Chelsea have been flirting with the idea of a stadium change for some time now, weighing up moving to a new location or rebuilding Stamford Bridge.
There have been two schools of thought when it comes to these stadium plans.
One is to move to Earl’s Court, a nearby site large enough to hold a stadium bigger than Chelsea’s current home turf. The Earl’s Court plan could cost £1-2 billion.
The other option is to knock down and rebuild Stamford Bridge with a larger capacity.
Both plans have their benefits and drawbacks, but the decision might have just been made for the Blues after a recent development.
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. 👇
Chelsea FC v Fulham FC - Premier League
Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images
👇 Join the debate; share your insight. Use the comment button on the bottom left to have your say
Earl’s Court Development Company gets green light for residential project amid Chelsea links
It looks like the site Chelsea were considering for a move won’t be available after a £10 billion regeneration project was approved on Tuesday.
As Nizaar Kinsella shares on X: “Kensington and Chelsea Council have approved the Earls Court Development which makes it very unlikely Chelsea FC can acquire the site for a redevelopment.
“Hammersmith and Fulham also approved the ECDC project. It means that the Mayor of London just now needs to rubber-stamp it but the biggest hurdles have been overcome.”
It was already thought that Chelsea are more likely to stay at Stamford Bridge in any redevelopment plan, but the Earl’s Court option was always being kept as a possibility.
Now though, remaining at the current site is the probable outcome, and it could see the Blues move to a famous location while work is carried out.
As Kinsella explains: “My read is that, for Chelsea, it makes staying at Stamford Bridge, knocking down the stadium and rebuilding it to a bigger 60,000 capacity will most likely be the main viable option.
“It would also mean several seasons at a temporary stadium, most probably Wembley Stadium.”
A rebuild like this is no small undertaking, and it will mean a strange new environment for Chelsea for a few years. This story is moving slowly, though, so no assumptions can be made quite yet.
A Stamford Bridge rebuild looks to be on the cards after Earl’s Court decision 🧱
Wembley Stadium
Photo by Eddie Keogh/Getty Images
Is Wembley Stadium the best option for Chelsea during construction?
👇 Join the debate; share your insight. Use the comment button on the bottom left to have your say
Chelsea’s stadium redevelopment will be a long-term gain
If Stamford Bridge is the chosen location, it will mean quite a bit of instability in the short term. The redevelopment could take Chelsea six years. The Blues could well lose the edge that their current home ground gives them.
But Chelsea are one of the biggest clubs in the world, and the stadium should reflect that.
The Bridge is an iconic ground full of history, but the 40,000 capacity lags behind England’s top clubs.
General view of Stamford Bridge
Photo by Chris Lee – Chelsea FC/Chelsea FC via Getty Images
It could mean an even more turbulent environment around the club in coming seasons, but the end result would be a net gain for Chelsea.
This is all still largely speculative — Kinsella clarifies: “Club are still exploring all options.”
Join Our Newsletter
Receive a digest of our best Chelsea content each week direct to your mailbox