Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur supporters eager to indulge in a slice of 1990s nostalgia may recall their clubs’ efforts to host the ill-fated London Monarchs American football team.

Such were the size constraints of the clubs’ stadiums in the mid-90s that the NFL goalposts stood within the stands at each end of Stamford Bridge while, at White Hart Lane, the Monarchs had to play on a shortened pitch.

Spurs have no such problems these days thanks to the club’s £1bn multi-purpose Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, which this month hosted its largest-ever NFL crowd for the game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and Philadelphia Eagles that attracted 61,322 fans.

The Monarchs played their 1995 and 1996 seasons at White Hart Lane before switching to Stamford Bridge for the final game of 1996 and being housed by Chelsea for the 1997 campaign. That coincided with the demolition of the West Stand and not much has changed at Stamford Bridge since that side of the ground was rebuilt.

It is a source of amusement to Chelsea supporters that Tottenham’s victory over Coventry City meant that Spurs have won as many home league games (six) as the number of times Beyoncé has performed at their stadium since November 2024. But Chelsea would struggle to fit the singer’s vast entourage into Stamford Bridge, let alone her fans. The stadium has not had an attendance of 40,000 or more for more than three years.

Tottenham’s record at Stamford Bridge is miserable, before their latest visit on Saturday. Chelsea have spent most of the past 30 years, since the days of the Monarchs, comfortably ahead of their London rivals on the pitch. But, off it, the constraints of Stamford Bridge and the earning ability of Tottenham’s stadium that opened in 2019 have left Chelsea at a disadvantage.

The last set of accounts for both clubs showed that Chelsea’s match-day revenue was £87m in 2024-25 compared with Tottenham’s £126m. Spurs can also host up to 30 non-football events at full capacity, including NFL games and Beyoncé concerts, which contributed to commercial revenue of £277m. Chelsea’s commercial revenue for the same period was £200.9m.

That was a gap of £115.1m in match-day and commercial revenue for 2024-25, which means Chelsea have to be more efficient than their rivals in terms of recruitment and sales. They have banked over £1bn in player revenue since the ownership change four years ago, including a world-record £519m this summer.

Without any European football this season, Chelsea’s decision to allow Shakhtar Donetsk to use Stamford Bridge for Champions League games will make up some of the shortfall from missed gate revenue.

Tottenham’s stadium may be a money-spinner and the envy of some of their opponents, but it has been anything but a fortress in recent years. The club have even downgraded the facilities for away teams to try to make their visits less hospitable. Spurs will not be treated to any luxuries in the no-frills environment of the Stamford Bridge away dressing-room.

Clearlake Capital now has sole control of Chelsea after buying Todd Boehly’s stake, but it is the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) – first established in 1993 – who hold the keys to whether or not the club ever move away from Stamford Bridge. The only other viable option is to knock down the current stadium and start again on the same site.

Despite the Monarchs’ tenancy and the West Stand demolition, the most significant Chelsea stadium event in 1997 was the transfer of the Stamford Bridge freehold to the CPO, granting the club a 199-year lease on the stadium for an extremely small rent. A condition of the lease is that the owners will forfeit the Chelsea FC name if they move the club from the current site without the CPO’s consent.

At least 75 per cent of the CPO shareholders who vote would need to vote in favour of a move to a new stadium, should such a proposal ever be made, for Chelsea’s owners to be able to move the club and retain the same name.

The CPO has around 16,000 shareholders from 88 countries, including former Chelsea captain John Terry, who is president, and other ex-players and managers such as Pat Nevin, Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink, Frank Lampard, Thomas Tuchel and José Mourinho.

Nevin: You come to accept change must happen

Nevin knows only too well the push and pull between the heart and the head of contemplating a stadium move, having seen another of his old clubs, Everton, switch from Goodison Park to the Hill Dickinson.

“I played at Goodison and I was at the Hill Dickinson last week for Chelsea’s game against Everton,” said Nevin. “It was heartbreaking to leave Goodison Park, which I deeply loved. But I travel around going to football games for my job and one-by-one you see Arsenal move, Spurs in a new stadium and so you come to accept change must happen. It’s just what that change looks like and what’s best for the club.

“The CPO is vitally important because it basically ensures that an owner can’t come in, move the club, make an absolute fortune and then b----r off. It was hard to imagine Chelsea without Roman Abramovich for a long time, but then he had to go. Then the next ones were Boehly and Clearlake, and you think they are forever, and now Boehly’s already gone. That shows the enduring value of the CPO.”

