Chelsea consider naming rights

New Blues supremo insists name Stamford Bridge will remain in any deal

Last updated: 6th November 2009   Subscribe to RSS Feed

Chelsea consider naming rights

Stamford Bridge: Any deal will retain name

LIVE ON SKY SPORTS
Watch Chelsea v Manchester United live on Sky Sports 1, HD1 and online with Sky Player from 3.30pm on Sunday.

Related links

Teams

Also see

New Chelsea chief executive Ron Gourlay has dropped a strong hint that the Blues will allow naming rights at Stamford Bridge.

But Gourlay, who recently succeeded Peter Kenyon in the post, has assured fans the name Stamford Bridge would be retained in any future agreement with a suitable blue-chip company.

The news comes after Newcastle owner Mike Ashley announced last week that he is looking into selling the naming rights at St James' Park, which caused upset among Magpies fans.

But Gourlay says that the Blues must be prepared to consider naming rights at Stamford Bridge to ensure rival clubs do not get a competitive edge in terms of revenue.

Heritage paramount

He told Chelsea TV: "Retaining the heritage of the stadium is paramount to considering such a move but we think that is achievable and on that basis we would enter into discussions over naming rights with the right partner for Chelsea.

"We understand that this is a sensitive issue for our fans and that is why we would keep the name Stamford Bridge in any deal.

"What we are not prepared to happen, and I am sure our fans will appreciate this, is allow our rival clubs in England and Europe to gain a competitive advantage over us in terms of the revenue they can generate through either expanding the capacity of their existing stadia or moving to a new stadium and then invest that upside in their team or the club.

"Those possibilities are not open to Chelsea for the foreseeable future because of the restrictions in expanding our stadium and the issues around finding a new site, so that means we have to be creative and look at our sponsorship architecture and see if we can create new value and new opportunities that keeps us competitive."

Long run

Gourlay added: "Our stadium does very well at the moment in competing with the bigger, and in some cases newer, stadia of our rivals. But they have more possibilities in the long run than we do. We cannot sell any more tickets to Chelsea fans as we sell out virtually every match within our limited capacity.

"The match day experience at Stamford Bridge and the relationship with our fans has improved greatly through initiatives such as our flexible ticketing policy for all cup matches, the freezing of non-hospitality ticket prices for the last four seasons for Premier League matches and subsidised or free travel to a significant number of away games.

"But we need to keep evolving and move the business forward to support the football side and the club generally. This is a potentially realistic way of doing that."

Comments (27)

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2

Dean Hughes (Chelsea fan) says...

by 2020 chelsea DO need a new stadium for it's long-term preosperity. I beleive that the only option for chelsea will be to COMPLetely knockdown stamford bridge, play at olypic or wembley for 2 years and build a new stadium on the current site. more expensive than moving but unless land appears the only option. If the space we have is utalised properly a 60k seater stadium can be built.

Posted 13:09 6th November 2009

Aaron Head (Chelsea fan) says...

If Chelsea alter the ground name in anyway to accomodate a sponsor then they have lost my support. I will cease taking an interest in their affairs and they will never generate income from my pockets again. Those 'fans' who say they don't mind and will continue supporting no matter are plain tribalistic idiots blindly following anything just as long as they're following. The kind of morons who tell you down the pub that they're 'real fans' ! They should get of their armchairs and play a bit of sunday league and see what 'real' football is about.<br /><br />The principle is that not everything should have a price! Would you get a tattoo on your arm advertising your favourite brand? Oh wait you probably do! Would you let Pedigree Chum rename your wife so that you can genereate enough cash to fund your insatiable football addiction?<br /><br />Sport is about momnets of drama, beauty and competitivenes. Not incessantly increasing levels of commericalism to maintain a status quo of relative success - it's boring! and so are the bores addicted to it!

Posted 12:28 6th November 2009

Alan Iriney (Chelsea fan) says...

