Potential Ground Sharing

[paultheroyal]

Chelsea would comfortably fill Wembley and you would also have the football tourist go each week to watch premier league games - pretty much given they would sell out each home game there - same as Twickenham where i would love to see them end up.

[Stranded]

It won't be the SCL and I hope it isn't as there is literally no benefit to the football club unless as part of the deal the owner waives the rent.

As the club doesn't own the stadium anymore, there is no clear financial benefit and also would we lose primary tenancy for a while i.e. we have to fit around Chelsea? Mostly not a major issue in terms of league games but we would play league games whilst they are in the CL, so what would happen if the fixtures put Chelsea at home when we have a home league game?

Would we be expected to rearrange?

[PATRIQT]

Chelsea would comfortably fill Wembley and you would also have the football tourist go each week to watch premier league games - pretty much given they would sell out each home game there - same as Twickenham where i would love to see them end up.

Comfortably double their attendance, really? Chelsea have always underwhelmed in support. It was only when Abramovich came along that they filled Stamford Bridge. They'd do very well to get 60,000 for home games. Plenty of empty seats for tourists to enjoy a couple of seasons PL football.

[Elm Park Kid]

It won't be the SCL and I hope it isn't as there is literally no benefit to the football club unless as part of the deal the owner waives the rent.

As the club doesn't own the stadium anymore, there is no clear financial benefit and also would we lose primary tenancy for a while i.e. we have to fit around Chelsea? Mostly not a major issue in terms of league games but we would play league games whilst they are in the CL, so what would happen if the fixtures put Chelsea at home when we have a home league game?

Would we be expected to rearrange?

You know with these owners that if Chelsea 'honoured' them by wanting to play at the SLC then they would jump at the chance. They would bend over backwards to make it work, just for the networking and prestige.

I can't imagine that there would be any financial benefits though, unless we could negotiate a bonus with the naming rights, and whether we'd be making money from the match day activities. A skip around FFP could be that the owners let Chelsea play there for free, keep the ticket sales, but the club gets the food/drink sales on the day.

But, yeah, I can't really see why Chelsea would turn down the revenue from playing elsewhere. The London Stadium would seem like an obvious choice if Wembley/Twickenham aren't feasible.

[Stranded]

It won't be the SCL and I hope it isn't as there is literally no benefit to the football club unless as part of the deal the owner waives the rent.

As the club doesn't own the stadium anymore, there is no clear financial benefit and also would we lose primary tenancy for a while i.e. we have to fit around Chelsea? Mostly not a major issue in terms of league games but we would play league games whilst they are in the CL, so what would happen if the fixtures put Chelsea at home when we have a home league game?

Would we be expected to rearrange?

You know with these owners that if Chelsea 'honoured' them by wanting to play at the SLC then they would jump at the chance. They would bend over backwards to make it work, just for the networking and prestige.

I can't imagine that there would be any financial benefits though, unless we could negotiate a bonus with the naming rights, and whether we'd be making money from the match day activities. A skip around FFP could be that the owners let Chelsea play there for free, keep the ticket sales, but the club gets the food/drink sales on the day.

But, yeah, I can't really see why Chelsea would turn down the revenue from playing elsewhere. The London Stadium would seem like an obvious choice if Wembley/Twickenham aren't feasible.

You miss the point. Reading FC does not own the ground, Dai does. Reading FC would not see a penny of any groundshare deal as the club are just tenants.

[Royal_jimmy]

True that it would be Dai who benefits. Mind you the town would benefit economically if Chelsea shared with us so it's not just the owner and who wins

[Elm Park Kid]

It won't be the SCL and I hope it isn't as there is literally no benefit to the football club unless as part of the deal the owner waives the rent.

As the club doesn't own the stadium anymore, there is no clear financial benefit and also would we lose primary tenancy for a while i.e. we have to fit around Chelsea? Mostly not a major issue in terms of league games but we would play league games whilst they are in the CL, so what would happen if the fixtures put Chelsea at home when we have a home league game?

Would we be expected to rearrange?

You know with these owners that if Chelsea 'honoured' them by wanting to play at the SLC then they would jump at the chance. They would bend over backwards to make it work, just for the networking and prestige.

I can't imagine that there would be any financial benefits though, unless we could negotiate a bonus with the naming rights, and whether we'd be making money from the match day activities. A skip around FFP could be that the owners let Chelsea play there for free, keep the ticket sales, but the club gets the food/drink sales on the day.

But, yeah, I can't really see why Chelsea would turn down the revenue from playing elsewhere. The London Stadium would seem like an obvious choice if Wembley/Twickenham aren't feasible.

You miss the point. Reading FC does not own the ground, Dai does. Reading FC would not see a penny of any groundshare deal as the club are just tenants.

We get all the revenue from match day activities now, despite not technically owning the ground. It can work however Dai wants it to - he just has to draw up a contract where Chelsea are paying the club for some reason.

[Silver Fox]

There's been some daft chat on this forum over the years but this is priceless stuff

[AthleticoSpizz]

Yeah but, we can all dream a nightmare occasionally