Stamford Bridge, Too Small For a Big club?

Stamford Bridge has been the home of Chelsea Football Club ever since its inauguration in 1905, but with a capacity of 41,841, is it too small for a club with ambitions as large as Chelsea's?
The Stadium, which was first built in 1877, was taken up as Chelsea's home when it was established in 1905 by Gus Mears. Since then it has been used for many different functions other than football, including Rugby, Cricket and American Football over the years. It's largest official attendance is  82,905 against Arsenal in 1935, but a reported 100,000 packed into the ground for the match against Dynamo Moscow in 1945 after the second world war. Due to the Hillsborough incident in 1989 led to the all seater stadium taking over, meaning Stamford Bridge will probably never see crowds as large.

Stamford Bridge is currently the eight largest stadium in the Premier League, behind Old Trafford, The Emirates, St James' Park, The Stadium of Light, The Etihad Stadium, Anfield and Villa Park. For one of the top clubs in England, surely we should be at the top of that list, reaping the financial gains of our large following across the globe.

This redevelopment in the 1990's was one of the reasons that the club was in financial trouble before Abramovich bought the club in 2003. After that the average attendance has been close to full capacity in each of the seasons since Abramovich took over. There have been talks about extending the stadium to 55,000 capacity, or even moving stadium all together with venues such as the Olympic Stadium or Battersea Power Station. I'm going to look at the options.

New Stadium

Spurs are doing it, why not us? 

With Stamford Bridge behind the times of modern football stadia, and a lack of space at the current location, Fulham Road. We certainly have what most people would consider perfect circumstances for a new stadium, with a lot of money behind us, along with an owner that loves the club and wants to drive them in the right direction. A major issue with this may be the cost, with the Emirates Stadium costing £390 million, any new stadium for us would cost a similar amount, and to recoup this cost, ticket prices may have to go up, which can be seen at Arsenal, who now have the highest priced tickets in the Premier League.  On the other hand, a new stadium would attract new players and allow us to shape the pitch to our demands. Obviously with a larger stadium, more fans would be able to get into the games, meaning the club would gain more money in ticket revenue. With a limited amount of space in London, especially in the south western area were Chelsea is based, meaning we would probably have to move across the capital to fit the stadium in, although a rumoured arena at Battersea Power Station would be ideal. A new stadium would ensure a smooth transition as games could continue at Stamford Bridge until the new stadium was finished, and then the move would be completed. The major problem with this move in my eyes is the fact that due to Chelsea Pitch Owners plc owning the stadium, If we ever were to leave Stamford Bridge, we would have to leave the name Chelsea FC behind with us. 

Positives: More seats, more ticket revenue, pitch size specified to our wishes, more fans can fit in, attract new players, smooth transition between stadiums

Negatives: Losing the club name, losing our historic home, moving further away from the area, ticket prices would increase as a result of the money spent on the new stadium.

Extending Stamford Bridge

Where's the space?

If moving away from Stamford Bridge to a new stadium isn't a possibility an alternative could be to extend the existing stadium. Fans would possibly be more interested in this as it would keep the historical home of Chelsea. The cost needed to do the extension would cost nowhere near as much as a new stadium, and financial gains from this would be seen in the ticket sales, but it remains to be seen wether a new stadium or an expansion on the current would be repaid quicker with additional ticket sales. The council may have something to say about an expansion though, with an extra 10,000 fans crowding into the already cramped streets outside after and before a game. It would take a fair amount of time, and a reduced capacity may be expected for some games during renovation.
Positives: Keep historic stadium, keep Chelsea FC name, keep close location to club origins, expand capacity for fans, cost is a lot cheaper than a new stadium
Negatives: May disrupt capacity at some games, council may not approve it.

Selling the Naming Rights

Been done before, would we do it? 

Newcastle were the first club to do it, and many more have followed. Although Arsenal really did it before them with the Emirates stadium, which will be renamed after the sponsor changes, St James' park hasn't really changed, apart from having a logo on the top and gaining a lot of money. If the club are only looking for financial benefit with their stadium, this could well be the option to pick. With Manchester City earning a reported £100 million for selling their naming rights, it could be very beneficiary. With Chelsea apparently in the market to sell Stamford Bridge's naming rights, we could follow in the footsteps. The main problem is that it doesn't open up any more opportunities for fans to see games, and some fans may view it as disrespectful to our iconic stadium.

Positives: Huge financial gain, no cost needed 

Negatives: Doesn't increase amount of fans getting into the stadium, may anger fans

Tell me what you think via twitter @thechelseachat or via email thechelseachat@gmail.com

This article was suggested to me by @Chelseajoe1905 , if you have twitter I fully recommend a follow on this guy, he knows what he's talking about, and he loves Chelsea! Hope to see him writing for us soon. If you want to suggest an article for me, contact me at the links above.