Chelsea Banter
Use our rumours form to send us chelsea transfer rumours.
19 Feb 2026 14:34:31
It looks like The Club World Cup will now be expanded to 48 teams in 2029 and the current holders will be allowed to defend their title which means Chelsea FC will be back in the tournament even if they fail to win the Champions League over the next few seasons. Fifa was always open to expanding the tournament from 32 teams, primarily to guarantee the participation of more of the biggest European clubs after Barcelona, Liverpool and Manchester United failed to qualify.
Infantino said in a speech at the general assembly of European Football Clubs in Rome last October that expansion was on the agenda, saying Fifa was working "to see how we can make this event bigger, even better, even more impactful".
While some at Uefa remain concerned that the huge financial rewards of the Club World Cup will have a destabilising effect on European football, an expansion to 48 clubs is regarded as less disruptive than making it a biennial event which Real Madrid were driving.
Although the fine detail has yet to be agreed, European clubs would be among the main beneficiaries of the expansion, with the number of Uefa qualifiers likely to increase from 12 last year to 16 in 2029. Chelsea won around £117 million from the competition last year and adding more European teams would have implications for the competitive balance of the Champions League with those qualifying for the Club World Cup earning huge amounts of money which Chelsea benefitted from in the summer.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 17:45:36
RBD, I was chuffed to bits to win the CWC and be the only team to have won it all. I will also be chuffed to be in the next tournament as defending champions.
I find it astonishing that some Chelsea fans do see how relevant it will become to our club's history.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 19:49:45
I don't think I've seen anyone play down the successes of the CWC. it was a huge win and a big marketing point to sponsors (or at least should be)
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 21:42:05
Me too Tom and every Chelsea fan I know says the same. Sadly, some claim to be Chelsea but are just jealous fans of other clubs. It is the world we now live in where the keyboard is so often the best friend of some.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 07:39:28
{Ed's Note - Ed001 has posted a new article entitled, Matchday 26 - Quick Round Up
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 18:14:12
{Ed's Note - Ed001 has posted a new article entitled, Matchday 26 - Quick Round Up
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 17:21:28
Has the profile of the football fan changed? I find myself reading posts about FOS sponsorhip, player trading, stadia development, commercial departments, what the owners are doing blah, blah, blah. Maybe I'm just old school but all I really care about on a day to day basis is our next game and what the side will be, travel arrangements and what lads will be going.
Equally, the only thing that really matters to me is winning trophies.
Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people worrying about the clubs finances etc but back in the day that was never an issue although I do remember some of the faces collecting money in buckets for the fines picked up by the likes of Hickmott and one armed babs!
{Ed001's Note - do you not think it comes from the fact that fans now have to spend huge sums to go to a game? In the past it was a cheap pastime, so you would just go along and have fun. Now people are paying so much, they expect more for their money. Even if you just sit at home and watch it on TV, you have to pay so much for the privilege.}
Agree1
18 Feb 2026 17:33:30
That's a really good point ED01, it was so easy back in the day, tickets were affordable and easy to obtain and then we got to watch MOTD and The Big Match on a Sunday for free. Now we have SKY, TNT and the rest fleecing us!
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 17:41:37
Ed, maybe but I think it's a more general expectation about most things in life.
Success is craved, maybe achieved and then demanded.
I hope that makes some sort of cynical sense.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 17:47:54
In all honesty ed001 I totally get what you are saying.
But from my point of view what can I change. So I don't worry about it and in honest don't care. All I care about is if we are winning or playing well.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 18:06:07
Greenaway, I agree with you entirely;it's about the football and winning: unfortunately we get distracted about things we have no control over.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 09:52:27
All goid posts but I look at revenue coming in to keep ticket prices down and a new stadia for our future fans in order to keep up with the big spenders and not slip away, they deserve that.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 10:08:36
Bill, I may well be wrong but the happy hammers fans were promised a reduction in ticket prices when they moved the Stratford and that didn't happen.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 16:00:04
Tom,
I would be gutted with Hold on charge.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 16:46:24
Bill, unfortunately that's the premiership world we live in.
I am personally more than happy to veto the current ownership model but would I give up my season ticket, doubtful. There in lies the probable problem/.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 07:39:47
{Ed's Note - Shappy has posted a new article entitled, What United Should Look For in the Next Manager
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 15:21:34
For the longest time I've been calling for improvements at centre back, but, looking at how we set up under Rosenior, I actually think another option in midfield is, at least, just as important. For me, Caicedo, Andrey Santos and Fernandez is the best starting midfield in the league. But, the depth beneath them is either permanently injured or non-existent.
