Stamford Bridge 1876, is the oldest ground in the PL and the 3rd oldest football stadium in the world. After Bramall lane [ Sheff Unt] and Deepdale ( Preston North End). Although it was an athletic stadium until 1904.
Not sure this is quite right - there are plenty of extant stadiums which have hosted regular football (i.e York Road in Maidenhead, Racecourse Ground in Wrexham, and quite a number of others) for much longer than the bridge. Although the Bridge itself is old by modern standards, Chelsea is a relatively young club (1905) and it has only hosted regular football since the club's founding (as you mention). Maidenhead Utd (1870) and Wrexham (1864), for example, were playing at their grounds before the Bridge was even built and for decades before it hosted football.
@@TheScrooge123 Professional football grounds. Wrexham turned professional in 1905. Maidenhead have never been fully professional. Did you know that Stamford Bridge also holds the all time attendance record for a club game in England? 100,000 - 120,000 estimated, ( they had to stop counting at 84,000) Chelsea v Dynamo Moscow 1945. SB is also the first ground in the world to use ball boys. Chelsea v Rochdale 1906.
Ideally all of us would love to rebuild the current ground. But we have to be realistic if it costs too much and causes us to play elsewhere for 5 years or so also the logistics of how we can build makes it difficult to rebuild in current land. If we move to a spot where we can build the world class stadium we deserve it's worth it, we can make new memories at the new stadium.
@@Tempo-03although I agree with you that there are restrictions at the bridge atm. You have to remember the Chelsea pitch owners. It’ll be extremely hard to move cause there will be people that would never sell their share and therefore we won’t be able to move easily and the process of buying all the pitch shares will be really expensive and time consuming
@@HDZ45 I don't think buying shares works as no matter how many shares you have it equals one share I could be wrong though, and if I'm being honest Clearlake will do what they want and move if that's the best option they'll find a way around the CPO if they're not agreeing.
@@peterpeterson5550 yep, unfortunately the CPO wasn't given an offer for what the benefits were for moving and we never made a real attempt for the land at Earls court. We desperately need a new stadium otherwise we'll continue to have financial issues.
Chelsea need to build a minimum 80k stadium, this 60k number is 20 years too late… If they can’t make stamford bridge 80k, they should build a huge stadium at earls court
100% agree. 1.5bn + spend to add 20k seats is just a waste of everyone’s time. 70k should be the minimum. With a retractable roof like they’ve put on the new Bernabeu.
@ totally mate, This is Chelsea at the end of the day, they have a solid fanbase, rich history, esp over the past 30 years… This is a top english side, 70k is the bare minimum, they need a stadium that reflects the clubs stature, I would personally want the bigger clubs to start building 100k state of the art stadiums, but I can live with 70-80k stadiums… We could host a world cup here with the stadiums being built…
@@the_one1001 I think there would be some pushback on club stadiums being bigger than the national stadium (Wembley) and I also believe a stadium can be too big where the matchday experience isn’t great. Anything between 70-85k I think makes sense. I think we should be looking at the Lucas oil arena and Gazprom arena for design inspiration
Another problem with fulham and chelsea is that land value in those neighbourhood is stupid expensive. Its honestly better to build on earls court but I understand the history. But whats the point of history is you had to spend so much you will barely have any more to compete.
@@funcik1 Moving to Earls Court involves dealing with two local authorities: Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham. Could mean double the hassle. 😒
Chelsea should re locate to Earls Court which solves the problems of expensive renovations of the old Stadium with only 60,000 seats in the long term is not ideal and would take much longer to redevelopment of the Bridge. By re locating to Earls Court Chelsea could use the stadium during development of the new stadium at Earls Court solving that problem. History is just that and Chelsea is Chelsea wherever they play Astana, White heart Lane or wherever it's always Chelsea and Erals Court would be ideal futuristic stadium with 89,000 seater capacity for less than 1.5 billion. Do the math Chelsea so called fans and owners of Stamford Bridge, Stop holding the team and club back!
