Battle of the Blues
Can Chelsea beat City?
There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie Vice, which pieces together the significant influence on world events of Dick Cheney, the US vice-president from 2001 to 2009, that the subject of the enterprise is, to say the least, a secretive man. The opening frames feature a statement that concedes this may not be the full story, or an accurate depiction of every part of Cheney’s life, but director Adam McKay declares, “We tried our f------ best”.
They may well have to say something similar when the time comes for the Roman Abramovich biopic, although one suspects that in retrospect that business with the football club might be among the less important stuff we come to learn. Chelsea have become what Abramovich is famous for, although in the grand scheme of things Maurizio Sarri’s future, the viability of Jorginho as a holding midfielder, even the latest Fifa transfer ban, most often feel like the grandest of distractions.
There was no insight like the High Court action brought against Abramovich by his former business partner, the late Boris Berezovsky, in 2012 when briefly the Russia of the oligarchs was laid bare. “A rigged auction” was how Abramovich’s QC, Jonathan Sumption, described the sale of state-owned assets. Yet what we tend to remember most about 2012 is that astonishing Champions League final in Munich three months before the conclusion of the hearing, the finest hour in Chelsea’s history, which is surely just as Abramovich would prefer it.
He has never denied Chelsea had changed his life, or at least the perception of him – useful for a man who operates in such a politically volatile climate. “It was the turning point, really,” he said when giving evidence in 2012. Yet, in his 16th year in control of the club, the key part of Chelsea’s future, the rebuild of Stamford Bridge, remains unresolved.
Without a visa to live and work in the United Kingdom, Abramovich will in all likelihood not be at Wembley today for the EFL Cup final. There was a time when he would be a prime mover in a Chelsea managerial crisis like the current one, as if that was the most important business of his day.
Post-Skripal, no one is seriously making that case as the stand-off with the British Government over the investor visa Abramovich was once granted continues – the Home Office delayed its issue, he later withdrew his application. By comparison, the future of a chain-smoking Italian head coach with too little tactical flexibility seems low among his priorities.
The division of the Soviet Union’s state wealth by the oligarchs, and the transformational effect of owning a football club that was exploited by Abramovich, was always the awkward question at the heart of the Chelsea project. He is not the last billionaire to transform his public profile by buying a Premier League football club, but now more than ever the politics governing his life seem to be coming to a head for Chelsea.
The crackdown on the visa status of around 700 Russians resident in the UK has meant Abramovich has disappeared from public life, or at least the public life he was part of, which generally involved the television cameras capturing him in his seat at Stamford Bridge. He was also invisible at the World Cup finals in Russia for reasons that were never clear, but generally accepted to be part of how Russia stage-managed the tournament. In the meantime, the question for his football interest has consistently been how long he is expected to remain owner at Chelsea.
Central to the future of Chelsea, more important than the future of Sarri or even Eden Hazard, are the club’s plans for a new £1.2billion stadium, approved by their local council, that were halted last year in the aftermath of the visa delay. There are a number of routes forward for the Abramovich ownership of Chelsea but none that does not involve the building of a new stadium. The challenge would be the same facing any new owner: for Chelsea to move forward they need a 60,000-capacity stadium that replaces the too-small and outdated Stamford Bridge. There are strong suggestions that since making the announcement in May that work was being put on hold because of an “unfavourable investment climate”, Abramovich may now revisit that decision post-Brexit. It remains unclear whether he will fund the project himself, along with the cost of three years rehousing the club at Wembley, or seek investment, but there will be no dilution of his own total control. While even the Abu Dhabi ownership of Manchester City has sold a 13 per cent stake to Chinese investors, Abramovich’s choice would always appear to be between owning Chelsea or not – with nothing in between.
Much of the expertise required for the proposed new Stamford Bridge, the building out over the District Line towards Brompton Cemetery, the challenge of excavating downwards, comes from beyond Britain. The conditions for those companies working in the UK is expected to become clear only in the weeks after March 29. Whether he goes ahead is the next key decision for Chelsea, who are coming up to 10 months since their owner called a halt to the single biggest project in the club’s history.
Should it go ahead, the new Stamford Bridge will no doubt be presented by Abramovich’s allies as a major show of faith in the UK, post-Brexit, in spite of the visa dispute. It will be, to quote the man himself, another turning point. Should he sell, he can seek the anonymity available to the super-rich and disappear from public life as quickly as he pleases. For Chelsea, it is not so simple: to compete long term, there must be a new stadium, and someone prepared to fund it.
Abramovich’s choice appears to be between owning Chelsea or not