You see the midfield three tire, or require tactical changes, as we saw against Leeds, and the options just aren't there. For me, Adam Wharton would be an excellent signing, whether he'd come for a rotational role, I don't know.
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 15:43:50
You are 100% correct J when you say that midfield 3 of Caicedo, Santos and Enzo Fernandez is the best in the Premier League. Essugo and Lavia (if fit) just add even more quality as well and don't forget Reece James can also play there too. Add in Wharton or another of our targets and that part of pitch is sorted for years to come.
Agree2
17 Feb 2026 16:23:06
Further to the above, and in line with reports, Barco would be a very good addition to the squad. Could fill in at midfield, LB, number 10 or LW - he's very versatile. Could ultimately see him being the long term successor to Cucurella. According to reports, Rosenior is a massive fan from the time they spent together at Strasbourg.
Agree1
18 Feb 2026 08:04:19
A player that contributes in more than one position should always be of value to a club.
Milner springs to mind as an example.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 12:42:42
MIlner also an admirably hard working and thoroughly professional player who imho never quite received the plaudits he deserved. Almost especially in his later playing days when he brought that calm - been there done that - ever professional calmness and effectiveness in appearances off the bench.
If Barco coud provide that quality versatility for us - and I haven't seen enough of him myself to be able to say - he could be a wonderful addition.
And I agree that with both Lavia and Essugo injured our other fine trio of midfielders have had to do more work than we woud have wanted or is good for them in longer run.
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 08:09:20
{Ed's Note - Ed001 has posted a new article entitled, Sunderland v Liverpool - A Quick Liverpool Perspective
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 07:39:31
{Ed's Note - Loveawaydays2 has posted a new article entitled, Leeds and the Run-In: Can We Reach 40 Points?
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 13:27:38
A lot of change coming at the end of the season with the rule changes prohibiting gambling companies from sponsorship deals to FOS, the 11 teams with current gambling deals include Aston Villa (Betano), Bournemouth (bj88), Brentford (Hollywood Bets), Crystal Palace (NET88), Everton (Stake.
com), Fulham (SBOTOP), Nottingham Forest (Bally's), Sunderland (W88), West Ham (Boyle Sports), and Wolves (DEBET) . Revenue is expected to drop by as much as 40% for those clubs looking at alternative sponsors and I wonder where we fit in all of this?
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 13:56:51
RPD
I pointed this situation out a while back.
We will now be in a shoot out with several clubs for a FOS but more importantly, the advantage will now be with businesses looking to sponsor a club.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 14:07:12
Can't have bookmakers and can't have a company that is a competitor of football broadcasters.
I'm still not clear as to why we haven't got one already but I'm willing to go along with any potential club sanction being the issue.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 15:33:10
I assume the knowledge that gaming companies could no longer be FOS sponsors was already known by all clubs? If that is the case I would like to think any consequences would have been entered into there calculations.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 19:17:23
Great, i'd almost forgot we are without a long term shirt sponsor for nearly 3 years.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 19:24:09
And what do you think our owners calculations are Tom because like the owners I have no clue.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 19:51:49
Bill, Iike most fans I am only guessing and agreeing with a previous poster who suggested it had something to do with potential sanctions. If that is the case, it may not be our present owner a fault.
I have no reason to blame anyone until I know the facts.
Agree1
17 Feb 2026 09:00:16
And who is going to make you privy of those facts, it won't be the owners Tom.
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 09:25:52
Bill, my guess is at some stage it will all come out in the public domain and then I will decide if any blame is required and who should receive it.
Some fans have convinced themselves that the blame, if any, must be down to our current owners, that is up to them. We live in a blame society that often pre judges but very rarely apologises when they get things wrong. In this particular case I cannot see what difference it makes to wait and see if anyone deserves criticism.
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 14:20:43
Having delved into this a little deeper it appears Chelsea had a FOS sponsorship deal lined up in 2023 with Paramount plus which was for a significant amount of money and over multiple years but was rejected by the Premier League as they didn't want us to have a sponsor which clashed with one of their TV rights broadcasters in the USA. Chelsea understandably were irked by this and have not let the matter go away, a few short term deals were agreed in the meantime to help bridge the gap but that Paramount plus deal was understood to be worth around £60 million per year which matches Arsenals and Man Citys deals, and apparently, is still on the table if Chelsea can convince the Premier League to allow them to accept it.
