Chelsea have already lost out on a potential move to Battersea and it's looking as though the Blues bid to put a stadium in Earl's Court isn't going so well either. There were several legal challenges raised against CapCo's plans for the development -- which, of course, do not include a new stadium for Chelsea -- and while said challenges would have instilled some hope that CapCo would have been required to go back to the drawing board on their plans, it looks as though those objections have now been pretty thoroughly squashed by the Honourable Mr Justice John Mitting:
The analysis of the consultation responses put to cabinet on 23 April 2012 and 3 September 2012 was balanced and fair. The suggestion that the results of the consultation were hidden is unwarranted.
This would appear* to leave CapCo's original plans for Earl's Court green-lighted, and means that another potential spot for Chelsea to relocate to in the immediate vicinity of Stamford Bridge has now been more or less ruled out. It's difficult to know what to make of this, to be honest.
*My knowledge of the legal proceedings around developments in the UK is admittedly rather murky.
With the advent of Financial Fair Play rules it seemed clear that the Blues need to find a way of increasing match-day revenue, Stamford Bridge almost certainly cannot support an expansion, and Battersea and Earls Court were the only sites that struck me as even remotely acceptable for new builds. If I had to guess, a rebranding of the Bridge is going to happen sooner or later.