I personally think that selling the naming rights is a good idea, it will give us a lot more money, the figure is expected to be around £100-150 million, which will probably be used to rebuild our squad (as we are aging and missing a few quality players). This is a great move by Chelsea and the new chief executive Ron Gourlay. It's a shame Chelsea haven't got the space to expand the stadium as it is behind Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool (When they finally move) and even Man City in the terms of ground capacity. I'm sure this is the real reason why they want to generate more revenue. If anything, it'll be either Samsung, Orange or Adidas who will buy into the project. A true loyal Chelsea fan will see this is good for the club.

Posted 09:36 6th November 2009

Ross Williams (Leeds United fan) says...

"...to ensure rival clubs do not get a competitive edge in terms of revenue" With the money behind you guys, I don't think that's anything to worry about. I'm not having a dig, but I think its a poor excuse. So someone selling naming rights is going to compete with your financial backing? Doubtful. I agree, it's greed.

Posted 09:16 6th November 2009

Lee Speers (Chelsea fan) says...

I don't see the problem with selling the naming rights aslong as it is along the lines of Stamford Bridge sponsored by (the company) that seems fine to me, and Mike Barcelona has a hundred thousand capacity or there abouts thats over half the capacity of stamford bridge which means they can generate more revenue from games! thought that would be obvious with that they maybe able to justify not having a sponsor!

Posted 09:13 6th November 2009

Will Fenwick (Chelsea fan) says...

No Way. Gaining that "competitive edge", is nowhere near enough compensation for changing Stamford Bridge to "The Pizza Hut Stamford Bridge", or whatever sh**y product they sell out to.

Posted 09:06 6th November 2009

Simon Collins (Chelsea fan) says...

Moving to a new stadium in a new location maybe, it's worked for Arsenal at the Emirates, Stoke City at the Britannia, Leicester City at the Walkers... But I don't agree with adding a sponsors name to the existing ground just for revenue purposes. It is, always has been and always will be STAMFORD BRIDGE. Leave it alone! If Mr Abramovich wants to move the club to a newly built, state of the art stadium then I would expect the name to change and probably reflect the main sponsor. Ron Gourlay should consult with the fans and understand that whilst football is big business, there are some things that are set in stone. What next, will we rename the club as the "Samsung White Socks!" I'll be at the BRIDGE, as ever, on Sunday. Rant over. Come on the Chels!

Posted 08:58 6th November 2009

David Bloomfield (Arsenal fan) says...

Whats up ??? Is Roman trying to recoup some of his money --- Competitive edge my arsenal --- what about the millions he invested in players when other clubs couldnt i.e. the years that he bought the league --- GREED

Posted 07:56 6th November 2009

Frank Mccurdy (Barcelona fan) says...

In about 10 years football will be dead -- greed, why do you think all these american investors come here - in the long haul to kill football to make american football king of all sports ... then they will put commercials into the games and put timeouts in there like their stupid basketball, american football ...

Posted 06:30 6th November 2009

Simon Singh (Chelsea fan) says...

Its a shame that the business of Football has come to this but the fact is... it IS a business. If an endorsement deal means the club will come closer to becoming self-sufficient then I think it is a good thing. We cant always rely on the owner to keep bailing us out and hopefully this will lead to a bigger and brighter future for Chelsea!

Posted 03:03 6th November 2009

Stephen Calascione (Arsenal fan) says...

Not only does Barcelona not have receive payment of kit sponsorship, they actually donate money UNICEF. Not to mention, the Camp Nou does not have any company tied to its stadium. Nor does Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Fulham, Birmingham City, Middlesbrough, and Reading for that matter.

Posted 01:39 6th November 2009

Abdul Ahad (Chelsea fan) says...

As long as Chelsea and Stamford Bridge are there, we can do more to genarate our income .If we can build a bigger stadium , it will be a wonderful news for our club and fans.

Posted 01:25 6th November 2009

Stanley Liau (Manchester United fan) says...

Selling naming rights of ground, stand, stadium is the sign of desperation. Desperate for money, which give us the clue that atm, CHELSEA need those money to achieve some purpose. It could be desperate act to achieve what sugar daddy said, breakeven at X years. It could be desperate act to avoid go into administration problem when sugar daddy's sugar dried up. We'll see what happen next.

