bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Ian Wright is way out of line as he blasts Chelsea fans

Just after the second half had kicked off on Saturday against Everton, and shortly before Drogba had scored his second of the game, a Chelsea supporter sitting 15 or so seats to my right in the Matthew Harding Lower piped up.

“Drogba you f*king c*nt, get onside”, were his wisely chosen words.

It didn’t get any better from there. “Drogba, you lazy w*nker”. He continued from there, abusing Chelsea players not meeting whatever arbitrary high standards he had set for the team. I can only assume he didn’t cheer Drogba’s goal.

Watching games, there are always fans making comments you don’t agree with. Likewise there is regularly someone who goes too far or is too critical of the players he or she is supposed to be supporting. I have no doubt that these characters exist at every football stadium across the country and, truth be told, you’re better just ignoring them.

Unlike during the dark days of Scolari early this year, there was no real cause for Chelsea fans to be booing the team following the unfortunate draw with Everton at the weekend. But, witnessing it first hand, I can assure everyone that it was a very small minority of fans who chose to voice their displeasure in that way. There was certainly no-one near me booing. If there was booing, it was very quiet indeed to the point where it is misrepresentative to suggest the players were booed off the pitch.

The media have picked up on it, and have been encouraged by Petr Cech’s expressions of surprise to hear booing. Now that it’s been blown out of all proportion, Ian Wright has chosen to take the opportunity to make a vicious, totally unwarranted and targeted attack on Chelsea fans in a double page article in The Sun.

“When my son Shaun played for Chelsea”, he starts, neatly forgetting that his son caused plenty of real frustration in the stands as he time and again spurned opportunities to put in a half-decent performance for the Blues, “I would go to Stamford Bridge regularly. After a while, I stopped. The amount of moaning and complaining coming from certain sections of the stands was unbelievable. I'd never heard anything like it.”

You’ve never heard anything like it, Ian? Really? In all your years of playing and watching football, you’ve never heard fans complaining about their own players? I don’t believe you (even if you did play half your games at Highbury, where in all likelihood you’d hear nothing at all). He continues: “My seat was near the players who were not involved. Just in front of us, there was one bloke who, win or lose, did not stop complaining. He was never happy, even with a convincing home win.”

As I said, there is always one person near you shouting nonsensical abuse. But the critical thing here is that Wright is talking about his experience of one person being unreasonable, not the 40-odd thousand people crammed into Stamford Bridge.

From this point however, Wright’s article become more unwarranted and even less considered. “Those fans who jeered are an absolute disgrace” – well, that’s debateable, but the next bit is outrageous. “They (the fans) might have plenty of money but, in football terms, they have no class whatsoever.” Such a sweeping and unfair judgement. Yes, Chelsea has more than its fair share of more wealthy supporters and has done for decades, but those fans aren’t close to being the majority. I have had season tickets in two separate parts of the Matthew Harding end and sat alongside a range of brilliant football fans from all walks of life: barmen to bankers; locksmiths to chefs; and removal men to PR consultants.

To suggest that ‘many of’ Chelsea’s fans “saunter into hospitality areas in expensive suits and fancy shoes” is to ignore what really happens each week, and to suggest that fans of the club “have either forgotten where the club has come from or have no idea about Chelsea’s problems down the years” suggests that he simply has an anti-Chelsea agenda. Is he still feeling bitter that Shaun didn’t make it at Chelsea? Or perhaps it’s because of the years he spent at Arsenal?

Yes, we all get frustrated by fair-weather fans who can’t – or won’t – put things into perspective, and I did think booing on Saturday was harsh. But then again – and the point has been made brilliantly over on the Chelsea Daft blog – let’s not forget that paying fans are entitled to express dissatisfaction or frustration. Contrary to Wright’s assertion that fans who criticise their team are unintelligent (am I unintelligent because I’ve criticised Ancelotti at times this season?), it is certainly unintelligent to blindly put faith in your team, regardless of performance. 

When Wright concludes that Chelsea fans “should learn a few lessons from the fans up at Liverpool”, it is clear that it isn’t Chelsea fans who are classless, just Wright’s blinkered article. Disappointing. I wonder if Ian wrote an article about what a disgrace it was for Arsenal fans to leave the Emirates half an hour early when Chelsea and United played them last spring? I doubt it.

