Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded
No Avatar image uploaded
Chelsea Rumours Member Posts
TomB's Profile
TomB's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To TomB's Posts
To TomB's last 5 rumours posts
To TomB's last 5 rumour replies
To TomB's last 5 banter replies
TomB's rumours posts with other poster's replies to TomB's rumours posts
18 Jul 2026 18:47:03
Rumour is we have agreed a fee (£117m) for Rogers.
If this is true, I assuming we will be selling them a couple of players. Maybe Jackson and Badiashile.
Just one other rumour. Apparently Newcastle have asked the price for Jackson.
1.) 18 Jul 2026 21:28:00
117 million is surely far too much to pay for Rogers? He scored 10 goals and contributed 6 assists, but made little impression for England at the World Cup.
Rogers did score as many goals as Enzo and offered two more assists than Enzo, but Enzo's passing accuracy (overall and long passes) was much better. He created considerably more chances than Rogers and made double the number of tackles.
So I greatly hope that, if we do buy Rogers for this huge sum, it is not because we are selling Fernandez, particularly not to Arsenal or City.
Not quite sure what I make of this rumour, Tom, though I think you are a fan of Rogers. Is it true that he is a friend of Cole's, or is that someone else in the England set up?
2.) 18 Jul 2026 23:36:56
JBS, I do like Rogers as a player and I try not to think of transfer fees, although that is difficult.
I'm personally not sure that, if we do sign Rogers, and I'm far from convinced this will happen, it means EF will be leaving.
3.) 19 Jul 2026 13:13:26
I think Enzo is a false equivalent. Rogers is playing higher up, taking more risks in the final third than Enzo.
Rogers gives you the option of two narrow 10s in a 3-4-3, and an alternative to Palmer in the 10 in a 4-2-3-1. He also gives you ball carrying, which Chelsea don't really have. Palmer is a passer, facilitator and finisher; Joao Pedro has the hold up and link up play, plus calm finishing. Neither picks up and drives.
Jackson is the only other player with that profile, although I think Delap can also do it when firing.
£117m is a lot, until you see the price of other players in the market, especially midfielders. I also wouldn't be surprised to see at least one Chelsea player on their way to Villa for a somewhat inflated fee, a bit like Kellyman and Maatsen. Both have issues with UEFA rules to work through (and around).
4.) 19 Jul 2026 19:17:52
tbh wouldn't mind seeing Cole back on the right, and Rodgers, Caicedo and Enzo together in the midfield would be interesting. Only thing then, potentially, would be pace in the team - maybe need to look at a quick left winger. Not sure if this Palestra is quick, but whoever plays left back hopefully will be quick.
5.) 19 Jul 2026 19:38:07
Neither Cole nor Morgan Rogers can tackle or track back that well, compared to Enzo, who also last season scored as many as Rogers and more than Cole. So, yes, it is a false equivalent, but if no Enzo, can we depend on Caicedo alone protecting the back?
6.) 19 Jul 2026 19:41:03
Which is why I was worried about us selling Santos, who can also tackle. But my worries would be considerably less if Enzo stays.
Would also like Jackson, not Delap, to be back up or occasional partner for Pedro.
30 Jun 2026 22:24:24
I have a mate who says we are looking to sign a midfielder who is playing in the WC but not from England but Paraguay.
I am out of the country and somewhat out of the loop. Anyone got any good rumours?
1.) 01 Jul 2026 08:37:17
Tom, Tyrique George is reported to be off to Everton on a permanent transfer. Malo Gusto is wanted by Man City. There is interest from a number of teams for Delap. Alonso apparently wants to sign for Pep Chavarria as a LWB, and also wants to have a look at the current squad before deciding who goes and who stays.
Sources: Sky Sports and others.
2.) 01 Jul 2026 10:22:33
Thanks, RPD. I assume my mate is winding me up about a midfielder from Paraguay.
3.) 01 Jul 2026 10:29:14
Tom, I imagine your mate is talking about Julio Enciso who is a blue.co player at our sister club.
4.) 01 Jul 2026 12:18:02
It was reported, at the time he was signed for Strasbourg, that Enciso had been told he was viewed by BlueCo as a longterm Chelsea player.
5.) 02 Jul 2026 09:25:31
Enciso has impressed me the half a dozen times or so I've seen him for club or country, including when he scored against us for Brighton at the Bridge, of course.
29 Jun 2026 22:32:22
Could this be true, Liverpool have asked about the availability of Josh?