@@Mickoman239CPO should just stop being a jerk and moving, Chelsea is Chelsea over land and sea, why can't they for the definition of love let this club reach heights and for amassing fans, we just need to win that's all and simple I hate CPO 😡
How could you hate CPO it is literally owned by the fans. The only club in England where the fans own the rights to the name Chelsea and Stamford bridge being the home stadium. You are clearly not a legacy fan and have probably never been to see a game live. Baffles my mind that any fan would oppose CPO. Maybe stick to American football or basketball because you clearly do not understand the culture around Chelsea or what football means to people in England.
We could easily just renovate in the same way Barcelona are with the Camp Nou. Remove the roof and knock down the hotel, build all the stands up to the same level. 3rd tier all round. New more spacious seats and new facilities within. Could be done in 2 seasons maximum, unlike a full demolition and rebuild would be 4-5 years. Which is too long away.
There are many things stopping this otherwise it would have been done decades ago. The biggest issue that no one seems to talk about is a health and safety one, evacuating the ground in case of a fire. Because of the District line and Overground railways Stamford Bridge is boxed in, so everyone must exit onto Fulham Boardway. The new purchased land should change that allowing fans a direct route into Fulham Broadway station. But still, even with the old plans of building a walkway above the overground tracks, it's capacity was still limited to below 60k. The other issues to just building up is sight lines to St Pauls Cathedral from King Henry's Mound, which limits how high the stands can be build. Finally you have the East stand. Built in the 70's which does not meet modern day regs. Any major work to that stand would require it to be rebuilt to modern standards.
We need a much bigger Stadium, 60k Stadium is too small for a Wold Class Football Club like us. Even our little boy Tottenham and little son West ham has bigger/modern Stadium, that's 100% unacceptable
London is mainly down to lack of space and cost! Whereas Italy have weird government laws that make it incredibly difficult to build anything new plus lack of space! I believe the government in Italy own a lot of the grounds too! San Siro for example is a community owned and rented by the two Milan clubs
I'm from Greece and wanted to see my favourite team at least once in my life. Last season against Luton, after refreshing the transfer ticket site for 10 hours (since the game was sold out almost immediately against freaking Luton), I managed to get a nice ticket at Shed's End lower. Can't imagine how it is on derby days...
Its a difficult one to be honest. Personally for me i think the best thing is to relocate, as mentioned there are a couple of potential sites not too far away the earls court one would be better potentially as its pretty much around the corner. A new location would allow a stadium to be built without as many restrictions as redeveloping Stamford bridge would, one of the main costs being building over existing train lines being quite costly i imagine. I think this would also give all Chelsea fans an opportunity to have a proper send off to the club's home. It will be sad but playing away for 5 years will financially impact Chelsea anyway as they'll probably be paying ridiculous rent.
A new state of the art stadium, better that Arsenal’s or Spur’s, we can’t let old thinking of ‘intimate atmosphere’ dictate the clubs financial future, we need to generate income from the stadium on a daily basis,( concerts, corporate gigs, Comic-Con, whatever works).. soo, knock the stadium down and rebuild. Relocate to Wembley for a few years, fans will bitch & moan for a while, but you can reduce ticket prices, as Wembley holds more than twice as many fans, that’ll ease the change… oh!, AND BRING BACK ROMAN 😊
The REAL delay in this development is the internal feud between Bohley's BlueCo. and co-owner Clearlake Capital. By the time that gets resolved, Earls Court will have been fully redeveloped.
Because Stamford bridge located in one of the most dense area in england. Not only that it was in between 2 major high class area (fulham and kings road) and theres a railway line right beside it. If you see the photo from google earth, you'll see how hard it is. And tottenham starts their project at 2015 partially while still commencing game until 2017 then it finished in 2019. This stadium project is also so expensive because of the reason above therefore it's much better going to 80k rather than 60k which would increase the time
Spurs rebuild was completely different to this rebuild, they had a huge area of purchased land that was not listed. We are surrounded by a grade II listed railway and graveyard and also a grade II listed buildings. It’s not that simple.
