Stamford Bridge Thread

[bluesman2610 1,373]

  On 29/10/2024 at 19:06, DH1988 said:

Unbelievable that it's even thought of to go to Ukraine, not that I do not care for the people of Ukraine, I do not have an ounce of sympathy for the war or anything economic associated.

The same attitude as the people asking for charity money on the street, does my £20 end up at the source of the need? Does it F.

An absolute farce they were able to force us into a sale in the first place.

Expand  

Especially when you take into account the things that were done to Roman when he tried to intervene

[mkh 373]

‼️ Chelsea plans to build brand new Earls Court stadium back on agenda and Government could foot some of the bill.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/33125822/Chelsea-boost-new-stadium-earls-court-stamford-bridge/

[Fulham Broadway 17,092]

Government still sat on £2.5bn of Russian money when SB was confiscated. 

Now the US has pulled the plug on funding Ukraine war, They plan to use that money for weapons for Ukraine

If it escalates into full blown conflict - where will the first Russian ballistic missile land ?

Answers on a postcard....

[King Kante 1,563]

TB has been speaking about the dynamics of the club. Seems like there is a split between redevelopment and new build. My guess is the new build would be at Earls Court. Imo, the club should prioritise Earls Court as it has much better transport links, they would have more scope to make it multi-purpose and we could build whilst not moving away from SB. Will be interesting how this plays out. 

[ZAPHOD2319 4,598]

 

[Fernando 6,534]

  On 26/03/2025 at 18:08, ZAPHOD2319 said:

 

Expand  

Can the demolition work?

I thought not possible because of the Metro?

Earls court was the easiest but CPO would not let that happen. 

[King Kante 1,563]

  On 26/03/2025 at 18:34, Fernando said:

Can the demolition work?

I thought not possible because of the Metro?

Earls court was the easiest but CPO would not let that happen. 

Expand  

I cannot see why CPO wouldn't agree. Earls Court is really the perfect spot for a multitude of reasons. 

Access - three tube stops and a overground are in the vicinity. In addition it has three+ exits. 

Ease of works - the club can stay at SB while they build EC. No need to feck off to Wembley for four+ years. 

Stadium viability - With the above and the footprint of EC the club can build a fully fit for purpose stadium and monetise the surround area of the grounds. In addition, EC was/is long established as being an events arena. This will mean residents will not be able to complain as easily about other events taking place there. 

Access to Heathrow. EC has a direct tube link to Heathrow. This makes it easier of international fans, artists etc to get to the ground. 

The only issue I see is the Chelsea name and the pitch ownership. However, if the club are sensible they will transfer that to EC. 

EC is by far and away the prime spot. It is only a 20-30 minute walk from SB so it is not as if we are moving away from our established/historic area. For me as a pitch owner there is absolutely no reason to stay at SB if EC is a possibility. 

Edited March 26 by King Kante

[Vesper 29,450]

Chelsea risk falling inexorably behind while the future of Stamford Bridge remains unresolved

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6229780/2025/03/26/Chelsea-stamford-bridge-boehly-clearlake-eghbali/

“We have to think long-term about what we’re trying to accomplish. We have a big stadium development opportunity that we have to flesh out. I think that’s going to be where we’re either aligned or we ultimately decide to go different ways.”

With one enigmatic sentence in an interview with Bloomberg this week, Todd Boehly brought the minds of many Chelsea supporters back to the ownership friction with majority shareholders Clearlake Capital that had gone quiet since spilling out publicly last September.

Yet it was actually the unresolved stadium issue, referenced before the talk of parting ways, that has an even more substantial bearing on the club’s future.

June will mark the third anniversary of Clearlake and Boehly’s £2.3billion ($2.98bn) takeover of Chelsea, and there is a distinct possibility that it will come and go without any public communication of a stadium plan.

Only one option has been definitively discounted, according to senior club sources who spoke anonymously to The Athletic: there will be no stand-by-stand renovation of Stamford Bridge. In terms of the costs involved, the disruption and the limited ability to improve matchday experience or capacity, such a revamp is not regarded as feasible.

That leaves only a complete demolition and redevelopment of Chelsea’s home of 120 years or a move to the other end of Brompton Cemetery, and the vast site which formerly housed the Earls Court Exhibition Centre. The unique challenges involved in the former would likely make it one of the most complicated stadium construction projects undertaken by a football club, while the costs involved in purchasing the Earls Court site from property developer Delancey and then building a modern stadium on it would be formidably expensive.

There is a widespread belief that Boehly is set on moving to Earls Court, while Clearlake has not ruled out staying at Stamford Bridge as it continues to evaluate both stadium options. The reality is that neither party has declared their position, and Chelsea are trying to maintain a delicate balance between thorough due diligence and a sense of urgency that recognises how far the club has already fallen behind many Premier League rivals in this regard.

