Roman Abramovich's 10 years as Chelsea's secretive Russian owner

As the secretive Russian billionaire has given just one unrevealing interview during 10 years at Chelsea, that's left for others to describe.

The popular image is of a ruthless and impatient owner, a man who has sacked nine managers and lavished £700m on transfer fees.

Yet Frank Arnesen, who worked for the 46-year-old for six years, says this isn't the man he knows. The
Dane describes Abramovich as an owner who passionately believes in developing young players, wants his teams to play attractive football and is thoughtful and considered about everything he does.

Arnesen was chief scout and director of youth and development at Chelsea from 2005 to 2011 and talks of an owner who "would just show up at FA Youth Cup games, really enjoy them and then come and congratulate us afterwards".

This is the contradiction at the heart of Abramovich's Chelsea. On the one hand, Abramovich spent £20m on Chelsea's state-of-the-art Cobham training centre and academy, millions more to wrestle Arnesen from Spurs, and takes a keen interest in the progress of the club's young stars.

And the results have been impressive, with Chelsea featuring in four of the last six FA Youth Cup finals and producing a host of excellent young players.

Yet on the flip side, not a single academy graduate has established himself in Chelsea's first team during Abramovich's 10 years at the club, and they failed to field an English under-21 player during the entire 2012-13 Premier League season.

Abramovich's first manager, Claudio Ranieri, once complained that the Russian "knows nothing about football" and Arnesen admits that "when Roman came in he didn't know a lot about the game".
Yet he quickly adds that Abramovich is "a very intelligent man who put a lot of effort into learning about the game".

His mentor has been Piet de Visser, a 78-year-old Dutchman who was previously chief scout at PSV Eindhoven, where he was credited with discovering Brazilian legends Romario and Ronaldo.

Roman developed his knowledge of football through Piet," says Arnesen. "He was with him for weeks in the summer [of 2004], explaining formations, what he needed to be successful, that he had to start with the youth.

"He caught up very quickly and was very serious about it. He didn't want to just buy Chelsea and see how it would go. He was actually working very hard to catch up about football all the time."

It was De Visser who recommended Arnesen, then Tottenham's director of football, to oversee Chelsea's academy and scouting network.

Chelsea reportedly paid Spurs between £8m and £10m to release the Dutchman from his White Hart Lane contract.

Arnesen explains "Roman wanted to have the best academy and best scouting in the world and thought I was the man to start this up."

Under Arnesen, Chelsea were aggressive in securing the finest young talent in the world. They had a wrangle with Manchester United over the transfer of 18-year-old John Obi Mikel and had to compensate French side Lens after the controversial signing of teenager Gael Kakuta.

The priority was to sign local players, but Chelsea's scouting network covered the whole world. They also wanted to develop English coaches and Arnesen says: "We had one Dutch coach in the first year I was there, but for the last five years we had only English coaches".

Teams from under nines upwards played the same way, and Arnesen and De Visser undoubtedly had great influence on Abramovich when it came to how Chelsea sides should play.

"We made a programme for the style of play, from under nines up," says Arnesen. "We were playing 4-3-3 with a number 10 [playmaker], learning to play from the back.

"I told Roman about my past at Ajax, for 18 years, then 18 or 19 years at PSV, and about my philosophy of football."

The influence of the Dutch duo created friction with Jose Mourinho, Chelsea's supremely successful manager who is now back at the club for a second spell.

Mourinho won back-to-back Premier League titles and two League Cups, yet Abramovich was unconvinced by some of his signings, frustrated by his sometimes functional style of play, and believed he should be giving more academy players chances in the first team.

In July 2006, Arnesen was handed overall control of transfers, which angered Mourinho, and the following year De Visser told a Dutch magazine: "Mr Abramovich is fed up that he has to keep paying millions and millions for big star players.

"There comes a stage where you think it is pointless to spend so much, especially when it concerns players that Chelsea could develop within their own system or within their own youth academy.

