Question is, as we are getting no freebies like city and west ham did with their new grounds, will we have to do an arsenal for a few years, not spend much cash on players and try and try sneak in top four year after year?

 

Seeing that we haven't spent big since Torres, that'd be not much of a change, I suppose! Players like Pedro or Fabregas are well within the clubs budget!

The daily mail comment section in regards to the new stadium plan is laughable; so many haters. How anyone can say that, that stadium looks "hideous" is beyond me. 

Edited December 1, 201510 yr by enigma

The daily mail comment section in regards to the new stadium plan is laughable; so many haters. How anyone can say that, that stadium looks "hideous" is beyond me. 

 

Must say I'm not the biggest fan of the design.

The daily mail comment section in regards to the new stadium plan is laughable; so many haters. How anyone can say that, that stadium looks "hideous" is beyond me.

Jealousy.

Most of their teams play in a soulless tin bowl like Arsenal or a half empty arena like City.

We have put time, effort and ambition into this stadium and it is unique as a result.

The daily mail comment section in regards to the new stadium plan is laughable; so many haters. How anyone can say that, that stadium looks "hideous" is beyond me. 

 

Oh but it does! But wasn't that the point?

The daily mail comment section in regards to the new stadium plan is laughable; so many haters. How anyone can say that, that stadium looks "hideous" is beyond me. 

I personally think it looks dated, not a huge fan of the shape either.  Just my thoughts

Statement from the CPO Board

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/fans/chelsea-pitch-owners/cpo-news/statement-regarding-stamford-bridge-planning-application.html

 

As you will be aware, the board of Chelsea Pitch Owners have been in consultation with the representatives of the owner of Chelsea FC, regarding the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge.

We have today been informed that the formal planning application has been submitted to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. This step though is only the first stage of the planning process which will last at least beyond the end of the season and if a planning permission is granted, there will still be a lot of work for the Club to do and various permissions to obtain before work can start, including obtaining any necessary landlord consents. We will continue to inform you of the application’s progress through the planning process.

You can access the application and plans at www.lbhf.gov.uk/stamfordbridgegrounds.

I personally think it looks dated, not a huge fan of the shape either.  Just my thoughts

 

Dated? I can understand why some people think it looks ugly (though I completely disagree) but what old stadium looks like this in any way? It's unique.

Dated? I can understand why some people think it looks ugly (though I completely disagree) but what old stadium looks like this in any way? It's unique.

Agreed.

It doesn't fit into the category of an older looking stadium. I don't think there is another stadium that you could point at and say it looks similar.

Agreed.

It doesn't fit into the category of an older looking stadium. I don't think there is another stadium that you could point at and say it looks similar.

 

I think he refers to the architectural style, which is certainly not contemporary. They said it was inspired by Westminster Abbey, which underlines his statement. 

I think he refers to the architectural style, which is certainly not contemporary. They said it was inspired by Westminster Abbey, which underlines his statement.

How can it be dated though when no other stadium has that look?

It's taken some designs from Westminster Abbey and implemented it into it's look.

It's something new in terms of football stadia and sticks out for being different.

It's certainly not dated to look at.

Edited December 1, 201510 yr by Chelsbear

How can it be dated though when no other stadium has that look?

It's something new in terms of football stadia and sticks out for being different.

It's certainly not dated to look at.

 

Maybe dated is the wrong term. You can say it is unique because no other 'modern' stadium looks like this, but then I doubt anyone would want it this way. Or at least that's what I gathered from talking to friends from uni and back in Germany. But maybe they just hate Chelsea, who knows!

How can it be dated though when no other stadium has that look?

It's taken some designs from Westminster Abbey and implemented it into it's look.

It's something new in terms of football stadia and sticks out for being different.

It's certainly not dated to look at.

Westminster Abbey was built in 1090, if its borrowing styles from that then sure, you could adapt that in a modern way.. but I don't think that is done here.

I'm not just comparing it to other stadiums (which I could and still call it dated), but compared to general trends in architecture that I've noticed as purely a pedestrian, i think it looks dated an a little clunky.

Not trying to sh!t stir here as I am genuinely excited, would love to see the competing designs that got left behind.

Surely the CPO I'll approve of the plans right?

Westminster Abbey was built in 1090, if its borrowing styles from that then sure, you could adapt that in a modern way.. but I don't think that is done here.

I'm not just comparing it to other stadiums (which I could and still call it dated), but compared to general trends in architecture that I've noticed as purely a pedestrian, i think it looks dated an a little clunky.

Not trying to sh!t stir here as I am genuinely excited, would love to see the competing designs that got left behind.

 

To be honest, I would agree that in terms of aesthetics there might have been ways to create something equally unique but not as brutalist looking. But I grew up in Germany so maybe it's a cultural thing that I don't find it particularly appealing. 

 

In the end, the looks of it don't matter. Atmosphere and the history that will be made inside this stadium will be far more crucial for the way people perceive it. Just ask someone from Germany about Anfield, they think it's the holy grail of football stadiums even though it's an ugly little craphole!

Honestly, looks awful.

It's certainly unique, but than in itself doesn't make it appealing.

I think it looks ok and it's refreshing to see a stadium that looks unique.

I love it. Looks like a Colosseum.

Edited December 1, 201510 yr by Fatty_Speeding

Our stadium could be an overturned dog feeding bowl, but as long as it's ours and at the same location and still be called Stamford Bridge, I will love it.

So where's the funding coming from? Roman directly? Or are we getting a bank loan?

Fully funded by our benevolent owner I believe. What a guy.

Fully funded by our benevolent owner I believe. What a guy.

That's better for us. A bank would include crippling terms in such a loan.

Some more views from the planning application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

leaving the design to one side, I can't understand why they've chosen masonry over 100% concrete: that masonry will be much more expensive than concrete to construct.