Chelsea refuse to give up on stadium plan despite fresh Earl’s Court snub

Chelsea are still exploring a move to Earl’s Court despite Hammersmith and Fulham Council approving a £10bn housing and retail development project that does not include plans or space for a new football stadium.

Earl’s Court Development Company, who are behind the project, have repeatedly stated they are not open to Chelsea relocating to the site.

Getty

Although Chelsea refused to comment on their new stadium plans, talkSPORT understands Earl’s Court remains one of a handful of options under active consideration.

Chelsea’s owners are understood to be aligned on the appeal of the Earl’s Court despite co-owner Todd Boehly hinting otherwise in an interview with Bloomberg back in March.

“We have a big stadium development opportunity that we have to flesh out,” he said.

“That’s going to be where we’re either aligned or we ultimately decide to go different ways.”

talkSPORT understands Boehly prefers the Earl’s Court site, believing it the best option for both Chelsea and any multi-sport plans.

Clearlake Capital are yet to commit to a preferred option having tasked Chelsea COO and President Jason Gannon with driving the decision-making process.

Board member Jonathan Goldstein, who also founded property developer Cain Internarional with Boehly, is also involved.

Gannon worked on the renovation of Los Angeles‘ $5bn SoFi Stadium and the surrounding Hollywood Park complex.

Clearlake have not ruled out any option yet and are aware a decision on potentially leaving Stamford Bridge can’t be taken without approval from Chelsea Pitch Owners.

Staying at Stamford Bridge could take the form of stand-by-stand development or knocking down the existing stadium and building a new one on the same site and surrounded Stoll land.

X @earlscourtdevco

X @earlscourtdevco

The latter would require Chelsea finding a new temporary home during construction.

Stand-by-stand development was originally explored by architect Janet Marie Smith, who Boehly instructed as a consultant but she is no longer part of the project.

Marie-Smith played a key part in the renovation of Dodger Stadium.

But the challenge of this choice is it is a slower process and often a costly one with no guarantee of future proofing Stamford Bridge and the risk of several waves of renovation.

talkSPORT understands Populous are now involved in the creative process for all potential options, while Chelsea are also considering several other firms to lead the project once a decision is made.

Another site beyond Earl’s Court and away from Stamford Bridge has also not been discounted either, with Chelsea keen to thoroughly explore all options.

Getty

Chelsea’s stadium situation over the years

The Blues previously attempted to upgrade their stadium in May 2012 when they made a bid to move into Battersea Power Station

However, this was ultimately rejected as a Malaysian company turned the Grade II listed building into apartments.

In 2017, under former owner Roman Abramovich, the club secured full planning permission from Hammersmith and Fulham Council, alongside the Mayor of London, for a new 60,000-seater stadium on the site of Stamford Bridge.

However, a dispute over Abramovich’s visa ultimately led to him pulling the plug on the idea.

In 2023, new owner Todd Boehly bought another 1.9 acres of land adjacent to their current home, increasing the size of the plot to work on.

Should Chelsea avoid going down a stand-by-stand renovation, a new stadium could mean the demolition of Stamford Bridge.

Getty

In the meantime, the Blues would have to play their home games elsewhere while the work takes place.

Wembley Stadium appears the most viable option, having hosted Tottenham‘s home games for a significant period between 2017 and 2019 while their new ground was being built.

Chelsea would likely have to play there for a longer stretch – with it being estimated that any project would take at least five years from beginning to end.

The need for a stadium upgrade has become increasingly important for the Blues in recent years, whose 40,341 capacity home holds far less fans than some of their London rivals.

Arsenal‘s Emirates Stadium, as well as Spurs and West Ham‘s home grounds, can all welcome approximately 18,000 more supporters.

As a result, Chelsea are making more than £1.5m less through the gate per match, than the two North London giants – the equivalent of nearly £200m in income over five years.