The sport section of The Times devoted two whole pages to a critique of Chelsea on Saturday. As one would expect, it was well informed and well argued, but also very negative in tone. Of course, there are plenty of grounds on which one can construct such a critque. But why now?
The sport section of The Times devoted two whole pages to a critique of Chelsea on Saturday. As one would expect, it was well informed and well argued, but also very negative in tone. Of course, there are plenty of grounds on which one can construct such a critque. But why now?
The ostensible reason is the court action between Roman Abramovich and Bors Berezovsky. That has certainly brought out into the open things that Roman Abramovich in particular would liked to have remained private. But it is quite a leap from that to argue that ‘the Chelsea revolution ..,. is constructed upon bribery and chicanery.’
Of course, Roman Abramovich is not motivated just by a love of football and a desire to enjoy his money, just as he does with his yacht. If you are seriously rich, you might as well have some fun and in the process make the lives of Chelsea fans brighter than they would have been. But no doubt there is an element of a political insurance policy as well.
Admittedly, post-Soviet Russia is far from being an example of a transparent economy that runs on modern lines of free and fair competition. The oligarchs need to keep in with the regime and the regime needs the oligarchs.
The accompanying article by Oliver Kay makes some of the strongest points. There are some downsides to the benefactor model which are all too apparent in the case of Chelsea. He argues that ‘There have been periods when Abramovich has appeared to lose interest, staying away for months on end and at times ignoring pleas from his managers to invest in the squad.’
Kay argues that this produces panic decisions, leading to spending £71m on David Lutz and Fernando Torres in the last hours of the transfer window last January. It is easy to criticise the Torres decision as an example of more money than sense, although it may yet come good.
Whether this all adds up to ‘an unstable environment and an unstable club’ as Kay argues is open to question. However, he does deliver a final blow by pointing out that Abramovich is no longer even the richest owner in the Premier League, a title now held by Sheikh Mansour.
Good journalism can often be one side and provocative. It stimulates controversy and debate, whereas a more objective ‘on the one hand, on the other’ stance can be bland and unstimulating. But for someone who is not a Chelsea supporter it does read a bit like a hatchet job.