As long as we stay at the current location I don’t care. Don’t kill the history. One of the oldest stadiums in the country. Don’t choose passion over profits.
Stamford Bridge wouldn't get planning permission to expand?? But if it was sold?? It would not only fund a brand new stadium, it would give whoever sold it billions.
Even though we have bought land around the stadium, due to old laws, the only way we remain at The Bridge is huge excavation and build it deep into the ground
@@cryptonomous888 There is an old law stating you must be able to see St Paul's Cathedral from Richmond Park (200+ years old). So they have to build down rather than up
Tbh we don't need a higher capacity, just renovate what we have. But if the owners insist on it, add to what we have now. With tearing everything down or even moving away, they would be the end of the club culture. Just see what happened to Arsenal. Highbury was a stadium with incredible character and intimidating for the opposition, now they got a personality-less Emirates Stadium.
An increased capacity stadium is an absolutely must have We have literally fallen behind clubs like Tottenham in terms of revenue If the club is going to grow economically a stadium of minimum 60k is crucial
WHY NOT JUST DEMOLISH STAMFORD BRIDGE,BUILD A NEW 80 THOUSAND CAPACITY STADIUM THAT WILL OPEN IN 2030 AND MEANWHILE "RENT" TWICKENHAM FOR HOME MATCHES!!!! HURRY UP BOEHLY AND GET GOING. NOW!!!! WE'LL HAVE THE BEST STADIUM IN BRITAIN,NOT JUST LONDON- ALSO HAVE CONCERTS THERE TO KEEP £ COMING IN...C'MON BOEHLY GIT GOING WIV THIS!!!!
We need to upgrade and there are just too many hassles to do the same to Stamford bridge. Our women team deserve a ground of their own, they should get the bridge and men team should shift to a new one. 😊
I would make a third choice. We are continuing to play on Stamford Bridge while building a new stadium then we move to a new one and starting reconstruction SB then when it’s done we move back to our home and new venue we can sell
The Shed Wall has the longest rainbow flag in the whole football league. So soft, so weak, so lame, so modern Chelsea. It used to be a proper alpha males football club, no more
Because back in the 1900’s people used to stand, there was no health and safety laws. You also had a completely different stadium back then. Not that difficult to work out.
Got absolutely no clue what you're on about do you.. Prem games sell out non hospitality in about 15 minutes. Stadium could have double the capacity and would still sell out
If the expenses of making stamford bridge 80k + are too high then i would just build a 2nd stadion at earls court 🏟️ that can hold up to 100k or so because thats what chelsea needs
Stamford Bridge 1876, is the oldest ground in the PL and the 3rd oldest football stadium in the world.
After Bramall lane [ Sheff Unt] and Deepdale ( Preston North End). Although it was an athletic stadium until 1904.
Source??
You're lie, so i hope chelsea must build new stadium
Not sure this is quite right - there are plenty of extant stadiums which have hosted regular football (i.e York Road in Maidenhead, Racecourse Ground in Wrexham, and quite a number of others) for much longer than the bridge. Although the Bridge itself is old by modern standards, Chelsea is a relatively young club (1905) and it has only hosted regular football since the club's founding (as you mention). Maidenhead Utd (1870) and Wrexham (1864), for example, were playing at their grounds before the Bridge was even built and for decades before it hosted football.
@@TheScrooge123 Professional football grounds. Wrexham turned professional in 1905. Maidenhead have never been fully professional.
Did you know that Stamford Bridge also holds the all time attendance record for a club game in England?
100,000 - 120,000 estimated, ( they had to stop counting at 84,000) Chelsea v Dynamo Moscow 1945.