Ian, if you want to criticise Chelsea, condemn our youth policy or our footballing ethos - we can debate that. But lay off the fans with your mindless drivel.

You may also be interested to read:

• Five positives from Chelsea’s winless run

Biased and brash ESPN coverage of Chelsea game was embarrassing

As if watching Chelsea stumble to their third loss of the season against Man City at the weekend wasn’t frustrating enough, listening to Joe Royle’s attempt at commentary piled on the irritation for Chelsea fans. I feel compelled to write a few words on it.

I can’t have been the only Chelsea fan infuriated by Royle’s endless refusal to criticise any Man City player or ‘see’ any infringement they might have made. Borderline decisions going in City’s favour went unquestioned while contentious verdicts going the other way were errors of judgement from Howard Webb.

Meanwhile, Royle was desperate to paint a picture of Chelsea as ‘losing it’ and reacting badly to perceived injustice. He totally ignored the fact that, in general, Chelsea players reacted pretty well in the face of one or two poor refereeing decisions (one that went against Ivanovic was just laughable, and he ended up getting a yellow) and that John Terry did an admirable job in ensuring he was the only player in blue and black hoops remonstrating with Webb.

Supposedly Chelsea – top of the table and packed full of experienced players that have won trophies Royle himself could have only ever dreamed of – were ‘rattled’ as soon as Man City had scored their contested first goal (on 36 minutes). Meanwhile Man City – who in reality won the day through a well executed plan to stifle and harass Chelsea rather than excellent passing football – were portrayed as world beaters.

When Royle criticised Drogba for going down theatrically after Onuoha had nigh-on assaulted him in the box (resulting in a penalty) it was pretty much the last straw; and this was just minutes after he had castigated the Ivorian for staying down too long after a challenge when in fact he had immediately got back to his feet.

From the point of view of a fan who spends £14 a month for the privilege of watching ESPN, I thought it was appalling that Royle made no attempt to offer balanced, reasoned commentary or that the producers didn’t bring him into line. In fact it was only his co-commentator who acknowledged his blinkered viewpoint, reminding Royle that he had history with Man City.

Besides the commentary, I’ve been less than impressed with ESPN generally. They clearly feel the need to over-dramatise events (Saturday’s game had plenty of drama and excitement without endless hyperbole from the commentary team) and Kevin Keegan is in no way equipped to be an insightful or interesting pundit.

And, to complete the rant, their brash, mammoth graphics aren’t really my cup of tea. I guess it is their first season with rights to Premier League matches, but any channel that makes me yearn for Andy Gray is clearly doing something wrong…

This isn’t just bitterness – check out my match report where I acknowledge how Man City won their deserved victory. Anyone else watch the game agree with me about Royle though? Post a comment.

What's in a name? Chelsea selling Stamford Bridge naming rights no bad thing

Another day, another Chelsea controversy. Hot on the heels of the ‘noise’ surrounding Newcastle’s decision to sell naming rights to St. James’ Park, new Chelsea Chief Executive Ron Gourlay announced that Chelsea are considering something similar at Stamford Bridge.


And what outrage it has caused among many Chelsea fans. “Gourlay I swear to God you can get that idea out of your head RIGHT NOW!!!!!” was one message posted on a Chelsea facebook forum. “Sell history for money, just great”, was another. Others, including “id rather have kenyon back at least he never made a stupid comment like this” and “selling the right to the name stamford bridge is like selling john terry” sum up the widely held negative reaction to the announcement.

I expect I’ll incur the wrath of many Chelsea fans and that other well-renowned Chelsea blogs like thechelseablog might disagree with me, but I don’t share the outrage. What’s in a name, after all? Regardless of somehow appending Samsung or Adidas onto ‘Stamford Bridge’ I’ll still refer to the stadium as ‘The Bridge’ in the pub. All fans will. And will seeing the official name in the paper or on Match of the Day be that much of an embarrassment?

