17 Dec 2025 16:28:23
Matt Law on recruitment.
Chelsea plan midfield summer signing to ease Caicedo and Fernandez load
Stamford Bridge club not expected to be active in January window as squad improvement plans are drawn up
Chelseas recruitment for 2026 will centre heavily around boosting the clubs midfield options and easing the load placed on Moisés Caicedo and Enzo Fernández.
Barring injuries that force them into the market or an unexpected opportunity, Chelsea do not expect to be able to use the January transfer window to improve their squad.
But work has already started on next summers window, with Chelsea identifying the midfield as a key area to address and researching potential targets.
Chelsea will sign at least one new midfielder in 2026, having seen head coach Enzo Maresca forced into playing right-backs Reece James and Malo Gusto in midfield to help cover for injuries to Romeo Lavia and Dario Essugo.
Of Chelseas outfield players, only Marc Cucurella has played more Premier League minutes than Fernández, while Caicedo has played almost 1,000 League minutes despite missing the last three games through suspension.
Caicedo played the full 90 minutes of Chelseas Carabao Cup quarter-final against Cardiff City on Tuesday night and both he and Fernández will be expected to start against Newcastle United on Saturday lunchtime.
Chelsea have previously shown an interest in Manchester United midfielder Kobbie Mainoo and looked at signing Adam Wharton from Blackburn Rovers before he joined Crystal Palace.
United also want to sign a midfielder and are interested in Wharton, Brightons Carlos Baleba and Nottingham Forests £100m-rated England star Elliot Anderson.
Having spent more than £100m each on Fernández and Caicedo, it remains to be seen whether or not Chelsea will spend big again on a midfielder or look to find a player whose value could quickly increase.
Other than targeting at least one new midfielder in 2026, Chelsea could also make a move for a central defender. The club are likely to see how Levi Colwill returns from injury and whether or not a defender leaves before finalising their plans in that position. Central defenders Mamadou Sarr and Aaron Anselmino are out on loan this season and will also need to be assessed.
Chelsea spent the summer of 2025 rebuilding the clubs attack and that will be boosted further in 2026 with striker Emmanuel Emegha joining from Strasbourg and Geovany Quenda, who can play as a winger or a wing-back, joining from Portuguese club Sporting.
17 Dec 2025 18:06:45
RPD, thanks for sharing the ML article. He is usually pretty good at all things Chelsea.
I actually think he is about spot on.
17 Dec 2025 18:14:31
Interesting article in the Guardian online titled: ‘ Chelsea told to “put up or shut up” over potential move to Earls Court’.
17 Dec 2025 19:27:31
Interesting article Jimbo.
It looks like as our owners are not even talking about commiting, it's looks like a shut up.
17 Dec 2025 20:25:04
Can you post the article Jimbo?
17 Dec 2025 21:36:31
Chelsea have been urged to “put up or shut up” and decide whether they want to move to Earl’s Court after alternative plans for the site were approved by Kensington and Chelsea council.
The club are yet to make a decision on how to build a bigger ground and another problem is in their path after the Earls Court Development Company’s proposals for a £10bn housing and retail development were granted planning permission at a council meeting on Tuesday. The ECDC, whose master plan does not include room for a football stadium, secured unanimous approval from Hammersmith and Fulham council last Yet it is understood that resounding local support for the ECDC will make it harder politically and financially for Chelsea to change the direction of travel. A key figure in London politics said that it was time for Chelsea to “put up or shut up” and make clear whether they are serious about Earl’s Court. The estimated value of the land is expected to rise from £500m to £750m with planning permission in place.
The ECDC does not yet have financial backing, meaning that construction cannot begin, but it could receive government support or investment from private companies. Sovereign wealth funds and international developers are likely to be interested in lucrative real estate in west London, potentially leaving Chelsea in an auction with wealthy competitors.
