Thanks for the love on this video! I can't believe it's got this many views 🥹 My latest video is about some of the weirdest football stadiums in the world, you can check it out here - ruclips.net/video/_Ag15EhP9FM/видео.htmlsi=7J1Lw8088sUl8t6v
As a Liverpool fan, I quite like Stamford Bridge the way it is. This is how the stadium has been during its most successful period under Roman Abramovich…..
@@jaytomlinsfcI do love Stamford Bridge as a season ticket holder since 96 (east upper)…..but it’s very dated it stinks of urine especially outside the toilets on you way pass the stairs and it’s very cramped with no leg room when your sitting down. I feel like everyone is on top of me over there (claustrophobic) its very cramped even near the bars etc…..Yes they’ve put extra padding on the seats but It definitely needs an upgrade or to move to the bigger area.
@@Anonymous-kq8oh Option 2 is the best move imho. It gives us the space to actually build a proper 60,000+ seater and not a cramped one, we can sell the current SB land and re-coup some money, it will be cheaper to build at a new empty site. We 100 have to transfer the CPO to the new site though. The problem with this though, where is that new site? I don't think Earl's court is possible unless we really pay over the top for that site. Would the current owners of that site sell us Earl's Court site and purchase the SB site from us? Another massive benefit of building at a new site is that we don't have to move elsewhere temporarily for a few seasons.
@@Anonymous-kq8oh 100% agree, toilets are shocking and way too cramped near the bars. But I love the closeness to the pitch, it’s so iconic Stamford bridge. And the area it is located beautiful
option 3. Build whilst still at Stamford bridge. This is the best option in the short term due to how the other options require more time to solidify in practicality. Even if the club get approval for elsewhere, it still means a longer time before actualization. And the cost, may leave much to be desired.
As a Chelsea fan of over 55 years I would be happy with a move to Earls Court. If we are to move forward and keep up with the other big clubs, some difficult decisions will have to be made, but this isn't going to be easy.
I think Earls Court makes so much sense.Train links are so much better, I remember having to change there anyway. There’s enough room to go build as big as you need with room to expand if needs be. And surely the money generated by developing the old ground would fund a fair chunk of the new build. Win win…
To 'keep up with other big clubs' Chelsea need to become one first and since the money has gone from the club they've returned to where they were before it came..... Like Spurs the only people who consider the club big is their own supporters
Yeah,yeah,yeah!! Chelsea NEVER had BIG crowds back in the day??!! What B******S!! you mean like the 83,000 we had home to Arsenal in 1947-Look it up pal!! i suppose there were 60,000 gooners there,was there pal??!! hahahaha!! Always had a loyal fanbase and always will!! Some pratts think the club was formed in 2004!! hahahaha!! Or the 56 000 at the 3-sided stamford bridge(east stand was being built) against Leeds in 1972 etc etc. T.B.H. the best option would be 70-80 thousand capacity ground at Earls Court-and YES!! it would be full every home match(could also be used as ground for intetnationals-Wembley + New Stamford Bridge) much easier to get to for fans-Chelsea fans AND away fans! We wanna start doing it NOW!! Buy the land for the new ground and start building it NOW!! Stay at the bridge till it's ready otherwise this just drags on and on and on!!
Earls Court is not an option. Council refuses to entertain it and has been said multiple times that it cannot happen unfortunately as it is definitely the best option.
This is not true at all and you need to read correctly. All the ECDC / K&C council has said is that they ‘categorically deny that there are currently any Chelsea FC talks about the stadium…’ This means that they are NOT rejecting us or don’t want us there just simply don’t currently have no talks yet. If you know the area of Earl’s court there is (for London anyway!) a large area of flat open land and someone (even if not Chelsea FC) will produce a huge redevelopment there regardless. For over 10 years plus the land has been flattened and several plans for 7500 new homes and massive shopping and facilities costing over 10 billion! A stadium could easily fit into that land and still develop new homes and shopping around the brown land currently. Also access to Earl’s court has experience from history obviously for massive events and exhibitions. Unlike Stamford Bridge which is trapped from the bridge the underground the cemetery and a significant shopping road, Earl’s court is far more flexible and accessible and I think many councillors would like like bringing Chelsea FC and it’s finance into the region back to the Chelsea and Kensington Borough! No one has yet had that idea or talks. 🤷🏻♂️
@@adtreads84 yes all shareholders can! Probably a full vote like before. I voted against before but this time as long as CPO are involved I would vote yes.
Option 2 is by far the best option. The land that Stamford Bridge currently sits on is prime real-estate, it would pay off a huge chunk of the new build (whereas rebuilding the current site would be disruptive and extra costly). The Earls court location already has the surrounding infrastructure in place to accommodate large events. Everything about it makes sense. The location is such that it's probably the best candidate out of any London club to be an all-out mixed use centre that could generate revenue 24/7 with various additional entertainment facilities eg - Basketball arena/music venue/conventional space, bars restaurants, cinema, bowling/arcade, shopping centre, housing etc
See that's why its so difficult .. I think option 3 lol. some think 1... I'm not an expert but isn't the earls court one gone? Think it's in development already right? snooze you loose
why Option 2? and for 1.5 billion pounds? It's not like Taylor Swift or Beyonce would host concerts at 2 different stadiums or the NFL would add more games in London
and what about Peter Osgood's ashes under the penalty spot? what shameful disrespect to build real estate over this site, improve what's there like Liverpool
Moving to Earl’s Court seems the best option, councils are arseholes wherever you go, but as Arsenal and Spurs have proven, councils can be rolled over. Could the same deal that the supporters have re the pitch not be transferred to the new stadium?
