Love the first option, from an asthetic point of view, unique design, however logistically with the underground being so near by, would be an expensive nightmare. Sometimes you just have to move house!! Man Utd fans just recently voted for a new stadium, it's not like living in the past has helped Man U in recent times.
Move to Earls Court but preserve current location until the new stadium completed. Name the new stadium Stamford Bridge II. Then turn old Stamford Bridge into something related to Chelsea Football Club, the fans and the community while still making money.
The Pride of London needs minimum 80k seats. I would leave Stamford Bridge to the ladies' team. They deserve it. Plus, Chelsea men could always play there in smaller cup games where high capacity is not required. I would then build a new stadium.
This video would have been good 6 months ago. Earls court is not an option now. The other project going on over there has already been sold and started.
Excellent video, I’ve been taking such an interest in this new stadium project, I just want whatever is best for the blues, ideally staying at he bridge would be nice…but if a bigger and better stadium can be built at Earl’s Court then I’m totally happy with that too, but I’ve heard that the Earl’s Court site is now not a possibility.
It's possible but current govt policy heavily favours anything that uses such large sites for housing development. A large stadium is a big waste of land from a housing prespective in a city where such plots don't come around that often
Battersea would have been awesome! Now just need to expand, and build into the neighbouring areas. The building are so ugly any way, and it would be good to see the stadium from the road side. I heard one of the neighbours hates Chelsea and it being paid by a neighbouring club to not sell out. I wonder if it’s true.
not in my opinion. I loved being in the middle of the shed. great days. most games were turn up on the day and it was affordable. better atmospheres, though for the most part not as good a team, although we did well in the mid 80s.
As much as I love the Bridge option 2 would mean a quicker turn around, the hassle of refurbishing Stamford Bridge is daunting. Sometimes you just have to move house.
Whatever happens, I hope the stadium ends up with a modern yet gothic cathedral style. I loved how the Battersea design looked with the gothic towers, and the Stamford Bridge design looks good as well. If we move to Earl's court I hope they do that, I think a stadium with a unique gothic inspired design would fit the club best.
A number of things……design is personally subjective and of course ultimately has to be within planning constraints, which the proposed stadium is. Any design will never satisfy all supporters opinions. Location is the decision that will cause most debate and both have their merits, but overall disruption points towards Earls Court as being the most logical for income and future commercial protection. Good job……because in the final shot of the redeveloped stadium the capital C has been omitted on CHELSEA ………. and we CPO shareholders won’t be happy about that !
Its best if chelsea go move to earls court, chelsea need a new area bc their current stadium have houses and flats attached to it, btw the first design is so easy to make u just have to add wood
Chelsea need to replace the archaic, cramped, uncomfortable seating at Stamford Bridge. We shouldn't have to wait 6-9 years for that basic improvement. Everything else is secondary.
@@stelsDM I am aware, doesn't mean we fill a 90,000 seater stadium. That's more than 100% larger than our existing ground, 30,000 more than Arsenal. There are build cost implications and maintenance implications to having a ground that big, it would be the largest in the country.
@@glowwurm9365 ehh London clubs have a lot of tourist fans, so they might. Only thing is competition, there's so many London clubs to choose from as a tourist so which one do they choose? Tottenham has the advantage with their modern and new stadium but if Chelsea build this they could definitely fill seats w/ tourists.
@orangejuice00 Option 1 is incredible and unique - from above it's different, but I can easily imagine walking under the brick pillars. London doesn't need yet another giant bowl of steel and glass.
I doubt Earls court is likely as the current labour govt is heavy on house vuilding and the other bid is basically full blown housing development. If it had been a conservatove govt/mayor youd stand a better chance but by the time thats likely that plot would be gone.
Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham have better stadiums. that is just in London. Man U stadium is bigger but falling apart. Man City bigger and better . Villa about the same size.
