2 hours ago, evissy said:

To redevelop SB is much more expensive and they don't get all the bells and whistles they want in the compound such as Tottenham have done.

I am pretty sure if possible they will go the Earls Court route. I have no say or opinion on that other than we need all the extra revenue we can get to be competitive with football. Not a match going fan so my option otherwise is not very valid. You guys who go to games know best.

The first match I attended I sat in the West Stand that still was only the lower tier. So I don't even have the memories of the really old guard (sorry 😃) of our ground, but I feel a twitch at the thought of Stamford Bridge being demolished 😟 Moving away from the site seems even worse, whatever sensible arguments in favour of it.

11 minutes ago, Valerie said:

The first match I attended I sat in the West Stand that still was only the lower tier. So I don't even have the memories of the really old guard (sorry 😃) of our ground, but I feel a twitch at the thought of Stamford Bridge being demolished 😟 Moving away from the site seems even worse, whatever sensible arguments in favour of it.

My first game I stood under the old North Stand, what a strange stand that was !

26 minutes ago, terraloon said:

My first game I stood under the old North Stand, what a strange stand that was !

I've never seen that view! It looks dreadful, as if there's a coal mine under it!

6 minutes ago, Valerie said:

I've never seen that view! It looks dreadful, as if there's a coal mine under it!

Was a strange old ground that’s for sure but coal mine is an interesting take

19 hours ago, Valerie said:

I've never seen that view! It looks dreadful, as if there's a coal mine under it!

There was. Instead of cleaning boots, the apprentices would dig coal to feed the furnace for hot showers.

1 hour ago, dermott said:

There was. Instead of cleaning boots, the apprentices would dig coal to feed the furnace for hot showers.

Very character building. Some of our academy players started to feel entitled when that colliery was closed and they had an easy time.

As it currently stands, Earl's court isnt an option.

That site was sold to its current owners in 2019 and they've submitted planning permission for residential areas and substantial redevelopment of Earl's court with no plans to include Chelsea FC in that redevelopment. Results from the planning application are expected in 2026.

https://londonist.com/london/latest-news/what-s-happening-with-the-earl-s-court-development

Earl's Court seems like a dead end. But the bridge can be redeveloped.

13 minutes ago, bluelightening said:

As it currently stands, Earl's court isnt an option.

That site was sold to its current owners in 2019 and they've submitted planning permission for residential areas and substantial redevelopment of Earl's court with no plans to include Chelsea FC in that redevelopment. Results from the planning application are expected in 2026.

https://londonist.com/london/latest-news/what-s-happening-with-the-earl-s-court-development

Earl's Court seems like a dead end. But the bridge can be redeveloped.

I don’t know why Earl’s Court is back on the news as a possibility for the new stadium. As you say, it was sold some years ago for redevelopment, but it is back on the table if we believe the news. I definitely think that making a new ground in Earls Court is more in line with the history of the place than building a residential area, which is going to be only at the reach of rich people rather than those who really need them. Having said that, I rather we stayed at the Bridge, but I don’t see Earls Court as a bad option. It definitely allows for games to be played at the Bridge while the new ground is built, and it would probably mean getting the women team to London rather than in Kings Medow, which is really out of the way.

27 minutes ago, bluelightening said:

As it currently stands, Earl's court isnt an option.

That site was sold to its current owners in 2019 and they've submitted planning permission for residential areas and substantial redevelopment of Earl's court with no plans to include Chelsea FC in that redevelopment. Results from the planning application are expected in 2026.

https://londonist.com/london/latest-news/what-s-happening-with-the-earl-s-court-development

Earl's Court seems like a dead end. But the bridge can be redeveloped.

The key is their planning application. If refused, or modified not to their liking, what then?

Edited July 20, 2025Jul 20 by dermott

The mayor offered to help did he not.?

Makes local council refuse the plans, they sell to bluecò, we sell them the land for the Bridge in return and they build their housing lot there.

Is the only way a new stadium happens. It was just about possible to build a new stadium where the bridge is now under Roman but now the cost is too much.

Who was it who bought the Earls Court site ?

Presumably some development company that could be persuaded to sell to BlueCo at the right price/profit without necessarily following through on their current plans ?

However, that site is still probably problematic as a football stadium location with the train lines running right though the middle of it though ...

