Chelsea have dithered over the future of Stamford Bridge for too long and, with the news that Earl’s Court is perhaps no longer an option, the club are running out of road.
There is some debate about whether Hammersmith and Fulham council’s decision to nod through a £10bn redevelopment plan for Earl’s Court is a death knell for Chelsea’s loose plan to build a new stadium on the site.
Some have suggested that the green light from the council could, in theory, make it easier for Chelsea or another developer to purchase the entire site and amend the plans wholesale in the future.
But even if that is the case, it appears that the club’s ownership is far from a united front on the issue.
Diagram illustrating the ownership of Chelsea, split between factions led by Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali's Clearlake Capital
Chelsea ownership diagram Credit: Adam Williams/GRV Media/The Chelsea Chronicle
Chelsea owners split over new stadium
Todd Boehly, Mark Walter and Hansjorg Wyss, who together own about 39 per cent of Chelsea, favour building a new stadium entirely.
A blank canvas, they believe, is the best way to extract maximum commercial and matchday income from a stadium.
Chelsea co-owners Todd Boehly and Mark Walter watch on in Club World Cup final
Photo by Robbie Jay Barratt – AMA/Getty Images
Clearlake Capital, meanwhile, want to remain at Stamford Bridge and expand, ideally towards the 60,000 mark. Either way, the revamp is likely to cost in excess of £1bn, potentially up to £3bn.
But with clubs in the Premier League and beyond plotting ways to dramatically increase stadium income, it’s an expense that the ownership cannot afford not to sanction.
Premier League set to hit £1bn in matchday income as Chelsea stutter over Stamford Bridge
Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham all generate £100-150m-plus through the turnstiles every year. When their expansion project is complete, Man City will join that club.
The Premier League’s middle class – Everton, West Ham, Aston Villa, Leeds United and so on – have all either moved into new, commercially-geared stadiums or are planning to expand significantly. In the next few years, they too will be looking to join the nine-figure club.
At the last count, Chelsea’s matchday takings were £80m, compared to £78m in the Champions League-winning 2011-12 season. Adjust for inflation and the Blues have actually gone backwards by about £35m.
Infographic showing Chelsea's matchday income and stadium capacity relative to the rest of the Premier League, with The Chelsea Chronicle logo
Chelsea stadium capacity and matchday income Credit: Adam Williams/The Chelsea Chronicle/GRV Media
Once the accounts for 2024-25 are released in the spring, the Premier League is expected to hit £1bn in total matchday income. If not then, then Everton’s move to the Hill Dickinson Stadium and the return of two big hitters in Leeds United and Sunderland guarantees £1bn this season.
And it’s not just ticketing income that is being lost. When it comes to hosting non-football events, Spurs are in a different universe to Chelsea and can generate £50m-plus in annual revenue from concerts, the NFL and so on.
Chelsea will regret Battersea Power Station failure, says Kieran Maguire
With the Premier League and UEFA having moved towards a revenue-based model of spending limits, the opportunity cost of neglecting the future of Stamford Bridge will have a real impact in the transfer market and, by extension, on the pitch.
“Every year that a decision is delayed is a year that the gap between Chelsea, the two North London clubs and Manchester United grows further,” says Liverpool University football finance lecturer Kieran Maguire, speaking exclusively to The Chelsea Chronicle.
According to Maguire, if a move to Earl’s Court has hit the buffers, Chelsea might face legal obstacles from residents around Stamford Bridge if they want to expand on the existing site.
“Chelsea have done some local research and the conclusion is that they are surrounded by very wealthy property owners who don’t like the thought of shovels in the ground next door.
“There would be an impact on light pollution and so on. These are people who, individually and collectively, have the resources to make life very awkward for you through legal challenges, so there are logistical challenges with Stamford Bridge.”
Stay at Stamford Bridge or start again with a brand-new stadium?
Chelsea fans, what’s the right call for the next 50 years? Have your say in the comments below. ð
Chelsea FC v Fulham FC - Premier League
Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images
A few years ago, Chelsea acquired a plot of land near Stamford Bridge which is seen as being indispensable to the potential expansion of the stadium.
The £80m deal to acquire the 1.2-acre site of Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions was viewed by many as a precursor to the redevelopment of the Bridge, but that was before the split between the two ownership factions emerged publicly.
“You can’t build down, so they need to expand the footprint. It’s a difficult situation,” continues Maguire.
“The opportunities that they had at Battersea Power Station a few years ago are now coming back to haunt them.”
In the Roman Abramovich era, Chelsea had several visions for a new stadium. For various reasons – ranging from the price of land to visa issues on Abramovich’s part – none came to fruition.
The Battersea Power Station plan was easily the most eye-catching, with architects planning to build a stadium into the existing site and use its iconic chimneys as a feature of the design.
Some have remarked that Birmingham City’s recently-released mock-ups of their would-be 62,000-seat stadium look pretty similar to Chelsea’s plans back in 2012.
Eventually, the club lost the bid to build at Battersea to a rival developer.