And I don’t buy the history argument, either. History, tradition, heritage – call it what you will – isn’t something superficial as Liverpool fans might have you believe. It’s the ‘story’ of a club, and tweaking the name of the Stadium does nothing to change that. Chelsea fans devalue our very real history by suggesting that somehow the name of the stadium defines the club’s existence.

And commercially it makes sense. Chelsea aren’t currently in a position to consider expanding Stamford Bridge or relocating, meanwhile Man Utd sell 30,000 more tickets each week, Arsenal 18,000. Spurs are probably just one of a few other clubs will have a new stadium in the next five years. Selling naming rights is just one way to help make up the shortfall and stay competitive, and it is sensible to consider it as an option. It’s not unrealistic to expect a £5m a year deal with the eventual sponsor – a sum that would very easily fund David Villa or Sergio Aguero’s wages. According to reports, Gourlay is hoping for double that figure. 

Encouragingly, in making the announcement Gourlay did at least recognise the sensitivities around the decision and how fans might respond: this is no heresy or treachery. It is good news too that ‘Stamford Bridge’ will still feature in the name. It’s not so much of a sacrifice – and if it means I get to continue to watch players of the quality of Drogba, Lampard and Terry, then it’s a sacrifice that is well worth making.

What do you think of the announcement? Post a comment.

A different kind of Chelsea fan? Not really. A view from America

Football has changed immeasurably over the past ten or twenty years and, with it, Chelsea Football Club. Fans no longer exclusively hail from the Kings Road, South West London or Surrey. Since Roman Abramovich bought the club in particular, Chelsea has drawn increased interest from all over the world with blue shirts appearing on pretty much every continent. This blog alone has readers in 175 countries.

When I wrote a post summing up what the 2009 pre-season tour of the United States had taught us back in August, one of the main things was the clear impact the club is having stateside. It’s no NFL, but (real!) football is increasing in popularity in over there and selling-out 75,000 seater stadiums – largely with loud and enthusiastic Chelsea supporters - for a friendly is a good sign that the club is at the forefront of the revolution.

But Chelsea fans in America – whether American or Brits who have moved over there – of course have a very different experience to those of us fortunate enough to live within spitting distance of Stamford Bridge. Games are often on at awkward times. They aren’t always on television. They’re in the minority watching a game that is far from being the national sport.

The official North American Chelsea supporters club – Chelsea in America, or, amusingly, CIA – publishes a regular newsletter for its members, who now stretch well into their hundreds. The latest issue of its wittily titled ‘Bluesletter’ (which you can read here) includes a short article by Josh Hampton, an American chap I ‘met’ over on the bridgeviews.co.uk facebook page (where I’ve also chatted with Chelsea supporters from as far afield as Norway, Malaysia, Egypt and Newcastle). Josh gives an interesting insight into what it means to be a Chelsea fan on the other side of the pond:

It’s a secret few people share. A club with very few members. It’s most times being the only guy cheering Chelsea at the pub, vastly outnumbered by those bandwagon-jumping muppets known ‘round the world as Man U supporters (there’s always one or two lurking in the shadows, it seems). It’s a knowing nod and a smile to the rare stranger on the street in a Blues shirt. It’s pride. Joy. Excitement. Walking on air after a win. Week-long bouts of depression when we lose. Wearing a jersey to work every day leading up to big games—and having said jersey occasionally mistaken for a NASCAR shirt (“Who in the hell is Lampard and why’s he got Dale Jr’s number?!”)

It’s sometimes waking up at 7:45 in the morning to watch the match in a postage-stamp-sized window on my computer. In Turkish. That cuts in and out every five seconds. But still being able to tell who’s who on the pitch because of how they run and move. It’s having the opening credits of Blue Revolution on my laptop dock so I can launch it anytime I feel the urge, which is probably way too often considering I’m usually at work when I use my laptop. It’s obsessively memorizing the fixtures so I know what days I can watch the match delayed, and when I’ll have to take a day off altogether to make sure I don’t miss anything—with all the dates kept on a color-coded calendar tacked up on the wall at my desk, just underneath my framed autographed photo of Super Frank (Thanks, Mick!).