17 hours ago, dermott said:

The key is their planning application. If refused, or modified not to their liking, what then?

Who cares? Not chelsea's application, not our land and given the scale of development across london, highly unlikely to be rejected.. there might be plenty of amendments but its going ahead in one capacity or another.

That's the reality and Chelsea probably had the option to buy the site under Roman who took the decision to rebuild the bridge.

Not entirely sure what costs have changed if we did redevelop the site, but you all should stop simping for a move to Earl's Court as its really isnt an option which is why the yanks are now looking at another 20 years to build one, they know there isnt another site available.

3 hours ago, bluelightening said:

Who cares? Not chelsea's application, not our land and given the scale of development across london, highly unlikely to be rejected.. there might be plenty of amendments but its going ahead in one capacity or another.

That's the reality and Chelsea probably had the option to buy the site under Roman who took the decision to rebuild the bridge.

Not entirely sure what costs have changed if we did redevelop the site, but you all should stop simping for a move to Earl's Court as its really isnt an option which is why the yanks are now looking at another 20 years to build one, they know there isnt another site available.

I think the issue is it's clearly earls court or spend 3-5 years playing in a variety of sh*t locations whilst the bridge is knocked down and rebuilt.

And whilst earls court only has a 1% chance of coming true, it'll still be clung to by some.

I saw someone else commented earlier today about Everton’s new stadium looking very impressive and wondering how far down the capacity table we now are (11th I believe).

And I’m just wondering, is there any slight hope we might one day have a modern stadium with a capacity even close to that of many of our rivals? Never say never of course, but realistically, it’s hard to see how we’re still not playing in a rapidly dating mini stadium in another 10 years.

Given how the important revenue is in today’s football, 3 years without a shirt sponsor and the lack of gate receipt and corporate revenue we suffer compared to our rivals must be significant.

Yet there seems little interest in either a front of shirt sponsor or having a modern, fitting home stadium.

10 minutes ago, Snedger said:

I saw someone else commented earlier today about Everton’s new stadium looking very impressive and wondering how far down the capacity table we now are (11th I believe).

Table from Wikipedia - and yes we are 11th !!!

All the more reason why I keep getting at these people when it comes to securing a front of shirt sponsor. It's insane that they are leaving so much money on the table when we have such a small size stadium.

4 hours ago, Scott Harris said:

All the more reason why I keep getting at these people when it comes to securing a front of shirt sponsor. It's insane that they are leaving so much money on the table when we have such a small size stadium.

If we cannot organize a real, not made up cough infinite athlete cough, front of shirt sponsor what hope do we have of getting a new stadium? or redeveloped Stamford Bridge?

Hopefully by the next Chelsea Pitch Owners AGM which will probably take place at the end of January 2026 a decision on the future of Stamford Bridge will have been made. I won't hold my breath though. I appreciate negotiations with councils, residents etc can take sometime but it would be nice if the board could out of courtesy update supporters. Wishful thinking I know. I wonder if one of the stumbling blocks is over the future of Kingsmeadow where some of the women's and also PL2 matches are played. If all of the women's matches i.e. 11 league games and domestic and European matches are moved to the Bridge - lets say for purposes of argument that will be 20-25 games involving the women's team - there could be at least 50 games played at the Bridge. That would of course be dependent upon how far the men's and women's teams progress in domestic and European cup competitions. That could be difficult to sell to residents and the council. As an aside there is a difference of opinion about the followers of the women's team over whether or not their matches should be played at Kingsmeadow or the Bridge. As someone who attends matches at Kingsmeadow and from speaking to fans there I've had the differing opinions and understand why some people prefer Kingsmeadow. I'm not sure if Kingsmeadow can be developed but given the growth of support for women's football Kingsmeadow may prove to be too small.

As I posted back in January one of the board, Gannon, spoke at this year's CPO AGM. He spoke for about 20 minutes but didn't actually say much i.e. typical management speak. As in future years I'll be at the 2026 AGM and will report back.

On 24/08/2025 at 20:18, Snedger said:

I saw someone else commented earlier today about Everton’s new stadium looking very impressive and wondering how far down the capacity table we now are (11th I believe).

And I’m just wondering, is there any slight hope we might one day have a modern stadium with a capacity even close to that of many of our rivals? Never say never of course, but realistically, it’s hard to see how we’re still not playing in a rapidly dating mini stadium in another 10 years.

