I challenge people here to name anybody at all over Chelsea's 100 year history who has contributed more to the club than Roman Abramovich. If you can think of someone, post their name and your reasoning below.

you're in full on qaz-poll mode, aren't you?

If you consider full poll mode 2 polls, then yes.

hehe- good answer... 2 so far...

I want to know, if roman and jose were in a dance-off, who would win?

Abramovich, because he'd bribe the judges

How about the Mears family?

how about us supporters?

how about us supporters?

I meant on a person to person basis. Collectively, all the fans of Chelsea past and present combined dwarf anything Abramovich will ever contribute to Chelsea, but name me one single fan who on their own has contributed as much to Chelsea as Abramovich.

If you're talking time and relative percentage of income, then there have been countless Chelsea fans who have given more to the club than Abramovich ever could.

It's not really a fair comparison because Roman is so far out of just about anyone else's financial league. Even the millions he's poureed into the club are a small fraction of his unimaginably huge fortune.

If you had access to his resources, how much would you give?

I challenge people here to name anybody at all over Chelsea's 100 year history who has contributed more to the club than Roman Abramovich. If you can think of someone, post their name and your reasoning below.

Thats easy!

The supporters!

The people who give hours every day to run this and other websites.........for nothing.

People who run supporters clubs ........for no profit.

People who arrange their lives and money around following Chelsea......... EVERYWHERE!

These people ARE the club........thats what you got to understand.

Collectively we will ALWAYS be what keeps the club going!

We are responsible for the club having a 101 year history.

It could of easily been someone else who bought us and then maybe he would not have done what Roman has done and we would of won 3 in a row and the CL by now..... Ask yourselves is this really the kind of man you want running our beloved club ????? Jose and the players won us those cups not Roman, when Roman felt left out what did he do ???? decided he was going to bring in who he wanted ......... ask yourselves do you really want this guy as our owner for the next 10 years ?????? It is not a case of winning it is a case of principle.

Well said Rob,

At least Roman still has some change in his pocket. All the years of going upto the bridge, and doing all your money on tickets, etc to see your team. The supporters are the most important thing about Chelsea, its just a shame, The hierachy at Chelsea sometimes don't see that.

Matthew Harding

and even Ken Bates rate higher than any of the above

David Calderhead - manager for 25 years

Chopper Harris - record number of appearances, unlikely to ever be equalled

Bobby Tambling - record goalscorer

Genn Hoddle - kicked off the Chelsea revolution. If Hoddle hadn't come to the Bridge, neither in all likelyhood would Ruud, Luca, Franco Zola etc etc.

philosophically speaking every action that has led us up to this point has been necessary, if Jody Morris was never born none of this would have ever been. Therefore I will go for Jody Morris' Parents. definitely.

Are the responses enough for you Qaz or do want more? Contribution and support doesn't always equate with money mate. Just like "history" doesn't always equate with silverware and a man shouldn't be judged by the size of his wallet. Your agenda setting with these reactionary polls (which reveal more about you than anything else) are starting to smell a bit.

I AND MANY OTHERS HAVE GIVEN MORE TO CHELSEA FC THAT ROMAN ABRAMOVICH EVER CAN.

THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE HAVE IN LIFE IS TIME AND I'VE GIVEN MOST OF IT TO SUPPORT THIS FOOTBALL CLUB SINCE MY ADDICTION BEGAN AT MY 1ST VISIST TO THE BRIDGE AGED ABOUT 2YRS OLD AROUND 1976.

SO WE'VE HAD A RUSSIAN WHO BOUGHT US BECAUSE HE COULD AFFORD IT. DOES IT MEAN HE LOVES THE CLUB LIKE WE DO AND HAS HE SPENT HIS TIME TRAVELLING UP AND DOWN THE COUNTRY TO FOLLOW US ALL HIS LIFE LIKE ALOT ON THIS SITE?? -WIN LOSE OR DRAW I MIGHT ADD - REGARDLESS OF HOW WE PLAYED OR WHAT DIVISION WE WERE IN!!!

IF I WAS A BILLIONAIRE I'D HAVE BOUGHT IT ASWELL, BUT I WOULDN'T HAVE SHOPPED AROUND FOR ONE AND ENDED UP WITH THIS ONE, THIS WOULD BE MY ONLY CHOICE.