It’s having more Chelsea gear than everyday clothes, including just about every home and away jersey from the past six years. It’s going beyond just buying both the Millenniums and the NUAs—it’s making sure every pair of sneakers I buy are Adidas and have some form of Chelsea blue in them so they match all those damn shirts and jackets. It’s teaching my kids the Chelsea chants and songs (with a few choice edits of course). Getting my wife to come along to a game, and watching her get so sucked into the atmosphere that she actually sings the “Celery Song.” About a hundred times. With a great big smile on her face.

From Stamford Bridge to Louisville, I’ll be keeping the blue flag flying high, don’t you worry. Now you’ll have to excuse me, I’m pretty sure there’s a Chelsea episode of Classic English League Soccer about to start that I’ve just got see again. Cheers!

It’s kind of comforting to know that the aspects of the Chelsea experience aren’t all that different, whatever part of the world you come from. Don’t worry Josh – there are United fans in every pub in London, too. Thankfully though, we don’t have the NASCAR thing to deal with, or the mildly irritating need to call the beautiful game ‘soccer’.

Having more Chelsea fans around the world can only be a good thing – so hopefully CIA will continue to grow each week. In the meantime, I’m keen to hear more from other Chelsea fans not living in England. How does matchday go for you, and have you been to the Bridge? Are you on your own, or are there other supporters’ clubs? What are your views on the season so far? And what do you want from a Chelsea blog?! Leave a comment below, or drop me an email here.

Living in the States? Chelsea in America was established last year when four clubs – Midwest Blues, Pacific Coast Blues, Southeast Blues and Texas Blues – combined and already has over 350 members. Aiming to try and grow the club’s presence Stateside, CIA holds events, updates its members with the latest news and its website has a chatboard that is visited by thousands. Check out becoming a member here.

No Chelsea 3pm kick-offs? Football has changed, but could it damage the game

Looking back over the matches Chelsea have played so far this season, one of the ways increasing television coverage has changed football over the last ten years is startlingly apparent.

Chelsea have played 12 games so far this season, including the Community Shield, and only four haven’t been shown live on television. Of the 28 games that the team is scheduled to play before 1st January 2010, only nine won’t be on Sky or ESPN: just one third of games aren’t being shown on TV.

This means that some of the footballing traditions are being eroded too (at least for the bigger sides): namely, the Saturday 3pm kick-off. Of the eight Premier League games Chelsea have played so far, only two have been standard Saturday afternoon affairs. We’ll have to wait until 21st November for the first home game Chelsea will play on a Saturday at 3 o’clock (our 13^th league game). In total, of the 20 Premier League games Chelsea will play before New Year’s Day, 70% won’t be 3pm starts.

So the game changes. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Yes, a 3pm Saturday kick-off does feel right somehow, offering just the right amount of time for fans to have a drink before the game and up the volume in the stadium. Conversely 12.45 kick-offs lead to quieter crowds and Sunday games often feel flat.

But Chelsea fans (or fans of other big sides) can’t complain too much either, as TV coverage forms the financial backbone of the club’s success on the pitch, and has been the driving force behind the modernisation of the game. Furthermore, fans of clubs lower down the table don’t have the same opportunities to watch their team, and their clubs don’t reap the same financial rewards.

But increased television coverage could have further reaching and more damaging consequences. Many argue that the current lull in Italian football – characterised by matches frequently being played in half-empty stadiums – has its roots in the massive expansion of pay-per-view coverage, where fans could pretty much watch every game on television.

Clubs like Manchester United are unlikely to be affected by increased television coverage - their huge fanbase means they won’t struggle to fill their stadium. Clubs with smaller fanbases – perhaps even Chelsea – are more susceptible to more games being shown on TV however, as fans’ decision to make the large financial outlay for tickets becomes unbalanced by the ability to watch games more cheaply at home. Whatever benefits television coverage brings, it shouldn’t be to the detriment of the stadium experience.

We’re certainly not at that tipping point yet however, and of course clubs lower down the table aren’t as fortunate as us and are more vulnerable to falling attendances. The Premier League probably has it just about right at the moment, but with broadcasters ready to throw ever-increasing resources at the game, football will need to fight off the temptation and look to its long-term future.