Under no circumstances would I sell him. If we did, I wouldn’t pay much. Be totally gutted.
1.) 30 Jun 2026 08:14:38
Tom
As you have said before, it's a business, and Josh is a home grown player (PSR), who, incidentally, never gets to play.
2.) 30 Jun 2026 11:16:05
We're planning to sell 4-5 CBs. I imagine Josh will get plenty of playing time afterwards.
3.) 30 Jun 2026 16:06:17
Bill, CFC being a business, and players being bought and sold, would not make me happy when a player I personally rate is sold.
4.) 30 Jun 2026 16:36:36
Nor me, Tom, but our owners /SD's, who knows?
5.) 30 Jun 2026 17:24:24
Bill, it's nothing new. We have been selling players for years. I always say we sold our best ever player to avoid going bust over 60 years ago. Nothing has changed with this ownership. Although clubs didn't have SDs to bitch about in those days!!
23 Jun 2026 19:54:17
If we are about to sign Palestra, I assume we are selling Gusto.
The rumours are that everything is agreed. We will see!
1.) 23 Jun 2026 23:14:15
Yeah, looks like we've come in late and, financially, blown Inter out of the water. Can't imagine Gusto will be staying now, probably off to City - not a massive loss, in my opinion.
Palestra will take some time to settle, but is a player that can play FB or WB on either side, allowing Alonso to be tactically flexible.
I think we'll add Barco, Lacroix and a left sided 10, on top of Palestra. That'll pretty much be it.
2.) 24 Jun 2026 00:15:12
I agree with that, J. Slim possibility of a GK in Maignan if we can find a suitor for Sanchez or if Penders is happy for another loan.
3.) 24 Jun 2026 00:18:07
Haven't ever watched him play, but know there are high expectations and happy to see us through the checkbook at a deal to get it done.
If it also means we sell Gusto to a rival, it's the cherry on top.
4.) 24 Jun 2026 09:20:47
So what has happened to the idea of buying experienced players, who are Premiership-ready with great talent & character?
To be fair, I have never seen Palestra play, but how many of those boxes does he tick?
Maybe just talent, but that's not what we currently need.
Once again, I think our transfer policy is confusing.
5.) 24 Jun 2026 14:19:28
Swcfc, I had also wondered about this, as I had thought the Alonso appointment meant we were now more open again to buying seasoned
top-tier proven players.
6.) 24 Jun 2026 14:21:42
Instead, it seems more likely that we will sell more than we bring in, starting with Cucurella. But the transfer window has a very long way to go, of course.
7.) 24 Jun 2026 20:16:58
I think the change was that the manager now has more overall say, & I assume the age profile of players has been relaxed. It sounds like Palestra was an Alonso pick, though.
Just seen Chelsea apparently want £75m for Gusto. ? I think we'll probably ask/want around the £40m mark myself.
8.) 24 Jun 2026 20:50:34
Why would you sell Gusto for less than we are paying for Palestra? He's playing in the Premier League already and Palestra is unproven.
9.) 24 Jun 2026 21:50:39
Proven to be what. ?
Value is not just about ability, it's about contractual term, age, amortised valuation, wages... A £45m Palestra might be better value than getting £45m for Gusto.
A £75m Gusto?
It's hard to negotiate when the other side can't stop laughing.
21 Jun 2026 23:10:24
Apparently there is some substance to the Wharton Chelsea signing.
I have posted before. I’m not a massive fan. He does look to move the ball forward but is often caught out of position.
I usually say I enjoy the rumours but rarely the fact, but this is a rumour I’m not that happy about. If we do sign him, he will immediately become the best midfielder in Europe. I hope!
1.) 22 Jun 2026 08:27:30
The money Palace would be asking for would be silly. I would sooner go for Anderson.
2.) 22 Jun 2026 08:50:43
Let's just give Santos a proper run in the side, and develop him alongside Caicedo. Surely our priorities are a world-class centre-back and keeper.
3.) 22 Jun 2026 10:33:54
I agree with Greenaway in terms of giving Santos a run in the side, as I think he may have more to offer in the long term than Wharton, who would apparently cost a huge fee. If we lose Enzo F, as seems probable, I would like to see him replaced by someone with more creative flair and goal scoring ability than Wharton.
Santos has shown that scoring ability for Brazil junior sides and at Strasbourg, but we probably bring in another, more experienced midfielder with this attacking midfielder ability, and Santos can play a deeper role, as he generally has done for us so far?
