Mark Fleming: Gourlay gambles with fans feelings
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Ron Gourlay's idea of selling the name of their Stamford Bridge ground to the highest bidder is a brave plan. It risks alienating supporters who fear it will provide ammunition to rival fans, who say Chelsea have no history. However, it is a proposal that does make commercial sense.
Given that the club have given up plans either to redevelop the Bridge or move to another site, it is pretty much the only option open to Gourlay to raise the revenues generated by the stadium. If he can attract £15m a year for naming rights, Chelsea will take a substantial step towards their ultimate goal of breaking even.
Gourlay can point to Arsenal's Emirates Stadium as an example of how selling naming rights can succeed. But Chelsea fans are not being asked to rename a new stadium. They, like Newcastle United supporters this week, are being told the club want to re-christen the ground that has been their home for more than 100 years purely for financial reasons.
Chelsea fans might wonder why the club are doing this when they are owned by one of the richest men in the world, Roman Abramovich, who recently spent £300m on the world's biggest private yacht.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
You can tell by the holier-than-thou attitude seeping into your wholly misguided opinion. Chelsea have a history. They may not have won quite as much as some of the other clubs who are now their direct rivals, but by stating that they've got no history only serves to undermine your position. Please, even if you have to wiki it, research a topic even a little bit before commenting, and try to remove your red-tinted glasses.
There are plenty of clubs who haven't had the pleasure of being at the top, but how is appropriate to degrade them simply because of that fact? History is made, as a lot of people remind Chelsea, and they're in the process of creating their own. You don't have to like them; they're another team for Liverpool to bypass in pursuit of success, but they're a team with the right to be where they are.
Three of the top four clubs are owned by rich businessmen (with Arsenal looking like they'll follow suit soon enough), so it simply seems to come down to a hatred that one businessman is richer than the other. Lets face it, you don't get that rich without trading on the wrong side of the fence, so that point doesn't even hold water.
And aren't most players mercenaries these days? Hell, I don't even really consider Lampard too loyal -- what with the fat check he gets, which improves every so often, in the same way Gerrard's does. Loyal players have disappeared from the top level of football; it's all about money and trophies (sometimes not even the latter).
For certain a lot of Chelsea fans are previous supporters of other teams, but that happens to every top team. Go over to Asia and I'm sure you'll find plenty of Man Utd shirts being worn, as with Liverpool and Arsenal. It's a fact of life. You get big, you get more fans. You play nice football, you grow more popular all over the place. It's not something exclusive to football teams either.
All in all, these kinds of complaints are hypocritical and ignorant at best, and down right jealous and bitter at worst.