No mention of legal lawsuits at this stage but Chelsea do feel they have been shafted and are watching the Man City developments very closely. Ben Jacobs appears to be one of the sources of knowledge on this matter.
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 19:07:42
The alleged Paramount deal is old hat. If the club believed that the deal was within the rules they could and should have appealed the decision. The failure to do so implies that it is accepted that it was in breach of the rules. As for potential sanctions preventing a deal: most big deals have clauses which reduce the payments if certain conditions are not met e.
g failure to qualify for the Champions League.
As for things coming into the public domain corporations and government departments are notorious for being economical with the truth. Thus, it's not surprising that fans are questioning the lack of a sponsorship deal and I see no reason for any fan to apologise.
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 20:26:36
So, if it turns out that the reason we haven't got a FOS sponsor is because something the previous owners did and certain fans have given pelters to our currents owners then they shouldn't admit to blaming the wrong owner/owners?
I'm sorry when you make a mistake just put your hand up and move on.
Agree0
17 Feb 2026 21:46:08
Very interesting response Jimboy, what is your source? or are you just saying this? Ben Jacobs is fairly reliable and says the deal is still on the table? I have read the club did challenge the Premier League but got no joy and are now monitoring the Man City situation.
I'm just sharing info gained but if you actually know the facts please let us all know.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 07:13:35
RPD, we are all just guessing. When the dust the dust settles us fans will have more information that will allow an informed opinion. As the great and much missed used to often say "it doesn't matter. "
We do know we are under investigation for supposedly 74 offences.
We have no idea about any FOS contractual clauses.
I can wait for the reasons/facts to emerge on this particular subject. If the delay is down to our current owners or previous owner and the reason deserves criticism, I will give it then.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 07:45:02
So sorry I missed out Ed002.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 09:04:57
RPD, you state the club "challenged" the decision. I am not aware of any legal challenge within the Premier League structure nor the UK domestic courts. There are time limits for when such actions can be taken. I do not recall the club making an official statement about the "Paramount " deal. I fail to see the relevance of the Man City charges to this issue as it was apparently blocked because of a conflict of broadcasting rights.
We are all speculating. That's what happens when there is no reliable information. As for eventually finding out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: I'm not holding my breath.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 09:26:17
The truth will be the reasons why we haven't had a FOS sponsor for two seasons. It will not be a swearing on the bible exercise.
My guess is that even when the reasons are eventually given there will be some who will prefer not to believe it.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 10:29:39
Tom, so you don't want the truth? You are happy to accept the reasons that the club are winning to give without question.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 12:50:59
Jimbo, that is a ridiculous question. When the club decide to give a reason as to why we haven't had a FOS sponsor I will make my mind up then if anyone is to blame. I have zero interest in pre-judging there rationale and I have zero interest apportioning blame until I know at least some of the facts.
I have no evidence that we haven't got a FOS sponsor is the fault of the current owners.
The only "fact" I know that "may" be relevant to this issue is we have been charged with 74 offences that all happened under the tenure of the previous owner.
I will also not be critical of the previous owner on the issue of FOS sponsor again until I know the facts.
I am in no rush to apportion blame. I will leave that to others.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 15:58:23
Tom, I am under no illusion that Chelsea or any other PL club operates with transparency or accountability to their fans. I doubt whether we will get "even some of the facts" as it is likely that the owners will not feel the need to justify themselves to the plebs.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 17:18:37
I think they will justify themselves to you.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 18:07:54
Tom, not really sure what you mean?
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 18:33:57
If the owners are not going to justify themselves to "plebs" then I guess they will be justifying themselves to people who consider themselves not to be "plebs. "
If being a "pleb" is code for a fan, I'm happy to be a "pleb. ".
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 21:30:31
Tom, you have got the wrong end of the stick. My reference to plebs was the original classical meaning ( plebians) ordinary citizens of the Roman Republic ruled by wealthy patricians/ aristocrats. I was making an analogy for modern times likening corporations, billionaires, football club owners etc as the patricians and the rest of us as the plebians with little influence on matters of importance.
I too, am happy to be a pleb.
My apologies to any aristocrats on this site who I may have offended.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 22:08:04
No idea whos responsible, and i don't really care, but its embarrassing we still have no sponsor and a serious mismanagement of the situation. Don't think there's a single excuse for not having a long term short sponsor for 3 years.
