of the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) and for the better.

The CPO was created from the fallout of poor financial management in the 1970s and '80s and the even worse decision to sell the freehold of the stadium to a real estate developer that eventually went bankrupt. The CPO was created to buy back the stadium and ensure that its future is always tied with the club's. It consists of many shareholders, but voting rights are limited to 100 shares per shareholder to keep from any one individual controlling the organization.

In theory it is an ideal system that makes sure that the club always operates in accordance with the wishes of the majority. But then again so is communism.

The problem with the CPO is that it operates as somewhat of a union, making sure that the wishes of those who really are the ones that make the club profitable are recognized.

Back in the late '90s when they the CPO was established, there was enough uncertainty surrounding the club's future to make it necessary. With Abramovic now the club’s owner, he has shown a vested interest in the future by pumping millions into the first team all the way down to the youth academy. And even though his reactions to on-field results may seem rash and critical, it shows a commitment to winning that mirrors the fans.

Furthermore in the year 2011, there are more than enough stipulations, laws and legal precedences that will protect the ambitions of any one single individual from sabotaging the future of the club. At this point the CPO is more of a barrier to major changes the club wishes to make, such as the building of a new stadium, something the other clubs do not have to go through.

I am not stating this as a big wig union buster wishing to take away the voice of the fans, but I witnessed the very same thing here in New York City with Yankee Stadium. Tens of thousands petitioned the demolition of the House that Ruth Built and the building of a new stadium. But few will argue that the confines of New Yankee Stadium are nothing short of luxurious while still having the personality that make baseball enjoyable to attend.

The club is forever indebted to the many fine shareholders who over the past decade have kept the club together. But it is time for them to put their trust back into ownership.