The owners objective is to make money. We've already seen how clever they are will pushing the rules, with contracts and selling bits of the ground to themselves. My guess is option 3, or 4. They will groundshare Wembley, or develop Lords. The fans won't like it, but the owners know even if 1/2 the fans hand back their season tickets, there will be no shortage of demand, especially from global tourist. The owners didn't care that the fans wanted Mount and Gallagher to stay, and if the CPO won't let them use the name Chelsea Football Club, they will call the club London, London United, London City, or London Lions etc. Neither the fans, not history will stop the owners from maximising their investment. Toad Bohley and Clearmake Capital know what they are doing.
Chelsea building a new stadium is just as unlikely as Serie A clubs building new stadiums. I hope to see the new stadium built in 70 years (I pray I will still be alive by then)
@@amrmukthar7122 Atalanta is not a new stadium, it is just a renovation. The only real new stadium is Juventus. I think Italy should not host Euro 2032 because their stadium is too dilapidated.
The option for a new stadium on the Earls Court site is not going to happen. The site is jointly owned by TFL and Olympia / The Earls Court Development Company . They have joint plans to develop with both Hammersmith and Fulham council and The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Their plans do not involve a stadium. I cannot see the Earls Court Development Company tearing up their plans , and selling out to Chelsea Football Club . And if they did sell out , the Chelsea owners would find it difficult to have new plans passed. Chelsea need a build a new stadium at Stamford Bridge , and find a stadium where to play while building goes on. Either Wembley , or another stadium in London. Twickenham stadium is not an option , the local council there don't want Chelsea to play there. Would have been a good option , Rugby could have done with the money , local businesses would have profited. London Welsh Rugby Club has gone bust . JPR Williams and all that. London Welsh provided seven players for the British Lions tour of 1971 to New Zealand . And London Irish Rugby Club has gone bust. Anyone thinking a new stadium at Earls Court is a viable option is having a laugh. Why would the present owners sell ? And I doubt that full planning permission for a stadium would ever be granted. All seems like PR from the owners of Chelsea. And any talk of playing at Stamford Bridge whilst the new stadium there is being built - is just plain stupid. And COP / Chelsea Pitch Owners will not sell out. So Earls Court is out. The Chelsea owners seem to be as stupid as past QPR owners......
I went to a game Chelsea v Blackpool night game do you know what the gate was in 76 77 8.000 that's it I know Chelsea have loyal fans but the majority are new fans and glory hunters mugs why don't they go follow Fulham r.i.p.Chelsea old boys
Yeah before in 2019 prices were much much cheaper, construction prices have gone X3 since then. Madrid paid over 1.2B just for the stands and the grass tech.
About as useful as the squad and management. Shiney and new with no substance. And fir any freak who mentions Cole palmer gg, 1 man city graduate carried a bad season before being injured
u a Spurs fan ? last time domestic champions in 1961.......or an Arsenal fan ? Never won the European Cup or Champions League .. Remember the names Celtic, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Liverpool , Nottingham Forest and Chelsea. All won the European Cup or the Champions League.
Chelsea has been discussing building a new stadium for decades, but nothing has really happened, so I think they will remain at the dilapidated Stamford Bridge until the stadium rots away.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
The original design would be one of the most beautiful stadiums ever built… the second looks like a generic stadium. Both seem very hard to do sadly.
The second proposal, at Earl's Court, is just AI-generated imagery, it's not an actual design.
Love the first option, from an asthetic point of view, unique design, however logistically with the underground being so near by, would be an expensive nightmare. Sometimes you just have to move house!! Man Utd fans just recently voted for a new stadium, it's not like living in the past has helped Man U in recent times.
Move to Earls Court but preserve current location until the new stadium completed. Name the new stadium Stamford Bridge II. Then turn old Stamford Bridge into something related to Chelsea Football Club, the fans and the community while still making money.
Could use it for the womens team
Straight up@@arynariflights
do NOT name is stamford bridge II. just call it stamford bridge
@@arynariflights They'd have to sell to help finance the new stadium, prime Real Estate in West London...
@@iangriffiths6047 If it costs £2.5bn then it sure as hell won't be called Stamford Bridge.
The Pride of London needs minimum 80k seats. I would leave Stamford Bridge to the ladies' team. They deserve it. Plus, Chelsea men could always play there in smaller cup games where high capacity is not required. I would then build a new stadium.