It’s not just the councils you have to deal with, I can’t speak for arsenals build but Archway, this shop that sold steel and other building materials wouldn’t sell their land to Tottenham for years, and after years of disputes and legal battles, their shop ended up getting damaged in a fire which the police described as suspicious. After the fire they finally did a deal with the club. If that doesn’t happen to archway we might have never been able to build the new gaff. Who knows what random bullshit will slow your new stadium down
@@eddsworldlover earls court is already being redeveloped. The last plan got cancelled because theycouldn't find an anchor tennant to put up the money. Hence chelsea. Abramovich couldn't get the pitch owners to agree a move. He was far more trusted and liked than boehly.
The area around Wembley is a traditional hotbed of Chelsea support. As someone from Wembley who struggles to get CFC tickets I would welcome a couple of seasons on my doorstep. Although the Kings Rd walk-up is one of my favourite life experiences. Spurs hated Wembley because they kept losing, we hardly ever lose at Wembley. Beyond that, the Earls Crt site would make it much easier to get away after the match.
Tottenham fans hated Wembley bc it was a ballache to go to (it’s like 50 mins away from WHL on the tube) and if you left a few mins too late you’d be stuck for literally hours in lines outside lmao. Besides, if chelsea go there which I expect you will, you think you’ll magically get more tickets bc it’s nearer to you? Hahahaha you’ll be selling your driveway space to people actually going to the games and asking them to bring you back a programme
There is no option. It is option 2. There are 3 places two of which I’ve seen with Earl’s court and Battersea. The crazy thing is at Earl’s court we would move into the Chelsea borough away from the Fulham borough. 🤣 The real main thing is finance. The business will carry fully operated and profitable at Stamford Bridge until the new stadium is ready. Even better is that the owners can redevelop SB for property and shopping and facilities. Our CPO can still own the pitch at Earl’s court or come up with some deal to agree. Even our traditional pubs around Stamford Bridge is only 10 min walk to Earl’s court. Also the access to A4 and visitors can come straight into the Earl Court region easily on trains buses or coaches. I can’t imagine having to move to Wembley or similar for 5 years to redevelop SB. The local region will be a mess and I can imagine our locals shops businesses and residents will hate Chelsea FC over 5 years of hell.
Spurs were able to build a brand new, and quite beautiful, stadium right on the footprint of their old one, which keeps the club in its traditional home. It’s not easy to do that, as Chelsea are finding out. I think the Anfield style rebuild is the way to go if a way can be found to keep that view.
As a season ticketer I sadly admit maybe its time we did look for a state of the art home but not if it means more plastic tourists. I think we need a huge redevelopment to push us into the future and grow us as a whole but in a way we can't lose the bridge
@@westbeachbartearooms.54 Do you know why Liverpool fans called Chelsea plastic? Because you were playing the 2nd leg in the European cup at home and because of the atmosphere at anfield and all the flags and banners that we have on the kop, the club bought thousands of blue and white plastic flags for all your fans so they could wave them around and try to create the atmosphere to compare with anfield. All of them were mass manufactured plastic flags and we thought it was absolutely hilarious. Our flags and banners have been designed and created over 50 years because of our history and our stories about our travels and our success. You can’t suddenly buy a load of plastic ones and be the same as others. Ours have meaning and thought. That’s why we called you plastic. And it’s true lol
Chelsea FC would be no more if they moved to Earl's Court without the pitch owners say so, it'd have to be called Earl's Court FC instead. The Abramovich design option is the best, no matter how long it takes. You just pay building companies to work the hours without breaks.
Battersea would have been so iconic. Roman tried to buy all the pitch owners out before securing the land though glad we didn't fall for it. Really wouldn't want to hand over our leverage, would be amazing to keep the CPO and move to Earls Court but I think any owner would want to get rid of the CPO if they can.
More than decades my friend since the club started. My Grandfather was born in 1906 and was born in Battersea and was a life long Chelsea fan as was my Dad. I am originally from Wandsworth.@@Oldgit60
I don’t know how I feel about option 2. To move the club doesn’t feel right in my eye, option 1 is the one that is hard to get with a lot of negotiations added on it but it could be done, I don’t think it will take 5-6 years to knock everything down either since the UK wouldn’t allow for something that slow to happen so if they would be able to knock Stamford bridge down it would have to be done in a year like Tottenham and build it again that could take another year. Option 1 is the best option and option 3 is just a worst case scenario if option 1 doesn’t work
@@mickaelberte5144 what I mean is that they should keep the money for the stadium to keep the good players like Kante and stuff btw which team do you support?
@@Maxtherocketguy you know chelsea is falling behind because of stadium limitation and i support chelsea but you can see in modern football money is what is running the game
option 3 is defo the best, stamford bridge is a beautiful stadium with a lot of historic moments that occurred there, its also local to chelsea and wouldnt take as long to complete.
As a Chelsea fans i just confused why a club like spurs and arsenal have a great stadium, while Chelsea as a big club that already have 2 UCL "only" in stadium like now. Can't we just move like what arsenal did to highbury? Look now, what a stadium. We need bigger land to build a much better stadium. I hope the best for my club, i prefer move to a bigger land. OR Chelsea buy the lands around the stadium so we get a bigger lands and able to makes a worldclass stadium.
