Chelsea and Man City fans face Champions League final heartache with just 1,000 each set to be allowed to Portugal

THOUSANDS of Chelsea and Manchester City fans could get the green light to see the Champions League Final – if Uefa gets the Portuguese authorities to back down.

Euro chiefs are ready to confirm the May 29 clash will be played at Porto’s Estadio do Dragao after failing to get agreement with the UK Government over guest and sponsor numbers being allowed into the country if the game was played at Wembley.

But while Portugal will lift its nationwide ban on crowds for the final weekend of the domestic season on May 19, numbers will be capped at 10 per cent of capacity.

With the Dragao holding a maximum of just over 50,000 fans, that would mean a mere 5,000 spectators for European football’s showpiece occasion.

In turn, it would likely result in barely 1,000 fans of each of the two Premier League clubs being sold tickets, with others going to local spectators and the “Uefa family”.

But Uefa is putting pressure on the Portuguese to allow up to 40 per cent of the Dragao capacity to be used.

That would mean around 20,000 in Porto, with the two clubs each receiving between between 4,000 and 6,000 tickets.

Such a number is far below the potential 9,000 per club allocation had the game been played at Wembley but still significantly better than if the cap remains at 10 per cent.

Fans’ groups from the two clubs met virtually with Uefa President Aleksander Ceferin to plead their case yesterday  ahead of the final decision, now expected today.

Dom Rosso of the Chelsea Supporters’ Trust explained: “Uefa said it will ‘take care’ that supporters will be able to attend the final with priority given to Chelsea and Manchester City.

“I emphasised that allocation/prices for loyal supporters must be reasonable and fair. 

“Uefa confirmed that they must honour sponsor contracts and added that lots of football supporters (worldwide) will also want to attend and that this must be taken into account. 

“The CST stated that sponsor allocations must be kept to a minimum.”


    Source: Read Full Article