4.) 22 Jun 2026 14:37:43
As long as the money isn't ridiculous, I think Warton could fit in well. With the creative players ahead of him, he could make a big difference in our ability to get forward quickly. If the fee is anywhere near the 85m that Newcastle supposedly want for Tonali, I would much rather he came in, though.
As long as we get some deals over the line early, it should make a big difference having a full preseason with Xabi.
5.) 22 Jun 2026 20:31:21
It's being said that Palace want near the £80m mark so I'd steer clear.
6.) 23 Jun 2026 09:11:01
Agreed, fuser.
TomB's banter posts with other poster's replies to TomB's banter posts
22 Jul 2026 17:44:49
It would appear Garnacho is going to Villa on an initial loan with a so called low threshold obligation to buy clause.
I except it’s up to the player to prove he is undroppable at any club, but in the back of my mind I seem to remember Villa negotiating a similar deal with Liverpool for Elliott.
The player hasn’t pulled up any trees at Chelsea and that’s a shame but as far as I know he hasn’t been unprofessional while with us.
1.) 22 Jul 2026 19:17:23
I understand it is a conditional obligation to buy: not sure what a low threshold obligation is. I would rather we found another club for a sale, otherwise, just like Jackson, he will be back next summer.
2.) 22 Jul 2026 19:24:25
Whatever happened to a straight obligation? Now it's with clauses, and I can see Ganarcho not getting a game for Villa after August, similar to what happened to Elliott, which destroyed his season.
3.) 22 Jul 2026 20:46:34
I think the difference with Elliott was that Emery never wanted him? I'm sure the club have done their due diligence and have learned from the Jackson loan, so will be fairly confident of the obligation being met.
If Football Manager is as accurate in its mechanics as real life (certainly its player ratings are top notch), then there are ways in which to encourage loan clubs to play players.
E.G. reduced contributions to wages for the weeks the player plays. Reduced loan fee for the month etc. So, for example, Villa are paying £1m/month loan fee for Garnacho. If he plays, it's £500k; if he doesn't, it's £1m. If he plays, they pay 50% of his wage; if he doesn't, it's 100%.
4.) 22 Jul 2026 21:23:12
Fuser, what a good idea. Love it, mate.
22 Jul 2026 11:17:26
A mate told me today that as we are not in Europe we can spend 85%of revenue. Apparently teams who qualify for the CL can only spend 70% of revenue. Obviously it's a bigger number if you are in Europe but I didn't know that was the case.
Can anyone of the Ed's confirm that is the case?
{Ed001's Note - yes Tom, UEFA's SCR regs are much more restrictive. The Prem is meant to be moving to bring itself in line with them but some of the clubs have not been keen on it and so it is holding up the move.}
1.) 22 Jul 2026 11:51:40
ED001, when we qualify for the champions league next season, would EUFA take this season net spend into account or is it just for the seasons we will be in the competition going forward.
{Ed001's Note - that is the issue, you would then have to come under their rules over a 3 year period, which would include this season.}
2.) 22 Jul 2026 16:45:27
Thank you ED, thought that would be the case.
21 Jul 2026 22:10:18
That is the sort of comment from a new signing that makes him a fan's favourite. I am biased, so I obviously agree. Well done MR.
1.) 22 Jul 2026 00:29:12
100%, Tom! Was just coming on to say the same thing. Absolute legend!
2.) 22 Jul 2026 11:29:06
Was great to hear Mr confirm what CFC fans think in terms of which club is the biggest in London!
20 Jul 2026 19:14:19
RIP Kevin Keegan.
A man that entertained at every level, a proper football legend.
A mate told me years ago that his first name wasn’t Kevin but Joseph, but for many he will always be King Kev.
1.) 20 Jul 2026 20:54:54
RIP Kev. A very honest, passionate player and manager: hard not to like.
2.) 20 Jul 2026 21:54:25
Very sad news. Decent man and very good player. Was v sorry when his Newcastle side that played such attractive football was beaten to the league title by Fergie's United.
20 Jul 2026 10:36:45
A mate told me this morning that The Happy Hammers have so far sold 50k season tickets. If I remember correctly, we will sell about 30k for a stadium capacity 42k ish.
While I am aware that options and planning permissions take time, these came in with strong promises but so far very little action. I made my position very clear early in that I can’t see these owners being in place when and if a stadium build takes place.
I have also said I don’t like the idea of “funds” as owners.
With the FAB, in my opinion, not fit for purpose, I think we will end up way behind other clubs with a stadium capacity of 60k let alone 42k with very few questions being asked and certainly no answers given.
