Chelsea could be forced to agree ‘expensive’ stadium deal amid £10bn Earl’s Court blow

Chelsea have been warned they could be in for an ‘expensive’ scenario amid uncertainty about their future home.

Hammersmith and Fulham Council dealt a major blow to Chelsea’s hopes for a new stadium in west London when they green-lit a £10billion housing and retail development project in Earl’s Court.

Getty

Unfortunately for the Blues, a new ground was not included in the plans.

Despite the housing and retail project being given approval, talkSPORT understands Earl’s Court remains one of several options under consideration by Chelsea for a site to build the new ground on.

However, if a venue in Earl’s Court doesn’t eventuate, it has been mooted the Blues could redevelop Stamford Bridge, which has been the club’s home since 1905.

Should that transpire, Chelsea would need to play their home fixtures at a different stadium while Stamford Bridge is upgraded.

Speaking to Football Insider, former Manchester City financial adviser Stefan Borson felt such a move would burn a hole in the wallets of Chelsea’s owners.

“I think it would be expensive,” Borson said.

“Look, they’ll be charged less if these are situations where they can just move straight in and there’s not a whole load of additional cost because what they can end up doing if it’s a move straight in and the grounds don’t need to do a lot of work, is that they can do a revenue share.

“They can make it attractive for both parties. It’s another one of these situations where it’s just better to wait and see what happens because there’s been a lot of talk about what’s going to happen and how it’s going to happen.”

One mooted option should Chelsea opt to play their home games elsewhere while Stamford Bridge undergoes a renovation is Twickenham, now known as Allianz Stadium.

Twickenham, the home of rugby, boasts a capacity of 82,000, which represents almost double that of Stamford Bridge (41,312).

Getty

However, the venue has never hosted a football match.

Another major stumbling block to Chelsea playing home fixtures at Twickenham is that the Rugby Football Union (RFU) permit only three non-rugby events to be held at the venue each year with a reduced capacity of 55,000.

Only two of those events can fall on consecutive nights.

Speaking last April, RFU chief executive Bill Sweeney said last April the door was open for Chelsea to play at Twickenham should they need a temporary home but the final decision laid with the local council.

When quizzed whether the RFU’s licence would allow Chelsea to call Twickenham home on a temporary basis, Sweeney said: “It would allow it to happen. There have been conversations previously about possible Premiership clubs coming here.

“Richmond council, Richmond borough is more concerned about that. I just think in terms of impact on local residents, numbers of fans and so on they’re a little more sensitive.

Getty

“It may depend on which club it is. It would be a big financial number, I know Richmond borough would definitely have a conversation about that though.”

If Twickenham is not an option, Chelsea could follow Tottenham’s lead and move their home fixtures to Wembley while their new venue in north London was being built.

Tottenham played their home fixtures at the national stadium throughout the 2017/18 campaign and all but five of the games in the 2018/19 season before they moved into their world class stadium which also hosts concerts and NFL games.