Chelsea are considering their options but declined to comment. They have identified the Lillie Bridge depot as the area within the Earl’s Court site on which to build a stadium. Jason Gannon, the club’s chief executive, has met Transport for London, one of the partners that looks after the site, and the real estate developer Delancey. APG, the Dutch pension fund, is another stakeholder. But there is frustration that Chelsea did not make a formal and public declaration of their interest by bidding for Earl’s Court before the ECDC plans were approved.
There has previously been plenty of private political goodwill for Chelsea. It is felt that a multiuse football stadium would benefit the local economy and there would still be the potential to build affordable housing on the site. There had been concerns over the cost of the ECDC’s plans but these have diminished in recent months. The site’s future has been one of the most contentious land issues in London. It is significant that there was no opposition to the ECDC’s plans at either council meeting, with a source saying this is the scheme that has garnered support from London politicians.
Work is under way to secure The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, will soon be asked to endorse the plans. It is unlikely he will reject a proposal including 4,000 new homes, with 35% of the housing designed to be affordable. His endorsement would be another main complication for Chelsea. There would be no room for a stadium if the ECDC construction begins.
Chelsea need to act before construction contracts are in place. Building a bigger ground has been a key priority for the Todd Boehly-Clearlake Capital ownership but little progress has been made. Tensions between Boehly and Clearlake, the majority shareholders, have been described as a major obstacle to overcome.
Chelsea retain interest in Earl’s Court but do not want to be pressed into a deal and want to be sure that it is financially and logistically viable. The club’s position is they would need a business partner who could take on the project of building housing on the parts of the land away from the stadium. Chelsea may be forced to reassess their reluctance to buy all of the land. However, sources are confident that the club would not find it difficult to cover their costs if they secured a whole or majority interest. It has been stressed that partners would line up to work with them. A more pressing issue for Chelsea would be convincing the local community that a stadium would boost the economy and raise investment in London.
Chelsea count cost of Club World Cup as report puts Europe-wide injury bill at £3bn
Read more
Figures familiar with the issue believe Chelsea moving to Earl’s Court is the most realistic solution for the club. There is no other site available in west London and redeveloping Stamford Bridge is feasible but challenging, not least because the ground is next to a railway line. A stand-by-stand rebuild is unattractive and a complete demolition would mean Chelsea having to play at a temporary home for up to seven years. But Chelsea have not ruled out redeveloping Stamford Bridge and made space for such a project after buying a 0.48 hectare site next to their ground from Stoll, a housing charity for veterans.
Moving home for good would require Chelsea to strike an agreement with Chelsea Pitch Owners, which holds the freehold of Stamford Bridge stadium. The club will seek the approval of the CPO before bidding for land elsewhere. The risk of doing nothing is that Chelsea fall behind rivals with bigger stadiums with more potential for corporate and entertainment opportunities.
17 Dec 2025 21:48:52
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, will soon be asked to endorse the plans to develop the Earls Court site for housing with NO STADIUM. It is unlikely he will reject a proposal including 4,000 new homes, with 35% of the housing designed to be affordable. His endorsement would be another MAJOR complication for Chelsea. There would be no room for a stadium if the ECDC construction begins.
The article Jimbo and Bill refer to basically says Chelsea FC have no chance whatsoever of building a stadium on the site as it is owned by another party and they have the permissions to develop the site! A certain journalist tried to twist the total non-story to generate more click bait. Pathetic article.
17 Dec 2025 22:17:06
Thanks Jimbo, interesting article but who is this "key figure in London politics" who says Chelsea should put up or shut up? Looks like a load of tosh to me written by our old mate Jacob Steinberg who has a real downer on our club, he is a West Ham fan and self confessed Chelsea hater. Google him and you will see what I mean.
18 Dec 2025 08:12:36
I was not supporting the views in the article just sharing. There is also an article about chelsea and Earls Court in The Athletic but I don’t have access to it. My own view is that a move or significant development of SB will fizzle out and nothing much will ever happen.
18 Dec 2025 09:21:47
Thanks again Jimbo for sharing, I also think you are right in that we will never move location as there is just no feasable option available. The issue of developing Stamford Bridge has been a huge problem for over a quarter of a century and even Roman with his huge resources couldn't solve it so I don't see our current custodians faring much better or indeed anyone else going forward.
