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.
Moving to Earl's Court is impossible now, cuz recent negotiations, I guess last was in summer, were failed, that place was too expensive for club, that's why all negotiations about Earl's Court stopped.
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.
Great video but you forgot to mention that Chelsea Pitch Owners not only own the freehold of Stamford Bridge but also the naming rights to 'Chelsea FC', so even if they decide to move somewhere else they wouldn't be allowed to use the name without a significant majority of the shareholders approving it.
@@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.
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.
I love Stamford bridge and it will always be the spiritual home of Chelsea but in order to compete financially in the future we probably need to move as you could build a bigger stadium for pretty much the same cost or possibly less than redeveloping Stamford bridge. The only thing i dont want is a boring copy and paste stadium that a lot of clubs around Europe have.
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
@ It’s a good deal for both sides. Twickenham gets revenue from 80k fans every week for a couple of seasons and Chelsea get a full house plus European nights. No brainier
Personally I want to remain at The Bridge cause it's iconic, full of history and located at the heart of London and one of the most expensive locations in the whole of EU. But realistically and in longer term, Earls Court is probably a better decision as we will be allowed to build a larger stadium from the get go and will be easier to even expand/upgrade in future as well compared to Stamford Bridge
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.
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.
I would support the move to a new stadium as long as it is still called Stamford Bridge and still has key aspects that our current stadium has (like the Shed End for example). History plays a massive factor here and renaming the new stadium takes all of that away.
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.
Option 3, build a new east stand ramped over the railway and get rid of the hotels to extend the shed end. Total cost will be a fraction of a new stadium and will extend capacity significantly.
Stamford bridge has been my second home for most of my life but I’ll be fcking dead before they build anything 😂 Just give me the shed back and we’ll all be happy 💙
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.
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
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 !
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.
So many non fans at games now with their double faced scarves .chelsea one side spurs on the other haha...no I was quite happy watching them when it was possible to just turn up and pay and not pay a fortune..if your a real fan you will enjoy the matches win or lose obviously preferring the wins but dont tell me a fan of say stoke doesnt get any.less passion than a fan of chelsea
@truth.952 stoke fans are passionate. i went to see stoke, port Vale and Crewe play when I lived in Stoke. Stoke had a decent fan base, decently vocal and some hard core fans that could hold their own.
The way I see it, the new owners of Chelsea have quite an ambition. They’re following the Real Madrid blueprint in the club overhaul all the way to the new stadium
I love Chelsea from the innermost of my heart whether they playing well or not , I don't know why , that team and Enyimba ,same love goes , then Heartland because it's my home state club , I love you all beautiful teams.
@BridgeStamford The current Spurs football stadium is more expensive than the other Big 6 teams, but it's a shame they don't translate that ambitious project into international success.
Man Utd are considering having their new stadium in London, on the M25 near the M1, so that people coming down from Manchester aren't overly inconvenienced.
Yoiu gotta move, firget the historic ties a stadium of 60k minimum is a mus6. Option 1 looks good from ground level byt aerial view looms like some hideous nuclear bunker.
If they spend 5 to 7 years constructing a 60000 seater stadium then by the time they finish the club will be requirering 30000 more seats , unless they do not think Chelsea will be developing its fanbase during the period
So, Earl's Court negotiations were failed and stopped, too expensive for club that was the reason. The first option and it's design in my opinion looks so ugly! Need another more beautiful options, I mean staying at Stamford Bridge, but rebuilt and increase capacity up to 60K with a good design.
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.
@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.
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.
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 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.
What a hot mess of butt-ugly animations, cringey AI-enriched images, irrelevant stock footage (Chancery Lane tube station anyone?) and embarrassing hyperbole for narration. There's content here for a 90 second video. 3:12 Matchday revenue certainly does not make or break a club's fortune, especially not for a club as big as Chelsea. There is no league in the world where matchday revenue is less important than the Premier League, with TV money and sponsorships dwarfing 6:30 Discussions have been "already underway" for TEN YEARS about the Earls Court site 9:21 Imagine! Everything that exists already, but in a new app! That whole 'technology' chapter is just an embarrassing attempt to get the minutes-viewed count up Well-earned down-vote!
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.
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
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.
