CHELSEA have all the hallmarks of one of the grandest football clubs in the world.
Except for one major stumbling block.
Billionaire owner? Tick.
Multiple Premier League titles? Tick.
Two-time Champions League winners? Tick.
Two £100million-plus transfer signings? Tick.
And a world-class mega stadium to top it all of? Ah, that’s where the problem lies.
Stamford Bridge is certainly an iconic stadium in English football but it first opened way back in 1877.
But even with renovations at the beginning and end of the 20th century, its capacity is still limited to a mere 40,173 – making it only the 11th biggest football stadium in England (12th when Everton’s new ground opens later this year).
Chelsea have been desperate to work out how to expand their home ground for years.
Could now be the time to finally make some progress and get on with increasing that underwhelming capacity?
WHY NOW?
Quite simply, Chelsea are falling behind.
And not just behind their so-called ‘Big Six’ rivals.
We all know about Arsenal and Tottenham’s 60,000-seater-plus grounds opened in the last 20 years in North London – the latter’s one of the most impressive in world football while the former is already subject to update plans.
Anfield has undergone significant expansion work in recent years.
Old Trafford may be crumbling and in dire need of modernising – or a complete rebuild – but it is massive.
West Ham (62,500), Manchester City (52,900), Newcastle (52,258) and Aston Villa (42,918) all have bigger grounds than Chelsea – as do Championship side Sunderland (48,095).
Everton are about to overtake Chelsea while neighbours Fulham have already updated their ground with a swanky new riverside stand which even features a swimming pool.
Villa, Crystal Palace, Newcastle, Manchester City, Forest and Leicester all have plans in the works to improve and enlarge their grounds, too.
A dated Stamford Bridge lacks many of the facilities new stadiums can offer.
But, crucially, a small ground means fewer corporate boxes and fewer seats so fewer tickets sold so fewer people buying drinks, food and merchandise on a matchday.
And that means less money for the club – and in an age of Profit & Sustainability Rules, inflation and hiking transfer fees, that is revenue Todd Boehly and Co can ill-afford to miss out on.
FAILED ATTEMPTS
Chelsea and improved stadium plans are nothing new – with three rather ambitious plans within the last 20 years.
There was the “futuristic” 60,000-seater design images released in 2017 which led to comparisons to a Slinky and an egg slicer with its unique pattern from the architects who did both the Allianz Arena in Munich and Beijing’s Bird’s Nest Stadium.
The club did get planning permission at the time but it expired due to various delays and economic challenges.
Before that, Chelsea failed in a bid to move into Battersea Power Station as it was instead converted into a luxury shopping centre.
And former owner Roman Abramovich even had the crazy idea of building a stadium ON TOP of Waterloo Station over the existing network of train lines.
Needless to say, none of those suggestions have come to pass and still Chelsea are stuck with their limited attendance figures.
HISTORY OF STAMFORD BRIDGE
A sports ground opened on the site of Stamford Bridge way back in 1877 for London Athletic Club, making it the oldest Premier League stadium and eighth oldest football stadium in the world.
In 1904, the land was offered to Fulham and there were thoughts of selling up to Great Western Railway.
But leaseholders Gus and Joseph Mears decided to stay put and in 1905 founded a football team instead – Chelsea Football Club.
Ironically, there were plans back then to increase the capacity to 100,000 – albeit in the days before seated stands.
Fast forward to the 1990s and Stamford Bridge was converted into the all-seater stadium of today with the original running track removed.
So what could be the next stage of its development?
Well, there are seemingly three main options – but all three are tricky…
OPTION 1 – EXPAND
One suggestion would be to increase the capacity of the current Stamford Bridge stadium.
Boehly has previous in this regard, immediately bankrolling renovations of the Los Angeles Dodgers’ baseball stadium after buying the franchise in 2012.
He wasted little time in making plans to do something similar at Chelsea, appointing Janet Maire Smith to oversee the Stamford Bridge redevelopment in July 2022 after she did the Dodger Stadium, too.
But expanding Chelsea’s ground is far more complicated for two reasons.
Firstly, because of its location in central London in a built-up area full of houses, businesses, shops and two train lines which run directly past two sides of the ground.
The only space not built on in the immediate vicinity is also off the table as it is Brompton Cemetry on the other side of the London Overground tracks.
If they were to expand the current ground, Chelsea would want to make it worthwhile and therefore increase the number of seats to at least 50,000 – if not closer to 55,000 if possible.
The other bizarre reason relates to King Henry VIII.
The Tudor king has a mound in Richmond Park which has a “protected view” of St Paul’s Cathedral – and increasing the height of the Stamford Bridge stands would obscure that view.