I have almost no interest in the story but loved the delivery of alll the information, quick, clear, precise with absolutely no dramatization or unnecessary information
Option 2 Our club is just going to grow in future generations .doesn't make sense to do a stand bye stand .Earls court best option IMO. as a side note Stamford bridge .could still be the new stadium name 😘Lets move forward
With the redevelopment of the Anfield Road stand, the old stand didn't get knocked down, they just built around it and then removed the old roof. Chelsea would have to demolish a lot of the surrounding part of the stadium to do the same thing
I would want a complete re-build but if Earls Court site becomes avalaible I wouldn't mind if we build a brand new stadium there. Its in the area, it's close to Stamford Bridge and transport options are even better there.
I think option 2 is the best for Chelsea. Selling the current land will undoubtedly be able to bring very good funding for a new stadium and location due to its geographical position in west London. Also if Chelsea do knock the old stadium down completely they can ask the FA to be able to host their games in Wembley which will undoubtedly also boost revenue sales due to its much bigger capacity.
I hate the club but have to say, the Populous design is and will always be one of the greatest and most beautiful stadium designs I’ve ever seen. It not only is stunning in its own right, but fits perfectly into the local area. I’m amazed you say 6 years to build it given how quick Spurs ground was built….
Worked on the Hotel and the old Shed end Bricklaying and running construction when Ken Bates was there how the hell did they not suss out the historic law that stand today , also have worked there loads of times for Sky Sports Security and I must say it does look a bit out of date the ground
Oh wow, amazing that you worked on it! Yeah that law causes most of the headaches aswel, they would have already built up I recon! And yeah unfortualty it is looking a little outdated now, but I guess that's because how good some of the others are looking
Honestly moving to Earl's Court would be great. It's so close by and they could pay part of the new land by offering them the ground of stamford bridge in exchange since they want to build mixed use developments anyway. After seeing Real Madrid's new stadium, I just want Chelsea to do their own version of that.
I am a Chelsea fan and I would like a new Stadium. I think that option 2 is the best as a massive stadium can be built. I also think that a few trophies need to be added also.
As a Chelsea member fan living in Battersea, it’s become so frustrating to buy tickets for a game at the Bridge. It’s literally always filled, and bots are in place to scavenge as much tickets as they want. If you add to the mix that only around 3000 tickets make it as far as members sale out of a demand that can strip 100,000 you’ve got a very minimal chance to make it. I would love Chelsea fans to share their experience in buying tickets, especially when encountering that Virtual Waiting Room
Im sat on 41 points currently and vwrs a nightmare so i rely on friends most the time who get in before me/when i dont get in (most the time). I have tried basically most games since brighton in the cup as i wasnt available for the start of the season so 41 points is okay i guess.
Great content and options, capacity increase is something we are talking about from years and years, I will choose 3 and imagine if we could have done it back in covid period. We would be close to 60 k seating bynow
The stadium on the thumbnail is not like a football stadium. While the new Santiago Bernabeu looks unconventional and strong, that stadium is not the case. That Stamford Bridge has a lot of unnecessary design elements. There is no harmony or coziness. Symmetry is also completely excluded.
@@jaytomlinsfc It would be an added complication but the 'Stand by stand' option presumably would allow the team to play at Stamford Bridge while they dug down around the pitch and then maybe lowered the pitch after two or three of the new stands were completed. That's if they indeed decide to lower the whole stadium to have taller stands.
Option 2 have far more problems than the Chelsea Pitch Owners , the local council and residence seem to be completely opposed to Chelsea moving to earls court and the subsequent dealings/negotiations would literally take years to sort out , i personally think that Earls court is the owners number 1 option but they will end up settling for a partial rebuild of The Bridge developing The Shed, Matthew Harding and east stand into something like a 53000-58000 seater capacity .
Option 2 is not going to happen. Chelsea have already had discussions with the Earls Court Development Company who own the site and have turned the option down. I live between Stamford Bridge and the Earls Court site and the development company keeps us informed on the progression of the site, which seems pretty advanced. The site is being designed by Sheppard Robson Architects. It won't be long till they start on site. I would be very surprised if this option actually happens as the development company has spent considerable money, time and effort so far on the sites design. Chelsea would have to pay over the odds not just for the land but also the expenditure out laid by the development company. But then this is Chelsea !!
If Earl’s Court was a real option, and even got approval from the council, they would have to spend money redeveloping West Brompton station like they did with Fulham Broadway as it struggles with fans as it is.
Old video but as a Chelsea fan I think we have to stay at Stamford bridge. Re develop or knock the current stadium down. But staying on that land like we’ve done for over 100 years is too important. We’ve bought that retirement home and we also have 2 hotels that let’s be real, could really free up space for a bigger stadium. Roman already proved that a 60k stadium would fit in that plot of land. I think the Chelsea pitch owners are the most important thing this club has done in terms of preserving our stadiums history
The heat and history between our clubs is now part of London folklore. But as a lifelong Spurs fan, I hate the idea of losing out traditional grounds.. A trip to West Ham, Arsenal and even Spurs, isn't the same any more. Bearing in mind the comment the council won't allow the Earl's Court move, Abramovich's idea of sinking the pitch sounds favourite... most new grounds are soulless, whereas Stamford Bridge, Highbury and the Boleyn had their own welcomes .. The old me might've backed a move to Gaza or Rwanda, the football traditionalist hopes they get a move to somewhere more accessible and reasonable.. Having said that, the bigger some clubs get, the less competitive the future for the rest of the pyramid.. Good luck for your search. ..
I know it maybe sounds stupid but try to use the Wembley?! Ajax plays in the National Stadium too, i cant believe there will be a Problem with the Three Lions! When England is playing Chelsea have to play away. Tottenham used it between 2016-2019.
I think they’re waiting for Fulham to finish their stand and then we groundshare with them.. will lose some capacity but would be best option for match going fans.
In Earls Court ,you would need approval from The Kangaroo Valley Organisation, who own much land and where Australasians, traditionally,stay,in London..