I just cannot see these owners being around if we fail to qualify for the Champs League, but I also think they will sell asap, subject to the restrictive covenants.
1.) 20 Jul 2026 10:58:11
Tom
This was exactly my point on the SB project. You can add no permanent FOS either, yer, I was deemed to be negative.
My view was not for the likes of us, Tom, but for the younger generation going forward.
Unfortunately, we have the owners for another 6 years.
2.) 20 Jul 2026 11:15:30
Bill, we have all become frustrated with the lack of long term FOS sponsors, and my argument about the maths went out of the window at the start of last season, but I see that as a separate topic to SB development and the promises made by these owners. They promised stadium investment, fan involvement and open communication. In my opinion, they have failed in all three of those areas.
As far as not being able to sell, I'm sure that restrictive covenant can be got around if it becomes important for the club's survival, and that's how I would now frame it.
I have sent a string of emails this morning looking for answers and assurances. I doubt I will get acknowledgment of receipt, let alone a reply. My open email to all FAB members was, in my opinion, scathing. I have also sent copies to the CST and CPO.
3.) 20 Jul 2026 12:37:05
You have to give it another 3 years, Bill. It is way too early to judge the owners. You must have an agenda.
4.) 20 Jul 2026 13:14:28
The difference is I'm not stupid enough to call for new owners before giving our current owners a chance. I didn't want them in the beginning, but I had to accept they were the best of a bad bunch.
I'm also not going to call for new owners because they are in short supply, and any new owner may well be worse.
I do want these owners to treat the fans with some respect, and I do want them to communicate with their loyal supporters. If anyone can be bothered to read the mins of the last FAB meeting, they will understand my frustration.
5.) 20 Jul 2026 13:18:42
No agenda, Standard, I just want a decision to be made on the SB project, to be honest I have got to the stage where I don't care now if we stay as long as there is a published plan as to how we can move forward.
The FOS, I will keep on about, with the owners not getting a free ride. The money we are losing is criminal.
6.) 20 Jul 2026 13:48:27
Rebuilding Stamford Bridge is incredibly difficult due to a number of issues, including the stadium's tightly constrained site, which is heavily locked in by the Fulham Broadway Tube station, active District Line railway tracks, and dense residential properties. It is not simply a case of knocking down the existing stadium and complex and building a 70,000 or 80,000 seat stadium to help compete with rivals such as Man.Utd who are looking at 100,000 seats.
The most we could hope for would be around 58,000, and the cost involved to give around 17,000 more seats over current capacity is enormous, and would likely take around 5 to 7 years to complete, which throws up the next challenge of where to play in the meantime? There are options, but pleasing a fanbase is an entirely different matter.
Would fans want to travel to The London Stadium or Wembley or even The Tottenham Hotspur Stadium for 5 to 7 years?
The club's preferred option would be to relocate to another site within a very reasonable distance of Stamford Bridge, but few, if any, sites are available at present, and the board and ownership group want to fully exhaust possibility before committing to a Stamford Bridge re-build.
I hope this helps.
7.) 20 Jul 2026 14:08:23
Jason, All colour on the current lack of communication from our current owners can only help, and I thank you for your input, but that has now been the case since the current owners took over.
The FAB are, in my opinion, incompetent and didn't even have any SB rebuild or move on their last agenda.
Let me also make it very clear.
I am not asking for the owners to leave (unlike the CST) because I cannot see any alternatives.
What I do want is for them to do what they promised to the fans when they took over. If I remember correctly, they said they would improve the infrastructure of the club and continually communicate with its loyal fanbase.
8.) 20 Jul 2026 14:38:33
In case other posters do not know Jason is the president of CFC.
9.) 20 Jul 2026 15:09:37
Jason,
Thank you for your update.
I would say, though, that the owners have had four years and we are nowhere near knowing what they are going to do.
You correctly say there are not many places to move to, which should in my mind make the decision much easier.
Maybe you could also give us an insight as to why it's taking so long to obtain a long term front of shirt sponsor.
Is there a way the owners could sell up before the remaining 6 years are up?
10.) 20 Jul 2026 15:34:47
Maybe, some posters should reconsider their personal criticism of players, managers, SD's and owners. It would appear they do look at social media sites.
Let's be critical when it's due, but not personal, is my view.
11.) 20 Jul 2026 16:42:59
Not sure if I'm the only one, but I'm actually happy with no FOS sponsor. The kits are much nicer as well without it, really old school.