SB is also the first ground in the world to use ball boys. Chelsea v Rochdale 1906.
Rebuild Stamford Bridge is surely the only sensible option. Identity = DNA
Ideally all of us would love to rebuild the current ground. But we have to be realistic if it costs too much and causes us to play elsewhere for 5 years or so also the logistics of how we can build makes it difficult to rebuild in current land. If we move to a spot where we can build the world class stadium we deserve it's worth it, we can make new memories at the new stadium.
@@Tempo-03although I agree with you that there are restrictions at the bridge atm. You have to remember the Chelsea pitch owners. It’ll be extremely hard to move cause there will be people that would never sell their share and therefore we won’t be able to move easily and the process of buying all the pitch shares will be really expensive and time consuming
The best option is to build a new stadium at Earl's Court
@@HDZ45 I don't think buying shares works as no matter how many shares you have it equals one share I could be wrong though, and if I'm being honest Clearlake will do what they want and move if that's the best option they'll find a way around the CPO if they're not agreeing.
@@peterpeterson5550 yep, unfortunately the CPO wasn't given an offer for what the benefits were for moving and we never made a real attempt for the land at Earls court. We desperately need a new stadium otherwise we'll continue to have financial issues.
We need a stadium with 80 000-90 000 seats
You’re too small of a club
@@Raptor-22 and which team do you support?
@@Nomzgotrizz Barca.
@ Someone that’s supports a Spanish team you guys rob a lot of competitions including Madrid too
@@Raptor-22Barca is small club, Chelsea not
Gonna go Stamford Bridge for the first time as an away fan for the Chelsea FCW vs Arsenal FCW game in 26th January 2025
Chelsea need to build a minimum 80k stadium, this 60k number is 20 years too late…
If they can’t make stamford bridge 80k, they should build a huge stadium at earls court
100% agree. 1.5bn + spend to add 20k seats is just a waste of everyone’s time. 70k should be the minimum. With a retractable roof like they’ve put on the new Bernabeu.
@ totally mate, This is Chelsea at the end of the day, they have a solid fanbase, rich history, esp over the past 30 years…
This is a top english side, 70k is the bare minimum, they need a stadium that reflects the clubs stature, I would personally want the bigger clubs to start building 100k state of the art stadiums, but I can live with 70-80k stadiums…
We could host a world cup here with the stadiums being built…
@@the_one1001 I think there would be some pushback on club stadiums being bigger than the national stadium (Wembley) and I also believe a stadium can be too big where the matchday experience isn’t great. Anything between 70-85k I think makes sense. I think we should be looking at the Lucas oil arena and Gazprom arena for design inspiration
Never going to happen
@@leonduke United will certainly have over 90k when they build theirs, arsenal looking at expanding theirs to 75k…
Another problem with fulham and chelsea is that land value in those neighbourhood is stupid expensive. Its honestly better to build on earls court but I understand the history. But whats the point of history is you had to spend so much you will barely have any more to compete.
Best to move to Earl's court. Bigger stadium from the scratch. No issue of moving out for some time. Good transport connections.
Don't think LBHF will allow it.
@FrozenHero2010 I guess it's still an open discussion
It will not called Stamford Bridge stadium anymore innit?😂
@@funcik1 Moving to Earls Court involves dealing with two local authorities: Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham. Could mean double the hassle. 😒
They just started building houses it to late to go there
Chelsea should re locate to Earls Court which solves the problems of expensive renovations of the old Stadium with only 60,000 seats in the long term is not ideal and would take much longer to redevelopment of the Bridge.
By re locating to Earls Court Chelsea could use the stadium during development of the new stadium at Earls Court solving that problem. History is just that and Chelsea is Chelsea wherever they play Astana, White heart Lane or wherever it's always Chelsea and Erals Court would be ideal futuristic stadium with 89,000 seater capacity for less than 1.5 billion. Do the math Chelsea so called fans and owners of Stamford Bridge, Stop holding the team and club back!
