4 hours ago
4
Chelsea have been urged to “put up or shut up” and decide whether they want to move to Earl’s Court after alternative plans for the site were approved by Kensington and Chelsea council.
The club are yet to make a decision on how to build a bigger ground and another stumbling block is in their path after the Earls Court Development Company’s proposals for a £10bn housing and retail development were granted planning permission at a council meeting on Tuesday. The ECDC, whose master plan does not include room for a football stadium, secured unanimous approval from Hammersmith and Fulham council last month.
Suggestions that Tuesday’s development has in effect ended the chance of Chelsea leaving Stamford Bridge for Earls Court are understood to be wide of the mark. Chelsea, whose owners recognise that Stamford Bridge’s capacity of 40,343 is not big enough, have held talks with various figures who have a say over the future of the 17.8 hectare (44 acres) site. Those discussions are yet to advance but the ECDC receiving planning permission does not stop other suitors from bidding for the land.
Yet it is understood that resounding local support for the ECDC will make it harder politically and financially for Chelsea to change the direction of travel. A key figure in London politics said that it was time for Chelsea to “put up or shut up” and make clear whether they are serious about Earl’s Court. The estimated value of the land is expected to rise from £500m to £750m with planning permission in place.
The ECDC does not yet have financial backing, meaning that construction cannot begin, but it could receive government support or investment from private companies. Sovereign wealth funds and international developers are likely to be interested in lucrative real estate in west London, potentially leaving Chelsea in an auction with wealthy competitors.
Chelsea are considering their options but declined to comment. They have identified the Lillie Bridge depot as the area within the Earl’s Court site on which to build a stadium. Jason Gannon, the club’s chief executive, has met Transport for London, one of the partners that looks after the site, and the real estate developer Delancey. APG, the Dutch pension fund, is another stakeholder. But there is frustration that Chelsea did not make a formal and public declaration of their interest by bidding for Earl’s Court before the ECDC plans were approved.
There has previously been plenty of private political goodwill for Chelsea. It is felt that a multiuse football stadium would benefit the local economy and there would still be the potential to build affordable housing on the site.
There had been concerns over the cost of the ECDC’s plans but these have diminished in recent months. The site’s future has been one of the most contentious land issues in London. It is significant that there was no opposition to the ECDC’s plans at either council meeting, with a source saying this is the scheme that has garnered support from London politicians. Work is under way to secure funding.
The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, will soon be asked to endorse the plans. It is unlikely he will reject a proposal including 4,000 new homes, with 35% of the housing designed to be affordable. His endorsement would be another main complication for Chelsea. There would be no room for a stadium if the ECDC construction begins.
Chelsea need to act before construction contracts are in place. Building a bigger ground has been a key priority for the Todd Boehly-Clearlake Capital ownership but little progress has been made. Tensions between Boehly and Clearlake, the majority shareholders, have been described as a major obstacle to overcome.
Chelsea retain interest in Earl’s Court but do not want to be pressed into a deal and want to be sure that it is financially and logistically viable. The club’s position is they would need a business partner who could take on the project of building housing on the parts of the land away from the stadium.
Chelsea may be forced to reassess their reluctance to buy all of the land. However, sources are confident that the club would not find it difficult to cover their costs if they secured a whole or majority interest. It has been stressed that partners would line up to work with them. A more pressing issue for Chelsea would be convincing the local community that a stadium would boost the economy and raise investment in London.
Figures familiar with the issue believe Chelsea moving to Earl’s Court is the most realistic solution for the club. There is no other site available in west London and redeveloping Stamford Bridge is feasible but challenging, not least because the ground is next to a railway line. A stand-by-stand rebuild is unattractive and a complete demolition would mean Chelsea having to play at a temporary home for up to seven years. But Chelsea have not ruled out redeveloping Stamford Bridge and made space for such a project after buying a 0.48 hectare site next to their ground from Stoll, a housing charity for veterans.
Moving home for good would require Chelsea to strike an agreement with Chelsea Pitch Owners, which holds the freehold of Stamford Bridge stadium. The club will seek the approval of the CPO before bidding for land elsewhere. The risk of doing nothing is that Chelsea fall behind rivals with bigger stadiums with more potential for corporate and entertainment opportunities.