Yeah bro that's a great idea
Your an idiot
you should find a way to contact chelsea and pitch them this idea... it's a good one. they will love it...
@jahguda6017 thanks mate
operating two massive stadiums over 120k capacity come on
A retractable roof is a must have in England
Hopefully in our lifetime we are able to visit our new propose build stadium above 60k spectators
This video would have been good 6 months ago. Earls court is not an option now. The other project going on over there has already been sold and started.
Good, Stamford bridge shall not be moved. We can redevelop for 65k seats but they need to start soon.
Moving to Earl's Court is the best option and it's few minutes walk
Bigger site and much better transport links. You could still play home games without having to ground share whilst it's being constructed too.
Excellent video, I’ve been taking such an interest in this new stadium project, I just want whatever is best for the blues, ideally staying at he bridge would be nice…but if a bigger and better stadium can be built at Earl’s Court then I’m totally happy with that too, but I’ve heard that the Earl’s Court site is now not a possibility.
It's possible but current govt policy heavily favours anything that uses such large sites for housing development. A large stadium is a big waste of land from a housing prespective in a city where such plots don't come around that often
Despite different location, option 2 is much better.
Battersea would have been awesome!
Now just need to expand, and build into the neighbouring areas. The building are so ugly any way, and it would be good to see the stadium from the road side.
I heard one of the neighbours hates Chelsea and it being paid by a neighbouring club to not sell out. I wonder if it’s true.
To be honest I like option 2
Stamford Bridge to reconstruct up to 30,000 thousand for women's team and academy
Why make things complicated ? There was already stunning approved design by Abramovich team. Just re approve it again !
Completely agree!
this is a terrible project... everyone calls it an egg slicer
@@stelsDM 😂🤣 It is look like a an egg slicer
I heard Manchester United also had their own stadium project to replace Old Trafford, which costed more funds than Chelsea.
I’m a proud Brazilian Chelsea fan, and I CANNOT die without knowing the old Bridge 💙
I used to go to the shed in the 70s and 80s. Stright through the turnstiles. How football has changed! For the better?
not in my opinion. I loved being in the middle of the shed. great days. most games were turn up on the day and it was affordable. better atmospheres, though for the most part not as good a team, although we did well in the mid 80s.
Depends if you're a racist thug or not I guess.
Straight through.
As much as I love the Bridge option 2 would mean a quicker turn around, the hassle of refurbishing Stamford Bridge is daunting. Sometimes you just have to move house.
Whatever happens, I hope the stadium ends up with a modern yet gothic cathedral style. I loved how the Battersea design looked with the gothic towers, and the Stamford Bridge design looks good as well. If we move to Earl's court I hope they do that, I think a stadium with a unique gothic inspired design would fit the club best.
Do you mean the power stations old chimneys? Why would you try to recrate those somewhere else?
A number of things……design is personally subjective and of course ultimately has to be within planning constraints, which the proposed stadium is. Any design will never satisfy all supporters opinions.
Location is the decision that will cause most debate and both have their merits, but overall disruption points towards Earls Court as being the most logical for income and future commercial protection.
Good job……because in the final shot of the redeveloped stadium the capital C has been omitted on CHELSEA ………. and we CPO shareholders won’t be happy about that !
nah CPO won't let that happen
Its best if chelsea go move to earls court, chelsea need a new area bc their current stadium have houses and flats attached to it, btw the first design is so easy to make u just have to add wood
no matter which option they decide on, that ugly stadium design project should be changed totally.
Earls court is no longer an option mate. The fact still remains, Stamford bridge time for expansion is nigh
i will prefer the option 2 but i also want the iconic name (Stamford bridge) to remain our Home's name....
Aa a Chelsea fan i like the metal and second design. 😊💙
Option 2 is a winner from the information I perceived. But I would like Chelsea to play at the London Stadium
Chelsea need to replace the archaic, cramped, uncomfortable seating at Stamford Bridge. We shouldn't have to wait 6-9 years for that basic improvement. Everything else is secondary.
