Stamford Bridge Thread

[King Kante 1,643]

Wyss saying EC would be best. However, it also appears the stadium is still up in the air. 

[Vesper 30,589]

20 hours ago, King Kante said:

Wyss saying EC would be best. However, it also appears the stadium is still up in the air. 

madness that a soon-to-be (in 4 months) 90 year old bloke worth 5 billion and a part owner of Chels is just strolling about totally alone after a football match versus the scouser vermin

[Vesper 30,589]

‘I’ve been at Twickenham for matches and this is exactly what Chelsea fans could experience'

Chelsea are deciding over a temporary switch to the home of English rugby at Twickenham as they discuss plans for a new stadium to replace the iconic Stamford Bridge

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/twickenham-stadium-Chelsea-stamford-bridge-35178942

The idea of Chelsea moving to Twickenham makes a lot of sense. Yes, the Range Rovers, picnic hampers and tweed jackets would be nowhere in sight.

Instead, they'd be replaced with a uniform of designer gear and a copious amounts of lager, rather than champagne. Twickenham's anthem of 'Swing Low, Sweet Chariot' would likely morph into something less palatable. However, one constant would be a sports team having the privilege of calling a world-class stadium their home. It seems like a logical move for both the football club and the Rugby Football Union (RFU).

The proposal has been suggested because Chelsea wants to either redevelop Stamford Bridge or build a new stadium near Earls Court, and would need somewhere to host their home games in the meantime.

Meanwhile, the RFU is in desperate need of additional income, due to the ongoing struggle with record losses. If Chelsea did relocate to England HQ, as it's known in rugby circles, we would get to see if the London club is as big as it believes it is.

Twickenham, when full, is one of the finest stadiums in the UK. It can hold 82,000 spectators and is capable of creating a thrilling atmosphere. But could Chelsea fill it?

That remains to be seen, but what Twickenham is also good at is retaining spectators long after the final whistle. The vast space surrounding the ground is filled with places to eat and drink, albeit at steep prices.

Rugby fans seem to linger around the stadium after a match, and perhaps Chelsea could find ways to keep their own fans outside following games. However, it's worth mentioning that commuting to and from Twickenham can be a nightmare.

The traffic is unbearable, there's no direct underground link, and the overland trains pack commuters like sardines in a tin. RFU chief executive Bill Sweeney has hinted that Richmond Council might be hesitant to let Chelsea become new tenants of Twickenham.

Twickenham sits right in the heart of one of London's wealthiest boroughs, and local residents have strong objections to the number of events held there. So, the idea of thousands of Chelsea fans flooding their tranquil suburban streets is likely to fill them with dread.

However, London Mayor Sadiq Khan is open to discussions. "My message to Chelsea is come and speak to us in relation to what you want to do," he said (via the Daily Star).

"Chelsea are victims of their own success, and Stamford Bridge is now too small for them. After all, this is a team that has twice won the Champions League. We work closely with all seven of our Premier League clubs but I'm sure Chelsea look with some envy at the stadiums some of their rivals in London have."

Despite Khan's comments, Chelsea haven't clinched the league title since 2017. Their popularity as the biggest club in the capital is also an ongoing competition, which puts the potential move to Twickenham as a real test of their stature in football.

Because if this venue turns out to be impractical, Wembley could then be a potential alternative, but that would present an entirely new set of challenges.

[NikkiCFC 8,471]

On 06/05/2025 at 17:17, King Kante said:

Wyss saying EC would be best. However, it also appears the stadium is still up in the air. 

It's just sad. 

 

[Vesper 30,589]

1 hour ago, NikkiCFC said:

It's just sad. 

 

2042 ???!!!!!!???!!!!

what the almighty shitfuckery is THIS ??????!!!!

that is over 17 YEARS from NOW

 

 

[ZAPHOD2319 4,862]

 

[James 5,387]

Getting the Bridge ready for tomorrow! 🤩🔵

[ahmedou 212]

The squad

[ahmedou 212]

The Bus

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPlcFGYgKLr/?igsh=MWkyejc5NTVzdGVmag==

[NikkiCFC 8,471]

Meanwhile...

 

[xPetrCechx 13,586]

Almost 2026 and still nothing concrete on this topic...

[Vesper 30,589]

23 hours ago, xPetrCechx said:

Almost 2026 and still nothing concrete on this topic...

Earls Court being åretty much pulled of the table a few weeks back was a big blow

I have no idea what the owners want to do now

Boehly really wanted Earls Court

so did Wyss

but the others want to stay at the current site

its a massive clusterfuck

has been ever since the Home Office refused to renew Roman's passport (that was before the new Ukraine invasion) over the Skripal poisonings and he then pulled the plug on that magnificent new stadium of his (which would probably be almostt down by now in 2026 or 2027 if not for Putin)

it's been years but I predicted it all on here, as soon as those Skripal poisonings were definitively linked to Putin I said that we were well fucked and the club would eventually be seized (and that was before the invasion, which etched all that in stone as a sure thing)

[Vesper 30,589]

Why Chelsea’s hopes of a stadium at Earls Court may not yet be over

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6896581/2025/12/18/Chelsea-stadium-earls-court-planning/

Chelsea still believe there is a chance of them building a new stadium at Earls Court, even though an alternative plan for the land has been approved by both councils involved.

