Boehly faces a problem Abramovich couldn’t solve, but it’s CRUCIAL for the Blues’ future
While Mauricio Pochettino is struggling to build a team on the pitch, his Chelsea bosses are finding it equally difficult to build a stadium out of it.
The consortium led by Todd Boehly is not only struggling to match the football success achieved under Roman Abramovich.
2
Their new regime is also finding it difficult to solve the biggest problem that even the billionaire Russian failed to solve during his 19-year rule.
Namely, how can we provide a stadium and facilities that suit a club that aspires to be one of the best in the world and is necessary to generate the revenue to keep it that way.
Located in one of the wealthiest postcodes in the country, Chelsea is supposed to be the most glamorous place to watch Premier League football, perhaps in the world.
But it’s not even the top destination in London anymore.
Arsenal, Tottenham and West Ham all moved into 60,000-seater houses, while Roman’s rubles brought the lion’s share of trophies to SW6.
Stamford Bridge, with its three aging stands and a capacity of just over 40,000, now feels shabby and old-fashioned in comparison.
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.
It would be unfair to say that Abramovich and his henchmen and wives did not see the writing on the wall. Battersea Power Station, White City, Chelsea Barracks and the former Earls Court Exhibition Center – all were considered, rejected and, for some, reconsidered.
To finance the move to a new location, Abramovich wanted to sell Stamford Bridge. But a major problem was – and is – that the club does not have full ownership of the stadium itself.
That was sold in 1997 to a fan-run organization called Chelsea Pitch Owners, in a move designed to protect the club and its home after property speculators almost sold it out from under them.
In 2011, Abramovich attempted to buy back the property.
SunSport revealed how a number of people linked to Abramovich, chairman Bruce Buck and other members of the Chelsea hierarchy bought large numbers of CPO shares in the run-up to the vote.
But perhaps because of the atmosphere of distrust that emerged, they failed to secure the 75 percent of shareholder votes needed to approve the sale.
It wasn’t the kind of dick you’d imagine being made by Abramovich’s old friend Vladimir Putin.
It was Abramovich’s ties to Putin’s regime that ultimately derailed plans for a new stadium during his rule – forcing him to sell the problem and pass it on to new owners.
Chelsea received planning permission for a new 60,000-seat ground at Stamford Bridge in early 2017.
The FA thought it was a good idea to move Tottenham from Wembley and welcome another money-hungry tenant.
But the Blues announced in May 2018 that they would suspend their plans indefinitely, not long after the British government refused to grant Abramovich a new visa.
After Russia invaded Ukraine, Abramovich was among the accomplices sanctioned and for a while the club’s survival seemed to be at stake.
Whose ground could Chelsea share?
Any renovation of Stamford Bridge means enormous headaches if Chelsea has 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.
When Boehly and Clearlake Capital bought Chelsea for £2.5 billion in May 2022, they pledged to invest an additional £1.75 billion in a number of projects, including Stamford Bridge.
They quickly appointed Janet Marie Smith, an architect with extensive experience in renovating major sporting venues in America, to oversee the plans to revamp the Blues stadium.
Last October, Chelsea agreed to buy Stoll Mansions and 1.2 hectares of land next to the ground for £80 million.
Even that was not without controversy, as the Chelsea pensioners living there would have to be relocated.
But much bigger problems remain with Chelsea’s current home.
The District Line runs east to west along one side of it and the main line runs north to south on the other side.
There are major roads, social housing, Brompton Cemetery and all kinds of issues that make the redevelopment of the area a complicated, long and expensive process.
The latest view from within the club is that it would take six years to achieve this, but even that inconvenience would be better than the previous standby plan.
The alternative is to cough up prime real estate elsewhere – and the club appears no closer to finding an affordable, viable location than before. Not if Earls Court cost half a billion.
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.