Do you think you will have that much fan in the near future??
@@Mickoman239CPO should just stop being a jerk and moving, Chelsea is Chelsea over land and sea, why can't they for the definition of love let this club reach heights and for amassing fans, we just need to win that's all and simple
I hate CPO 😡
How could you hate CPO it is literally owned by the fans. The only club in England where the fans own the rights to the name Chelsea and Stamford bridge being the home stadium. You are clearly not a legacy fan and have probably never been to see a game live. Baffles my mind that any fan would oppose CPO. Maybe stick to American football or basketball because you clearly do not understand the culture around Chelsea or what football means to people in England.
@@Mickoman239 do u think Manutd will have that much fans near future?
We could easily just renovate in the same way Barcelona are with the Camp Nou. Remove the roof and knock down the hotel, build all the stands up to the same level. 3rd tier all round. New more spacious seats and new facilities within. Could be done in 2 seasons maximum, unlike a full demolition and rebuild would be 4-5 years. Which is too long away.
There are many things stopping this otherwise it would have been done decades ago. The biggest issue that no one seems to talk about is a health and safety one, evacuating the ground in case of a fire. Because of the District line and Overground railways Stamford Bridge is boxed in, so everyone must exit onto Fulham Boardway. The new purchased land should change that allowing fans a direct route into Fulham Broadway station. But still, even with the old plans of building a walkway above the overground tracks, it's capacity was still limited to below 60k.
The other issues to just building up is sight lines to St Pauls Cathedral from King Henry's Mound, which limits how high the stands can be build. Finally you have the East stand. Built in the 70's which does not meet modern day regs. Any major work to that stand would require it to be rebuilt to modern standards.
@@WillHest the biggest issue is a protected view of St Pauls Cathedral from Richmond Park
Agree
Earl's court seems to be the best option for us, so we can build a brand new 80-90k seater stadium and play at the bridge while the construction
We need a much bigger Stadium, 60k Stadium is too small for a Wold Class Football Club like us. Even our little boy Tottenham and little son West ham has bigger/modern Stadium, that's 100% unacceptable
65000 to 68000
No, we need a new place, for a brand-new 80 000 capacity stadium!
Everton FC is a very good example!
Chelsea and Italy, the most unlikely place in the world to build a new stadium
Correctly😅
😂😂😂
Earls court it is then.
London is mainly down to lack of space and cost!
Whereas Italy have weird government laws that make it incredibly difficult to build anything new plus lack of space! I believe the government in Italy own a lot of the grounds too! San Siro for example is a community owned and rented by the two Milan clubs
@@joseteixeira2518way too late for that since Chelsea have had no contact with the property and someone’s already building something at that property
Have you ever, ever tried to get a ticket, there might be a chance at 70k stadium or 80k 60k is under what Id want to be fair.
I still remember running track haha
I'm from Greece and wanted to see my favourite team at least once in my life. Last season against Luton, after refreshing the transfer ticket site for 10 hours (since the game was sold out almost immediately against freaking Luton), I managed to get a nice ticket at Shed's End lower. Can't imagine how it is on derby days...
Its a difficult one to be honest. Personally for me i think the best thing is to relocate, as mentioned there are a couple of potential sites not too far away the earls court one would be better potentially as its pretty much around the corner. A new location would allow a stadium to be built without as many restrictions as redeveloping Stamford bridge would, one of the main costs being building over existing train lines being quite costly i imagine.
I think this would also give all Chelsea fans an opportunity to have a proper send off to the club's home. It will be sad but playing away for 5 years will financially impact Chelsea anyway as they'll probably be paying ridiculous rent.
100k capacity for Chelsea is alright he has left behind the so called big clubs, Chelsea forever💙💙💙
💀bigger than wembley💀💀
@@biviqz why not . I don't like the wembley stadium. We need better designs
@@themanfromtaured114 ik but our national stadium should rlly be biggest for international tournament and representation of our country.