Without giving away his preference, Nevin confirmed that he would use his CPO vote if a proposal is ever made to leave Stamford Bridge and said it is “something I have often thought about and really studied”.

Chris Isitt, who has been CPO chairman since 2020, said: “It’s impossible to predict how a vote would go because it’s a broad church. There’s the full spectrum of opinion from those who are dead against any move at all, to those who would be interested to find out more and those who can’t wait to move. So I couldn’t call it.

“Our message to fans is that if you’ve got an opinion [on the stadium] and you want a say, then the only way you can do that is to buy a share.”

Chelsea view the CPO as a valuable partner and wants it to play an active part in the future of the stadium. But, despite buying the club in 2022 from Abramovich, the club’s owners are yet to share any proposals or timelines with the group.

One long-term Chelsea employee pointed out that “if building a new stadium was easy, then Roman would have done it”. Infrastructure is very much at the forefront of the club’s vision, with work starting on redeveloping and enhancing the club’s Cobham training ground, and a new stadium is seen as “vital”.

At the last CPO annual general meeting, Isitt read out a statement that said: “It is a cause of much frustration and some disbelief after three and a half years of the club reviewing all its options and doing the due diligence it still has yet to result in a solution that can be shared.”

While reports of disagreements between Clearlake and Boehly over Chelsea’s stadium issue were described as “overblown”, there is a feeling within the club that Clearlake’s buyout provides a singular vision and the opportunity to progress more efficiently and faster.

That does not mean a solution is around the corner, however, as Chelsea must settle on a proposal that is logistically and economically feasible. It is anticipated that, from planning to completion, it would take around eight years to build a new stadium. The club believe they need a new home that could accommodate crowds of 70,000-plus and consider it a 50-year investment.

The CPO meets regularly with Jason Gannon, Chelsea’s president and chief operating officer, who is in charge of the stadium project. The group’s next AGM is in January and the feeling of “frustration and some disbelief” will have increased if there are no updates between now and then.

Earl’s Court is the only site away from Stamford Bridge that Chelsea have held discussions about moving to. In 2023, the club designed a scheme for the top end of the site by Cromwell Road to incorporate a stadium with a second multi-purpose arena.

That never progressed and since then the Earl’s Court Development Company (ECDC) regeneration project, which does not include a football stadium or entertainment arena, received planning permission. Last month, a spokesman from ECDC insisted those plans remained unchanged.

There are no realistic alternative sites to Earl’s Court or Stamford Bridge for Chelsea to build a new stadium on, so the club’s options are severely limited.

Had Chelsea been able to follow the Spurs blueprint of building a new super-stadium on pretty much the same site while being able to stay put through the majority of the build, then work may well have already been under way.

Fans may stop going to games and never return

The club bought the Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions adjacent to Stamford Bridge two and a half years ago so that the current stadium site could be expanded to create a bigger entrance area and more space for offices and retail.

Tottenham had to move to Wembley for the final 18 months of their build, which seemed like an eternity to supporters, players and staff. But Chelsea would have to play at the national stadium for about six years if the club decided to knock down Stamford Bridge and rebuild it. The demolition of the stadium alone would take a full year.

Given Chelsea have the oldest average demographic of season-ticket holders in the Premier League, there are legitimate concerns that moving to Wembley for such a significant amount of time would lead fans to stop going to games and never return.

Dele Alli, the last Spurs player to score a winning goal at Stamford Bridge in 2018, claimed the Tottenham team he starred in would have won the league title had they stayed at White Hart Lane for one more season, rather than setting up camp at Wembley.

With Manchester City under threat of being hamstrung for the foreseeable future as they wait for their appeal and potential sanction for breaching financial rules, Chelsea might be reluctant to commit to something that could impact their ability to win trophies during a period of opportunity.

Chelsea’s 90s-inspired third kit demonstrates the value of nostalgia and there is a certain retro appeal to Stamford Bridge. But the club simply cannot afford to let another 30 years drift by in their current stadium, as Beyoncé and co boost Tottenham’s finances.

“It’s no good saying ‘oh, we must stay at Stamford Bridge, regardless’, if it means the club fails,” said Nevin. “You have to make sure that you are doing the best for the football club, whether that’s staying on the same site or moving.”