Chelsea’s new stadium plans still up in the air

The long-term future surrounding Chelsea’s home ground remains uncertain. With the club’s majority owners, Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali, seemingly at loggerheads over the Blues’ stadium plans, the club feels in limbo at present.

Boehly’s preference is to acquire Earl’s Court and build a new £1.5bn stadium there for Chelsea, while Eghbali is seemingly keen to find a way to renovate Stamford Bridge and remain at the club’s long-standing home.

Chelsea needs to get more fans through the turnstiles

The limited 40,343 capacity of Stamford Bridge has been a sticking point for the club’s new US ownership since taking charge in 2022. The club has had to find new, creative ways to generate commercial revenue. In 2023, Boehly and Eghbali disclosed plans to spend upwards of £2bn on regenerating Stamford Bridge. This included expanding the capacity to 55,000.

There’s certainly appetite from fans for a bigger capacity. The team is a young and exciting one with huge potential to grow together in the coming seasons. The Blues are back in with a shot of Champions League football in 2025/26, sitting in fourth place in the Premier League with nine games remaining. The Blues are currently fifth favourites for a top 4 finish with sports bet platform Netbet, with Chelsea priced at 2.25 and Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City (1.67) still fancied to pip the Blues to fourth by May, as of 1st April 2025.

One of the biggest pitfalls surrounding the renovation of Stamford Bridge is having to negotiate with Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC, the firm which owns the freehold of Stamford Bridge stadium and the naming rights to Chelsea FC. Chelsea Pitch Owners was founded to guarantee that football is played at Stamford Bridge. Few fans are keen on leaving SW6, which has been home since the Blues were founded, some 120 years ago.

Back in 2011, former owner Roman Abramovich tried to buy the freehold to Stamford Bridge back from the Chelsea Pitch Owners PLC. This was a year before the club sought to redevelop Battersea Power Station. Despite his overwhelming popularity, even Abramovich was unable to get the 75% of votes needed from CPO PLC shareholders. Therefore, it’s difficult to imagine CPO PLC giving its blessing to Boehly and Eghbali.

In fact, Boehly and Eghbali would also need overwhelming permission from CPO PLC to move the club to a new home on a separate site.

Chelsea is at risk of being outmanoeuvred by the ECDC

Earl’s Court has long since been discussed as a potential option. It’s close enough to Stamford Bridge that a potential vote may go Boehly’s way if a sensible and viable proposal can be finalised. However, the Earl’s Court Development Committee (ECDC) don’t appear to be in favour of welcoming Chelsea FC to the site. Their most recent plans are for a multi-use scheme, which didn’t have a single mention of a new multi-billion-pound football stadium.

If Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council both approve the ECDC’s plans, it could muddy the waters further still. It could also make any deal between Boehly, Eghbali and ECDC even more expensive from a Blues perspective, since the latter will hold all the aces.

Sources at the Guardian have said there is political goodwill about the prospect of Chelsea FC playing at Earl’s Court. Privately, many individuals at the political level believe in the economic benefits of such a move. The club already eyes the Lillie Bridge depot as the most suitable land for a new ground, and talks were held last year with Transport for London and real estate developer, Delancey, on these plans.

If Earl’s Court doesn’t get the green light, redeveloping Stamford Bridge will be challenging at best. The stadium’s location means there’s limited space surrounding the ground. That’s despite the acquisition of the offices connected to the Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions to the rear of the Blues’ West Stand.

Rebuilding the stadium stand-by-stand is, therefore, the least appealing option. Although bulldozing the entire stadium and rebuilding from the ground up is equally unattractive, given that it could mean playing home games at Wembley Stadium for up to seven seasons.

It’s clear that the future of Stamford Bridge has the potential to make or break the ownership era of Boehly-Clearlake Capital.