100,000 will never happen. We need more land for 60,000 and 60,000 is just enough for us
@@bambadaily 75.000
A new state of the art stadium, better that Arsenal’s or Spur’s, we can’t let old thinking of ‘intimate atmosphere’ dictate the clubs financial future, we need to generate income from the stadium on a daily basis,( concerts, corporate gigs, Comic-Con, whatever works).. soo, knock the stadium down and rebuild. Relocate to Wembley for a few years, fans will bitch & moan for a while, but you can reduce ticket prices, as Wembley holds more than twice as many fans, that’ll ease the change… oh!, AND BRING BACK ROMAN 😊
The REAL delay in this development is the internal feud between Bohley's BlueCo. and co-owner Clearlake Capital. By the time that gets resolved, Earls Court will have been fully redeveloped.
They need to get on with it they are getting left behind every other big club .
Spot on
It's now 2 acres the club has purchased from Stoll, not 1.2 acres.
i'am from norway,love to visit chelsea stadium..
Credit where it’s due this video was top class.
Stamford bridge won’t be expanded or rebuilt. No room around it.
true, need to be built from scratch
It’s crazy when you go there in person and see how it feels squeezed into the space it has 😅
I would leave it as it now ! I don’t think Chelsea will struggle in terms of revenue.
A big problem is also them hotels attached to the Shed end. Once they go, a reno is possible
It’s not, we own them
Its not about the hotels, we own them lot. it's about the housing next to the stadium and the train tracks
I don't understand why it would take 5 years. Spurs demolished and rebuilt in 1 year. I really don't get it.
It Seems like a money laundering 😅😂
Because Stamford bridge located in one of the most dense area in england. Not only that it was in between 2 major high class area (fulham and kings road) and theres a railway line right beside it. If you see the photo from google earth, you'll see how hard it is. And tottenham starts their project at 2015 partially while still commencing game until 2017 then it finished in 2019. This stadium project is also so expensive because of the reason above therefore it's much better going to 80k rather than 60k which would increase the time
Spurs rebuild was completely different to this rebuild, they had a huge area of purchased land that was not listed. We are surrounded by a grade II listed railway and graveyard and also a grade II listed buildings. It’s not that simple.
We ain't ever moving from Stamford
We need to leap frog our rivals not catch up, 70k or more please
"Wembley has held some major football events..."
you're joking
When he said that I was thinking, what’s he talking about it’s a national football stadium.
Which EPL club will build the 100,000 seat stadium first?
United for sure
In a perfect world couldn’t Chelsea move to Earls Court, build a massive stadium of like 75-90k and the Chelsea Women just move into the Bridge?
Not a chance they share with Fulham
No they don't. Who told you that?
If they do make a whole new stadium, then it needs to be one that eclipses Arsenal’s and Tottenham’s. Just to show CHELSEA are THEE club of London.
As long as we stay at the current location I don’t care. Don’t kill the history. One of the oldest stadiums in the country. Don’t choose passion over profits.
My dream is to visit Stamford Bridge one day :)
Stamford Bridge wouldn't get planning permission to expand??
But if it was sold??
It would not only fund a brand new stadium, it would give whoever sold it billions.
Even though we have bought land around the stadium, due to old laws, the only way we remain at The Bridge is huge excavation and build it deep into the ground
What laws? What’s the point of buying that bit of land if we can’t build on it?
@@cryptonomous888 There is an old law stating you must be able to see St Paul's Cathedral from Richmond Park (200+ years old). So they have to build down rather than up
@@ScottGG-tq5ts really?…surely this old out of date law can be changed. We should all protest outside houses of parliament.
@@cryptonomous888that law won’t be changing so you can forget about that.