Difficult is not impossible 😅
Allianz arena is the most beautiful stadium
I used to live in front of the stadium so it would be pretty sad for a new stadium 😢
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.
Man Utd are considering having their new stadium in London.
I’m a proud Brazilian Chelsea fan, and I CANNOT die without knowing the old Bridge 💙
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.
Moving to Earl's Court is impossible now, cuz recent negotiations, I guess last was in summer, were failed, that place was too expensive for club, that's why all negotiations about Earl's Court stopped.
Hopefully in our lifetime we are able to visit our new propose build stadium above 60k spectators
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
Great video but you forgot to mention that Chelsea Pitch Owners not only own the freehold of Stamford Bridge but also the naming rights to 'Chelsea FC', so even if they decide to move somewhere else they wouldn't be allowed to use the name without a significant majority of the shareholders approving it.
A retractable roof is a must have in England
Hardly a MUST as no other club stadium has bothered to have one.
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.
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?
Despite different location, option 2 is much better.
Stamford Bridge to reconstruct up to 30,000 thousand for women's team and academy
I love Stamford bridge and it will always be the spiritual home of Chelsea but in order to compete financially in the future we probably need to move as you could build a bigger stadium for pretty much the same cost or possibly less than redeveloping Stamford bridge. The only thing i dont want is a boring copy and paste stadium that a lot of clubs around Europe have.
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
Chelsea should just play at twickenham stadium while Stamford bridge is rebuilt.
Gosh man. It’s not complicated 😤
No they can’t. They can ask again, I suppose.
@ It’s a good deal for both sides. Twickenham gets revenue from 80k fans every week for a couple of seasons and Chelsea get a full house plus European nights.
No brainier
Personally I want to remain at The Bridge cause it's iconic, full of history and located at the heart of London and one of the most expensive locations in the whole of EU.
But realistically and in longer term, Earls Court is probably a better decision as we will be allowed to build a larger stadium from the get go and will be easier to even expand/upgrade in future as well compared to Stamford Bridge
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.
Obviously not
To be honest I like option 2
Honesty is the best policy.
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.
Hasn’t started!
I would support the move to a new stadium as long as it is still called Stamford Bridge and still has key aspects that our current stadium has (like the Shed End for example). History plays a massive factor here and renaming the new stadium takes all of that away.
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.
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
@@stelsDMat least it’s unique
Option 3, build a new east stand ramped over the railway and get rid of the hotels to extend the shed end. Total cost will be a fraction of a new stadium and will extend capacity significantly.
The love the cathedral design so much. I really hope we keep the current location and redevelop
Stamford bridge has been my second home for most of my life but I’ll be fcking dead before they build anything 😂 Just give me the shed back and we’ll all be happy 💙
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.
The history is surely too much, the legacy and past historic games that have been played there are too great to remove
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
Option 2 is a winner from the information I perceived. But I would like Chelsea to play at the London Stadium
The capacity of 60,000 is totally underestimated to current demand let alone 2032
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 !
Aa a Chelsea fan i like the metal and second design. 😊💙
i will prefer the option 2 but i also want the iconic name (Stamford bridge) to remain our Home's name....
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.
So many non fans at games now with their double faced scarves .chelsea one side spurs on the other haha...no I was quite happy watching them when it was possible to just turn up and pay and not pay a fortune..if your a real fan you will enjoy the matches win or lose obviously preferring the wins but dont tell me a fan of say stoke doesnt get any.less passion than a fan of chelsea
@truth.952 stoke fans are passionate. i went to see stoke, port Vale and Crewe play when I lived in Stoke. Stoke had a decent fan base, decently vocal and some hard core fans that could hold their own.
The way I see it, the new owners of Chelsea have quite an ambition. They’re following the Real Madrid blueprint in the club overhaul all the way to the new stadium
Earls court is no longer an option mate. The fact still remains, Stamford bridge time for expansion is nigh
no matter which option they decide on, that ugly stadium design project should be changed totally.
We have to have a bigger stadium to compete with the big clubs
nah CPO won't let that happen
I love Chelsea from the innermost of my heart whether they playing well or not , I don't know why , that team and Enyimba ,same love goes , then Heartland because it's my home state club , I love you all beautiful teams.