The redeveloped Stamford bridge option 1 is best
Option 1 is like an egg slicer
Chelsea needs a stadium for 80-90,000 spectators
Nahhh we wont fill 90k...
@@glowwurm9365 I come to London and can't buy a ticket for the match. There are no tickets for sale.
@@stelsDM I am aware, doesn't mean we fill a 90,000 seater stadium.
That's more than 100% larger than our existing ground, 30,000 more than Arsenal. There are build cost implications and maintenance implications to having a ground that big, it would be the largest in the country.
@@glowwurm9365 ehh London clubs have a lot of tourist fans, so they might. Only thing is competition, there's so many London clubs to choose from as a tourist so which one do they choose? Tottenham has the advantage with their modern and new stadium but if Chelsea build this they could definitely fill seats w/ tourists.
@ No they’re not filling a 90k stadium, not sure why you think “tourists” suddenly add another 30k demand for home matches.
No way would the CPO accept a move away from the bridge. 😅 And rightly so, many would say.
Best choice is option 2🎉
Chelsea should just play at twickenham stadium while Stamford bridge is rebuilt.
Gosh man. It’s not complicated 😤
We have to have a bigger stadium to compete with the big clubs
Just move and build new like options 2
Why didn’t yall show city stadium capacity
Headers and content in £ Sterling (GBPs) for everything please!
The Earl Court is already gone some kind of construction works have been begun
Option 1 looks horrendous; 2 looks much more modern
@orangejuice00 Option 1 is incredible and unique - from above it's different, but I can easily imagine walking under the brick pillars.
London doesn't need yet another giant bowl of steel and glass.
Option 1 would be unique in world football. Option 2 is a copy and paste of the Emirates
@@HabitualLine-Stepper It doesn't have a very appealing look to me; need a better redesign to keep that classic look.
I doubt Earls court is likely as the current labour govt is heavy on house vuilding and the other bid is basically full blown housing development. If it had been a conservatove govt/mayor youd stand a better chance but by the time thats likely that plot would be gone.
Can't call the club "Chelsea" if it moves away frrom Stamford Bridge.
Why is the new trend to make your stadium look like an air fryer? First the bernabeau now that. Just looks weird.
What is Chelsea, is that a British Soccer team?
Top 6 club chelsea has the worst stadium
Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham have better stadiums. that is just in London. Man U stadium is bigger but falling apart. Man City bigger and better . Villa about the same size.
They ain't building Jack..
I don't like the look of the external shell of the proposed new stadium... There's no character... Bland...
The owners objective is to make money. We've already seen how clever they are will pushing the rules, with contracts and selling bits of the ground to themselves. My guess is option 3, or 4. They will groundshare Wembley, or develop Lords. The fans won't like it, but the owners know even if 1/2 the fans hand back their season tickets, there will be no shortage of demand, especially from global tourist. The owners didn't care that the fans wanted Mount and Gallagher to stay, and if the CPO won't let them use the name Chelsea Football Club, they will call the club London, London United, London City, or London Lions etc. Neither the fans, not history will stop the owners from maximising their investment. Toad Bohley and Clearmake Capital know what they are doing.
The design is just trash and thats not because im a rival fan
Option 2 is the best option
Chelsea building a new stadium is just as unlikely as Serie A clubs building new stadiums. I hope to see the new stadium built in 70 years (I pray I will still be alive by then)
😅don’t say that
Serie A building stadium !!! ,when ?😂😂😂 , juve and Atalanta only buided
@@amrmukthar7122 Atalanta is not a new stadium, it is just a renovation. The only real new stadium is Juventus. I think Italy should not host Euro 2032 because their stadium is too dilapidated.
@@MIKE7-77 l know that but Courtesy for serie A and Atalanta 😂👍.
Looks absolutely horrific and like siv
Could you talk faster?! I watch all your videos in 2x speed
brain rot ahh
I like the way he talks. Feels like someone narating Lord of the rings or something
Completely disagree! Great video!
Hate when people talk too fast. It's ok at least for me.