Tbh we don't need a higher capacity, just renovate what we have. But if the owners insist on it, add to what we have now. With tearing everything down or even moving away, they would be the end of the club culture. Just see what happened to Arsenal. Highbury was a stadium with incredible character and intimidating for the opposition, now they got a personality-less Emirates Stadium.
An increased capacity stadium is an absolutely must have
We have literally fallen behind clubs like Tottenham in terms of revenue
If the club is going to grow economically a stadium of minimum 60k is crucial
We do need a new stadium
Yeah
Stamford bridge 😢❤
My favorite stadium Stamford bridge AND Wembley
I've seen that possibly new design for years now, but still yet to like it 😂😢
New stadium new winning trophies
Will Clearlake fund all this or a new stadium?
Just a thought. Why don't we go down, instead of anywhere else. 💙
They're not playing that badly , should stay up
65 000 to 68 0000 would be more reasonable
Stamfod Bridge is Chelsea. We're a team because if that stadium
Is this plan still alive after Roman left? How is Boehly & co stance on this?
WHY NOT JUST DEMOLISH STAMFORD BRIDGE,BUILD A NEW 80 THOUSAND CAPACITY STADIUM THAT WILL OPEN IN 2030 AND MEANWHILE "RENT" TWICKENHAM FOR HOME MATCHES!!!! HURRY UP BOEHLY AND GET GOING. NOW!!!! WE'LL HAVE THE BEST STADIUM IN BRITAIN,NOT JUST LONDON- ALSO HAVE CONCERTS THERE TO KEEP £ COMING IN...C'MON BOEHLY GIT GOING WIV THIS!!!!
Kings of London.
I hope we keep it as it is.
the new design is awful, doesnt look like a stadium
I hope new stadium not upgrade
We have the smallest capacity stadium among the top 6 clubs. We really need a new modern stadium that will give us another 50 years time.
Just renovate it.
I feel like stamford bridge is very very much fine. Its such an icon
We need to upgrade and there are just too many hassles to do the same to Stamford bridge. Our women team deserve a ground of their own, they should get the bridge and men team should shift to a new one. 😊
80k at least
Damn those renders looks freaking awful.
Sorry but pointless video, Todd Boehly isnt going to reuse Roman's old plans.
I would make a third choice. We are continuing to play on Stamford Bridge while building a new stadium then we move to a new one and starting reconstruction SB then when it’s done we move back to our home and new venue we can sell
i stand strongly against new stadium, because the shape of stamford brigde is so unique, its giving off the aesthetic
My opinion on the same is, Chelsea should modify the stadium 🏟️ maybe by destroying the existing one and rebuild on the same area
Is this AI generated??
So this story is really about Smart Tech. Go away.
The Shed Wall has the longest rainbow flag in the whole football league. So soft, so weak, so lame, so modern Chelsea. It used to be a proper alpha males football club, no more
How does a stadium go from 100,000 spectators to 41,000 😂😂😂 he me quit the video right there
Because back in the 1900’s people used to stand, there was no health and safety laws. You also had a completely different stadium back then. Not that difficult to work out.
People saying 70-80 thousand capacity??? What??? We'd be lucky to even fit 60,000 at Stamford Bridge, let alone 70,000. I'd take 60,000 and that's it
Chelsea would struggle to fill an 60k stadium 47-55k is a more realistic capacity, you can literally walk in on match day and purchase a ticket
you're a clown
You can’t
No and it's going to ho higher
Got absolutely no clue what you're on about do you.. Prem games sell out non hospitality in about 15 minutes. Stadium could have double the capacity and would still sell out
Horrid club..
current jersey is shit. bring back the solid blue color and stick with that till the end of earth
it will look like.. because it is... and... the name will be.. Chelski's Crapper... hey, gammons, might win the John Loo Award
If the expenses of making stamford bridge 80k + are too high then i would just build a 2nd stadion at earls court 🏟️ that can hold up to 100k or so because thats what chelsea needs