Chelsea’s £1billion Stamford Bridge decision that could tear the club apart | OneFootball

Knock it down and start again or build a new super stadium elsewhere? The big dilemma that threatens to split owners

To get a handle on the complexities involved in Chelsea’s long-stalling plan to redevelop their stadium, consider the series of players and events that have scuppered past attempts.

There were the Malaysian property developers who swooped to buy Battersea Power Station more than a decade ago, trumping Chelsea’s bid for the site they viewed as the ideal new home.

There was the single family, the Crosthwaites, who lived near Stamford Bridge and secured an injunction against a rebuild that would have infringed on the “right to light” in their home.

The Salisbury nerve-agent attack did not help either. As tensions with Russia simmered, Roman Abramovich saw his UK visa renewal delayed and pulled the plug on his stadium plans, unwilling, according to the BBC, to back a major project in a country where he was not allowed to work.

Even Henry VIII had his say. Were Chelsea to expand the height of Stamford Bridge, it might obscure a protected sightline between St. Paul’s Cathedral and King Henry’s Mound in Richmond.

So, that’s real estate rivals, angry neighbours, geopolitics and deceased Tudor monarchs, before you even get to sating the usual suspects: local business owners, two different borough councils, City Hall, the Government, Transport for London and, of course, a huge, worldwide fanbase of too diverse an opinion to be satisfied all at once.

Where to go, what to do and how? These are the issues supporters debate and which, according to co-owner Todd Boehly of all people, have the potential to tear the club apart from within.

Uneasy relationship: Chelsea co-owners Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital’s Behdad Eghbali

Mike Egerton/PA Wire

Boehly’s admission last week that he and majority shareholder Clearlake Capital would have to be on the same page on their stadium ambitions or else go their separate ways was surprising.

So, too, given Chelsea’s two decades of effort without progress, was his confidence in insisting: “We’ll figure it out”.

Need a nice earner

Where there is something approaching consensus is that Stamford Bridge is an outdated home.

Opened in 1877, and Chelsea’s base since 1905, it is the oldest ground in the Premier League and, at capacity just north of 40,000, will be only the tenth biggest once Everton move into Bramley-Moore Dock next term. Were Sunderland promoted, it would slip out of the top-half.

As a result, the Blues are at a major disadvantage against their rivals in terms of matchday revenue, which, according to Deloitte, is the fastest growing revenue stream among elite European clubs, as broadcast deals stagnate.

In 2023-24, income at Stamford Bridge was £30million lower than at Tottenham, £40m lower than at Liverpool, and £60m shy of takings at Arsenal and Manchester United - and that is before you even consider the advantages beyond match day.

Home: Chelsea have played at Stamford Bridge since 1905

Chelsea FC via Getty Images

That Chelsea have still managed to outspend their rivals and comply with Profit and Sustainability Rules during the Boehly-Clearlake era is partially a result of their remarkable record as a selling club.

According to Maguire, Chelsea have made £350m more from player sales than any other English club over the last decade, and half-a-billion more than Man United.

“That’s effectively subsidised the problems they’ve got in Stamford Bridge only being a 41,000-capacity stadium,” he says. “But can they maintain that forever?

“It’s a really tough market trying to persuade eight, nine, ten-year-olds to come to you and stay with you. The advantage they’ve had historically can’t be guaranteed in the future.”

Street vision

A stand-by-stand expansion of the existing stadium has been all-but ruled out, promising only a modest rise in capacity.

To deliver a 60,000-seat stadium capable of generating significantly higher revenue both on and beyond match days, Chelsea will have to either demolish and rebuild Stamford Bridge, or construct an entirely new home elsewhere.

Earls Court has emerged as the most likely location in the latter scenario, if only for the lack of alternatives.

However, the 40-acre site, which once housed the Earls Court Exhibition Centre, is not Chelsea’s to build on and the owners already have planning application lodged for a massive residential, office and retail park.

To change that, Chelsea would have to buy part or all of the land - and given it was last sold for £425m six years ago, it would not come cheap.

Angus Campbell is a senior architect at Foster + Partners, the firm that delivered Wembley and the Lusail Stadium in Qatar, and will be among those pitching for the job should Chelsea invite tenders.

He believes a complete rebuild at Stamford Bridge is not only more likely, but also makes most sense.