"He had to pay an absolute fortune to get players like Didier Drogba and Michael Essien. This is why he has asked me as a private scout to look out for top-class young players who will be the Chelsea stars in three years' time."

Things came to a head in September 2007 when Abramovich, tired of Mourinho's outbursts, style of play and refusal to engage with his football advisers, decided to dispense with his Portuguese manager.

Avram Grant, Luiz Felipe Scolari and Guus Hiddink stepped into the manager's seat for short spells. A manager who is under pressure or on a short-term contract rarely looks to the longer term and bloods youngsters, which proved the case here.

The strongest tie-up between the academy and first team came under he stewardship of Italian Carlo Ancelotti, who joined the club in 2009 and won the double in his first season. At the start of the following campaign, he promoted four academy products - Kakuta, Patrick Van Aanholt, Jeffrey Bruma and Josh McEachran - to his first team.

Kakuta played 19 games for Chelsea's first team that season, Van Aanholt 18, Bruma 18 and McEachran 17, and academy manager Neil Bath said: "With Carlo's support and the board's support, we feel there is light at the end of the tunnel."

But at the end of the season Ancelotti was sacked, with Andre-Villas Boas and then Roberto Di Matteo coming in as manager. Chelsea realised Abramovich's dream of winning the Champions League, as well as the FA Cup, but the quartet's opportunities were severely restricted.

Bruma went on to join PSV Eindhoven and, although the other three are still at Chelsea, they all have been out on loan since the 2010-11 season.

Admittedly, another academy product, Ryan Bertrand, has tasted first-team action and even played in the 2012 Champions League final, but he has failed to fully establish himself in the side. Indeed the last homegrown player to become a first-team fixture is John Terry, blooded by Ranieri before Abramovich even arrived at Stamford Bridge.

Arnesen argues: "What it's about at the end of the day is the success of the team. You have to win trophies and this is what Chelsea have done under Roman. They have won the Premier League three times, the Europa League and the Champions League.

"He used his own money to invest, maybe £1bn, and you have to have a lot of respect for that."

Yet, as Chelsea themselves say on their own website, it goes deeper than that. "A successful academy has the potential to save the club millions of pounds in the transfer market [and] can also promote long-term loyalty and commitment among those players who make it into the 'big time'," it states.

We'll have to wait and see whether Mourinho can promote this in his second incarnation at the club - and whether Abramovich gives him the time to do so.

Too lazy. xD

Ok I read it. True, Chelsea does have a good youth system and I do agree that he doesn't really know much about football. Just by his face at games I can tell

You didn't read all of it, huh ;)? It actually says he hires Piet De Visser to teach him EVERYTHING about football and is now he is a football wiz.

^^ Yes, but he still fired AVB when AVB did exactly what he (according to this article) wanted, which was supposedly to start using academy players instead of the old guard.

As soon as the old guard complained, the locker room was lost and the team was in free-fall. If Roman was REALLY all about developing the youth, he'd have sided with AVB instead. ;)

@Lodatz: Which youth players was he using? AVB never used academy players. He only played inexperienced players over our experienced old guards; as inexperienced as he was at the time. If using Romeu, Mata and Torres and ignoring Anelka, Drogba, Terry and Lampard (plus nearly selling Cech) is what Roman wanted then you're living in your own fantasy ;)

*shrugs*

That was meant to be the whole point, so everyone at the club said -- phase out the older players, to blood in the younger. That's why (even before he was linked with Spurs) I felt bad for AVB, because it seemed like he'd done what he'd been asked to do, and then got sacked because the older stars raised a stink about it.

You're right, he didn't use academy players. My bad. BUT. You wanna know who he signed?

Romeu, Lukaku, Mata, De Bruyne, Courtois and Cahill.

Yes, that's right. You have AVB to thank for signing your new favorite players. And he got the sack for his trouble because Terry, Lampard and Drogba felt threatened. Kind of makes one scratch their head, if Roman was all about getting in players to develop, instead of clinging to or buying super-expensive stars...