I'm a pitch owner, only one share, cost me 100 quid over 30 years ago..... That 100 quid, was for me, a lot of cash.... I brought it because I loved the club.....
When you say if they move quick they may be able to get Earl’s Court, don’t think that’s true, it’s owned by developers and still say they plan on development. Think unfortunately Earl’s Court’s isn’t realistic.
@@jaytomlinsfc that’s gonna be worth a fortune in itself though. They must have intentions on the Stamford bridge site. When boehly first took over he had Janet Marie Smith in his west stand box she redeveloped the dodgers stadium for them, I’d say stand by stand, the history of the bridge , that’s how they done it last time
option 1 we need a manager who can kick these dont give a shit players up the backside who has motivation fight and passion who dosent just sit on his backside showing no emotion poch is no better than lamps potter his voice so silent we dont need new faces on the pitch we need this manager with this passion get jose he knows the club
Option 2 eminently most sensible as club can stay at Stamford Bridge until new ground ready. If Earls Court not available be bold enough to move somewhere with the space! Go Chelsea Croydon!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
CPO are an old boys club and will NEVER sanction a move, Earls Court is by far best option and selling the bridge would pretty much cover all costs, Option 3 is slow and a terribly drawn out process and will still not use the site to its full potential
This new belt arround is very ugly. Like a graveyard chapel or German Panzerwagen. Stamford Bridge has to stay open to the sky, and like a tipcical english stadium. Now it is interesting with many different corners and stands. The west and north stand can be increased, bulit up overheading the railwaylines.
This video seems a little biased. The Earls Court option is being made to look too easy here. The club hasn't got 'one small problem' at all with moving there. It would have several big problems. The Chelsea Pitch Owners would probably be the smallest issue to deal with. The Earls Court site is earmarked for housing. The two local councils support this. Do you think the local residents are going to be happy having a huge football stadium put there instead? The site is big but has a several railway lines dissecting it including one running right down the middle of it so it'll be far from easy to build a stadium over them. I'm also not sure where you are plucking the '5 to 6 years' figures from for playing away with a Stamford Bridge rebuild when the previous stadium plan in 2016 envisaged only three seasons playing elsewhere. There is a debate to be had but let's not make one option look far more palatable than the other by pretending there are only problems with one of them.
Would love to see a seating capacity increased at Stamford Bridge as Chelsea deserves to have a stadium around 60k so is the search and demand for it, but I do realise the major obstacles in it for that to happen , most logical thing will be for us to build a new stadium , this is been going for ages 😅
Why 5/6 years?? Surely the Bridge could be demolished in less than a year?? And rebuilt in less than 2? That’s only 3 seasons, which is definitely still an insane amount of time to play away from home, but not 6 years! 😜
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for the love on this video! I can't believe it's got this many views 🥹
My latest video is about some of the weirdest football stadiums in the world, you can check it out here - ruclips.net/video/_Ag15EhP9FM/видео.htmlsi=7J1Lw8088sUl8t6v
As a Liverpool fan, I quite like Stamford Bridge the way it is. This is how the stadium has been during its most successful period under Roman Abramovich…..
Yeah I do love Stamford Bridge, that's why option 3 would be nice
Keep it same location and still traditional close to the pitch!
@@jaytomlinsfcI do love Stamford Bridge as a season ticket holder since 96 (east upper)…..but it’s very dated it stinks of urine especially outside the toilets on you way pass the stairs and it’s very cramped with no leg room when your sitting down. I feel like everyone is on top of me over there (claustrophobic) its very cramped even near the bars etc…..Yes they’ve put extra padding on the seats but It definitely needs an upgrade or to move to the bigger area.
@@Anonymous-kq8oh Option 2 is the best move imho. It gives us the space to actually build a proper 60,000+ seater and not a cramped one, we can sell the current SB land and re-coup some money, it will be cheaper to build at a new empty site. We 100 have to transfer the CPO to the new site though. The problem with this though, where is that new site? I don't think Earl's court is possible unless we really pay over the top for that site. Would the current owners of that site sell us Earl's Court site and purchase the SB site from us?
Another massive benefit of building at a new site is that we don't have to move elsewhere temporarily for a few seasons.
@@Anonymous-kq8oh 100% agree, toilets are shocking and way too cramped near the bars. But I love the closeness to the pitch, it’s so iconic Stamford bridge. And the area it is located beautiful
Option 3. Buying the Stoll Mansions indicates this. They failed to get 75% majority of Chelsea Pitch owners to buy them out.
option 3. Build whilst still at Stamford bridge. This is the best option in the short term due to how the other options require more time to solidify in practicality. Even if the club get approval for elsewhere, it still means a longer time before actualization. And the cost, may leave much to be desired.
Earls Court would be a great option if at all possible and I would urge the pitch owners to allow this and then move pitch ownership to Earls Court.
As a Chelsea fan of over 55 years I would be happy with a move to Earls Court. If we are to move forward and keep up with the other big clubs, some difficult decisions will have to be made, but this isn't going to be easy.
That's a good way of putting it!
I think Earls Court makes so much sense.Train links are so much better, I remember having to change there anyway. There’s enough room to go build as big as you need with room to expand if needs be. And surely the money generated by developing the old ground would fund a fair chunk of the new build.
