Two Premier League Clubs Eye Short-Term Move to 80,000-Seat London Stadium

The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has confirmed it's open to discussions about a groundshare at the home of English rugby, though any deal faces a major hurdle – local council approval.

The Blues have long mulled over how best to modernise Stamford Bridge, but with no clear short-term alternative, Twickenham – with its 82,000-seat capacity – remains firmly on the radar.

The venue was even discussed as a possible option as far back as 2017, with Chelsea revisiting the idea as they weigh up their redevelopment timeline.

With the RFU posting record losses last year, a deal with Chelsea could provide a welcome financial lifeline.

Sweeney hinted that the Union is keen to explore non-rugby revenue streams, but warned any such move would require amendments to current rules limiting Twickenham to just three non-rugby events per year, capped at 55,000 fans.

One major stumbling block remains: Richmond Borough Council. The local authority has the final say and may push back due to concerns from residents over increased traffic, noise, and footfall.

It’s not just Chelsea being linked to Twickenham. Brentford FC—whose CEO Jon Varney previously worked for the RFU—were also mentioned in rumours.

While Varney told fans there are currently no active discussions, he didn’t shut the door entirely on a future move.

For Chelsea fans, all eyes will now be on developments around Stamford Bridge. If work begins, a temporary home will be essential—and Twickenham could become a surprise Premier League venue.

The ball’s now in Richmond Council’s court.

As the sport becomes faster and more physical, a few rules stand out as needing change—not to disrupt the game’s spirit, but to enhance fairness and flow.

We highlight three specific laws that we believe could benefit from an update. These suggestions come from a place of respect for the game and a desire to see it continue to thrive.

World Rugby has made plenty of changes in recent years, and these ideas could be next.

Rugby has changed significantly over the years, and one of the biggest shifts is how the bench is used. These days, teams often bring on almost an entirely new forward pack late in the game. Big, fresh players crash into tired defenders, making the final 20 minutes less about skill and endurance, and more about brute force. Many fans and former players feel this has turned rugby into a collision sport rather than a contest of stamina and intelligence.

Reducing the number of substitutions would encourage players to pace themselves. Space would open up in the second half, creating more opportunities for creative play rather than endless phases of pick-and-go. It would reward fitness, smart decision-making, and those capable of performing for the full 80 minutes.

Fewer substitutions wouldn’t just make the game more exciting—it would make it fairer, safer, and more in line with the spirit of what rugby has always been about.

With the rise of 6–2 and even 7–1 bench splits, pioneered by Rassie Erasmus, the trend seems to be heading in the opposite direction. That’s all the more reason to act now.

The caterpillar ruck is one of those tactics that, while legal, just doesn’t sit right with many who love the game. It involves players lining up behind a ruck in a queue, giving the scrum-half extra time and space to kick.

It slows the game to a crawl, gives the defence no real chance to compete, and often feels more like a way to kill momentum than build it.

It may be clever, but it’s not entertaining. Fans want to see fast, hard-fought rugby—not box-kick after box-kick with a queue of bodies shielding the kicker. Eliminating or limiting the caterpillar ruck would speed up the game and reintroduce unpredictability at the breakdown.

This isn’t about removing strategy. It’s about keeping the game flowing and true to what makes rugby exciting: dynamic, contested play.

Referees have improved at calling “use it” earlier, which helps speed things up, but more needs to be done. Getting rid of the caterpillar ruck would go a long way toward fixing the issue.

The 20-minute red card was introduced as a middle ground—punishing dangerous play without completely ruining a match. But let’s be honest: it sends the wrong message. If a player commits a reckless or dangerous act, 20 minutes off the field doesn’t always feel like enough—especially for serious offenses, like a high tackle that could end an opponent’s game or season.

Rugby has made major strides in protecting players, especially around the head and neck. Keeping the full red card—where the offending team plays a man down for the rest of the match—reaffirms that commitment. It makes the consequences clear: cross the line, and your team suffers. That’s how you change behaviour.

Yes, it’s tough. Sometimes it may seem harsh. But safety must come first. It’s about respecting the game and the long-term health of every player on the field.

In many ways, the 20-minute red gives officials a cop-out. It’s often seen as the easy option to avoid controversy—even when a full red card is justified.