CHELSEA will remain at Stamford Bridge and expand the stadium capacity to 55,000 — if Behdad Eghbali wins the boardroom battle with Todd Boehly.
Blues’ co-controlling owners are at loggerheads and want to buy each other out — and the outcome will have a huge effect on the stadium plans.
Eghbali favours a £1.5billion renovation to stay at the Bridge, while Boehly wants a new 60,000 ground in nearby Earl’s Court.
A source said: “There is a growing realisation that Earl’s Court can’t be done, while Boehly could be out of the club soon.
“If Todd Boehly leaves, then the club are expected to push forward on plans to remain at Stamford Bridge and work towards a solution for a 55,000-capacity stadium.”
An expansion would see Blues move away from the ground for just two years while work takes place.
Plans include modernising the West Stand, building concrete decks over a neighbouring railway line and using land that the club purchased from veterans’ charity Stoll.
Eghbali’s preferred option does not involve a complete demolition of the club’s 42,000-capacity home.
Construction of a completely new stadium on the Stamford Bridge site is expected to take at least FIVE YEARS — meaning the club would have to find a new home for that time.
But it is understood that Eghbali is not in favour of being away from the Bridge for such a long period.
Chelsea currently sit fourth in the Premier League under new boss Enzo Maresca.
Last time out, the Blues' drew 1-1 with Nottingham Forest at Stamford Bridge.
Chris Wood fired the visitors into the lead on 49 minutes, with Noni Madueke equalising just shy of the hour mark.
Chelsea will return to action next Sunday when they face Liverpool at Anfield.
Kattyranking
1
what a disappointment,when clubs that are below Chelsea level are having a 80,000 capacity stadium,what are we even thinking,
SylvesterMarkAppau
1
if u guys is planning to build it up to 60,65 even 70 then forget it.let it be d way it is now
Exactly. What’s 55,000 stadium? We’re not a small club. A big club like Chelsea should have even 80,000 or more seater capacity stadium.
SylvesterMarkAppau
2
55,000 is still small. A big club like Chelsea should have at least 80,000 seater capacity stadium. What’s the difference between 40,000 and 55,000
Echee27
1
new 55000 is still very small compared to your London neighborhood 🤣🤣🤣 still a small club
small club but the only club that has won all the European trophies, even so called Madrid hasn't done that
Meoeinrstu
0
if u guys is planning to build it up to 60,65 even 70 then forget it.let it be d way it is now
sure
Biodilmnyz
0
Wao that’s good news
Tepadekluz
2
new 55000 is still very small compared to your London neighborhood 🤣🤣🤣 still a small club
a small club with two champions league trophies and two Europa league trophies and a big club with just one final lose in Europe 😂😂😂😂😂
ceoaeruyz
1
if u guys is planning to build it up to 60,65 even 70 then forget it.let it be d way it is now
Ponabcesuy
0
Extend to use the Bridge for the next five years while building a new stadium with 65,000 capacity for that five years, I believe the players we currently will take the club higher with that give years
rataclmpry
0
United States ninga, we a stadium of 100000+better buy wembley
Jumachelsea
0
Chelsea don't av big space like others dats d problem
TB is talking about 60,000 the other one is talking about 55 to stay which means that is limited capacity is either is not enough space for extra so I support TB is better to move for a better area more space and most importantly we don't need to rely on this s*** talk about Chelsea pitch owners this is Chelsea football club we should be independent and have our own land and ground to be proud of you can't stay in your father's house forever you have to move on somehow in life and such Chelsea football club is time for us to move as soon as possible if there is any chance that you can move I as a Chelsea fan I'm all in 1,000%
Empiregold21
0
You either stay and expand the Bridge or leave completely...If the Russian man did not owned it,I dt think anyone could owned but rather rent it
Kesadlor
1
new 55000 is still very small compared to your London neighborhood 🤣🤣🤣 still a small club
wiebemnrtz
4
This Chelsea team will take Europe by storm once they have kendry paez and estevao William.
jislostyz
2
at least you people should talk little sense.the different is united std is in the bush area (village) whiles. CHELSEA is... to b continue ... smear sense .u will find it difficult to destroy people property without receipt
pumadelo
2
Chelsea don't av big space like others dats d problem
Jikknotz
0
Chelsea struggling to build a 55,000 capacity stadium while Manchester United is on their way to building a 100,000 capacity stadium. the class is different
which class , old class
PrinceAbobyBlinkz
0
Chelsea struggling to build a 55,000 capacity stadium while Manchester United is on their way to building a 100,000 capacity stadium. the class is different
PrinceAbobyBlinkz
0
Chelsea struggling to build a
Nehbdnsuyz
3
Chelsea fc need a bigger stadium but not the so-called 55,000 capicity stadium.
tientu
3
Just buy Wembley, instant and easier option with a lot bigger capacity
Payiklny
1
Good 👍 we are waiting