Win win…
To 'keep up with other big clubs' Chelsea need to become one first and since the money has gone from the club they've returned to where they were before it came..... Like Spurs the only people who consider the club big is their own supporters
Yeah,yeah,yeah!! Chelsea NEVER had BIG crowds back in the day??!! What B******S!! you mean like the 83,000 we had home to Arsenal in 1947-Look it up pal!! i suppose there were 60,000 gooners there,was there pal??!! hahahaha!! Always had a loyal fanbase and always will!! Some pratts think the club was formed in 2004!! hahahaha!! Or the 56 000 at the 3-sided stamford bridge(east stand was being built) against Leeds in 1972 etc etc. T.B.H. the best option would be 70-80 thousand capacity ground at Earls Court-and YES!! it would be full every home match(could also be used as ground for intetnationals-Wembley + New Stamford Bridge) much easier to get to for fans-Chelsea fans AND away fans! We wanna start doing it NOW!! Buy the land for the new ground and start building it NOW!! Stay at the bridge till it's ready otherwise this just drags on and on and on!!
Earls Court is not an option. Council refuses to entertain it and has been said multiple times that it cannot happen unfortunately as it is definitely the best option.
I was reading in the Athletic that there's a chance to get it done
This is not true at all and you need to read correctly. All the ECDC / K&C council has said is that they ‘categorically deny that there are currently any Chelsea FC talks about the stadium…’ This means that they are NOT rejecting us or don’t want us there just simply don’t currently have no talks yet.
If you know the area of Earl’s court there is (for London anyway!) a large area of flat open land and someone (even if not Chelsea FC) will produce a huge redevelopment there regardless. For over 10 years plus the land has been flattened and several plans for 7500 new homes and massive shopping and facilities costing over 10 billion! A stadium could easily fit into that land and still develop new homes and shopping around the brown land currently.
Also access to Earl’s court has experience from history obviously for massive events and exhibitions. Unlike Stamford Bridge which is trapped from the bridge the underground the cemetery and a significant shopping road, Earl’s court is far more flexible and accessible and I think many councillors would like like bringing Chelsea FC and it’s finance into the region back to the Chelsea and Kensington Borough! No one has yet had that idea or talks. 🤷🏻♂️
CPO also has the option to block the move
@@adtreads84 yes all shareholders can! Probably a full vote like before. I voted against before but this time as long as CPO are involved I would vote yes.
Earls Cour land isn't big enough to build a 60 + studia
Option 3 is the best way. It ensures we have a home stadium to play on even though stand by stand takes a while. Much better than option 1
Yet option 3 would increase the height of each stand. Blocking the view of st pauls. So would be refused permission.
Option 2 is by far the best option. The land that Stamford Bridge currently sits on is prime real-estate, it would pay off a huge chunk of the new build (whereas rebuilding the current site would be disruptive and extra costly). The Earls court location already has the surrounding infrastructure in place to accommodate large events. Everything about it makes sense. The location is such that it's probably the best candidate out of any London club to be an all-out mixed use centre that could generate revenue 24/7 with various additional entertainment facilities eg - Basketball arena/music venue/conventional space, bars restaurants, cinema, bowling/arcade, shopping centre, housing etc
I do think Option 2 is makes the most practical sense tbf
It's just moving away from the bridge which will be difficult for a lot of match going fans
Can't move without permission from the CPO! Moving won't be an easy option at all
See that's why its so difficult .. I think option 3 lol. some think 1... I'm not an expert but isn't the earls court one gone? Think it's in development already right? snooze you loose
why Option 2? and for 1.5 billion pounds? It's not like Taylor Swift or Beyonce would host concerts at 2 different stadiums or the NFL would add more games in London
and what about Peter Osgood's ashes under the penalty spot? what shameful disrespect to build real estate over this site, improve what's there like Liverpool
Option 3 definitely getting rid of the hotel.
Moving to Earl’s Court seems the best option, councils are arseholes wherever you go, but as Arsenal and Spurs have proven, councils can be rolled over. Could the same deal that the supporters have re the pitch not be transferred to the new stadium?
It’s not just the councils you have to deal with, I can’t speak for arsenals build but Archway, this shop that sold steel and other building materials wouldn’t sell their land to Tottenham for years, and after years of disputes and legal battles, their shop ended up getting damaged in a fire which the police described as suspicious.
After the fire they finally did a deal with the club. If that doesn’t happen to archway we might have never been able to build the new gaff. Who knows what random bullshit will slow your new stadium down
@@eddsworldlover earls court is already being redeveloped. The last plan got cancelled because theycouldn't find an anchor tennant to put up the money. Hence chelsea.
Abramovich couldn't get the pitch owners to agree a move. He was far more trusted and liked than boehly.
The area around Wembley is a traditional hotbed of Chelsea support. As someone from Wembley who struggles to get CFC tickets I would welcome a couple of seasons on my doorstep. Although the Kings Rd walk-up is one of my favourite life experiences. Spurs hated Wembley because they kept losing, we hardly ever lose at Wembley. Beyond that, the Earls Crt site would make it much easier to get away after the match.
Tottenham fans hated Wembley bc it was a ballache to go to (it’s like 50 mins away from WHL on the tube) and if you left a few mins too late you’d be stuck for literally hours in lines outside lmao.
Besides, if chelsea go there which I expect you will, you think you’ll magically get more tickets bc it’s nearer to you? Hahahaha you’ll be selling your driveway space to people actually going to the games and asking them to bring you back a programme
There is no option. It is option 2. There are 3 places two of which I’ve seen with Earl’s court and Battersea. The crazy thing is at Earl’s court we would move into the Chelsea borough away from the Fulham borough. 🤣 The real main thing is finance. The business will carry fully operated and profitable at Stamford Bridge until the new stadium is ready. Even better is that the owners can redevelop SB for property and shopping and facilities. Our CPO can still own the pitch at Earl’s court or come up with some deal to agree. Even our traditional pubs around Stamford Bridge is only 10 min walk to Earl’s court. Also the access to A4 and visitors can come straight into the Earl Court region easily on trains buses or coaches. I can’t imagine having to move to Wembley or similar for 5 years to redevelop SB. The local region will be a mess and I can imagine our locals shops businesses and residents will hate Chelsea FC over 5 years of hell.
