Ground sharing the OS or Wembley [yes they can / no they can't]

Moojor

SuzanneClaret said:

Slaven_Cups_His_Beard said:

Dimi1964 said:

It makes a lot more sense for Chelsea and Spurs to ground share Wembley anyway.

Limit to how many 50,000 + games they can have?

Not sure, just asking.

Yes there is.

That doesn't matter though really does it. They just say yes you can use Wembley, btw you have a max of 49,999 tickets for the duration of using it.

MrsGrey

billy ;ok That was rather my point, in response to Izzy insisting that we don't have a 'veto'.


'A rose by any other name' and all that. (As Slav would say.)

SuzanneClaret

Stamford Bridge Capacity 41,798
White Hart Lane Capacity 36,284

There is an argument for allowing both clubs to use Wembley from the 2017/18 season if you take into account current capacity, if the Premier League limit ticket sales at Wembley to current stadium numbers.


Job done.

They should put me in charge.

Pearces_Left_Foot

I read somewhere that Wembley can only have so many 90,000 eventsa year so if they ground share capacity would be capped at 50,000

IronHerb

PLF, I think you are right

Pearces_Left_Foot

http://www.theweek.co.uk/premier-league/68720/will-spurs-and-chelsea-ground-share-at-wembley

Article about 50,000 capacity if they ground share. If they are paying £15 million a year that is going to hit them in the pocket even if they sell out every week

SuzanneClaret

If they are paying £15 million a year that is going to hit them in the pocket even if they sell out every week

How awful ;biggrin

IronHerb

Assuming they sell it out (50k) then Spurs will pretty much cover their costs. A rough sum is 14000 (additional seats) x 19 (games) x £45 (ave?) = £11.9m. Additional corporate and concessions will probably cover the rest of it.

Chelsea will find it harder as they will only expand by 8000 additional seats but their tickets are more expensive I think.

SuzanneClaret

and their football is really bad ;biggrin