The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) is now close to receiving full planning permission for a mixed-use development on the same land that had been mooted as a potential site for a new stadium for Chelsea.

However, club sources, on the condition of anonymity as they were not authorised to speak publicly, have indicated that they are still considering all options for the future of their stadium — including a new ground at Earls Court.

The Athletic explains what the decision means for Chelsea’s future stadium plans.

---

What has happened?

Kensington and Chelsea Council granted planning permission for a mixed-use development on the site of the old Earls Court Exhibition Centre at a meeting on Tuesday evening. That followed Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s approval in November; both councils needed to agree as the site crosses borough boundaries.

The application will now go to the Mayor of London, who has 14 days to decide whether to allow the local councils’ decision to stand, direct refusal, or take over the application and become the local planning authority. That 14-day clock starts from when the Mayor’s office receives the councils’ official submission, which could theoretically be weeks after Tuesday’s meeting.

Both councils voting for the ECDC’s plan does not guarantee that it will go ahead, but it is a significant step forward. Jamie Ritblat, founder and executive chairman of property developers Delancey (one of the founders of the ECDC), called the approval “a hugely important milestone”.

“We look forward to continuing to engage with both our local Boroughs, with the Mayor of London’s office and the Government to ensure that these significant benefits can quickly come forward,” Ritblat said in a statement on the ECDC’s website on Wednesday.

An aerial view of Stamford Bridge in 2000, showing Earls Court Exhibition Centre in the backgroundEnglish Heritage/Getty Images

---

What does this have to do with Chelsea?

Chelsea were considering the possibility of building a new stadium on the land. The club’s desire to have a stadium befitting an elite European club is longstanding. Stamford Bridge, which holds around 40,000 people, is currently the 11th-largest stadium in the Premier League. It cannot host events like concerts or tournament matches in the same way other grounds in London can. The view is that an upgraded stadium is needed to help the club compete financially, and that a bigger ground can help cope with the large demand for tickets from the fanbase.

The future of Chelsea’s stadium is not a new debate. Under previous owner Roman Abramovich, the club submitted an offer for the Battersea Power Station site in 2012, in which they proposed to build a 60,000-capacity ground, but a Malaysian consortium purchased the site instead. In 2017, Chelsea secured planning permission for a 60,000-seat stadium on the site of Stamford Bridge, but the project was put on hold in 2018 after Abramovich was not issued a new UK visa. Any new plans to redevelop Stamford Bridge would need new planning permission.

Since the Todd Boehly-Clearlake consortium took control of Chelsea in 2022, they have been determined to push Chelsea’s stadium plans forward, but it has not progressed too much so far. There is a debate between building a new stadium on the existing Stamford Bridge site or moving to a new site — hence why nearby Earls Court is under consideration.

Building on a different site, such as Earls Court, would allow Chelsea to continue playing at Stamford Bridge during construction, and the larger plot of land would allow potential for further development around it. However, Chelsea do not own the land at Earls Court. A move away from Stamford Bridge would also need approval from Chelsea Pitch Owners, the supporter group that owns the freehold to the land Stamford Bridge stands on.

---

What is going to happen at Earls Court? Could it still host a stadium?

The proposal by the ECDC is for a mixed-use development at the site of the old Earls Court Exhibition Centre. This will include new homes, retail and hospitality, and workplaces. The ECDC say the project will deliver 4,000 homes and 12,000 jobs. They hope to move forward with the development as quickly as possible and expect works to begin in late 2026. Their plans do not include a stadium.

However, Chelsea sources speaking to The Athletic on condition of anonymity say the club have not ruled out building a stadium at Earls Court. The view is that this planning permission does not necessarily translate to the ECDC project going ahead.

The Earls Court Redevelopment site, as seen in November 2023Betty Laura Zapata/Getty Images

One source indicated that a stadium could be added to the ECDC’s development plans, as it would only take up around one-third of the land. Those with knowledge of the planning process have told The Athletic that adding a stadium would be a big enough change that a new planning application would need to be made and go through the process from the beginning. However, a proposal including a world-class stadium would likely have little problem getting approval relatively quickly, as it would involve massive private-sector investment and create benefits for the community.

---

What does the decision mean for Chelsea, and what are their other options?

Chelsea’s perspective is that the councils’ approval does not represent a definitive decision on what happens to the land, so all options are still under consideration — including a stadium at Earls Court. The councils granting planning permission has not changed their thinking.

An alternative to a stadium at Earls Court would be rebuilding on the current site of Stamford Bridge. Chelsea expanded the land they own at Stamford Bridge in 2024 by completing the acquisition of another 1.9 acres adjacent to the site. However, a rebuild brings its own challenges. Redeveloping the ground stand-by-stand is not considered feasible, so the entire stadium would have to be demolished and rebuilt. That would mean playing home games elsewhere, with Wembley Stadium one option. One source indicated this could last for more than five years because of the challenges of construction. The fact that Stamford Bridge is located in a residential area also makes a rebuilding project complex.

Any new plans to redevelop Stamford Bridge would also need to go through the planning permission process, and would require approval from the Mayor.

By Cerys Jones and Simon Johnson