Spurs were able to build a brand new, and quite beautiful, stadium right on the footprint of their old one, which keeps the club in its traditional home. It’s not easy to do that, as Chelsea are finding out. I think the Anfield style rebuild is the way to go if a way can be found to keep that view.
As a season ticketer I sadly admit maybe its time we did look for a state of the art home but not if it means more plastic tourists. I think we need a huge redevelopment to push us into the future and grow us as a whole but in a way we can't lose the bridge
Please do not describe Chelsea fans as plastic. This term was created by Liverpool.
@@westbeachbartearooms.54
Do you know why Liverpool fans called Chelsea plastic? Because you were playing the 2nd leg in the European cup at home and because of the atmosphere at anfield and all the flags and banners that we have on the kop, the club bought thousands of blue and white plastic flags for all your fans so they could wave them around and try to create the atmosphere to compare with anfield. All of them were mass manufactured plastic flags and we thought it was absolutely hilarious. Our flags and banners have been designed and created over 50 years because of our history and our stories about our travels and our success. You can’t suddenly buy a load of plastic ones and be the same as others. Ours have meaning and thought. That’s why we called you plastic. And it’s true lol
Chelsea FC would be no more if they moved to Earl's Court without the pitch owners say so, it'd have to be called Earl's Court FC instead. The Abramovich design option is the best, no matter how long it takes. You just pay building companies to work the hours without breaks.
Great vid , I’ll be subscribing. I think the Battersea power station site was a good opportunity back in the day. Shame it’s already been developed
Thanks for subscribing mate!
Yeah that was a cool site, quite far for local fans though
Battersea would have been so iconic. Roman tried to buy all the pitch owners out before securing the land though glad we didn't fall for it. Really wouldn't want to hand over our leverage, would be amazing to keep the CPO and move to Earls Court but I think any owner would want to get rid of the CPO if they can.
@@jaytomlinsfcThat whole part of SW London, Battersea,Wandsworth, Clapham and Stockwell have been Chelsea supporting areas for decades.
More than decades my friend since the club started. My Grandfather was born in 1906 and was born in Battersea and was a life long Chelsea fan as was my Dad. I am originally from Wandsworth.@@Oldgit60
I don’t know how I feel about option 2. To move the club doesn’t feel right in my eye, option 1 is the one that is hard to get with a lot of negotiations added on it but it could be done, I don’t think it will take 5-6 years to knock everything down either since the UK wouldn’t allow for something that slow to happen so if they would be able to knock Stamford bridge down it would have to be done in a year like Tottenham and build it again that could take another year. Option 1 is the best option and option 3 is just a worst case scenario if option 1 doesn’t work
Option 3 would be best in my opinion
as a chelsea fan, i do not want a new stadium tbh
Yeah this why chelsea going down soon with fan like you
@@mickaelberte5144 what I mean is that they should keep the money for the stadium to keep the good players like Kante and stuff
btw which team do you support?
@@Maxtherocketguy you know chelsea is falling behind because of stadium limitation and i support chelsea but you can see in modern football money is what is running the game
Option 3 for me
option 3 is defo the best, stamford bridge is a beautiful stadium with a lot of historic moments that occurred there, its also local to chelsea and wouldnt take as long to complete.
As a Chelsea fans i just confused why a club like spurs and arsenal have a great stadium, while Chelsea as a big club that already have 2 UCL "only" in stadium like now. Can't we just move like what arsenal did to highbury? Look now, what a stadium. We need bigger land to build a much better stadium. I hope the best for my club, i prefer move to a bigger land. OR Chelsea buy the lands around the stadium so we get a bigger lands and able to makes a worldclass stadium.
Great content. Underrated channel
Cheers mate!
Loved this video! 💙
🔥💙
I have almost no interest in the story but loved the delivery of alll the information, quick, clear, precise with absolutely no dramatization or unnecessary information
Option 2 Our club is just going to grow in future generations .doesn't make sense to do a stand bye stand .Earls court best option IMO. as a side note Stamford bridge .could still be the new stadium name 😘Lets move forward
With the redevelopment of the Anfield Road stand, the old stand didn't get knocked down, they just built around it and then removed the old roof. Chelsea would have to demolish a lot of the surrounding part of the stadium to do the same thing
I would want a complete re-build but if Earls Court site becomes avalaible I wouldn't mind if we build a brand new stadium there. Its in the area, it's close to Stamford Bridge and transport options are even better there.
First, we need a better football team and to sort out the chaos within the club.
True 😅
Option 2.
We need a bigger stadium.
All options will give us a bigger stadium, but all come with complications
“State of the art” is a very generous way to describe liverpools new stand…. You should see inside it
It's not ready yet
Well duh its half built
its still not fully open, thats why genius
I think option 2 is the best for Chelsea. Selling the current land will undoubtedly be able to bring very good funding for a new stadium and location due to its geographical position in west London. Also if Chelsea do knock the old stadium down completely they can ask the FA to be able to host their games in Wembley which will undoubtedly also boost revenue sales due to its much bigger capacity.
Your channel deserves more subscribers
I hate the club but have to say, the Populous design is and will always be one of the greatest and most beautiful stadium designs I’ve ever seen. It not only is stunning in its own right, but fits perfectly into the local area. I’m amazed you say 6 years to build it given how quick Spurs ground was built….
