Guys, MU fan in peace. From an outside perspective it seems like Roman has brought success unprecedented in Chelsea's history to the club. Yet you seem unable to keep managers for very long or have team stability. Now Abramovich seems to be tightening purse strings and trying to run you more like a business. I'm not suggesting for a minute he's leading you to failure, but have you ever considered whether you would be better off losing Abramovich? Losing the millions but getting a solid foundation you can build on, rather than bringing in a new man every few years with different ideas. Or worse, Abramovich turning you into Roman FC with everyone in the club his best mate...?

As far as owners go, Roman is largely a dream. Invests millions (or has done in the past), keeps out of sight, and makes moves re: club policy that are totally in touch with the fans and what they want. The reversal of some terrible Bates-era policies and the recreation of the club crest are just two examples of that.

But in his quest to make this club a force in world football he has brought in many people, some of whom behave like total clowns. These are usually the ones with whom trouble starts. Many of the recent crises have originated from these "football men" being brought in in some capacity, usually into an operation that is running smoothly.

Why Roman feels the need to mess when times are good is anyones guess. But I dont buy that he is a deliberately meddlesome owner. If he wanted to take the plaudits for the clubs success, he could learn english and line up an interview circuit at the drop of a hat. But he limits his public appearances to being in his box, or the occasional elbow rubbing with fans. Not really the behavior of a man who would sack his own staff becuase they are getting the glory before him. And if his ego was really that out of control, we wouldve never kept Terry after that contract flirtation with Man City. More often than not, it is the people he brings in to the club who wind up being the originators of trouble. I wrote about this in another thread, but i think the problems in the past with directors of football are well documented, as are the indescretions of Kenyon and the associations with dubious agents. Its a shame because there are many other very level headed, responsible people at the club who do an excellent job. But we never hear much about them.

Roman's goal for this club is to get it to where Man Utd is now. Your club dont need money men to ferret out good sponsorship deals or keep merchandise sales up because your name and legacy do that for you. Roman's goal is clearly to build this club up to a point where success on the pitch and visibilty off it (for the right reasons, mind) make it so that we dont need a bunch of front office faces to handle this, that and the other. At that point, pouring his own money in wont be necesscary, and the club can be a living legacy that can serve as his primary business interest.

just is all just my opinion, of course.

Guys, MU fan in peace. From an outside perspective it seems like Roman has brought success unprecedented in Chelsea's history to the club. Yet you seem unable to keep managers for very long or have team stability. Now Abramovich seems to be tightening purse strings and trying to run you more like a business. I'm not suggesting for a minute he's leading you to failure, but have you ever considered whether you would be better off losing Abramovich? Losing the millions but getting a solid foundation you can build on, rather than bringing in a new man every few years with different ideas. Or worse, Abramovich turning you into Roman FC with everyone in the club his best mate...?

Most definitely not. His investment has pushed us to the pinnacle of world football. We are eternally grateful. Most of us just wish the board wouldn't be so ruthless at times and let people do their work.

But then again.... we don't see what they see, so we have to have faith that they are acting in the best possible manner for the club.

Ancelotti has been quoted as follows "You compare me with Ferguson, it's a different position. Ferguson has total control of the team. I just have technical direction full stop! O.K." It is well known that there are only two managers in the Premiership who have complete control over team affairs and they are Fergie and Wenger. Arsene would never have lasted that long at Stamford Bridge. I don't really understand why the media are making such an issue of Carlo not having complete control. I believe his role was clearly defined when he came to the Bridge and was accustomed to it at Milan. The good news is that Carlo has denied the rumours of quitting.

I read where Carlo will start Josh against Zilina. As a matter of fact he intends to use him as a holding midfielder. That comes as a surprise to me. It will be interesting to see how he performs in a more defensive role. Looking forward to the game on Tuesday.

In a word No .

If Roman went it would mean he is completely disillusioned and disheartened with all things Chelsea He would probably call in all his outstanding loans which would result in CFC being highly unattractive to any potential buyer as the outlay of capital to secure the club would diminish any profitable return for a good few years ,

Does he have a vested and possibly unhealthy interest in first team affairs ? yes probably more so than the club’s commercials but as an owner and fan he can ask the awkward questions and demand answer’s .

roman gave us more then money for players he gave us a state of the art training ground,which i believe if had does facilites under guillt or villia we won have won the leauge. we could turn around and say hey roman mind your own business but it is he,s business. ken bates was the same he got rid of ruudi and luca and we will never reallly know why. as chelsea fans we should be used to all this. roman is staying carlo is staying 3 pointsagainst newcastle and everything will be rosey again. shall we go down the road as the man utd fans an create a new club or wear nowrich scarfs at our games lol i think not. im chelsea till i die. wheather roman is here carlo is here im still chelsea till i die.

Now Abramovich seems to be tightening purse strings and trying to run you more like a business.

That isn't something new, it has been that way for a good few years now. Look at our recent transfers and how many players have actually left over the last few years.

In a word No .

If Roman went it would mean he is completely disillusioned and disheartened with all things Chelsea He would probably call in all his outstanding loans which would result in CFC being highly unattractive to any potential buyer as the outlay of capital to secure the club would diminish any profitable return for a good few years ,

Does he have a vested and possibly unhealthy interest in first team affairs ? yes probably more so than the club’s commercials but as an owner and fan he can ask the awkward questions and demand answer’s .

This, this and this.

Whilst its been a strange and infuriating couple of weeks, the one thing it has shown is that he still gives a sh*t.

