One of England’s most recognized clubs seems to be losing each piece of land they publicly express interest with. First they lost the Battersea Power Plant, now Earls Court. What’s more, local council expressed “firm belief that the future of Chelsea FC is best served at their historic home of Stamford Bridge”.
Over the last few years Chelsea has been informing about potential move. The club isn’t through with supports’ stiff opposition against such a scheme, but they’ve been analyzing several options for some time.
Among them was Battersea Power Plant, for which the club even provided an initial vision of a stadium incorporated into the historical building. But eventually it was a Malaysian developer who won the race for Battersea.
Now a second blow came as Hammersmith and Fulham Council reached an agreement with EC Properties to build some two estates at Earls Court. That site, less than 1km away from Stamford Bridge (half a mile), was on Chelsea’s ‘wishlist’ since at least 2010, when they confirmed interest.
Now not only did the Council take away one more option for a nearby relocation, they also expressed the desire for Chelsea to stay put, at their almost 110-year old stadium. “There really is no place for Chelsea Football Club within the Earls Court redevelopment and it remains the council’s firm belief that the future of Chelsea FC is best served at their historic home of Stamford Bridge.” – says a statement by H&M Council.
The statement further reads: “Neither of the two landowners [H&F Council and Capco] believes that the inclusion of a football stadium in the scheme would offer the regeneration benefits of the existing master plan.”