😅
Que asco ese diseño por Dios no hagan eso con stanford bridge😢
They can do whatever they want to do but dey shouldn't stop that gate smacking
The first renovation looks better from the ground level. The aerial image is dreadful!
The fans crying about Chelsea moving are idiots in 2024 look at spurs
For a better experience watch on x2 speed 😂
The option for a new stadium on the Earls Court site is not going to happen. The site is jointly owned by TFL and Olympia / The Earls Court Development Company . They have joint plans to develop with both Hammersmith and Fulham council and The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Their plans do not involve a stadium.
I cannot see the Earls Court Development Company tearing up their plans , and selling out to Chelsea Football Club . And if they did sell out , the Chelsea owners would find it difficult to have new plans passed.
Chelsea need a build a new stadium at Stamford Bridge , and find a stadium where to play while building goes on. Either Wembley , or another stadium in London. Twickenham stadium is not an option , the local council there don't want Chelsea to play there. Would have been a good option , Rugby could have done with the money , local businesses would have profited. London Welsh Rugby Club has gone bust . JPR Williams and all that. London Welsh provided seven players for the British Lions tour of 1971 to New Zealand . And London Irish Rugby Club has gone bust.
Anyone thinking a new stadium at Earls Court is a viable option is having a laugh. Why would the present owners sell ? And I doubt that full planning permission for a stadium would ever be granted. All seems like PR from the owners of Chelsea.
And any talk of playing at Stamford Bridge whilst the new stadium there is being built - is just plain stupid.
And COP / Chelsea Pitch Owners will not sell out. So Earls Court is out.
The Chelsea owners seem to be as stupid as past QPR owners......
expensive crap in "beautiful" packaging!
I went to a game Chelsea v Blackpool night game do you know what the gate was in 76 77 8.000 that's it I know Chelsea have loyal fans but the majority are new fans and glory hunters mugs why don't they go follow Fulham r.i.p.Chelsea old boys
2.5 billion? Nah, clownlake money laundering confirmed. 200+ mil wasted on Enzo & Mudryk, now this?!
Hi-tech Spurs stadium cost 1.2bil.
Yeah before in 2019 prices were much much cheaper, construction prices have gone X3 since then.
Madrid paid over 1.2B just for the stands and the grass tech.
@@kiko6599 if you say so, Todd.
@@drex5160 Not quite Todd, but i know a thing or two in that branch
@@kiko6599 ok, Mr. Egbahli 😅
@@drex5160 To be fair if i was either of them my club wont be in this shithole at the moment 🤣
Helsea😂😂😂
no matter what leave the banging metal sheets. its too iconic
Nope we play at the bridge and at the bridge only.
Buy Twickenham and convince the RFU to revive their idea of buying 50% of Wembley.
Option number 1
We ve been left behind and it’s a disgrace! The Bridge is now a first class Championship stadium
It’s not a football stadium. It’s a dog track
The stadium design breaches local planning regulations,so this will never happen at this location.
About as useful as the squad and management. Shiney and new with no substance. And fir any freak who mentions Cole palmer gg, 1 man city graduate carried a bad season before being injured
Chelsea doesn't have any history .. so no concerns there.
Arsenal zero euro cups😂
u a Spurs fan ? last time domestic champions in 1961.......or an Arsenal fan ? Never won the European Cup or Champions League ..
Remember the names Celtic, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Liverpool , Nottingham Forest and Chelsea. All won the European Cup or the Champions League.
Ridiculous comment……grow up
But you still watched and commented. Plank.
Your voice annoys me
The biggest empty stadium in the premier league.
Chelsea women games sell out. So pipe down
Chelsea has been discussing building a new stadium for decades, but nothing has really happened, so I think they will remain at the dilapidated Stamford Bridge until the stadium rots away.
our U-21 games are bigger than your home games
Sit down kid
Hahahaha noob team
gtfo noob, gg ez
ต้องการสนามใหม่กว่านี้ทันสมัยกว่านี้
Это неправда
ไม่สวย ล้าสมัยสุดๆ