“You can create hospitality, lots of ticket levels, increase the capacity, but there’s a cap on how much you can earn that way,” he explains.

Instead, Campbell talks of stadiums as “anchors” for wider urban regenerations and, given Chelsea’s prime location, he has visions of Stamford Bridge as an inter-woven hub in what is already a vibrant part of the city.

Star man: Chelsea talisman Cole Palmer celebrates after scoring at Stamford Bridge

Action Images via Reuters

“Imagine you took the King’s Road and wrapped a kilometre of King’s Road around Stamford Bridge,” he says. “So, on a non-event day it was just a natural part of the street fabric. There’s a lot of people around and it would be a very good stitch into the neighbourhood.”

The architectural challenges to expansion, though, are significant, with the Bridge penned between two railway lines and the Fulham Road.

In terms of finances, Campbell believes Everton’s 52,000-capacity new home is a better barometer than Tottenham’s £1.2billion home, due to the latter’s investment in a retractable pitch to host NFL games. He estimates the build could come in anywhere between £800m and £1bn.

Not every cost, though, is quantifiable: to rebuild Stamford Bridge, Chelsea would have to play somewhere else - most likely Wembley - for between five and seven years.

Pitch Owners’ power

Fan sentiment plays a defining role in any stadium move but, in Chelsea’s case, supporter clout extends beyond opinion and into a tangible say.

Set up amid the financial turmoil of the 1990s, the Chelsea Pitch Owners control the freehold at Stamford Bridge, as well as the naming rights to Chelsea Football Club. Only with their permission - a 75 per cent majority at a members’ vote - could the team play elsewhere under that name.

Abramovich tried and failed to buy the freehold back in 2011 and CPO has often been criticised as a barrier to progress, an accusation their chair, Chris Isitt, refutes.

“There is a perception among people who know nothing about CPO that we’re a bunch of old gits who have supported Chelsea since the 1960s and would rather die than see the thing move,” he tells Standard Sport. “In fact, it’s a very diverse, broad church of opinion.”

The CPO has around 15,000 shareholders spanning more than 80 countries around the world. There is a core group “who have been man and boy at Stamford Bridge” and are “very committed to maintaining the status quo”, but there are others who accept redevelopment as a commercial necessity and, in fact, plenty of overlap between the two groups.

Imagine you wrapped a kilometre of King’s Road around Stamford Bridge so it was just a natural part of the street fabric

Angus Campbell, senior architect at Foster + Partners

There are different views, too, over whether temporary relocation to keep the club at Stamford Bridge in the long run would be acceptable.

Predicting which way the collective would sway if called to vote is, Isitt believes, impossible at this stage. “Every opinion is out there to be heard,” he says.

“I couldn’t tell you what percentage of shareholders would support any of them because until we see anything presented, we won’t put anything out for those decisions to be made.

“But when the time comes, you can bet your life that everybody will have a say.”

Clearlake v Boehly?

Boehly’s remarks last week came with confusing contradictions about the state of his relationship with Clearlake, headed by Behdad Eghbali.

He initially played down talk of a boardroom rift, calling it media-fuelled “drama” and insisting “the status quo is something that’s just fine”, but then suggested a permanent fracture was a distinct possibility when the stadium topic was raised.

“I think that’s going to be where we’re either aligned or we ultimately decide to go different ways,” the 51-year-old said.

The frankness and timing of that comment felt odd on two fronts.

One, because tensions at board level appear to have eased in recent months, having at one point this season spilled into the open. Two, though, is that on many aspects of the redevelopment, the co-owners do seem aligned.

Both, for instance, agree that expanding the existing Stamford Bridge is not an option. Both want the new facility to be truly multi-purpose, fit to host concerts and other sporting events.

“You’re going to see the NBA go to Europe, they need stadiums, they need arenas,” Boehly said in a major hint last week.

If there is a split over which path the project should take, then it is not yet set along concrete lines. Boehly is thought to prefer a move to Earls Court, while Clearlake are still considering all options, but neither has issued the other with an ultimatum.

Crucially, both see giving Chelsea a home fit to last a century as a crucial part of their long-term project, whether it remains a joint venture or not.

Trouble is, that was clear when they bought the club in 2022, as it was to Abramovich before that. Look how far we haven’t come.