Chelsea could be homeless for SIX YEARS as Boehly faces a redevelopment dilemma
CHELSEA are faced with a nightmare choice over plans for a new stadium.
Blues, bosses believe they have only two options: spend SIX YEARS away from Stamford Bridge while it is redeveloped, or pay the trouble to buy land and build elsewhere.
3
3
And there is growing frustration within the club that little progress has been made since the new owners arrived almost two years ago.
Chelsea previously wanted to renovate the stadium’s current standby, as Liverpool did at Anfield.
In October, the owners of a veterans housing block next to Stamford Bridge agreed to sell the club, under new owner Todd Boehly, a plot of land next to the stadium for £80 million.
That deal has yet to be completed, but sources say club chiefs have now decided that going through separate planning and construction processes and all the associated disruptions would be unworkable.
So if the Blues are determined to stay at the Stamford Bridge ground, which has been their home since 1905, that would mean demolishing the entire complex and starting over.
The latest estimate is that such a project would take six years, forcing the club to rent a temporary home such as Wembley.
Chelsea have been repeatedly linked with building a new ground on the site of the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre, around a mile from their current stadium.
But just buying the land there would cost at least £500 million before a brick was laid.
Whose ground could Chelsea share?
ANY renovation of Stamford Bridge means huge headaches if Chelsea have to move temporarily.
Fulham is the closest top tier, but sharing grounds would be a logistical nightmare.
That’s why the Blues have almost ruled it out.
This is mainly because Chelsea wants a stadium with at least 40,000 spectators, while Craven Cottage has a capacity of only 29,000 spectators.
But Stamford Bridge leaders are also thought to be concerned about the lack of business facilities on site.
Wembley could be another option.
Brent Council gave Tottenham permission to host 62,000 supporters when Spurs used the national stadium in 2017/18 and 2018/19.
And a similar arrangement would suit the Blues.
But there are practical issues, including that Wembley is 10 miles from Stamford Bridge and not the easiest journey by public transport or car from Chelsea.
Speculation has also surrounded it West Ham‘s London Stadium and rugby union “capital” Twickenham.
But due to opposition from both residents and fans, both locations appear to be backing away.
A new 60,000-seat stadium, similar to Tottenham’s new ground, would cost them at least an additional £1 billion.
Chelsea’s ownership group, led by Boehly, has spent £2.5 billion on purchasing the club in 2022 and promised £1.75 billion in further investment.
Since then, more than £1 billion has been spent on players.
But the stadium project has been much slower.
Why the Blues need to make the right decision
DAN KING gives his verdict on the big issues behind Chelsea’s redevelopment story…
Stamford Bridge, with its three outdated stands and a capacity of just over 40,000, now feels shabby and outdated compared to their London rivals.
Just as importantly, both Arsenal and Tottenham earn significantly more money per home game than Chelsea: £870,000 and £1.03 million more per match respectively.
And that’s a big reason why Tottenham overtook Chelsea in terms of total revenue for the first time in the latest Deloitte Money League, becoming the highest-earning club in London in 2022-2023 with £549.2 million.
No path forward seems simple.
It is a difficult decision, crucial for the future of the club. Not something to rush.
But the longer Chelsea’s owners wait, the more ground they will lose to their rivals, both on and off the pitch.
Click here to read Dan King’s full take on the situation at Chelsea’s stadium.