Chelsea could look to expand the capacity by digging down and lowering the stadium but that would be problematic with neighbours.
So the reality is a so-called simple expansion is seemingly off the cards.
OPTION 2 – REBUILD
Another option could be to knock down the current stadium and do a complete rebuild job – just like Tottenham.
The Blues paid £80m in October 2023 for a 1.2-acre site adjacent to their current home.
That land was purchased from Stoll, a charity providing supported housing to veterans.
The idea is that Chelsea could use the current site and the acquired land to rotate the pitch by 90 degrees and revamp the entire stadium by creating a totally brand-new building with a minimum of 60,000 seats to compete with their London rivals.
But as with the expansion issue, rebuilding a new Stamford Bridge on the same site will not be easy.
There simply isn’t enough space to build a stadium like the new £1.2billion Spurs ground on the Stamford Bridge footprint – even with the extra land.
Fitting a new stadium in their pocket of South-West London is a logistical nightmare, especially with the limitations of the roads and railways – let alone the years of construction work to make it a reality.
All three exit routes out of Stamford Bridge currently lead on to Fulham Road and more fans would be overwhelming for the area – and the nearby Fulham Broadway tube station which is already overcrowded on matchdays.
OPTION 3 – NEW HOME
The third option is to move away from the current site to a new home elsewhere.
The big question is: where?
Because, surprisingly enough, there are not many obvious choices for a massive, epic stadium in the heart of one of the world’s biggest and busiest cities.
One suggestion was a move to Earl’s Court – just a mile up the road – where the Exhibition Centre stood until its demolition was completed in 2016.
However, it looks as though they may have missed their chance.
Grand plans from the Earls Court Development Company include 4,000 new homes, retail and office space, three culture and performance venues and an urban park… but crucially no football stadium.
So if and when those plans are presented to the local councils and permission granted, that would end the Blues’ hopes.
Chelsea are not giving up on the Earl’s Court site just yet, though, and may target Government funding to make it happen.
Just like Manchester United who plan to knock down Old Trafford for a new 100,000-capacity ground using Treasury cash, the West Londoners could approach Whitehall with a similar proposal which would see the new homes built on Stamford Bridge’s current 14-acre plot – freeing up the Earl’s Court land for a world-class modern football venue.
Even if Chelsea did try and build a stadium there, they would likely be forced out of Stamford Bridge while the building work is done due to the travel chaos and impact on the London Underground network.
Chelsea Barracks and White City were both proposed then ruled out while there is still a glimmer of hope about securing the nearby Lillie Bridge depot site or even Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, which would require building a new hospital to replace the existing one.
So a more plausible solution might be for the Blues to look further afield to source a suitable plot to build on – although that would mean Chelsea’s home ground no longer being in the Chelsea area of London.
And that leads us on to another major problem – the curious case of the infamous Chelsea Pitch Owners.
Amid financial turmoil in the 1990s, the CPO was formed in 1997 and they purchased the Stamford Bridge freehold, turnstiles, pitch and Chelsea Football Club Ltd naming rights to ensure the stadium could not be sold to property developers again – something that triggered the issues in the first place.
They lease both the stadium and the name of the club back to Chelsea on the condition they continue to play at Stamford Bridge and are determined their beloved club do not leave their original home after 120 years.
The CPO organisation is split into shares with no one permitted to have more than 100 votes.
So if Chelsea did want to move, either permanently or temporarily, the fan group would need to vote with at least 76 per cent approval – or else they would need to find a new name for the football team.
Also, because the CPO own the land where Stamford Bridge, they are effectively the landlords so would need to approve a rebuild on the same site, too.
Abramovich did controversially try and buy the CPO in 2011 to kickstart a move away from Stamford Bridge but only received 60 per cent of the votes, meaning the CPO kept the freehold and the relationship with the club fractured.
Boehly is making efforts to repair the damage done – but knows he is still at the mercy of the CPO for a Stamford Bridge rebuild or a move away to an alternative site.
WHAT CAN FANS EXPECT?
Clearly, none of the three options are absolutely suitable but with work on the current Stamford Bridge site so difficult, a new stadium in a new location seems the best bet – if the CPO give the green light.
Having a new plot of land and a blank canvas would enable Chelsea to build a stadium entirely from scratch exactly how they want it, just like Arsenal did with the Emirates.
That would mean free reign to create something spectacular – and as big as they want.
If they did build a new ground, Chelsea would surely want it to be bigger than Arsenal’s or Tottenham’s – so realistically a minimum of 63,000 seats – and maybe even challenge Old Trafford’s 74,000 capacity.
And they would make certain it is a feat of sheer football stadium architectural brilliance.