I'm just saying. This article, while interesting, smacks of PR exercise. ;)

You're quite wrong.

Meet Michael Emenalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Emenalo); sporting director of Chelsea and the one who found all these talents. You see, after Mourinho's fight with Abramovich, signings have been mostly made by the sporting directors here at Chelsea. It started with former technical director of Chelsea (and before that, Tottenham) Frank Arnssen who was doing the transfers. He later on was released and Emenalo took over.

Romeu, Lukaku, Mata, De Bruyne, Courtois, Cahill.

Lukaku, Mata, De Bruyne and Courtois. These stars are the ones scouted by Emenalo. All AVB had to do was just agree to it and with the nod of Roman, they were part of the team.

But what did AVB do with them? Rightfully, Emenalo loaned De Bruyne back to Genk for the remainder of the season and Courtois sent to Atletico where he is doing amazing over there (yes he controls the loans as well). The rest left in the squad were controlled by AVB. Mata started as he would have is Arsenal or Tottenham got him instead of Chelsea, but what about Lukaku? The one that cost us £20m? Benched for the whole season and given only 8 appearances and a couple of reserve appearances along with it.

So what does that mean? Not only did he he bench a YOUNG, talented striker in Lukaku. He also benched our spearhead and legend Drogba, he freaking decided to mostly use Fernando Torres over both of them.

This article brings out the truth, but the truth needs more detail for those who don't follow what's going on at Chelsea. So no blame on you that you don't know about Emenalo, just give him the credit he deserves and not misguided credit to AVB.

There is another way to look at that signing process. It is: the coach says who he wants, and the technical director then goes and makes it happen. You could say that Emenalo didn't do anything other than be the guy who got the signature.

You can easily make a case for either, when it comes to these things. I think you're too quick to DENY credit to AVB, just because of the rabble-rousing that took place among Chelsea fans. How long will it take for you lot to admit that Benitez did a pretty damn good job too? ;)

And, if AVB was so wrong about Lukaku, why did he get loaned out for the entire season AFTER AVB left? And I don't care what anyone says -- Torres has been great this season, and probably could have done better last season if not for the locker room ugliness and managerial merry-go-round.

I think it all just shows that Roman (and a lot of Chelsea fans) are simply too impatient, far to contrary of how this article attempts to portray him.

Like I said, this smells like a PR release.

#1) "He has been an important part of the first team management structure since his arrival in October 2007, and now supports the work of the first team manager, leading the club's international and domestic scouting network, and assists in driving the technical programmes of our Academy and international youth network."

Straight from the Chelsea website. AVB might have asked for some players but do you really believe AVB is the one who asked for Lukaku, Courtois, De Bruyne?

#2) Who said Benitez didn't do a good job? I said countless times in the chatroom that Benitez has gained my respect.

#3) Because Lukaku asked for a loan. Emenalo then came to an agreement with WBA and Lukaku has learned a lot from that loan now.

#4) Oh you don't know how long us Chelsea fans have been craving for longterm stability. Along with Roman who has asked for Mourinho to try and bring long term stability now even after their fight.

I see no PR in this. It's just some things said there need more detail on the delicate cases there (AVB's sacking).

1) Sure, why not? It makes as much sense as claiming the opposite. We'll never know, but one thing we do know is how good an eye for talent AVB has, so, I don't understand why you think it's so impossible.

2) Okay, you're an exception. Kudos. :)

3) Yes indeed. But why give him a loan if you're ready to start using him? He'd only ask for one if he knew that he wasn't going to get the game time, wouldn't he?

4) Oh I'm sure you lot have been craving stability, just as I am sure Madrid have been craving stability, too. Hasn't stopped the owner/president from sacking coaches at the drop of a hat if a few games go badly, has it?

There are so many parallels between Chelsea and Madrid, dude, which is why I said in the other thread that they will (and do) have similar bench-warming issues.

