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.

So you are saying that Manchester United, Arsenal & Spurs haven't spent at all on the last decade or even before? I've said that many times on different threads. There is no big club that haven't spent at all on players and won trophies in the big leagues. :)

What I am saying, Alex, is that Man United, Arsenal and Spurs COMBINED don't even come close to the money spent on Chelsea alone.

That's the big difference. I'd love someone spending a billion on Spurs, and seeing the result. :p

For that kind of money, I'd have expected a wholly blue decade. Instead, it remained red, with a couple of blue blips (most notably when Mourinho was there).

That's not entirely true :) Arsenal spent over 350 millions, Manchester United over 650 m, Real Madrid 1 Billion, Barcelona 750 m and so on. This record was made 2 years ago. so add that up to the amount of the transfer that been made since then. I didn't read how much Spurs spent but i will check it again. but that's not the point. The point is that Money isn't everything to win in football but i admit it's part of it "Only". Big clubs always spent enormous amount of money to achieve something, and it was never too sure. Manchester City for example. yet we all know that in the EPL it's really difficult no matter what players you have, it's always very tough to win the league title. :)

And yet still Roman said he does not enjoy spending these millions. That's why currently, Roman wants the future to be in the youth academy according to Arnssen. Seriously dude, it seems you missed out on a lot of quotes. And by the way, on your reply to Alex, Manchester United didn't spend much before Roman because they knew their only competition was a declining Arsenal. When Roman came and Chelsea rose guess who started to spend money to keep winning the Premier League? Manchester United.

#3) You're the one giving me a headache here man :/. Torres was not a star striker back then, he was complete and utter crap. A freaking statue. You don't understand the anger us Chelsea fans had just seeing his bullshit on the pitch that season. It was so bad to the point even the a person who knows nothing about football would know he must be benched. But no, AVB didn't do that. You see, Drogba didn't cause the divide by not enjoying being benched. He whined because he knew he could have done better, (and he proved it when RDM came) Anelka knew he could have done better, hell even Lukaku probably knew he could have done better. Mourinho on the other hand picks the one who performs the best, not the one who has the highest rank. Drogba had both the rank and performed better. AVB kept him on the bench though along with the other two strikers who were better than Torres. If AVB thought properly and put the club first, he could have not had the issues with the old guards. How can you not get this?

#4) My god, it seems you missed out on a lot of what I said

On your thoughts on Ranieri's sacking:
Sure he clashed with Roman, but Mourinho was always a better choice and in the end it was his best business with a manager. After Mourinho left he did great at Inter and did great for a while at Madrid. Ranieri on the other hand has been on an up and down form as a manager after he left Chelsea. It says quite a lot.

On your thoughts on Mourinho:
Did you just skim through the article?

"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.

It wasn't Roman being a complete dictator, it was Mourinho who was being a complete dictator. Roman couldn't agree with Mourinho and Mourinho couldn't agree with Roman so they just parted ways. Don't point the blame at Roman in this one. I myself, as a Chelsea fan, as a Mourinho fan, would point the blame at Mourinho for this one.

On your thoughts on Grant:
He was rightly sacked. The guy was a horrible tactician and his road to the final was nothing but a miracle. Mourinho had to go and there was no good option out there at the time.

On your thoughts on Scolari:
You seemed to forget bringing up the part when I said he was clashing with the Chelsea players as well. He was a cancer. No one should disrespect his boss or his players. He had to go (he wanted to go as well) and was rightfully sacked.

On your thoughts on Hiddink:
I'm happy we replaced Scolari with Hiddink. Such a smart move by Roman. Hiddink was needed and we didn't want him to be interim. We wanted him to be a permanent manager, but he declined. You missed out on a lot of what I said...

On your thoughts on AVB:
Did what Roman wanted to do? Going from 3-0 to 3-3 against Manchester United? Losing 3-1 to Napoli and not getting easy points from teams like WBA, Aston Villa or Wigan? Is that what Roman wanted? Roman backed him up 100%, but if you can't deliver and don't even make the right tactical choices than good-bye. He didn't even put the club above everyone.

On your thoughts on RDM:
I just explained in my last post in about two paragraphs why he was sacked! I'm not going to even bother on this man... Seriously...