Chelsea season-tickets holders and members – do you care that matches aren’t 3pm Saturday kick-offs anymore? Post a comment.

You might also be interested to look at:

• Chelsea’s 09/10 fixture list, including kick-off times, television coverage and bridgeviews.co.uk match reports

Fans pose the question on dangerous queues at the Bridge but Chelsea chiefs give weak answer

After the Hull game back in August I wrote a brief post questioning why it takes so long to queue to get through the turnstiles at Stamford Bridge. That day it took me half an hour to get from the Britannia Gate to my seat, and I missed the first 12 minutes of the Spurs game on Sunday despite joining the one of the queues into the Matthew Harding Lower at 3.40pm. The queuing time is a huge frustration in itself, not to mention missing parts of games, but the situation is getting worse to such an extent that it is unfortunately easy to envisage a scenario where crowd surges could cause serious injury.

It’s a truly bizarre situation: bringing in new technology should make things faster. But the introduction of the season ticket card readers at Stamford Bridge hasn’t had the desired effect and, if anything, queues have got longer and potentially more dangerous. Some of the key problems are:

• Stewards are there to ensure people don’t touch their card too early and get ‘stuck’ – but they often get in the way
• Queues are a free-for all – there’s no order to them and it slows things down for most
• The queues aren’t managed well, which means that the limited space around the ground seriously restricts movement around the stadium
• Quite simply, there aren’t enough turnstiles

The issue was raised at the recent Chelsea Fans Forum – you can read the minutes from the meeting here – and the club gave its perspective on the issue. In short – they don’t seem to see it as an issue. The club’s response was as follows:

“The problem previously was that stewards couldn’t see what was happening to help fans who were stuck. In testing, we didn’t think there would be any effect in slowing down access by moving the readers. We had c.1,300 people who couldn’t operate the readers per match and got stuck. We are trying to speed up the process.

“About 50% of fans still arrive really late and we do want fans to change their habits to help us and themselves by arriving earlier. Queues for the Porto home match started at 7.20 but we are also fully aware that travel is not easy for fans, especially at night games. Against Hull less than half the total crowd figure was inside the stadium 15 minutes before kick-off, and there was no other match to watch on television so clearly fans expect to be able to get in late.”

cfcnet.co.uk, who attend the forum, added a little extra detail to what was discussed at the meeting on their website:

“Against Hull there were only 19k in at 12.30 – fifteen minutes before Kick Off, the club have looked at other clubs capacities and number of turnstyles they have, and believe we have more then more then most, and definitely more then enough for SB. Skidata technology can reload instantly, but the design is so that once the turnstile has rotated once the card reader then allows the next person to touch in. The club mentioned that there are some habits that won’t go away, the entry to East has improved significantly, but as it got to the point where being there ten minutes before kick off would guarantee entry on time, now people get in five minutes before KO.”

Sadly I think the club has its head in the sand on this one. Anyone who has been to the Emirates will know that there is nothing like the trouble getting into that Stadium. Yes, it’s a brand new stadium, but shouldn’t the club be aspiring to the same standards for Chelsea fans? It hasn’t been as bad when I’ve been to other London grounds, either. My first hand experience suggests that their assertion that arriving ten minutes before kick-off will guarantee entry on time is ludicrous. I now arrive 15 minutes before kick-off and am never in on time – I think it’s unreasonable to demand fans arrive earlier, especially for evening games. Besides which, in their earlier point Chelsea acknowledge that queues for the Porto game were starting at 7.20 – 25 minutes before kick-off.

Chelsea also failed to acknowledge that things are getting worse. I’m not convinced by their assumption – I don’t think they have evidence to prove it – that these problems have been caused by fans arriving later. In fact I now arrive earlier – pitching up five minutes before kick-off after a pint in the Pelican would previously have seen me in my seat just as the game kicked off.

As I said above, there isn’t a quick fix for this, and I really think the club isn’t taking this one seriously enough. But aside from building more turnstiles – which is the only real solution – there are other things that can be done that aren’t rocket science: namely to start managing the queues better.