I get that you're loyal to Roman. He's the reason for the success, and I respect that. But while this article does an excellent job of trying to paint him as a misunderstood boss, who was just learning his trade/hobby, the reality is that he's behaved like a cut-throat businessman who expected perfection from his toys because he spent so much money on them.

#1) The quote from the website says it all. There is no doubt

#3) Who said we were ready to start using him? Drogba left and Torres asked to be the starter and Roman accepted the request. Lukaku couldn't be on the bench most of the time so he requested a loan. Win win for both. Torres improved massively this season and Lukaku just had his breakthrough season scoring 17 goals in the EPL.

#4) The only unfair sacking I can think of that Roman has done was Ancelotti's and he did it for AVB, the one he was hoping to lead a legacy. Plus, despite his trigger finger, Roman has always backed his sacking of managers by still winning trophies.

I don't see how you still see Roman as a cut-throat business man who is considered by Arnssen like a Chelsea fan at a pub. Plus, he cares so much for the youth. To the point where he visits FA Youth Cup games! Roman strives for perfection, but not because he wants his "toy" to be perfect, it's because as a Chelsea fan, he wants his favorite team to be the world's best. He doesn't even want to spend millions, he wants to use youth over them but can't because he is not the one who controls promoting youth players, its the managers.

See, this is where I'm not sure if you're reading what you're typing, bro. O.o

1) Who cares if it's from the club's website? What else would they say? "Oh, actually, we should give some credit to that guy we sacked for no good reason"?

C'mon, man.

3) Well, if you're not ready to start using him now, then why was AVB not using him a bad thing? That was the point I'm making. And yes, Torres has greatly improved, since he has had (again) a manager who trusts him.

If Drogba were still in that locker room, Torres would have flopped this year too.

4) So he's more concerned with a couple of trophies than stability. ;) That's not a bad position to take, mind; I'm just saying that it flies in the face of what this article is claiming, or at least what you're saying Roman wants.

That's why he's a cut-throat businessman, dude. It's straight out of Corporation 101.

If he really, REALLY wanted stability and longevity, he'd have tried to bring in Guardiola. And the results would have been amazing, too. Imagine Pep in charge of that talented young squad...

*drool*

#1) I guess I could mention that Emenalo and Di Visser (Roman's mentor/adviser) were sent as scouts back then to watch Kevin De Bruyne. Courtois also caught the attention of them which led to an agreement for Courtois. They were also at Belgium for Lukaku.

#3) Because AVB not only benched Drogba, he mostly used Torres above anyone else. Don't you believe Lukaku could have been given more matches than usual during the time when Drogba was benched and Torres was always sh*t. All managers had faith in Torres and most managers got sacked because of his lack of goal scoring. The only reason Torres was doing better this season is not because of Benitez, but because he is recovering from his setback since his injuries at Liverpool and in the World Cup.

#4) No club in the world wouldn't take trophies over stability, especially a club that aims to wins trophies every season. Roman has even once got what he wanted when Ancelotti was hired. Carlo promoted so many youth players into the first XI and also won the double. That's why I said the only unfair sacking was Carlo's. Other than that, he was right to sack the other managers.

#5) He did try to go for Guardiola as he wanted longterm stability with him, but Pep rejected...

1) Dude, I don't think you're getting what I am saying. I am saying that is the technical director's JOB. There is, however, no more reason to say that AVB had to work with what Emenalo came up with than there is to say that Emenalo went and found the type of player that AVB wanted, and then made it happen once AVB said "Yes please".

That's actually pretty much how this process works, most of the time.

3) Why shouldn't he use Torres over everyone else? Torres was a 50m Mega Signing. EVERY coach in the world would have used Torres over everyone else. Torres, however, had to deal with the pressure from the price-tag, Drogba and Anelka whining about his selection, and the fact that the media were having a field day at his goal drought.

Benitez went back to using Torres over everyone else too, and it's started to work again. Again, if Drogba were still there, Torres would still be shit. That locker room divide poisoned everything, and then AVB got the blame for it, despite doing what Roman had hired him, specifically, to do.