Benitez:
Not going to even bother on this one either.

None of them would have achieved the success SAF could achieve. You really think over half the managers appointed since the Roman era could ever do what SAF did? The only manager with a chance like that is Mourinho or Pep. And guess who is our manager now?

1 billion spent over the past decade but not just on transfers. Roman has been turning Chelsea into one of the finest clubs on Earth. Our youth academy is one of the best in the world, he is hoping to find a new stadium, he has a huge part on the great sponsorship deals we have. Roman's 1 billion on transfers will be repayed soon enough. Just look at how great things are going for Chelsea now. Roman is not the enemy here, he is our savior and not just because he gave us transfers. He gave Chelsea a future. He gave us our first profit in so long. He gave us hope.

Another large difference, Al, is that Arsenal also paid for their investments with player sales, and CL revenue. So have Spurs. Spurs NET expenditure is pittance compared to even Arsenal, let alone Chelsea.

I recall United may have made a few high-price sales, too. Who could that be? ;)

It's not the same, dude.

@Vendetta: Except that, er, Man United DIDN'T spend that much, as a result of Chelsea's rise. Nowhere near as much, in fact.

Also, of course Torres was a star striker when he arrived at Chelsea. Why else did they pay 50m for him??

As for Roman not wanting to spend that kind of money, er, he may say that, but his actions speak volumes. Of course he didn't WANT to spend money. No-one wants to spend money. But he DID spend money, instead of sticking with a coach with a vision.

It was his choice. He made cut-throat business decisions. Its like you're not even reading what I've written.

In fact, I'm stopping there. I'm going to go play Skyrim instead. :p

Peace.

It is the same to me :) look at all big clubs singings and the amount of money they spent and then we will talk ;)

@Alex: If it's the same to you, then you should have studied maths harder. ;)

When you spend 100m, but generate 80m of that by selling, you actually only spend 20m. That's how Arsenal and Spurs have done it.

Chelsea just pumped 100m in, and sold about 20m. That's spending 80m.

It's not the same. At all.

Because Manchester United had one man and only one man to thank for that. We all know he is. He is just as important to them as Roman is to us.

Torres was never the star striker. How do you believe he was the star striker back then? Just because he had a big price-tag didn't make him the star striker. He was supposed to be the star striker when he joined but he didn't, so who was supposed to keep being our star? Drogba. Was he allowed the clear opportunity? No. He just had to rot on the bench. One of the worst moves by AVB at Chelsea.

The same could be said about Chelsea. From all the revenues, to the sponsorship's and the tours in Asia/America you would think we made a lot money from that don't you think? I bet you in 2 years time, that 1 billion will be repayed just by the deals made from Chelsea.

Anyway, enjoy Skyrim and go kill some dragons.

I studied math but the amount doesn't matter if a player cost 40 m or 20 m what matters to us is the player's performance and loyalty to the club. other than that it's none of our business we are not paying it from our wallet :) again your calculation might be right but what did they achieve other than that? :) I don't need an answer btw I'm just saying O:) I love Spurs and Arsenal.

Seems that he's starting to understand that the team needs stability, 11 coaches in 5 years ( i don't know exactly)
is not really good management. And Chelsea every year has all weapons to fight for the title, but they fail everytime, even closer to 5th place than 1st. Hope for you guys Special one gives you some Grinta :)

@Lodatz There you go for the math you talked about :)

Transfer spending under Abramovich

2003-04: £121.3m
2004-05: £92.2m
2005-06: £54.2m
2006-07: £66m
2007-08: £50.5m
2008-09: £24.2m
2009-10: £21.5m
2010-11: £95.8m
2011-12: £71.55m
2012-13: £86.5m

TOTAL: £683.75m

Without Roman, the past 10 years of Chelsea's existence would probably have been a bleak and bitter time for us, and let's face it, most of us probably wouldn't be Chelsea fans at all. Thank you, Roman!

@V "most of us probably wouldn't be Chelsea fans at all." I wouldn't support Fulham or QPR for sure. It has to be Chelsea with or without Roman. But, I thank him a lot for what he did to our club. He loves Chelsea with all of his heart.

If I started this argument, sorry to the other guys.