Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images
Photo by Richard Heathcote/Getty Images
With Clearlake now in full control at Chelsea, plans to either redevelop Stamford Bridge or build a new ground elsewhere can go ahead. A main point of contention for Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali.
Clearlake have bought out Boehly and Mark Walter, to the tune of £1bn. They have taken their stake from little over 60% to around 87%. Hansjorg Wyss owns the other 13%, though Clearlake have full control.
It has been a long time coming, but it is a deal that finally sees Chelsea move into a new era with Behdad Eghbali at the helm. There is confidence that the club is in better hands, with Eghbali calling the shots.
But one big elephant in the room is Chelsea’s home. Do the Blues look to expand and improve Stamford Bridge, or do they start building a new home while renovating? Well, one scenario won’t sit well with fans.
READ MORE:How much Clearlake rate Chelsea after buying 25% for £1bn from Walter and Boehly
Chelsea’s plans in full, including temporary Wembley move
According to The Mail, Clearlake have ruled out one option, leaving two more definite options. The first is to knock Stamford Bridge down to the ground and start again, or build a new stadium in a new location.
The most likely location would be Earl’s Court. The group leading the development of Earl’s Court have already announced their plan, and it doesn’t include a stadium. But Chelsea believe there is some room.
A graphic reading 'CONFIRMED: Todd Boehly sells his Chelsea stake to Clearlake Capital'. Image shows Todd Boehly at Stamford Bridge.
Credit: Photo by Vince Mignott/MB Media/Getty Images
That’s very harsh! He made some terrible decisions but at least he spent big. Can’t say he didn’t try to do well even if he got it wrong. The same can’t be said for Ashley etc
Boehly probably has a worse reputation than he deserves. Everyone knows his name but few speak about Eghbali for some reason. I will remember Boehly as clueless but ambitious, and that’s better than many owners.
Knocking Stamford Bridge down and rebuilding a new ground could take some time. Chelsea sources indicate that it would take seven or eight years before Chelsea could return to a newly built ground.
Clearlake have a big decision to make, with other clubs building stadiums and increasing revenue through larger ticket sales. Leeds are in the process of doing it; Spurs and Liverpool have also increased capacity.
Moving to Wembley for eight years would be a disaster
Tottenham might have actually performed well during their relocation to Wembley for 19 months while their stadium was built. But to do it for eight years would anger Chelsea’s vociferous home support.
To go without a permanent home would damage the club’s relationship with the supporters. It would take so long due to the difficulty of rebuilding on the Stamford Bridge site; Spurs fans hated moving.
If that is the move Clearlake and Eghbali decide to make, you can expect a poor reaction from fans who have already been put through a lot in the last few years, largely due to BlueCo’s ownership of the club.
The simple message is this: Chelsea cannot knock down Stamford Bridge and relocate for eight years. They need to build a stadium alongside Stamford Bridge, or find a way to renovate the current stadium.