For 19 years, he felt like he had won the Stamford Bridge lottery. It changed the nature of the game in England when Roman Abramovich paid £60m for the club. Rival teams and fans hated Chelsea’s new-found property. Yet many of them hoped that one such sugar daddy would come on the doorstep of their house.
Abramovich’s arrival skewed the way English football was conducted. Manchester United and Liverpool ended up with leveraged buyouts because they were too desperate to look beyond the masks of those looking to invest in their clubs.
The Premier League stood by and did nothing. Manchester City hit the jackpot and, as recently as last year, supporters of Newcastle United celebrated becoming the “richest club in the world” courtesy of dubious Saudi Arabian money.
Richard Scudamore, the former Premier League chief executive, a man who brought so much wealth to the top flight, brushed off concerns about the inherent dangers in the new financial landscape. His stand was that the market would settle things. Never did it. Things just got out of control.
There was always concern about what would happen to Chelsea if Abramovich got bored and took out his cash. Eventually, club Ken Bates paid £1 in 1982. Bets corrects those who say they have bought the club. “I secured a loan for a quid,” he always says. The bridge has had a dangerous experience a few days ago. The successes of the past two decades have been subsidized by the Russian owner. Until Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, it seemed like it would last forever.
it was impossible. The calculation had to come at some point. Abramovich famously pounded the transfer market in the mid-2000s, but the unit for which he brought the most artificial value is the club. Chelsea, even as European and world champions, are not worth anywhere near £3bn, the oligarch’s goal to recoup before the government sanctioned the 55-year-old. Now it is a distressed property.
This is an opportunity. The people who value the club the most are the fans. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that Chelsea isn’t the creation of an excess of post-Soviet Muscovites. The club has a long and fascinating history. Those celebrating the fall of Stamford Bridge should take stock. It is not just a disaster in West London, but a morality tale for all football.
Of course, Chelsea are a sideshow to the nightmare in Ukraine, with almost negligible collateral damage to the real tragedy unfolding in Eastern Europe. However, it is possible to be concerned about the future of a football club, as well as be intimidated by the human toll created by the Russian invasion.
Chelsea are now in the hands of a government that has proven itself to be almost completely unreliable. Boris Johnson’s regime has often used football as a political tool – from Marcus Rashford’s efforts to tackle child hunger to the cancellation of Johnson’s European Super League plans to claim credit. The authorities have the right to sanction Abramovich, but why did it take him so long?
Handing over Chelsea to become another rich man should not be on the agenda. Nor should a cheap leveraged sell be considered. Tracy Crouch’s fan-led review of the football regime was a lukewarm mishmash of ideas, but Abramovich’s position offers a chance to revisit some of the issues addressed in the review. Questions surrounding the ownership of clubs are central to the future of the sport. Even the most globalized team is a community asset – yes, even Chelsea. They need to be protected. Even from bosses who look like Abramovich is smothering them with love (and cash).
What will the oligarch leave behind in the end? Lots of memories of victories and trophies, to be sure, but something more worth noting. At least the owners of the City have made a legacy in Manchester with the regeneration around the Etihad campus. This provided an element of mitigation of the damage Abu Dhabi has done to the competitive nature of the sport.
There is a need to change the fit and proper tests beyond recognition. Given the global instability, is it wise or desirable for football clubs to be the weapons of the Gulf countries or the toy of the dictator’s facilitator? Abramovich is gone and good riddance. The sooner Putin is ousted and the better the end of the conflict. The war, however, shouldn’t have forced the game to do some soul-searching.
No comments:
Post a Comment