Potentially grand fan park experiences outside and record-breaking bars as well as the latest tech screens, renewable green energy sources, a unique quirky exterior, swanky dressing rooms, lots of corporate boxes and VIP suites, special stand designs to maximise the atmosphere and even a retractable roof.
Who knows, they may even copy Fulham and add a swimming pool – or go even further with water slides, rollercoasters, zip wires and climbing walls.
How about the Didier Drogba Diving Boards, the John Terry Golf Driving Range, the Cole Palmer Ice-Cold Rink or a curling lane with lessons from Michael Essien?
Talk about entertainment!
Chelsea may even take inspiration from Real Madrid and use the underground greenhouse method to split up the pitch and store it away when not in use – allowing the stadium to be used for concerts and other events easily without wrecking the playing surface.
WHAT DO THE OWNERS WANT?
It has been reported that Chelsea’s two key figures at the top are at loggerheads over what they want.
Boehly’s first choice option would be to relocate – although he wanted the Earl’s Court spot that appears no longer viable.
SunSport revealed Behdad Eghbali, however, prefers the idea of renovating the current Stamford Bridge site up to around 55,000 seats.
HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE?
That’s another big issue because whichever option Chelsea ultimately decide to take, it would be a long project and will not be done by 2030.
It is thought a complete rebuild of the current Stamford Bridge stadium could even take as long as seven years.
That may mean being forced to play home games away from Chelsea for half a decade or more – if the CPO allow – which would take its toll on the fanbase’s morale and connection to their team.
Both Wembley and the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium took around four to five years to build on the existing stadium sites while the Emirates was much quicker – approximately two years – as they did not have to work around Highbury.
Ironically, redeveloping each stand at Stamford Bridge one at a time could allow the Blues to stay put throughout the process – but it would likely take even longer to get it done.
WHERE WOULD CHELSEA PLAY?
The two most plausible projects would take years and force the Blues to relocate, just like Tottenham did when they took up temporary residence at Wembley.
Even though it is roughly an hour away from Chelsea, Wembley could again be used and is probably the best pick as a ready-made world-class football facility.
Craven Cottage would barely house all 28,000 season ticket holders and neighbours Fulham may not be too keen on helping the Blues out – even if they charged Chelsea big rent.
That leaves Twickenham, the home of rugby, as the only realistic other option thanks to its 82,000 capacity and location in South-West London – albeit eight miles out of town.
AND THE COST?
A lot of money.
An expansion of the current stadium could be as much as £600m.
But with that possibility all but ruled out, the other options are the complete rebuild on site or finding and building a stadium elsewhere.
Ironically, the option to move may be slightly cheaper at around £1.5bn while a full overhaul of Stamford Bridge would be closer to £1.6bn.
The 2017 rebuild plans which got planning permission were estimated to cost around £500m – but that figure has since skyrocketed with inflation and other financial factors.
When the Clearlake Capital new owners arrived with their £4.25bn takeover in 2022, £1.75bn of that was pledged to invest into various projects including work on the stadium.
They have also started drumming up investments with American firm Ares agreeing to a £400m injection.
IS IT WORTH IT?
For every home match Chelsea play at the current Stamford Bridge, they are missing out on millions of pounds compared to their rivals.
Their estimated matchday revenue per game stood at £2.07m in 2022-23.
That is £870,000 less than Spurs, £1.03m less than Arsenal and £1.85m less than Manchester United per match – which quickly adds up over the course of a season with 19 Premier League home fixtures plus cup ties.
The latest Deloitte Football Money League reported Chelsea’s overall revenue dropped seven per cent in the 2023-24 season to £457m – tenth in the world but behind the rest of the ‘Big Six’ – with £78m coming from matchday revenue.
Arsenal’s matchday revenue was £128m – £50m more than the Blues’.
So with that in mind, in the long run, increasing the capacity is a guaranteed way to increase matchday revenue for Chelsea and boost their finances.
SO, WILL IT HAPPEN?
Well, that is the multi-billion-dollar question.
Chelsea are very much stuck between lots of rocks and a plethora of hard places – plus those two train lines and the hidden power of the CPO.
Ultimately, if Chelsea want to maintain their status as one of the Premier League – and the world’s – biggest and most successful clubs, they need to improve and increase their stadium or they will, over time, get left behind.
So something will have to give.
It will not come cheap, it will not get done anytime soon and it will not be easy.
But Chelsea know Stamford Bridge in its current state is not a long-term option.
Renovating it or moving elsewhere both have their fair share of drawbacks – and whatever they decide will undoubtedly leave many fans angry.
But watching their club regress because of the limitations of Stamford Bridge may well leave them even more upset.