I read a quote from Kenyon a couple of years ago that said he wanted to stop relying on the ask-no-questions loyalty of fans and start treating them more like customers, meaning treating them with the respect they deserve as people who pay money for tickets and merchandise. The queuing problems are a clear example of the club not following that mantra – can you imagine the uproar if paying customers couldn’t get to their seats on time at the Royal Opera House or the National Theatre? Unfortunately, football fans are a different breed and sometimes get treated as such.

Regardless of the arguments, this needs to change as quickly as possible – for both fans’ sanity and safety.

What have other Chelsea fans’ experiences been? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Post a comment! Posting a comment is easy to do – you don’t have to register a username if you don’t want to.

Hooliganism? Dead? It's alive, kicking and costing us our time, money and reputation

There are still countless morons out there using football as an excuse to relieve whatever primal urges tell them to fight, throw bricks, light fires and stab people (and most of them ‘support’ Millwall). Most of us will just be battling with the question ‘why?’, but when events like last night’s at West Ham occur, it’s not just legs, ribs and faces that get a kicking.

Historically of course Chelsea hardly have a clear bill of health when it comes to hooliganism. But aside from a bit of a skirmish outside Fulham Broadway after the 2008 Champions League Final, I’ve haven’t personally witnessed any sign of violence at Stamford Bridge this decade. I suspect the vast majority of fans up and down the country (including Hammers supporters) could say the same thing about their clubs.

The fact that hooliganism has pretty much been stamped out in the UK has probably made us all a little bit more sensitive to events like last night and the worrying eye-witness accounts all the more appealing to a gleeful media. But last night’s events at Upton Park – as has been widely reported in the papers – were genuinely a throwback to the 1980s, where rivalries between clubs far more regularly spilled into violent clashes on the streets.

Of course it is very possible that those causing most of the trouble last night weren’t ‘fans’ with match tickets, rather thugs with some form of club allegiance to Millwall or West Ham who made arrangements before the game to square up outside the ground. Apparently this is still fairly common across a lot of English clubs – that is ‘fans’ making arrangements with each other over the internet and mobile phones to meet up and fight each other – it just so happens that most of the time they manage to ‘miss’ each other, unintentionally or otherwise.

The obvious impact of last night’s violence is plain to see – reports of at least one man in hospital and bloody pictures splashed over our television screens and morning papers. Not to undermine any potential human cost (and there weren’t many of those involved last night), but actually the impact stretches wider than this, and beyond the FA’s knee-jerk reaction of worrying about their 2018 World Cup bid.

The hooliganism hangover from the 1980s means that there is still a large police presence at each Premier League game. Despite the relative lack of trouble, there are still probably 100+ police officers – some of them mounted police – at each home game at Stamford Bridge. And who foots that bill? The clubs - or rather the fans. The cost of policing games, like increasing player wages, is just another cost that gets passed on to fans in the form of higher ticket prices and more costly merchandise. And it’s the fans who have to queue longer to get into and out of the stadium when events like last night’s cause police forces to go into overdrive.

And memories of the 80s are longer than you think. Despite the fact that English football has a great recent record on violence, already this morning non-football fans (in my office at least) are remembering what they really think about football: that it’s a working class game watched by hooligans. It doesn’t matter who it’s watched by – and it’s truly a game for everyone – very quickly football supporters can get tarred with the same brush.

And, as the FA fear, it won’t take much for the worldwide football community to jump to the same conclusion either (English football being the flavour of the month with UEFA and FIFA ‘n’ all that). Despite the terrible records of Italian and German fans in particular, which go strangely overlooked, it will only take a couple of events like last night’s for English football’s reputation to be dragged back to the dark ages, where last night’s idiots belong.

Poor system at Stamford Bridge means queuing just got worse for Chelsea fans

Over the last few seasons various improvements have been made to Stamford Bridge. New picture boards on the walls by the Britannia Gate, a new look interior, new television screens, a redesigned Megastore and new electronic advertising hoardings have been just some of the improvements that have certainly led to a smarter looking stadium and a better matchday experience.