Also, regarding SB, I love it as it is. Just knock down the hotels, build a bigger Shed End, stick the away fans somewhere else, and just modernise the other stands, get it nearer to 50k capacity.
Personally, I'd hate to relocate, SB is our home and it should always remain that.
Easy for me to say though...
12.) 20 Jul 2026 17:15:20
I agree with you, SteveCfc, on both points. I love the shirt with no sponsor splashed all over it, and I would hate to leave Stamford Bridge. Just tidy it up, add another 9,000 seats, and we are good to go.
Some fans enjoy calling us plastic and rent boys, whilst also knocking our home, but do they know us, and have they even been to Stamford Bridge.
13.) 20 Jul 2026 17:39:40
RPD, I have always predicted that the current owners would decide a rebuild of the Shed and East Stand would end up being their decision.
I now think an increase to 50k-60k is just not enough, and will only result in the club revisiting the situation sooner rather than later, and any SB extension being almost redundant before it's completed.
We need a stadium with a minimum 70k capacity.
City are looking to expand their ground, and Utd are going to build a 100k capacity stadium.
The two choices are, as far as I am concerned: Redevelop SB but with significant extra capacity, or, more likely, a new site that doesn't restrict our potential and ambitions.
So, as far as I am concerned, the club should communicate to the fans asap that the sticking plaster solution is off the table.
14.) 20 Jul 2026 17:51:47
Yes, thank you Jason for your post. Very good to have information like this from someone in your position, even if it means that the stadium situation is very tricky to resolve.
Would just echo Bill's post and question, and ask if there is any information you could give on likely time frame in terms of decision making - eg re moving or redeveloping on existing site - or is this still not known?
15.) 20 Jul 2026 18:12:25
I agree, Tom, that the club should communicate with the fans.
But, in all honesty, do you see us filling a 70k stadium? Against top sides, yes we will, but lesser teams will be tourists in my opinion.
16.) 20 Jul 2026 18:28:42
Steve, I guess I could be criticised for putting the cart before the horse. In my opinion, we could easily fill a 70k stadium if we are successful and if we play attractive football.
The location of our current stadium lends itself to so called tourist fans.
If I remember correctly, this was the idea behind the 2/3rds season ticket allocation and 1/3 members. The deliberate plan was to spread the brand rather than making it a closed supporters group.
17.) 20 Jul 2026 22:10:06
Sorry Bill, I was only joking. I agree with you.
18.) 21 Jul 2026 07:58:27
No worries, Standard, I thought it was a tongue in cheek post, so no offence taken.
To be honest, I never take offence to any post back at me, as all posters should be able to have their own views. Most of the time, my views differ from other posters.
19.) 22 Jul 2026 15:24:32
Agree. Unfortunately, I feel like anyone who had an opinion that wasn't in full agreement with the current project was just seen as negative, so I got a bit bored of it.
19 Jul 2026 23:25:29
I would sign him, and then (unfortunately) I think we sell four CHs.
19 Jul 2026 14:39:11
Poch, I agree, he did have a couple of dodgy moments at the WC, but then he also FOS a few things that surprised me. He certainly looks comfortable on the ball and can ping a pass.
I have no idea how Alonso will set us up next season, but he looked comfortable in the Premiership, and we may well play a similar shape to Palace.
18 Jul 2026 23:36:56
JBS, I do like Rogers as a player and I try not to think of transfer fees, although that is difficult.
I'm personally not sure that, if we do sign Rogers, and I'm far from convinced this will happen, it means EF will be leaving.
01 Jul 2026 23:12:41
That's very kind but there's no need to be proud of me!!
01 Jul 2026 10:22:33
Thanks, RPD. I assume my mate is winding me up about a midfielder from Paraguay.
22 Jul 2026 21:23:12
Fuser, what a good idea. Love it, mate.
22 Jul 2026 17:27:02
I seem to remember us getting approx £15m loan fee for Jackson from BM. That also looks cheap now!!
22 Jul 2026 12:26:36
Ebw, I totally agree, mate.
22 Jul 2026 11:26:15
Why have a rule that is so easy to navigate around. Surely they must have realised the likely outcomes.
Clubs must spend ages trying to find ways around supposed rules. Or, maybe the clubs should just completely abide by the rules.
22 Jul 2026 11:06:27
Apply the rules or ignore the rules, but Fgs be consistent.
I personally preferred football when it wasn't murder, like the cup final with dirty Leeds, but I do like a physical challenge.