Chelsea Stamford Bridge move reality with Wembley dilemma, Earl’s Court blow and shock option

There is a reason that Chelsea still play at Stamford Bridge. There is a reason that the capacity is still only 44,000. There is a reason that their Premier League rivals are leaving them behind on this front.

Unfortunately for Chelsea there is no simple answer to solve the questions continually raised by these issues. A smaller stadium means less revenue. It means smaller matchday income and fewer outside opportunities to generate money. In the modern football world, this is, as Glenn Hoddle put it to football.london, like boxing with one hand behind your back.

The extent to which money is at the centre of club’s and the priorities is hotly debated. The price of tickets and other club merchandise are customarily slammed. A focus on having more new supporters and fewer season ticket holders in order to boost the spending is panned.

Stamford Bridge suffers from all of these issues. There are historical ties to the land. There are legal ramifications and barriers to protect Chelsea FC from owners who might want to move away or change the name. The long story is that Roman Abramovich could not find a method to getting more eyeballs on Chelsea at their home ground on a regular basis and so far neither can the Clearlake Capital-Todd Boehly administration.

Penned in by the Fulham Broadway tube station on one side, a site of office buildings on another, and existing in a corridor of continued significance due to Henry VIII’s Tudor desires, there are limitations to what is possible. Building up is out of the equation. Expanding out is just as tough. Moving elsewhere must be passed through by the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO).

So what are the options and what are the merits of them all? Here, football.london takes a look at why Chelsea don’t have a simple blueprint to follow or plan of action in play.

Staying at Stamford Bridge

Chelsea have two options if they choose to remain at Stamford Bridge. They either try to rebuild stand-by-stand, as they did previously in the 1990s, as Liverpool have done to enhance Anfield’s capacity and so have Manchester City – or they knock down the existing stadium and go from scratch.

There are pros and cons, of course. The stand-by-stand method is not as all-encompassing as other methods, which does not help. It would also force season ticket holders to relocate inside the ground.

However, with both, the idea of staying at Stamford Bridge in the long-term is extremely appealing. Chelsea have major ties to their current spot in SW6 and have shown fight previously via the CPO to block any proposals to leave.

Rebuilding is a complex one. It is the most expensive option and has serious restrictions. Just how much Chelsea could expand or increase on the current structure in place is not clear. That would also have to be cost-efficient and be worth it.

The other factor is just how long Chelsea would be forced to spend away from Stamford Bridge whilst the work was completed. Building a new stadium anywhere is going to take five years, at least, which means a big chunk of time for fans to be travelling elsewhere to a temporary home.

Within this there is also a big problem. Where would Chelsea even have open to them in this scenario?

Wembley

The national stadium. 11 miles north of Stamford Bridge and an hour or so of travel, Wembley is the natural pick in this conversation. It is largely unused outside of the summer months, purpose-built for football, and has played this role before.

Chelsea supporters used to love trips to Wembley as it held a brilliant winning record. That is not the case anymore and instead it can feel like a soulless bowl to many. With even more expensive food and drink, worse transport links, a horrible wait to get out of the ground, and the recent woes during domestic cup semis and finals, Wembley does very little to get Chelsea fans excited.

Tottenham used the stadium to their advantage but Chelsea supporters are unlikely to be too keen on this being their meeting point every other weekend for such a lengthy period. The choices don’t get much better, either.

Twickenham

This would be more in Chelsea’s wheelhouse in terms of location. It is very much south-west London, but is still nine miles away. The Allianz Stadium, as it is now known, is not a football ground but holds over 80,000 fans for the rugby.

Twickenham is in the centre of a residential location so it might prove tough to be granted access. It could be available for Chelsea, in theory, but is still not ideal. Nothing on this list is.

Craven Cottage

The recently revamped home of Chelsea’s neighbours. The simple fact of it being Fulham wouldn’t be popular with many. They have just completed a big renovation of one of their own stands, though, increasing the capacity.

If this were to happen it would allow for much of the same pre-match preparations as it is less than two miles away from Stamford Bridge. With less than 30,000 able to fill out the ground, it is possibly too small for Chelsea to put up with.

This is without taking into account how 38 home league games would be played on the pitch, not factoring in cup commitments or European football. Chelsea wouldn’t want to rely on their local rivals but some would surely find this situation more stomachable than a step into either of the above.

Earl’s Court

This, maybe, is the one near-perfect outcome. Located just around the corner, Earl’s Court has a patch of land which could be home for a football stadium, is close to Stamford Bridge, and has transport links (albeit an improvement may well be needed to the tube station).

The big issue is that the Earl’s Court Development Council are set to buy the patch and do not currently have plans for a new multi-purpose arena. The time is running out for Chelsea to act on this and it looks increasingly unlikely that anything will come from it.

Chelsea could, again in theory, keep playing at Stamford Bridge whilst building a stadium at Earl’s Court. Due to its proximity it has the best bet of being voted through by the CPO.

Other options

This is throwing options into the air and seeing what sticks. Crystal Palace’s Selhurst Park is in south London and too small, it cannot really be considered. Neither can Kingsmeadow, which homes the women’s team near Wimbledon. It is simply far too small. That is about as much as Chelsea can really select from at this moment in time.

Reading’s Select Car Leasing Stadium has a 24,000 capacity but is miles out, not to mention the issues involved at that club. Elsewhere and there really is not much else to go at. There are no simple answers to a complex question and without Earl’s Court, Chelsea’s equation gets harder and harder to resolve.