Best choice is option 2🎉
I heard Manchester United also had their own stadium project to replace Old Trafford, which costed more funds than Chelsea.
Nah London way way more expensive
@BridgeStamford The current Spurs football stadium is more expensive than the other Big 6 teams, but it's a shame they don't translate that ambitious project into international success.
Man Utd are considering having their new stadium in London, on the M25 near the M1, so that people coming down from Manchester aren't overly inconvenienced.
Option 1 is like an egg slicer
The Earl Court is already gone some kind of construction works have been begun
The redeveloped Stamford bridge option 1 is best
How I wish we move to Earl's Court
Just move and build new like options 2
Nice planning
Yoiu gotta move, firget the historic ties a stadium of 60k minimum is a mus6. Option 1 looks good from ground level byt aerial view looms like some hideous nuclear bunker.
Building a new stadium is the reason why all the new players were signed to 8-9 year contracts...it's happening
Earls court for Chelsea man, Stamford Bridge for Chelsea woman. That's great
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.
😅
Twickenham is out of the question. Chelsea already sounded out the RFU, who declined to respond.
If they spend 5 to 7 years constructing a 60000 seater stadium then by the time they finish the club will be requirering 30000 more seats , unless they do not think Chelsea will be developing its fanbase during the period
Is Ken Bates still living in the Chelsea hotel? If so, what's his price to leave?
What will be the Capacity. Crowd!!
So, Earl's Court negotiations were failed and stopped, too expensive for club that was the reason. The first option and it's design in my opinion looks so ugly! Need another more beautiful options, I mean staying at Stamford Bridge, but rebuilt and increase capacity up to 60K with a good design.
I will attend that first match inshalla
Let's get everyone into the stadium to look at their phones, great idea 🙄
Why didn’t yall show city stadium capacity
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.
New owners would be a better idea.
I see a doubt in Boehly's eyes, whether he'll invest for a long-term or not
Invest for long term? Where have you been the past few transfer windows!!! 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Na needs to be at least 80k to 90k unfortunately 60k is far to low
Headers and content in £ Sterling (GBPs) for everything please!
No way would the CPO accept a move away from the bridge. 😅 And rightly so, many would say.
Good morning everyone here
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 don't like the look of the external shell of the proposed new stadium... There's no character... Bland...
Why don't the rent out Selhurst Park:)
No mention of Chelsea pitch owners..hmm
You sure about that? hmmmmm
Stamford bridge’ll do, not like they have any supporters
They ain't building Jack..
What is Chelsea, is that a British Soccer team?
40 to 60 isn’t a lot
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.
Boehly was talking about $70 Billion Dollars under management so he’s gonna do something he’s a crud spender 😂
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 😂👍.
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.
To fit all the players they bought 😂😂
The design is just trash and thats not because im a rival fan
This video could have been 10 minutes shorter.
Que asco ese diseño por Dios no hagan eso con stanford bridge😢
Can't call the club "Chelsea" if it moves away frrom Stamford Bridge.
They copy design from santiago bernabeu😅
Looks absolutely horrific and like siv
What a hot mess of butt-ugly animations, cringey AI-enriched images, irrelevant stock footage (Chancery Lane tube station anyone?) and embarrassing hyperbole for narration. There's content here for a 90 second video.
3:12 Matchday revenue certainly does not make or break a club's fortune, especially not for a club as big as Chelsea. There is no league in the world where matchday revenue is less important than the Premier League, with TV money and sponsorships dwarfing
6:30 Discussions have been "already underway" for TEN YEARS about the Earls Court site
9:21 Imagine! Everything that exists already, but in a new app! That whole 'technology' chapter is just an embarrassing attempt to get the minutes-viewed count up
Well-earned down-vote!
They can do whatever they want to do but dey shouldn't stop that gate smacking
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 🤣
no matter what leave the banging metal sheets. its too iconic
The first renovation looks better from the ground level. The aerial image is dreadful!
For a better experience watch on x2 speed 😂
Helsea😂😂😂
The stadium design breaches local planning regulations,so this will never happen at this location.
the chinese would build it in 2 years.
expensive crap in "beautiful" packaging!
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
На юрту похоже