Todd Boehly's deep pockets, bombastic rhetoric and irreverent approach at Stamford Bridge meant he was cast as the quintessential American Premier League owner since day one of his Chelsea reign.

As well as seemingly playing by the rulebook of US franchise sport with his idea for a Premier League all-stars game and use of ultra-long contracts, Boehly has also prioritised commercial income above all else.

In fairness, the astonishing level of spending sanctioned by the private equity billionaire and his Clearlake Capital co-investors has necessitated a focus on creating additional revenue so as to satisfy PSR.

Chelsea are walking a tightrope in terms of compliance, and the high-wire balancing act is taking place against the backdrop of a boardroom power struggle between Boehly and Behdad Eghbali.

Clearlake co-founder Eghbali, who is indisputably the most powerful shareholder at Chelsea, has taken the wheel from Boehly on transfer strategy in recent months and each now want to buy the other out.

Despite the power struggle, there is no doubt that both factions are committed, with Chelsea's owners injecting another PS190m via a share issue only this week.

But while the conflict remains unresolved, there are existential issues that are up in the air for Chelsea.

MORE CHELSEA STORIES

Chelsea faction could demand name change after Stamford Bridge exit For over a decade, Chelsea have explored the possibility of either a full-scale revamp of Stamford Bridge or a move to a new site entirely.

Roman Abramovich's 'cathedral of football' concept and the striking Battersea Power Station plan were both shelved many years ago, but the new regime have breathed life into the stadium project.

However, it has emerged that Boehly and Eghbali have radically different visions for the future of Chelsea's home ground.

Despite Chelsea having already bought land adjacent to Stamford Bridge for around PS80m to facilitate the expansion of the stadium, Boehly reportedly sees the club's future elsewhere - Earl's Court, to be specific.

The wants to spend north of PS1.5bn on a new 60,000 seater stadium in the Kensington district.

By contrast, Eghbali and his Clearlake peers favour staying at the Bridge, with plans to take capacity from around 40,000 to beyond 55,000.

But there is a third stakeholder whose views could be just as significant: The Chelsea Pitch Owners.

As detailed in a recent article from The Athletic, the group - who own the freehold on which Stamford Bridge sits - would be entitled to reclaim the 'Chelsea' name if the club ever moved away from SW6.

The non-profit organisation is owned by around 15,000 fans and was established when Chelsea ran into financial issues in the 90s in order to safeguard the club's name and stadium.

However, it is a legitimate hurdle to be cleared by Boehly's camp if he is serious about moving away from the near 150-year-old stadium.

There is no indication that any of the current owners want to change Chelsea's name, and it would be suicide from a commercial perspective if they did.

But it is useful leverage for Chelsea Pitch Owners to have ultimate control over the club, and their rights could theoretically be further enshrined by the imminent independent regulator for English football.

The new government-backed body, which is opposed by Chelsea, will likely have the power to block club name or colour changes, as well as a number of other levers to safeguard the interests of fans.

Either way, the future of Stamford Bridge is a weighty topic both in terms of the club's identity and the cold financial reality that it is facing.

Chelsea currently earn less than PS80m per year in matchday income, which is well below the likes of Tottenham, Arsenal, Liverpool and Man United.