Chelsea could be homeless for SIX YEARS as Todd Boehly faces huge dilemma over Stamford Bridge redevelopment

CHELSEA are facing a nightmare choice over plans for a new stadium.

Blues, bosses believe they have only two options — spend SIX YEARS away from Stamford Bridge while it is redeveloped, or pay over the odds to buy land and build elsewhere.

Doug Seeburg – The SunChelsea’s ageing stadium faces an uncertain future[/caption]

ReutersBlues’ supremo Todd Boehly is tangling with huge practical and financial issues[/caption]

And there is growing frustration inside the club that little progress has been made since the new owners arrived nearly two years ago.

Chelsea had previously wanted to revamp the current stadium stand by stand, as Liverpool have been doing at Anfield.

In October, the owners of a veterans’ housing block next to Stamford Bridge agreed to sell the club, under new owner Todd Boehly, a plot of land adjacent to the stadium for £80million.

That deal is still to be finalised but sources say club chiefs have now decided that going through separate planning and construction processes and all the associated disruption, would be unworkable.

So if the Blues are determined to stay at the Stamford Bridge site that has been their home since 1905, it would mean demolishing the whole complex and starting again.

The latest estimate is that such a project would take six years, forcing the club to rent a temporary home such as Wembley.

Chelsea have been repeatedly linked with building a new ground on the site of the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre, about a mile from their current stadium.

But just buying the land there would cost at least £500m before a brick was laid.

WHOSE GROUND COULD CHELSEA SHARE?

Any revamp of Stamford Bridge means a huge headache if Chelsea have to move out temporarily.

Fulham is the nearest top-flight – but groundsharing would be a logistical nightmare.

That’s why the Blues have already all but ruled it out.

It’s mainly because Chelsea want a stadium holding at least 40,000, whereas Craven Cottage has a capacity of just 29k.

But Stamford Bridge chiefs are also thought to be worried about the ground’s lack of corporate facilities.

Wembley could be another option.

Brent Council gave Tottenham permission to host 62,000 supporters when Spurs used the national stadium in 2017-18 and 2018-19.

And a similar arrangement would suit the Blues.

But there are practical difficulties, including Wembley being 10 miles away from Stamford Bridge and not the easiest of trips by public transport or car from Chelsea.

Speculation has also surrounded West Ham’s London Stadium and rugby union “capital” Twickenham.

But opposition from residents as well as fans make both venues appear to make long shots both venues.

A new 60,000-seat stadium similar to Tottenham’s new ground would set them back at least £1billion more.

The Chelsea ownership group fronted by Boehly spent £2.5bn buying the club in 2022 and promised £1.75bn of further investment.

Since then, more than £1bn has been spent on players.

But the stadium project has moved much more slowly.

WHY THE BLUES MUST MAKE RIGHT DECISION

DAN KING gives his verdict on the big issues behind Chelsea’s redevelopment saga…

Stamford Bridge, with its three ageing stands and capacity of just over 40,000, now feels shabby and outdated in comparison to their London rivals.

Just as importantly, both Arsenal and Tottenham make significantly more money per home match than Chelsea — £870,000 and £1.03million more per game, respectively.

And that is a big reason why, in the latest Deloitte Money League, Tottenham overtook Chelsea for total income for the first time and became the top-earning club in  London with £549.2m in 2022-23.
No path forward looks simple.

It is a tough decision, crucial to the club’s future. Not something to rush.
But the longer Chelsea’s owners wait, the more ground they will lose to their rivals, on and off the pitch.