What Roman Abramovich Learned From Chelsea’s Past

By Ed Fernandez
12 years Ago

Let’s play a word game, shall we? In one minute, list all the words – adjectives rather – that define Roman Abramovich’s tenure at Chelsea.

Chances are the list, you came up with, featured gems like ‘unstable’, ‘scandalous’, ‘dictatorial’, ‘unpredictable’, ‘unpopular’ and ‘spoiled’. The writing on the wall seems almost indisputable that the Roman era is murky, and a persistent and sorry reminder of how clubs should not be run.

But, Roman Abramovich’s time at Chelsea is in fact, the most stable – and not just, financially – period of Chelsea’s last quarter of a century, perhaps going back even further. Before Roman came to town, there was Ken Bates who bought Chelsea in 1982 for the princely sum of A?1.

There’s no doubting Bates’ commitment to Chelsea, even if he grew up supporting Queens Park Rangers and is now the outgoing Chairman of Leeds United AFC. His ties with Chelsea’s players and staff who’ve survived the numerous shake-ups run strong. In December 2012, as he celebrated his 80th birthday, he received an especially memorable picture book signed by the veritable who’s who at Chelsea FC.

But it’s easy, amidst all the hugs and back-slapping, to forget Ken Bates’ time at Chelsea, which makes Roman Abramovich’s tumultuous reign seem as calming as rehab. Ken Bates was as old-world as you can get. He was a man on a mission, from the day he stepped foot into Chelsea. Apprised of the shambolic state of finances at Chelsea, something made evident by the state of disrepair the club’s facilities had fallen into, Ken Bates put an end to the expensive gifts, fancy wines and exotic cigars being handed about in the boardroom.

Bates was all about the bottom-line. In an era where, thanks to Reagan’s sunny optimism across the pond, leaders were expected to wed decision-making with the ability to press flesh and shake hands like you meant it, Ken Bates’ ways – effective as they were – revolved strictly around the impersonal and the practical. His greatest success at Chelsea remains fighting off property giants Marler Estates for ownership of the freehold of Stamford Bridge and creating the Chelsea Pitch Owners organization. If that name sounds familiar, it’s because they were behind one of Roman Abramovich’s biggest recent failed plans – the plan to buy Stamford Bridge, sell it and move either to Battersea or Earls Court.

But what Ken lacked, another icon more than made up for it. If Ken was the single-minded administrator, capable of allegedly electrifying fences that kept Chelsea’s hooligans from invading the pitch, Matthew Harding was the man of the people.

Harding was Chelsea’s white knight, the younger charismatic figure riding in to save the day with a check for A?5 million pounds to fix up the North Stand. He would eventually spend over A?25 million pounds on Chelsea, the club he’d supported as a child, and his generosity earned him a spot on the Chelsea FC board of directors. But with great power comes great pitfalls. Harding and Bates soon found themselves at loggerheads with each other, on every issue.

Bates claims he always saw Harding as his natural, eventual successor – the operative word being ‘eventual’ – and accuses Harding of trying to speed things along by running a subversive campaign to unseat him. Bates went all guns blazing in response to Harding’s decision to quit Chelsea Village, the body that controlled the assets of Chelsea Football Club. He withdrew Harding’s privileges as a director, and denied him access to the players or to the press lounge. Harding was no chicken – he played up his ‘man of the people’ image with aplomb.

While Bates sat enclosed in the director’s box away from the maddening crowd, Harding enjoyed the game sitting amidst ordinary fans. It was no big shakes for Harding, who saw himself as a fan first and foremost, and an executive later.

This wasn’t just the usual clash of egos. While both men wanted the best for Chelsea, they had very different ways of going about it. Bates wanted Chelsea to be about more than just a game. He envisioned the club sitting in a swanky district controlled by the Blues with apartments, hotels, pubs and restaurants. To him, Chelsea wouldn’t be just a club – it would be a destination. It’s location was, therefore, a non-negotiable.

Matthew Harding, on the other hand, saw the sport as being the club’s primary focus. He wanted to build on the squad, in the belief that greater success would let the club’s coffers grow organically. To him, Stamford Bridge was not entirely sacrosanct. Harding might have considered a move if he felt it would vault Chelsea into the upper echelons of the league. Bates threw down the ultimate challenge to Harding – cough up A?100 million to buy the club, invest in players and redevelop the stadium at Stamford Bridge. Harding, naturally, balked at the offer since his valuation and that of many bankers’ pegged the club at much lesser than that, A?15 million for the players and not much more for the club.

While any neutral observer will tell you that Bates lost the public relations campaign, Matthew Harding lost something of far greater significance. Returning after watching Chelsea’s away game loss to Bolton, he fell victim to an unfortunate helicopter accident that took his life and that of all on-board. Tributes poured in from all corners, even from Tottenham Hotspur. Everybody wanted a bit of Harding’s legacy. In a touching gesture, Bates renamed the North Stand in Matthew Harding’s name.

Bates would later go on to publicly refer to Harding as ‘evil’, and colorfully as someone who wasn’t the man of the masses he’d claimed to be. But as Rick Glanvill, Chelsea’s official biographer, points out it’s an exercise in futility trying to figure out the truth, now that Harding isn’t here to defend himself.

Bates may have taken the more popular decisions, but he wasn’t the most loved in the stadium. That honor was reserved for Harding, and he could – in theory – have parlayed that to a career explaining to the Stamford Bridge faithful why bitter pills were necessary at times. With no Harding to restrain him, Bates embarked on a spending spree that nearly bankrupted the club. Until Roman Abramovich stepped in.

The Russian’s been accused of many things. But not having an interest in the game, is not one of them. It would seem that not only is Abramovich schooled in the game, he’s also well-versed with Chelsea’s history.

He brought in the kind of dough Bates spent his life trying to shore up and Bates’ single-mindedness, along with the financial nous and ability to make tough decisions that characterized Harding but without the public persona.

When you notice the shambles Chelsea were left in, thanks to the war between Harding and Bates, you begin to realize why Roman acts with such cold-blooded decisiveness at times. This is a man who fears the emergence of a rival power center at Chelsea, more than anything else. Not necessarily from a personal standpoint, but because he knows civil war can’t be good for the club. With Roman’s natural shyness and reticence, the emergence of a more loved public figure at Chelsea isn’t entirely implausible.

It might explain why the reclusive billionaire doesn’t bat an eyelid when it comes to getting rid of some of Chelsea’s most popular figures – Mourinho, Ancelotti, Wilkins, di Matteo and Lampard. He isn’t after personal glory, preferring to live in the shadows.

And that should be good enough for anyone else.

Categories: Chelsea FC, English Premier League, Features
Tags: Chelsea FC Roman Abramovich

Related Content

Manchester City send scouts to watch Jamal Musiala

Arsenal and Liverpool make enquiry for Geovany Quenda

Manchester United make approach for Leroy Sane, Arsenal also keen

Tottenham, Manchester City dealt blow in Tijjani Reijnders chase

Aston Villa keen on Pedro Goncalves

Marcus Rashford faces crunch period ahead of Ruben Amorim arrival