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?
1.) 16 Feb 2026
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.
2.) 16 Feb 2026
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.
3.) 16 Feb 2026
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.
4.) 16 Feb 2026
16 Feb 2026 19:17:23
Great, i'd almost forgot we are without a long term shirt sponsor for nearly 3 years.
5.) 16 Feb 2026
16 Feb 2026 19:24:09
And what do you think our owners calculations are Tom because like the owners I have no clue.
6.) 16 Feb 2026
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.
7.) 17 Feb 2026
17 Feb 2026 09:00:16
And who is going to make you privy of those facts, it won't be the owners Tom.
8.) 17 Feb 2026
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.
9.) 17 Feb 2026
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.
10.) 17 Feb 2026
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.
11.) 17 Feb 2026
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.
12.) 17 Feb 2026
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.
13.) 18 Feb 2026
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.
14.) 18 Feb 2026
18 Feb 2026 07:45:02
So sorry I missed out Ed002.
15.) 18 Feb 2026
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.
16.) 18 Feb 2026
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.
17.) 18 Feb 2026
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.
18.) 18 Feb 2026
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.
19.) 18 Feb 2026
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.
20.) 18 Feb 2026
18 Feb 2026 17:18:37
I think they will justify themselves to you.
21.) 18 Feb 2026
18 Feb 2026 18:07:54
Tom, not really sure what you mean?
22.) 18 Feb 2026
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. ".
23.) 18 Feb 2026
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.
24.) 18 Feb 2026
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.
25.) 19 Feb 2026
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.
26.) 19 Feb 2026
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.
27.) 19 Feb 2026
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.
28.) 19 Feb 2026
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.
29.) 19 Feb 2026
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.
30.) 19 Feb 2026
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.
31.) 19 Feb 2026
19 Feb 2026 09:43:05
Jimbo, I will try and make them less "tedious" by referencing the Roman Republic.
32.) 19 Feb 2026
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?
33.) 19 Feb 2026
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.
34.) 19 Feb 2026
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!
35.) 19 Feb 2026
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.
36.) 20 Feb 2026
20 Feb 2026 05:50:30
Standard, you used the phrases "embarrassing" and "mismanagement. " I think it's reasonable to assume those comments were being directed at our current management.
A previous post suggested that the delay in naming a long term FOS sponsor "may" have something to do with the 74 charges against us. I have no idea if that is the reason but it could well have some bearing on the club not being able to achieve what it considers to be a value for money deal.
The assertion that there is NO "excuse" for us not having a FOS sponsor just doesn't make sense to me. The club obviously wants a deal, as proven by the short term deals for the last two seasons. There is obviously a reason/excuse why we haven't got a deal but at the moment we are all left (as always) just guessing what the reasons are.