I do remember one of the new owners saying publicly 'chelsea were previously not well managed on the sporting pr financial side of the game' or something like that. Bit ironic.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 22:41:47
You obviously do care if you don't think there is an excuse and believe that the FOS sponsorship deal has been mismanaged by the current owners.
I repeat, I have no idea who is to blame or if the mentioned criticism from the current owners about the previous owners is valid other than the 74 charges we currently face are result of the previous owners supposed wrongdoings.
Agree0
18 Feb 2026 22:45:48
Jimbo, your pleb diatribe is about as convincing as the term "donkey" as referring to a card game.
I often feel like an aristocrat, if that qualifies, I can assure you I don't feel offended.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 07:59:50
Tom are you incapable of not asserting what you think someone is saying as fact? Getting absolutely tiresome as well as the pompousness.
What is the point in talking to you about something if you're just going to say 'well you obviously meant this because I say so'. Give it a rest man.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 08:21:37
In my opinion your post was obvious. It wasn't me who said they didn't "care" followed phrases such as "mismanagement and "embarrassing. "
I have no idea who is to blame for us not having a FOS sponsor. It could well be the current owners or it just might be something to do with the previous owners.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 08:48:11
Tom. I have no idea what you are on about in your post, and don't really care. I was simply pointing out you had got the wrong end of the stick, as you often do. Your self- righteousness is becoming increasingly tedious.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 08:49:08
If I remember correctly, we did have a FOS sponsor three seasons ago albeit a in-house solution and we also had a FOS sponsor at the end of last season that paid a ridiculous amount of money for about 15 games.
If I am correct this is the first season we are likely to have no FOS sponsor. Of course that could change.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 09:43:05
Jimbo, I will try and make them less "tedious" by referencing the Roman Republic.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 14:37:02
Tom, I don't know or care who is responsible, I doubt the owners are going out themselves trying to get sponsors. They'd have a team. Whoever it is, its poor.
You said a year ago something along the lines of 'theyre holding out for a long term deal which is actually better even if we lose on money in the short term' and now you've switched too 'its probably the old owners who are at fault'.
Whos fault will it be next?
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 17:39:49
I should have added, yet again, I have no reason to apportion blame until I know the facts.
I personally have made rush judgments before and learned a lesson.
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 19:22:47
Standard, what a load of crap. I have NOT said the previous owners are at fault.
What I have said is, I have NO idea who is a fault.
I have NOT apportioned blame because I do NOT know the facts.
I have also NOT said it's "embarrassing" or "mismanaged" because I don't know.
If you and others want to carry on with a blame game that's up to you.
I'm not sure I can make this any clearer!
Agree0
19 Feb 2026 19:48:50
Same. You seem to misunderstand every time. I never blamed anyone, I just said its very poor, whoever is at fault. you're the one that insinuated i blamed the owners.
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 15:02:57
I got involved in a bit of banter last night when someone asked what postion we needed to upgrade most for next season? just one player.
I went for a centre back, Alessandro Bastoni, I think that one signing moves us up levels. Opinions?
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 16:42:01
Hi Greenaway, who would you be replacing in the squad with him? Tosin and/or Badiashille, I guess? Would certainly be an upgrade on those two. Meant to be an excellent player, but I've never been all that impressed the few full games I've watched him in, personally. His dive last night to get Kalulu sent off was also pretty outrageous. But I definitely think it's the right position to upgrade (and with an experienced slightly older head), although I really hope Colwill gets back to his level when he returns and Fofana stays fit.
Another shout might be a solid midfielder to come on and help hold on to control in games we need to see out – Goretzka, perhaps? (Although his tackling isn't actually great for the position he plays, he's an experienced winner, great mentality, excellent passing to calm things down – only thirty years old, though feels like he's been at the top level forever. ) I say this having never seen Essugo play, so I guess it would be taking his position in the squad (which is unfair – hopefully he'll come back from injury and be amazing) .
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 17:15:05
would love bastoni- but from whatever I've read of him, seems he'd be reluctant to leave italy- not that i blame him looking out of my window at the minute!
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 20:02:58
Kazblue, Bastoni is class but like you I understand he is reluctant to leave Italy. Even if he wasn't he would not come to us. He would understandably expect wages that reflect his status. Also, at the stage of his career he would want to go to a club which are realistically going to compete for the big trophies not one whose ambition is limited to perhaps doing so in circa 22030.
We have brought in so many CBs most of which are bang average. Colwill, an academy product looked the best prospect but now is recovering from a serious injury. Fofana for all his time here has hardly kicked a ball and appears to be unable to play two consecutive games. We clearly need at least one top class CB, if we are serious about challenging for top trophies.