But at the beginning of last season Chelsea also introduced a new ticketing system, whereby oyster card style season tickets were swiped at the gate to gain entrance to the ground. The hope presumably was that fans would be able to get into the ground more quickly and fewer staff at the gate would be needed, but the reality was longer queues and frustrated fans not in their seats in time for kick off. It seemed bizarre that, despite the installation of new technology, stewards were still needed at each gate (both infront and behind it) to tell people when to swipe their card and generally get in the way. So frustrating was queuing that I named the system in my top five disappointments of 08/09.

Heading to Stamford Bridge on Saturday for the opener against Hull, I was foolishly hoping that something might have been done to improve the situation. Who knows - maybe some more gates might have been built? Any hope gradually faded however as I - along with thousands of other supporters walking through the Britannia gate at 12.30 - had to queue just to get past the huge queues of people trying to get into the West Stand. On finally making my way round to the Matthew Harding end, queues were clearly far longer than they had ever been before.

It took me over 20 minutes to get into the ground from that point, and I missed one of Chelsea's best moves (which culminated in Drogba volleying a Michael Essien cross wide). Clearly someone at Chelsea thought the system wasn't good enough last season because the swipe card units have been moved just outside the gates. Despite this there was still a steward by each one and fans getting confused about when they could swipe their card without locking up the turnstile (perhaps some kind of instructions would be useful?). Walking to my seat ten minutes after kick off, I had already passed several very angry fans who had no-one to complain to save the bemused and undeserving stewards.

It was genuinely quicker and easier to get in with the orange booklets. Kenyon - if you're listening, tweaks here and there won't work - there are too many people trying to get into too few gates. Want to get people into the ground more quickly? Cut some more holes in the wall. We pay enough money each season not to have to queue for 20 minutes each game - and the team could do with 100% support from kick off.

The true cost of supporting Chelsea

Putting the ‘cost’ of going out of the Champions League in the 93rd minute of the semi final second leg aside, being a Chelsea fan can be an expensive pursuit.

Chelsea’s opening game against Hull is only two weeks away – and we better get saving. Research from the Football Fans Census shows that matchday at Stamford Bridge is more expensive for fans of the West London club than for any other in the capital (and probably the country). Their fans survey revealed that the average home game costed each individual Chelsea fan a staggering £102 in 2008 – an amount comparing very unfavourably to our rivals (Arsenal - £92, Spurs - £84, West Ham - £81). When you consider that getting a quick pint before the game typically involves going to a bar on either the King’s Road or the Fulham Road however, it isn’t perhaps that surprising. A little different from the pubs near Plaistow tube…

It does seem preposterous that the average fine might spend £1,900 each season to watch their team play (assuming they only go to home league games of course) – but perhaps it’s better value for money than it looks.

Buying tickets clearly accounts for a large proportion of fans’ expenditure, and on that front Chelsea unfairly have a reputation for exorbitant prices. The cheapest season ticket, for a seat in the Matthew Harding stand – costs ‘just’ £635 for the 09/10 season, and prices have been frozen for the past four years. By comparison, to help shoulder the financial burden of the Emirates, Arsenal fans pay by far the most in the league for the pleasure of watching their team come fourth with their tickets ranging from £855 to £1,825 (kindly the Arsenal board don’t seem to have passed on this year’s VAT cut to their supporters either – how nice of them). A cheap seat at White Hart Lane will cost you pretty much the same as at Stamford Bridge, but those wanting to pay top dollar will shell out £1,640, some £500 more than at Chelsea.

All of those prices, of course, don’t compare well to those charged by most other clubs in the Premier League – and the bottom line is that, to the majority, such amounts take considerable chunks of monthly income. But if you compare the success that London’s biggest rivals have delivered (as opposed to entertainment on the field, which I’ll neatly sidestep), you’ll find that Chelsea offers the best value for money, charging £7.65 per point during 08/09, compared to £11.88 at Arsenal and £12.20 at Spurs.

And for that money you get to watch Lampard, Terry, Essien, Ballack, Drobga and Joe Cole play. Not too bad at all.   

The same Football Fans Census survey suggested that 5% of Chelsea supporters would not renew their season ticket because of the cost, and a further 20% would go to less games. Are ticket prices in football too high? Post a comment.