Worked on the Hotel and the old Shed end Bricklaying and running construction when Ken Bates was there how the hell did they not suss out the historic law that stand today , also have worked there loads of times for Sky Sports Security and I must say it does look a bit out of date the ground
Oh wow, amazing that you worked on it!
Yeah that law causes most of the headaches aswel, they would have already built up I recon!
And yeah unfortualty it is looking a little outdated now, but I guess that's because how good some of the others are looking
Anfield state of art 😂
👀😅😅
2 stands are new, the other 2 are 30 years old.
Honestly moving to Earl's Court would be great. It's so close by and they could pay part of the new land by offering them the ground of stamford bridge in exchange since they want to build mixed use developments anyway. After seeing Real Madrid's new stadium, I just want Chelsea to do their own version of that.
I am a Chelsea fan and I would like a new Stadium. I think that option 2 is the best as a massive stadium can be built. I also think that a few trophies need to be added also.
As a Chelsea member fan living in Battersea, it’s become so frustrating to buy tickets for a game at the Bridge. It’s literally always filled, and bots are in place to scavenge as much tickets as they want. If you add to the mix that only around 3000 tickets make it as far as members sale out of a demand that can strip 100,000 you’ve got a very minimal chance to make it.
I would love Chelsea fans to share their experience in buying tickets, especially when encountering that Virtual Waiting Room
Im sat on 41 points currently and vwrs a nightmare so i rely on friends most the time who get in before me/when i dont get in (most the time). I have tried basically most games since brighton in the cup as i wasnt available for the start of the season so 41 points is okay i guess.
for example, if we move to earl court, we still can use stanford bridge name?
Option 2 is the best but option 3 would be amazing as well to keep the stadium that we love with redevelopments
I think the Matthew harding end and the shed end should just add another tier to each end which could add an extra 15.000 seats.
Great content and options, capacity increase is something we are talking about from years and years, I will choose 3 and imagine if we could have done it back in covid period. We would be close to 60 k seating bynow
Thanks!
I agree that could have been a great and smart move!
The stadium on the thumbnail is not like a football stadium. While the new Santiago Bernabeu looks unconventional and strong, that stadium is not the case. That Stamford Bridge has a lot of unnecessary design elements. There is no harmony or coziness. Symmetry is also completely excluded.
How is option 3 even an option if you can’t go up based on option 1?
Honestly Paul, that's a fucking great point 😅😅
Maybe a similar dig down process?
@@jaytomlinsfc It would be an added complication but the 'Stand by stand' option presumably would allow the team to play at Stamford Bridge while they dug down around the pitch and then maybe lowered the pitch after two or three of the new stands were completed. That's if they indeed decide to lower the whole stadium to have taller stands.
They can't go any higher than the current highest stand, so only the smaller end stands would get a large capacity increase if rebuilt.
Option 2 have far more problems than the Chelsea Pitch Owners , the local council and residence seem to be completely opposed to Chelsea moving to earls court and the subsequent dealings/negotiations would literally take years to sort out , i personally think that Earls court is the owners number 1 option but they will end up settling for a partial rebuild of The Bridge developing The Shed, Matthew Harding and east stand into something like a 53000-58000 seater capacity .
agree, 55k is not ideal but it is much better than 40K.
If only they had a better team with a successfully built stadium considered amongst the worlds best nearby as inspiration
Who have the never won the Champions League or the Premiership 😂😂. But you have a great stadium, crap trophy cabinet
Pitch owners need to agree to option two. We need more revenue to compete
Earls Court is in Kensington and Chelsea and Chelsea FC is in Hammersmith and Fulham. Moving to the former may not be that easy.
How ? Chelsea would accept the club of chelsea ?
Option 2 is not going to happen. Chelsea have already had discussions with the Earls Court Development Company who own the site and have turned the option down. I live between Stamford Bridge and the Earls Court site and the development company keeps us informed on the progression of the site, which seems pretty advanced. The site is being designed by Sheppard Robson Architects. It won't be long till they start on site.
I would be very surprised if this option actually happens as the development company has spent considerable money, time and effort so far on the sites design. Chelsea would have to pay over the odds not just for the land but also the expenditure out laid by the development company. But then this is Chelsea !!
Stand by stand wouldn’t work like Liverpool’s as we would have to completely close each stand at a time
If Earl’s Court was a real option, and even got approval from the council, they would have to spend money redeveloping West Brompton station like they did with Fulham Broadway as it struggles with fans as it is.
Chelsea needs a new stadium asap
Old video but as a Chelsea fan I think we have to stay at Stamford bridge. Re develop or knock the current stadium down. But staying on that land like we’ve done for over 100 years is too important. We’ve bought that retirement home and we also have 2 hotels that let’s be real, could really free up space for a bigger stadium. Roman already proved that a 60k stadium would fit in that plot of land. I think the Chelsea pitch owners are the most important thing this club has done in terms of preserving our stadiums history
I agree, I really want Chelsea to stay at SB - without it we wouldn't exist
The heat and history between our clubs is now part of London folklore. But as a lifelong Spurs fan, I hate the idea of losing out traditional grounds.. A trip to West Ham, Arsenal and even Spurs, isn't the same any more. Bearing in mind the comment the council won't allow the Earl's Court move, Abramovich's idea of sinking the pitch sounds favourite... most new grounds are soulless, whereas Stamford Bridge, Highbury and the Boleyn had their own welcomes .. The old me might've backed a move to Gaza or Rwanda, the football traditionalist hopes they get a move to somewhere more accessible and reasonable.. Having said that, the bigger some clubs get, the less competitive the future for the rest of the pyramid.. Good luck for your search. ..
wasn't the Chelsea Barracks in the frame at one time? that could be an option, it's also in Borough of Chelsea...