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 20:50:41
Lavia will get fit and become one of the best midfielders in Europe. I hope that's still for Chelsea. Sadly I think Enzo will leave.
I think both Tosin and Badiashile will leave in the summer. Colwill should be fit and the club can also bring back the lad from Strasbourg. I think we will sign one more CH but I'm not sure who it will be.
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 21:59:19
To become one of the best midfielders in Europe you have play. Since Lavia had been signed he has made 21 PL appearances. In all competitions calculating the actual minutes he has played, it works out at around 14.3 90 minute games.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 07:05:56
Well he certainly can prove his worth on the treatment table that's for sure but he will get fit and then we will see what a talent this lad is.
Some may well have given up on him but I certainly haven't. In my opinion if we sold him, it would be a massive mistake.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 09:08:55
It's a gamble Tom, but at what point do youbday enough is enough and that goes for Fofana as well.
Essugo might also be entering that orbit as well I'm afraid.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 09:41:32
I'm with you on Lavia Tom. The medical depatment have rebuilt Reece James and Fofana is slowly coming back to fitness and the signs are good that the people behind the scenes are doing a decent job.
Remember Pulisic? he had a lot of injuries under the old medical dept but is now showing his true worth in Italy and is being linled with a £70million move to Arsenal in the summer.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 09:44:35
I agree bill- although fofana has managed a decent amount of games this season and don't think can be classified same as lavia who has barely played any football- Fofana just this season has played more minutes than lavia has for us since he signed
Fear we can't rely on either for a full season- no point having a great player if he plays once a blue moon.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 09:57:18
Lavia has made appearances in 29 games for us since joing in 2023 but missed nearly 100. Yes, when fit he has often looked to be a fabulous player so will hugely hope he will now have an extended period of fitness and ability to play for us for an extended period without another lengty layoff. His career with us probably depends on this you'd think.
Would agree that experienced - been there done that at top level - quality CB our priority position.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 11:52:15
That's why these people add paid the big bucks.
If we sold one or both they will probably never have another career injury.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 13:03:23
When Lavia played for Southampton against us it was, as far as I can remember, the most dominant midfield performance I have seen at the bridge from "any" midfielder. We would be mad in my opinion to give up on that sort of talent.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 14:00:38
Tom
I see your point but at what stage dies flogging a dead horse come into it.
While these players are injured, it is putting more and more pressure on the players who have to play more games than they should.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 14:55:48
The current CFC medical team will presumably be key to decision about Lavia. The patience the club has shown with attemnpts to get and keep him fit - over two and a half years - suggests how much they/we rate the player.
The current medical team's more cautious approach in not rushing players back and managing the game time of those who have had a consifderable record of fitness problems - like James, Fofana and Lavia - suggests that they will do all in their power to see if his career can be salvaged through getting him fit enough now to play more than a handful of games before next breakdown.
The amount and quality of James's appearances this season is a hopeful sign that they may succeed.
But each injury problem and individual's history of injuries will have differences and I recall someone suggesting that too much game time at too frenetic apace and intensity - a reason why Lavia was such a force at Southampton until he was injured there shortly before coming to us! - while he his body was still developing may be the reason for the frequent breakdowns now.
But others on here - eg Ed00! for one I'd guess - are much more knowledgeable about the sports science involved here and/or whether or not there may be something in this?
Anyway, I'd think this lies behind the carefiul management of Estevao's game time despite the fact that we fans may be crying out for him to start every game- in EPL and ECL at least - and play much if not all of the 90 mins.
So am hugely hoping that this cautious thinking in terms of young players - and Lavia has only just turned 22 - may benefit the players and us in the longer term.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 15:30:51
Bill, we have zero chance of selling an injured player anyway.
When Fofana and Lavia have played 30 plus games in a season would be the time to sell but then if they are performing well enough to play that amount of games, why would we sell them?
It will be difficult to make those decisions and I personally hope they never have too!
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 10:09:08
I did like the video of Fofana pushing g Jesse Derry towards the Chelsea away fans on Friday.
Nice from Fofana and the lad needs to remember those moments.
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 13:18:16
Lovely to see Tom.
Agree0
15 Feb 2026 14:51:19
He showed a bit of class and leadership Tom.
Agree0
16 Feb 2026 09:58:33
Well done Fofana.
Agree0
Chelsea Banter 2
Chelsea Banter 3
Chelsea Banter Archives
