Chelsea continue to languish in average attendance figures

By: Jack | September 30th, 2011

The average attendance figures from across Europe for the previous season popped up in a few places this week and, to no Chelsea supporter’s surprise, the club remain firmly in the middle.

stamfordbridge
Sold out

Chelsea rose three places to 28th on the continent with an average attendance of 41,435. That’s a jump of 10 from 2009-10, but short of the figure established in 2008-09 (41,590). Last season’s average is excellent in relation to the stadium’s capacity of 41,800, hitting right at 99 percent. But, then again, that’s to be expected.

At the summit, of course, is Barcelona with an average capacity of 79,200. Borussia Dortmund’s impassioned fanbase has them in second at 79,100. Signal Iduna is a superb stadium, by the way. Manchester United (75,11), Real Madrid (71,300) and Bayern Munich (69,000) complete the top five clubs. All shockers.

Among English clubs, Chelsea rank sixth behind United, Arsenal (60,025), Newcastle (47,715), Manchester City (45,905) and Liverpool (42,820). Not much change over the past few seasons; nothing surprising, either.

The club’s position here would somewhat explain a rise in ticket prices – see Champions League group stage – even if that hardly condones it. This also suggests that, with financial fair play rules in our scope, a move to a larger, and thus more attractive, venue will continue to be a major talking point amongst both supporters and our higher-ups. Perhaps more than just a talking point actually.

I would think a move, as much as it pains me to say, is necessary to compete in this current climate. The question is whether Roman can, first, unearth a proper lot to build on in the city and, second, recreate the one-of-a-kind atmosphere that is Stamford Bridge. Difficult ask on both fronts.

Anyway. What are your thoughts on all this?

Note: Be sure to check out the take on all this offered by The Chels. They do a great job, as always.

Some Related Chelsea Posts:

What would you do? Your team, your tactics v. Fulham

Category: Analysis

« Video(s): Villas-Boas, Lampard speak on Valencia | Home | PL Preview: Bolton v. Chelsea »

Sharinganfx

raising prices aren't that great but in reality when I look at it compared to any american sport, the tickets are damn cheap. Plus so much more intimate b/c it's a smaller ground. loved it when i went there. as with any large capex project, it's debt financed and returns aren't realized until long after. probably have to wait until we can safely clear FFP before we can build something.
blue baron

this is an excellent blog...I love how you guys get on Torres( god damit, torres!) ..You guys right similar to how I write....wit, humor, and a little verbal beating slid in between. ...

Drogs for three straight weeks!!!...a real striker!

FTR, Chelsea was literally built for Stamford Bridge, and not the other way around. Usually, a team is put together, and then a stadium is erected ....In this case, The Bridge was put together, Fulham rejected it, and the owners of the stadium went out and put a team together specifically for the stadium ......so the bridge cannot be torn down ...They are just going to have to raise ticket prices to generate more revenue.

No other team in the world has that kind of birth. ....The team is literally The Bridge!
Eeeeee

Bit like MK Dons then. :-))
Jake Gold Lion Westergaard

not knowing you personally, you sound like a real ass; and a poor supporter of this great club. if you don't support every single player currently wearing the famous CFC shirt, then you can fuck off right back to liverpool or whatever scum town you hail from. most important though: raise ticket prices?? go say that in a local SW6 pub and see how many teeth you have left at the end of the day.
Blue Baron

To keep Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, I would be willing to deal with a price hike If that is what it takes, because building another stadium would mean even higher ticket prices to finance the stadium ...so you don't make sense. I'm choosing the lesser of two evils here...

If you like everything chelsea, and you do not have the ability to critique certain players and certain plays, then you are not really a chelsea follower yourself.......Kalou can be criticized and degraded by all, but Torres can't?...Kalou has done more for chelsea than Torres has . Torres is not legendary under Blue. He has won no Trophies for blue, and Spain gave him the boot, and I hope we do the same in January. He cannot be trusted as a striker and he has a terrible touch.
JG

When Arsenal left Highbury to the Emirates in 2006, we were left with debt. Lots of it. Granted it, our financial model means that a lot of it has been payed off already (although the amount would have been smaller had we'd been smarter at commercial deals), but we really did have to tighten the belts for a few years. The last 1-2 years would have been when we were going to start making more money, but our performances on the pitch started to falter and financially, we're pretty stagnant now. And the Emirates is still derisively called a library, with good reason.
A move to a new stadium, on the long run, is a smart move, but the short term (about 5-10 years) comes with plenty of baggage. I don't know your financial status very well, but it seems Roman has indicated a desire to not be so spend-free in the next couple of years, with FPP coming in, no? I would wait until Chelsea wins something truly special, like the CL.
Jack

Thanks for the comment, JG. We're pretty Teflon when it come to FFP, and the club has made a positive move toward identifying younger targets in recent seasons which should further cement our standing. Winning the CL, while a lovely prospect, seems remote at best. That being said, I still can't see the club moving any time soon, perhaps with the lack of available lots in the area. It's a real shame that stadium expansion isn't really option for us.
Mateo

as far as i know Bossman Roman is building a nightclub under the pitch or something like that so it would appear unlikely that we would move out, anyway, whats the ticket price range at the bridge? ( i know i could google it, but a response would be most appreciated.)
Chelsea Stats

Thanks for the link back, I agree we are struggling in numbers, but overall stamford bridge remains as full as it can be, with segregation and media/uefa rules etc.

A new ground, moreover a new capacity is a must if we want to increase revenue to compete with Europe's elite. But many Chelsea fans and myself included would struggle to leave the bridge and all the memories that comes with it.
Jack

No, thank you for all the great work you guys do.

Totally agree with everything you say. Leaving the Bridge would be devastating. But, theoretically, if we do indeed move, when could you see that possibly happening?
Berisso

I would love Chelsea to build a stadium that has about 20k-25k on top of the 40k we have. Though I would love us to build a bigger stadium than United, I think 65000 is the perfect size Stadium. That will make us the second biggest club in England if we are to achieve such thing which is possible of coarse.
Jack

Agreed. I just hate the idea of moving away from the Bridge. But the times, they are a changing, and we must change as well.
Dawleylad

The club don't have a big enough stadium, simple as that.

http://www.keelbyunited.co.uk
Eeeeee

What a stupid title. Continue to languish?? Chelsea by your own figures have an attendance percentage of over 99 percent.
Jack

Do you know what languish even means? To fail to make progress. When compared to the rest of Europe's elite clubs, who have much larger capacities, we continue to fail to make progress. It's pretty simple really.

When Sunderland isn't that far behind you, it's pretty straight forward.
Dddddddd

There is no option to progress the capacity without moving ground. Languish is therefore in appropriate. If we were at 80% capacity then progress could be made but not when we are 99% full every match. I see no complaints from Chelsea fans who are happy at SB.