Anyone spending 500 million on a toy would want to play with it

Guys, MU fan in peace. From an outside perspective it seems like Roman has brought success unprecedented in Chelsea's history to the club. Yet you seem unable to keep managers for very long or have team stability. Now Abramovich seems to be tightening purse strings and trying to run you more like a business. I'm not suggesting for a minute he's leading you to failure, but have you ever considered whether you would be better off losing Abramovich? Losing the millions but getting a solid foundation you can build on, rather than bringing in a new man every few years with different ideas. Or worse, Abramovich turning you into Roman FC with everyone in the club his best mate...?

If you had to choose between the Glazers and RA as owner - who would you pick?

If you had to choose between the Glazers and RA as owner - who would you pick?

Oh no she di`nt, dont go there girlfriend.......

Hey guys,

This post is NOT a poll on whether Roman Abramovich has been a net benefit or cost to Chelsea, because to me at least, there is no doubt hes been a net benefit. Someone should start another poll if they disagree with this.

That said, I do beleive it is becomming increasingly clear that his money has come with alot of strings attached and lead to interference from the board in areas like off-field staff, transfers and players contracts. Ancellotti came out recently during this recent speculation and said himself that he is not the manager, rather the first team coach.

The question is, has Roman Abramovich's intereference in team matters cost the team silverwear over the period of his time at the club?

Cheers

-Qaz

Hey guys,

This post is NOT a poll on whether Roman Abramovich has been a net benefit or cost to Chelsea, because to me at least, there is no doubt hes been a net benefit. Someone should start another poll if they disagree with this.

That said, I do beleive it is becomming increasingly clear that his money has come with alot of strings attached and lead to interference from the board in areas like off-field staff, transfers and players contracts. Ancellotti came out recently during this recent speculation and said himself that he is not the manager, rather the first team coach.

The question is, has Roman Abramovich's intereference in team matters cost the team silverwear over the period of his time at the club?

Cheers

-Qaz

Yes. If he hadn't fallen out with Mourinho then I'm confident we would have won the CL by now. We would also probably have at least one more PL.

BUT, without his ownership we probably wouldn't have won any silverware. Gotta take the rough with the smooth I guess.

RA's interference undoubtedly cost us Mourinho and Mourinho = Silverware !!!!

I voted for what interference. I dont agree with the treatment of Jose and Butch but who says that it is Roman ? I am not completely sure anyone knows the real facts.

Roman has a huge empire (no pun) I get the impression that he takes a lot of advice a feedback from his managment team so over his tenure what about Gourlay, Buck, Tenenbaum Arnesen et al.

I'm with you on this Andy what interference, it's all hearsay, it amazes me for a man who keeps himself to himself (don't think I've ever heard him speak) the press know an awful lot about his involvement. And as far as I'm concerned the journospeak "a source close to" means I made it up. As far as Jose is concerned, he's a proven two-year man only.

I'm just grateful for the silverware we have won and not really bothered about what might have been. I'm too busy regretting not marrying Charlize Theron when I had the chance, life goes on.

I voted for what interference. I dont agree with the treatment of Jose and Butch but who says that it is Roman ? I am not completely sure anyone knows the real facts.

Fair call.

Which is why I was conscious to put the "what interference" option into the poll.

I personally beleive there is enough of a track record now to suggest one way or another we've undermined successive managers going back to Ranieri's last season at the club and that this interference has come (at least in part), from the owner.

That said, you could argue the undermining has come from other sources in the club such as Arnesen who arguably holds more power than Ancellotti anyway.

I voted for 'other'. Roman interfered pretty significantly in team matters when he [essentially] bought us a new squad, which enabled us to go on this trophy run in the first place. However, he has made mistakes (most notably the Jose situation) which may have cost us trophies in the short-term.

The net result is that Roman's interference in Chelsea FC has resulted in us winning more trophies than we would have had he not interfered at all. As far as I'm concerned the man has earned his yachts and concubines.

Yes. If he hadn't fallen out with Mourinho then I'm confident we would have won the CL by now.

Definitely! I think we would have had the one in Moscow for a start. Jose wouldn't have let Utd get one over us in a game like that.

Definitely! I think we would have had the one in Moscow for a start. Jose wouldn't have let Utd get one over us in a game like that.

Why does it say "banned" under your name Mod?. Get into a fight with Loz? ;)

apparently, that passes for wit up Essex way

BUT, without his ownership we probably wouldn't have won any silverware. Gotta take the rough with the smooth I guess.

Without his ownership we would be bankrupt..

Yes!

very true.

ANyone remember when Chelsea was worth £1?

We should be eternally grateful for what Roman has done, even if we dont agree with the board's practices at times.

Of course Roman's interference cost us.

The man's got a huge ego and from time to time he lets it get in the way of doing things properly which affects the club, the players and the support.

Then again, there's no way someone will spend that kind of money on the club and not interfere in some capacity, it's unrealistic.

I also disagree about Jose situation. Mourinho isn't the type to stick around in one place for long. He may be the best when it comes to coming to a new club and have an immediate impact like he did with every club hes been at so far but he never stayed long enough to build anything. In fact, his tenure with Chelsea was his longest stint with the same club so far. So whatever his differencies with Roman were I doubt Jose would have lasted much longer anyway.

Definitely! I think we would have had the one in Moscow for a start. Jose wouldn't have let Utd get one over us in a game like that.

We couldn't get past semifinal stage with Jose in charge and we had arguably our best squad at his disposal in 2004-2007.