Opinion: Two bidders for Chelsea planning to stay at Stamford Bridge a huge bonus

[James 5,198]

I wouldn’t say it would be the be all and end all when looking at the different potential bidders to by Chelsea and the movements they will be making, but for me, staying at Stamford Bridge is up there as one of the priorities. The stadium needs redeveloping, I do not doubt that. We need […]

View the full article

[Vesper 28,802]

3 hours ago, James said:

I wouldn’t say it would be the be all and end all when looking at the different potential bidders to by Chelsea and the movements they will be making, but for me, staying at Stamford Bridge is up there as one of the priorities. The stadium needs redeveloping, I do not doubt that. We need […]

View the full article

ugh

ground up is needed

[Superblue 6,370]

31 minutes ago, Vesper said:

ugh

ground up is needed

The problem is everybody has seen the plans Roman had drawn up and I think it was pretty much unanimous that Chelsea fans loved it.

In reality though, talk is it would now cost in excess of £1.5bn and 4 - 5 years to build, it just doesn't seem feasible.

Ultimately it may end up actually being the only option but I'd rather other avenues are pursued first and if a stadium renovation can take place without impacting our ability to play at the Bridge and eventually bring us up to say 55,000 capacity I'd be pretty content with that.

It should also be noted that an option like this should end up being significantly cheaper if it's possible and if it's true that prospective owners must commit a further £1bn to future fund the club, then it means there should almost certainly be more money available for investment within the squad.