The best we can hope for is a tidy up of the west stand and mathew harding stand and a new east stand and possibly shed end which will boost capacity upto around 55k seats. I remember the late great ED02 saying it was a huge problem with many factors to consider so absolutely no blame can be laid at Blue. co on this matter however hard the mischief making pundits and punters will try.
18 Dec 2025 09:52:16
I have to wonder what gets sorted first?, the Bridge or a FOS.
18 Dec 2025 14:25:07
Depends on the punishment handed out for our 74 charges.
18 Dec 2025 16:24:47
I don’t accept the charges as an excuse for the lack of a sponsorship deal.
18 Dec 2025 16:34:37
Tom, you are correct. Bill, you might find this useful.
Chelsea and FOS sponsorship delay.
Waiting for the Right Deal:
The club has received offers but has opted against committing to a long-term deal at a reduced valuation. The strategy has been to use short-term sponsors (like Infinite Athlete and DAMAC Properties for parts of recent seasons) until a long-term partner can be secured that meets their financial goals.
Potential FA Charges:
The 74 charges facing the club related to breaches of FA Football Agents Regulations and Third-Party Investment rules may have made some potential sponsors hesitant to commit to a long-term partnership until the outcome is clear.
Negotiation Strategy:
The asking price has been so high that some companies, such as the HR platform Deel, have reportedly walked away from discussions. The club is currently in talks with a number of companies, including some from the Middle East and the US, and speculation has linked Saudi airline Riyadh Air as a frontrunner.
In essence, Chelsea has been running a competitive process and is prioritizing finding the right long-term partner at the right price, rather than rushing into a less valuable deal.
18 Dec 2025 16:48:50
RPD,
just how much money are we losing 'waiting for the right offer'
18 Dec 2025 17:08:43
I wouldn’t have a clue why CFC have no FOS sponsor. My comment is a guess but I would be almost 100% certain there is a reason.
I don’t believe it has anything to do with a lack of effort or some weird desire not to gain another revenue source.
The 74 outstanding charges seems a possible reason to me.
18 Dec 2025 17:50:14
Don't get it how are the charges affecting the FOS. Sound aload of tosh to me.
I generally think the new owners have done well. After their first season and a half of mistakes.
18 Dec 2025 18:52:28
The charges are just the latest of a long line of excuses. The article posted by RPD is just pure speculation like many published about Chelsea. I don’t see how the charges are relevant they have been around for ages since the UEFA investigation. The only reason that they could block a deal is if we were relegated and any potential sponsors would, no doubt have clauses to protect themselves.
If we don’t eventually get a deal around the £50 million mark this has been a waste of time dithering.
Tom, you are right there must be a reason; one of the possibilities is ineptitude.
18 Dec 2025 19:05:33
I assume the theory is, if we get docked points then we almost certainly will not be in the Champions League.
While I personally don’t think we will receive a points deduction, it would make sense that no CL qualification would effect any FOS sponsorship deal.
18 Dec 2025 19:28:20
Jimbo, you are correct there is a chance that having no FOS sponsor is due to an inept commercial department.
I personally find it hard to believe that a successful group of owners, with a strong track record in business and sport are inept but I have no way of knowing if that is a valid reason for no FOS sponsorship.
18 Dec 2025 22:07:10
Tom, obviously you are correct: none of us know or ever likely to know the ins and outs of what goes on. However, the Commercial Director was given the heave ho recently. Personally, like all of you, I wish we could just concentrate on the football but unfortunately Chelsea is always a bit of a circus off the field, even in the days of Bates and his electric fences and Rachel Welch wearing a Chelsea kit ( although I fully approved of that) .
19 Dec 2025 08:28:18
As always we are all guessing and making 2+2=5. I’m sure the much missed Ed02 would have pointed us in the right direction.
I seem to remember being told or maybe reading that our departed commercial director was about lots of issues.