 

Stamford Bridge, Chelsea’s home since 1905 (Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)

Roman Abramovich knew Chelsea needed a new stadium to match their new status 15 years ago. This is a problem that Clearlake and Boehly inherited, and one of the conditions of their takeover was a firm commitment to build a stadium befitting of a club in Europe’s elite. The initial suggestions that a stadium plan would be communicated by the end of the 2022 seemed optimistic, even at the time.

That self-imposed deadline was pushed back to the summer of 2023, then to sometime in 2024.

Shareholders queued out the door to get a seat in the Drake Suite at Stamford Bridge for the annual general meeting of Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) — the fan group which owns the freehold of the stadium and the name Chelsea FC — in January. News that club president and chief operating officer Jason Gannon would be in attendance had some hopeful of finally hearing a firm announcement of a stadium plan.

Instead they heard a reprise of a familiar message: nothing is decided, but when we have news we will share it.

Gannon’s presence was still well received and he has made a positive impression in proactive dialogue with Chelsea fan groups, particularly in contrast to previous chief executive Chris Jurasek. Formerly the managing director of SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, Gannon has extensive relevant expertise and has been very active since his appointment in October 2023 in exploring the feasibility of the Stamford Bridge and Earls Court options. He also, crucially, has the full backing of Clearlake and Boehly to lead the project.

But none of this changes the fact that Chelsea are caught between two dauntingly unenviable options: one which presents huge feasibility challenges (redeveloping Stamford Bridge) and another which requires land they do not own (moving to Earls Court).

Publicly tipping their hat towards either before they have a proposal that is fleshed out and fully costed might put the entire endeavour in jeopardy, given the need to ensure a multitude of stakeholders are on board. There is a natural contrast here with Manchester United, who earlier this month announced grand plans to build a shiny new 100,000-seat stadium on the site of Old Trafford that were heavy on artist drawings and light on detail or clarity of funding.

But moving too slowly runs the risk of Chelsea’s already limited options dwindling further.

Delancey, via the Earls Court Development Company, submitted a hybrid planning application to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) in July 2024 for a sprawling mixed use development on the Earls Court site. This would include the construction of 4,000 new homes, extensive retail and office space, three large cultural and performance venues, and an urban park.

What You Should Read Next

Chelsea and Stamford Bridge: Should Boehly-Clearlake stick or twist?

Whatever decision Chelsea make on their stadium will be expensive and difficult, but it will also define the Boehly-Clearlake ownership

That proposal was formally validated in September 2024 and public consultation concluded in November 2024. Even accounting for the scale, scope and complexity of the project and the need to satisfy two different London councils, there is a distinct possibility that planning permission could be granted before the end of 2025. Chelsea know all too well from Abramovich’s aborted “cathedral of football” stadium project that planning approval alone is no guarantee that a project will happen, but it is a significant milestone.

Chelsea’s previous application to LBHF to redevelop Stamford Bridge was submitted in November 2015 and finally gained planning approval 15 months later. That plan initially involved leaving at the end of the 2017-18 season to play elsewhere for three years and return to a new home for the start of the 2021-22 campaign. Delays and spiralling costs, however, repeatedly pushed back that timeframe until Abramovich indefinitely paused the project in May 2018.

To clarify, that was six years from submitting a planning application to hopefully inaugurating a redeveloped Stamford Bridge — and even that quickly proved too ambitious. It should be no surprise that many Chelsea season-ticket holders, who have an older average age than their peers at any other club in the Premier League, sincerely wonder if they will live to see their team play in a new stadium.

In the meantime, other Premier League clubs continue to pursue their own stadium projects. Everton will bump Stamford Bridge down from ninth to 10th in the ranking of the division’s largest stadiums when they move into their new 52,888-capacity arena in the Bramley-Moore Dock area of Liverpool next season.

 

Everton’s new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock (Carl Recine/Getty Images)

Clearlake and Boehly both know that a new Chelsea stadium is a must within the next 10 years. The only option they cannot countenance is doing nothing, since it would condemn the club to permanently operating at a significant matchday revenue deficit relative to many of their domestic rivals. The ripple effects of that would be felt almost everywhere at the club, from ticket pricing to the players they could afford to sign and keep.

To get it done they are also keenly aware they will need to work with CPO, the unique organisation created by former chairman Ken Bates and his lawyer Mark Taylor in 1992 to act as a democratic safeguard against anyone who might try to take Chelsea away from Stamford Bridge against the club’s best interests.

Abramovich failed in the only previous attempt to gain the required 76 per cent CPO support to move Chelsea to another stadium site in 2011, but he was looking for blanket approval to leave Stamford Bridge rather than presenting a specific stadium plan. Clearlake and Boehly could secure a very different outcome if they made a detailed, compelling case for their own proposal. But ultimately CPO shareholders cannot provide any answer until they are asked a question.

Could the journey to that point include a change in the current ownership structure at Stamford Bridge? It cannot be ruled out, though Clearlake and Boehly both remain adamant that they are going nowhere.

Nor will Chelsea if the club’s long-standing stadium problem remains unsolved.