Posted 00:21 6th November 2009

Chris Lane (Chelsea fan) says...

Is this the same thing as Arsenal having the Emerates Stadium, Bolton the Reebok Stadium, if so I think its not a bad a thing, so long as Chelsea don't loose there identity. It would be really good if they got a non for profit company as the sponsor like Barcelona has with Unicef, like Green Peace. And no I don't work for them, but would prefer they got a worthy sponsor like that than some company that does not care about anything other than themselves.

Posted 23:31 5th November 2009

Dave Bracken (Chelsea fan) says...

I can understand this move, in regard to the new laws governing club finance. We can now only spend what the club brings in, and so if we are to continue paying these players the wages we do at the moment, we need to find new sources of revenue as we can't compete with Arsenal and Man Utd on ticket sales. As long as it remains Stamford Bridge, no matter what they put in front of that, it'll still be home to me.

Posted 23:28 5th November 2009

Brian Oamen (Chelsea fan) says...

If Arsenal can name theirs Emirates, i see no reason why we shouldnt explore this.

Posted 22:31 5th November 2009

Hassan Al hassany (Chelsea fan) says...

Maybe if we wouldn't make it a habit to give managers 3-4 year contracts and then sack them every season, we wouldn't have to think about making revenue using drastic measures. You might want to look at how Manchester United make so much revenue, it's not because they win everything and have a larger fan base and larger stadium, it's because of their oversees projects like the MUSS (Manchester United Soccer School) that has a branches all over the world. If Chelsea were to do something like this and attract fans overseas and not just West London, you would make money and increase your ratings. Also selling your products overseas to retailers and opening Chelsea Mega Stores would be a start. Not to mention hosting various events at Stamford Bridge to earn revenue not just from football. Don't Man Utd host Cricket games at Old Trafford? You also might want to allow foreign clubs to train at Stamford Bridge as overseas training. You just need to think and put someone who loves the club with a business mentality like me. Heck if I were to be CEO of Chelsea I would do all of that and more, without demanding a six figure pay check because I would work for Chelsea like it was my duty as a fan and businessman.

Posted 22:04 5th November 2009

Marcus Lee (Chelsea fan) says...

I think this is a very sensible move by Ron Gourlay on behalf of Chelsea football club. I have supported the club for over 30 years and have enjoyed every minute of it, good and bad. We have an opportunity here to market Chelsea's name and tradition to enable us to move forwrad given the restrictions placed on us in being unable to expand our ground and there increased revenue is of paramount importance for us to keep in line with our rivals. It is important that the club however continues to keep its options open to finding a new site to consider the possibility of a new stadium, as it remains likely that we won't be able to exapand our ground any time soon. The only side of the ground where the blocking of light is not an issue is the east stand, but there then remains the problem of foundation conditions because of the underground car park, which has become an unnecessary burden. Furthermore there is the issue of traffic flow with increased supporters and increased investment would be needed in the area to support this. Increased revenue must now be a top priority for Chelsea to become self suffiicient at some point in the future, since Abramovich won't be there for ever and there will be the need to meet rising costs and a high wage bill in order to remain competitive whilst still having money available for players. Lastly but not least I wish Ron Gourlay every success as our new chief executive and hope that he can help Chelsea to move forward in the direction we need in order to move closer to being a massive global brand in the same sense as Man Utd, Barcelona and Real madrid.

Posted 21:41 5th November 2009

Joe Price (Liverpool fan) says...

Come on Chelsea fans, every man and his dog know you have no heritage.

Posted 21:38 5th November 2009

Mike Knowles (Newcastle United fan) says...

He talks about a competitive edge regarding extra money, if this is so why doesn't barcelona get money for a kit sponsor? If they thought they woud have a competitive edge wouldn't you think they would get the extra money? It is just greed

Posted 19:35 5th November 2009
  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2

Add Comment*

Send us your views

Are you a Sky Sports subscriber?

*All fields required, your email address will be kept private