4) Why? What did the other managers do wrong? Not win? You can't win all the time, and no team does win all the time, even the mighty Barcelona. Sometimes other teams beat you. Sometimes other teams win the titles you want.

What is Roman's solution? Sack the manager, and get a new one.

This has worked out only 50% of the time, you realize. How many managers did Roman appoint who didn't do any better than the guy before him?

That's why he's a businessman, not a football guru, whatever this article says. Did SAF win every year? Nope. Did the board sack him? Nope.

That's the difference.

Whenever Roman sack a manager, the new hired manager wins a trophy. AVB failed big time at Chelsea, but did great at Spurs. If AVB stayed we wouldn't win the Champions league and the FA cup on that year and become the first London club to ever win it and the same goes for the previous years. Roman is not just a business man like the other owners but also a huge football fan and obviously Chelsea FC. :)

@Alex: What trophies are those, btw?

How many times has Chelsea won the league, since Mourinho left? Once. One single time. How many times have they won the Champions League? Once. One single time.

How many managers in that time? I don't know, but I bet it's around 7 or 8.

7 or 8 managers, for one league title, and one European trophy (plus this year's of course).

You really call that a good return? Hell, you may have been winning FA Cups and League Cups, and that's certainly more than Spurs have achieved in all that time, but is that REALLY where you want to be? Just winning domestic cup trophies?

THAT's the real 'backing up' that Roman's delivered, guys. And it's nowhere near as much as you wanted, or what he might have delivered without his cut-throat, businessman approach to the sport.

When we don't win the league title we win something else and it doesn't matter what it is. How many times Spurs or Arsenal wins the title in the last decade? Do you think Arsene Wenger or AVB will win the League Title any time soon? No. however, They brought stability to the club which is very important. but that doesn't please the fans. Fans always wants a trophy even a single one a year. It's not that I'm arguing or anything but I'm satisfied with what we got and what we achieved. I just hope that Mourinho will stay no matter what happens whether we win or lose. I just want that stability and knowing Mourinho is back makes me feel good :) I see that you've been defending AVB but Chelsea's AVB era was the worst days of my life watching our club failing, I had a nightmares. I'm glad that he succeeded at Tottenham and I'm glad for them. I have nothing against AVB outside Chelsea. I thank him a lot for Mata :)

#1) It's hard to explain this right now but I'll go back to it later.

#3) That's where someone like Mourinho would have been a messiah at that time. Torres lost all his confidence and couldn't score. Yet still AVB played him over Drogba or Anelka or Sturridge (not even used to his potential). AVB brought the divide when he didn't make the right choice of using either Drogba or Anelka. Mourinho on the other hand, puts the club above anything and if benching a 50 million player is the way, he would do it.

#4)
-Raineri: sacked over Mourinho. Smart move by Roman. (sacked)

-Mourinho: left Roman, he was not sacked. (not sacked)

-Avram Grant: was a short-term option until Roman found a new manager. (rightly sacked)

-Scolari: was a cancer off the field, always threatening Roman and he would leave Chelsea and has issues with some players. Roman's solution? Fine, fuck off. (rightly sacked)

-Hiddink: came in until the season ended and then left to go back and manage Russia despite the players and the Chelsea board wanting him to stay. (not sacked)

-Ancelotti: came and did great. He won the double, was good in the CL and promoted youth players like Roman wanted. Like I said, the only unfair sacking by Roman. (wrongly sacked)

-AVB: was inexperienced. If he came after having some experience at another team other than Porto, he might have done amazingly. (sacked)

-RDM: Oh the mixed emotions I get when I bring up his sacking. A legend as a Chelsea player and Chelsea manager. Roman didn't want to sign him up as manager, he was supposed to only stay interim manager until the end of the season but him winning the CL and FA Cup pressured Roman into signing him. But if I look past my blue heart we can see why RDM was sacked.

