Todd Boehly warned of ‘very big’ problem as Chelsea face major new stadium headache

Chelsea’s long-running stadium saga continues, with the club reportedly facing major obstacles whether they decide to expand Stamford Bridge or build an entirely new ground elsewhere.

Former Manchester City financial adviser Stefan Borson told Football Insider that both options present significant challenges for the Blues and could prove a “massive headache either way.”

“Either you’ve got the issues with Earl’s Court, where Chelsea are exploring a new build, and that opportunity may already have passed,” Borson explained. “Then, if you opt to expand Stamford Bridge, planning in central London becomes another huge hurdle.”

Twickenham emerges as temporary home option

Should Chelsea require an alternative venue during redevelopment, Twickenham Stadium has emerged as a potential temporary home. The 82,000-capacity rugby venue could host the Blues if Stamford Bridge undergoes major reconstruction.

However, the move would come at a cost, as reports suggest Chelsea may need to pay around £10 million per season to play at Twickenham while construction is underway.

Borson also mentioned Wembley Stadium as another possible groundshare, though he warned it would not be “particularly convenient for Chelsea” due to its distance from West London.

Chelsea leaning towards Stamford Bridge expansion

According to BBC Sport, Chelsea are now favouring an expansion of Stamford Bridge over building an entirely new stadium.

Currently the Premier League’s 11th-largest ground, Stamford Bridge holds 40,173 spectators, but the club’s ownership group is keen to increase capacity significantly.

Since Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali’s Clearlake Capital takeover in May 2022, stadium redevelopment has been a key priority.  However, Boehly previously admitted that a brand-new stadium might not be feasible until as late as 2042.

FGG Says

Chelsea’s stadium dilemma highlights the complex balance between ambition and practicality. The club clearly wants to match Europe’s elite in facilities, but London’s planning and logistical constraints make either option an expensive, drawn-out process.

Expanding Stamford Bridge feels like the safer, more realistic route, allowing Chelsea to preserve history while modernising for the future. Yet even that approach demands patience, deep pockets, and creative solutions to avoid the kind of stagnation that once plagued rivals Tottenham before their rebuild.