Given how the important revenue is in today’s football, 3 years without a shirt sponsor and the lack of gate receipt and corporate revenue we suffer compared to our rivals must be significant.

Yet there seems little interest in either a front of shirt sponsor or having a modern, fitting home stadium.

No front of shirt sponsor is all part of the master plan. 10 year - £100m p/year deal will soon be signed. We missed out on circa. £100m+ FOS money over the past couple of seasons for this reason, trust the directors.

I'm curious to how a supporters vote on the stay at the Bridge v move elsewhere debate would go.

I guess it would partly depend on how much of the fan base you asked and of course where the 'elsewhere' would be.

I suspect if you asked only the season ticket holders or wider match going fans, then there'd be a strong stay vote. If you asked anyone anywhere who purports to be a Chelsea fan, then lord knows what the answer would be.

I personally, as a former match going fan (maybe on a kind of forced sabbatical) am really on the fence. I would prefer to remain at Stamford Bridge for sure, but if we could actually move much sooner to a new stadium with a 60+ thousand capacity, then maybe, it would be worth getting a membership again and actually having a chance of getting a ticket now and again and actually getting to see Chelsea play. It might also, but only might, help the atmosphere as well by getting a bit of fresh blood in the crowd. Our apparent oldest average age matchday support coupled with the somewhat closed shop situation we seem to have, possibly contributes to the rather subdued atmosphere we get at the Bridge.

Edited August 26, 2025Aug 26 by Snedger
clarified that the move elsewhere option would in theory mean a bigger stadium much sooner than trying to do so at SB.

The one thing at the start of the project that bothers me is the route out of London for the demolished stadium. Fulham Rd is not the widest and will be really busy. West London loop line would be good, but unlike years ago now has a lot of commuter trains. So loading a train would be a no go.

Could be along time away from playing at the Bridge.

3 hours ago, Richard P said:

The one thing at the start of the project that bothers me is the route out of London for the demolished stadium. Fulham Rd is not the widest and will be really busy. West London loop line would be good, but unlike years ago now has a lot of commuter trains. So loading a train would be a no go.

Could be along time away from playing at the Bridge.

I've spoken to a couple of people who are in the building trade about the re-development and they mentioned that there has to be full inventory of stuff removed from site so it can be disposed of in the correct way. That could take some time especially as you say the Fulham Road is not the widest and is very busy. Also demolition work and removal will probably only be allowed during certain times of the day and possibly only from Monday to Friday to minimise noise levels and inconvenience to locals.

Lets face the truth. Our majority investors are connected to our club for one reason only. To make money. Do we really think they will borrow billions to invest in a new stadium sometime in the future? The value of our club has increased already to the point the Todd recently announced it's worth more now than the price it was bought for.

I'd love a new stadium at Earls Court or a probably impossible stand by stand rebuild of the Bridge. But broadcasting revenue dwarfs stadium revenue . It doesn't make sense to spend billions and then with loan repayments eating into revenue for years afterwards just to increase revenue by a few million a year ??

And who's to say that that extra revenue won't be syphoned away to our investors anyway. ?

1 hour ago, The Rising Sun said:

Lets face the truth. Our majority investors are connected to our club for one reason only. To make money. Do we really think they will borrow billions to invest in a new stadium sometime in the future? The value of our club has increased already to the point the Todd recently announced it's worth more now than the price it was bought for.

I'd love a new stadium at Earls Court or a probably impossible stand by stand rebuild of the Bridge. But broadcasting revenue dwarfs stadium revenue . It doesn't make sense to spend billions and then with loan repayments eating into revenue for years afterwards just to increase revenue by a few million a year ??

And who's to say that that extra revenue won't be syphoned away to our investors anyway. ?

The bottom line is that a new stadium - whether onsite or elsewhere - is only viable these days with additional non-football usage. Spurs have twice as many non-football events as football matches, the stadium built specifically so. Non-football events - number, size and type - require local council approval. It's also arguable that, with Spurs and the Emirates already busy with non-football events, the London scene is already catered for.

If we’re to move away from the Bridge the only viable site in West London(just about) is Old Oak Common. It wouldn’t shock me if they bring it up as an option while keeping Stamford Bridge for the women’s team, as Everton have done with Goodison.