Kick out the Chelsea pensioners! Nice
I know it maybe sounds stupid but try to use the Wembley?!
Ajax plays in the National Stadium too, i cant believe there will be a Problem with the Three Lions! When England is playing Chelsea have to play away.
Tottenham used it between 2016-2019.
Football goes in cycles. Chelsea wont need a bigger stadium if they continue being bang average.
I think they’re waiting for Fulham to finish their stand and then we groundshare with them.. will lose some capacity but would be best option for match going fans.
Earls Court has to be the best option if it can come together
FFP means they should in in league 2. not worrying about a new stadium
In Earls Court ,you would need approval from The Kangaroo Valley Organisation, who own much land and where Australasians, traditionally,stay,in London..
Option 3 is the best by far !
So why do you smile when you think about Earls Court
but you cry when you think of all the battles you’ve fought and lost?!?
Earls Court obviously. And are the pitch owners just trying to get a bung by being difficult?
I'm a pitch owner, only one share, cost me 100 quid over 30 years ago.....
That 100 quid, was for me, a lot of cash....
I brought it because I loved the club.....
Hopefully we don't move permanently. the bridge is part of our identity
Yeah I feel that was aswel!
i think the pitch owners won't allow us to move tbh - but atleast Earls Court isn't that far if it does happen
Stand by stand development is the best
Honestly this design is fucking Horrendous
Option 2.
I’m just an occasional visitor to The Bridge and am always disappointed with the view from high up. It’s not great is it.
Your lot could ground share with fulham, or Palace.
When you say if they move quick they may be able to get Earl’s Court, don’t think that’s true, it’s owned by developers and still say they plan on development. Think unfortunately Earl’s Court’s isn’t realistic.
I heard on the Athletic that they could possibly buy out the developers
But they have to act before building gets started
@@jaytomlinsfc that’s gonna be worth a fortune in itself though. They must have intentions on the Stamford bridge site. When boehly first took over he had Janet Marie Smith in his west stand box she redeveloped the dodgers stadium for them, I’d say stand by stand, the history of the bridge , that’s how they done it last time
UK should bend that absurd law.
option 1 we need a manager who can kick these dont give a shit players up the backside who has motivation fight and passion who dosent just sit on his backside showing no emotion poch is no better than lamps potter his voice so silent we dont need new faces on the pitch we need this manager with this passion get jose he knows the club
the problem with Stamford Bridge is pretty much summarized by your thumbnail.
Option 2 eminently most sensible as club can stay at Stamford Bridge until new ground ready.
If Earls Court not available be bold enough to move somewhere with the space!
Go Chelsea Croydon!!!😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Option 3
CPO are an old boys club and will NEVER sanction a move, Earls Court is by far best option and selling the bridge would pretty much cover all costs, Option 3 is slow and a terribly drawn out process and will still not use the site to its full potential
This new belt arround is very ugly. Like a graveyard chapel or German Panzerwagen. Stamford Bridge has to stay open to the sky, and like a tipcical english stadium. Now it is interesting with many different corners and stands. The west and north stand can be increased, bulit up overheading the railwaylines.
Looks like it's almost impossible to rebuild on same place
Yep, and there is no discussion here of the impact on local residents either.
option 4, of course
Anfield is NOT a state-of-the-art stadium by any measure of the term.
Just knock down Bates motel, move the pitch and rebuild a proper shed around 15k then use the extra space at the other end for similar.
Why does a mid table premier league team need a new stadium?
Well into the next century?? Well that aged well!… here we are not even 25 years in and looking to get rid already! 😂
😅😅
Option 2 is the only option for us to build the stadium our club deserves for the future.
Our identiy is wrapped up in Stamford Bridge though, so it's not that easy to up an move unfortualty
no no not 4, divy, opt 3, my mistake got to be 3
This video seems a little biased. The Earls Court option is being made to look too easy here. The club hasn't got 'one small problem' at all with moving there. It would have several big problems. The Chelsea Pitch Owners would probably be the smallest issue to deal with. The Earls Court site is earmarked for housing. The two local councils support this. Do you think the local residents are going to be happy having a huge football stadium put there instead? The site is big but has a several railway lines dissecting it including one running right down the middle of it so it'll be far from easy to build a stadium over them. I'm also not sure where you are plucking the '5 to 6 years' figures from for playing away with a Stamford Bridge rebuild when the previous stadium plan in 2016 envisaged only three seasons playing elsewhere. There is a debate to be had but let's not make one option look far more palatable than the other by pretending there are only problems with one of them.
2 option its the best
Would love to see a seating capacity increased at Stamford Bridge as Chelsea deserves to have a stadium around 60k so is the search and demand for it, but I do realise the major obstacles in it for that to happen , most logical thing will be for us to build a new stadium , this is been going for ages 😅
Earls Court is not an option, yet you decided to ramble on about it. Clearly have no idea whats going on.
So basically Cheski are knackered 😂😂
we want one like tottenham
Council has ruled out stand by stand redevelopment.
Oh really? Didn't see that when researching
Why 5/6 years?? Surely the Bridge could be demolished in less than a year?? And rebuilt in less than 2? That’s only 3 seasons, which is definitely still an insane amount of time to play away from home, but not 6 years! 😜
They want to build a team first?
It must obviously be Option 3
Move, it’s that simple
They must find another stadium then.
We are blues regardless of the Decision
Pitch owners will be so NIMBY there’s no chance.