Another topic on every Chelsea fan’s lips lately is that of the potential renovation of Stamford Bridge.
The Mail are reporting that if Chelsea do stay at Stamford Bridge rather than build a new stadium, then renovation will not start until 2026 at the earliest anyway.
Why is this? Well, Chelsea have bought a piece of land owned by Stoll housing association and Stoll have said that they will get two years now to plan their next steps, giving Chelsea more time to plan their next steps also.
You would think that this purchase by Chelsea would certainly mean that the plan is to stay at Stamford Bridge but other outlets and individuals in recent weeks have still not ruled out Chelsea building a new ground, around the Earls Court area of London.
Stamford Bridge has a current capacity of approximately 40,000 fans and rumours have suggested that the owners would look to make the ground around 55,000 seats.
In my opinion, I would like to stay at Stamford Bridge but the length of the renovation could be around 5 years and the place holder options in terms of stadiums do not inspire me.
Wembley is a massive stadium but is notoriously hard to create atmosphere and is even further geographically than Stamford Bridge.
Plus, I believe that if we do move to Wembley, as Twickenhem and Craven Cottage are unlikely, teams will use Wembley as fuel to play even better as they wouldn’t usually get the chance to play there.
If only 55000 seat only compare to other clubs which are 60000 + seater it’s better to build to a new place for more seater . Earl’s Court is better.