What position did Chelsea finish in the league during the 2011-12 season? There was a lot of doubt as about his quality as a manager. For all the tactician that RDM was supposed to be, He didn't know what to do with the trio of Mata, Hazard and Oscar. Mata was playing in the wings, which he was struggling with his defensive duties. And yet, RDM continued to deploy him as a winger.

RDM had no squad rotation, he played the trio way too often. Azpi, Moses and Romeu never had a chance. Chelsea had a heavy fixture and his early success was not going to last. Which was proven that Chelsea was winless for a month before he was sacked. The defense was a complete mess. David Luiz running around like a headless chicken. Azpi was not even given a chance. And with Mata not knowing what to do, in fact, nobody did, it was a disaster. RDM might be a legend, but to act as if he is ready and "deserves" but to say it was unjust to sack him is stupid. (rightly sacked)

-Benitez: Smart move by Roman. Benitez is better tactically than RDM was and to only keep him until the season ends is a smart idea. (not sacked)

There's the difference between SAF and the managers sacked at Chelsea. SAF would have won a trophy by the next season or two, but over half the managers at Chelsea over the past 10 years wouldn't achieve what SAF could at Manchester United.

All owners of football clubs are business men, but it doesn't mean they don't know much about football. Tottenham's Daniel Levy thinks like one just like any other football owner, including Roman.

@Alex: the largest difference being that Arsenal and Spurs have not had a BILLION pounds pumped into their clubs. ;) Nor have United, and yet United win just as many trophies (if not more).

@Vendetta:

3) Dude, you're giving me a headache. You're saying that AVB created the divide by playing a new star striker instead of the old star striker? Welcome to the world of football. :p That doesn't create a locker room divide. What creates a locker room divide is when the old stars don't LIKE their new competition, and instead of being professional and thinking of the needs of the team, instead create an Us vs Them mentality where the team only succeeds when THEY get what they want.

And then you praise Mourinho for having the courage to bench star players, when that is precisely what AVB did in the first place!

I'm kinda done, on this point.

4) Ranieri: Smart move? Only because Mourinho came in. Ranieri did nothing wrong -- he came 2nd in the league in the first season of big bucks. Mourinho inherited Ranieri's side and won the title with it! Ranieri clashed with Roman, and was shown the door.

Mourinho: Didn't like being controlled by Roman.

Grant: Rightly sacked why? What did he do wrong? There would not have been a need for an interim if Roman hadn't driven Mourinho out.

Scolari: In other words, he clashed with Roman, and was sacked.

Huddink: There would have been no need for an interim, if Roman hadn't sacked Scolari.

AVB: Did what Roman asked him to do, abandoned by Roman when the players didn't like it.

RDM: God knows what the problem here was, but clearly Roman didn't like it. Would have been no need to rush him into the job if Roman hadn't sacked AVB for no reason.

Benitez: Would have been no need for an interim if Roman hadn't sacked RDM, who was only there because he sacked AVB.

Do you not see the pattern? Do you not see what the common denominator was? It was ROMAN ABRAMOVIC that was the problem. :p

Ask yourself: if Roman was, say, the elected president of the club, and not a billionaire owner, do you think he'd still be there? Do you think his Musical Managers game would have kept the fans happy, if they'd been able to vote him out? If this was Madrid, and the fans cried out for stability, do you think Roman's trigger finger would have been tolerated?

I doubt it.

The reason Roman is the only option, is because Roman's arrival started Chelsea's success in the first place. But look past your blue heart at the man's actual performance, and it's far from impressive. His biggest contribution to the success of Chelsea has been the BILLION pounds that has been pumped into it.

A billion pounds. Stop and read that again. That's, like, the national debt of Armenia, or something. Invested in Chelsea.

And yet they've only won 1 league title, and 1 European Cup, since the departure of Mourinho.

You know what the problem was? It was Roman.

How do you know that none of those managers would have achieved success? The whole point is that they were never given long enough to find out. The owner (aka the problem) didn't have the patience to give them a chance, because, as you've said, he 'wanted trophies', instead of building a team around someone with a vision.

Like domestic cups.