GIVE ME MATTHEW HARDING ANYDAY!

We've sold our soul and it hurts like hell!!!

Without Roman there wouldn't have been a Jose for Chelsea. So Roman.

I go for Tea Bar's choice......................... Ken Bates.

Without Uncle Ken winning the battles with Marler and Cabra there would still be a Chelsea. But we would be playing in Milton Keynes today.

Qaz, if you need to fill some time, who is this on my avatar?

Its the fans obviously.

But as an individual its Glenda for me.

Where we are now started with him. Lots of people forget that.

And fool though he often was without Captain Birdseye there would be no Chelsea.

If you're talking time and relative percentage of income, then there have been countless Chelsea fans who have given more to the club than Abramovich ever could.

It's not really a fair comparison because Roman is so far out of just about anyone else's financial league. Even the millions he's poureed into the club are a small fraction of his unimaginably huge fortune.

If you had access to his resources, how much would you give?

You make a fair point. But this poll is in absolute terms not who has given the most to the club relative to their ability to give (though Abramovich would still win that too compared to Mourinho as he has given more to the club whereas Mourinho has made money from the club).

Maybe posting a poll up about who has given the most to Chelsea FC relative to their ability to give would be a fitting tribute to some of these other people mentioned (including some life long fans), but in absolute terms, Roman has clearly given Chelsea more than anyone other single person over the past 100 years.

I challenge people here to name anybody at all over Chelsea's 100 year history who has contributed more to the club than Roman Abramovich. If you can think of someone, post their name and your reasoning below.

Thats easy!

The supporters!

The people who give hours every day to run this and other websites.........for nothing.

People who run supporters clubs ........for no profit.

People who arrange their lives and money around following Chelsea......... EVERYWHERE!

These people ARE the club........thats what you got to understand.

Collectively we will ALWAYS be what keeps the club going!

We are responsible for the club having a 101 year history.

Like I said before, collectively the fans have given more than Abramovich ever could or ever will. But your comparison is like saying who would win in a fight between Mike Tyson and 600 amateur boxers.

Obviously the 600 amateur boxer would overwelm Tyson and win the fight. But if one of the boxers then went around bragging they are a better boxer than Tyson because of it, would they be right?

Matthew Harding

and even Ken Bates rate higher than any of the above

David Calderhead - manager for 25 years

Chopper Harris - record number of appearances, unlikely to ever be equalled

Bobby Tambling - record goalscorer

Genn Hoddle - kicked off the Chelsea revolution. If Hoddle hadn't come to the Bridge, neither in all likelyhood would Ruud, Luca, Franco Zola etc etc.

Thankyou for contributing, I am still a relatively new fan (since the Vialli days) so I don't know alot of these people in any great detail. I don't wish to sound disrespectful for what these people may have given the club (as its probably a hell of alot), but is it as much as Abramovich has?

Are the responses enough for you Qaz or do want more?

A little background as to why these people have given more on a net basis (that is subtracting wages and the like if they made money out of Chelsea) than Abramovich who has given the best part of a billion pounds to Chelsea would be nice.

Contribution and support doesn't always equate with money mate. Just like "history" doesn't always equate with silverware and a man shouldn't be judged by the size of his wallet.

No it doesn't. But money still makes a massive massive difference and to simply dig your head in the sand and say "we don't need money to run a successfull football club" is suicidally silly. This may sound cold, but how many of our current and recently passed heros would have stayed at Chelsea if we didn't pay them?.

Your agenda setting with these reactionary polls (which reveal more about you than anything else) are starting to smell a bit.

Can we please discuss the issue at hand and not get into personal attacks?

I should add that I think Chelsea sacking Mourinho was a mistake and the timing of it all is a total farce, so if you think I am not concerned your kidding yourselves because I am. What I am saying though, is that ultimately its Roman who is going to make or break this club. As it stands at the moment, the club is completely unsellable and is basically being kept alive purely by Roman's donations to the club. He is put simply, THE most indispensible person at Chelsea, by a country mile. I challenge anyone and I mean ANYONE to show me someone who the clubs fortunes rests on more than him.

PS. Has anyone thought about what ticket prices would be if they were raised to a level that would cover the 100 million pound plus shortfall Abramovich is currently paying out of his own pocket for the good of the club?

Like most things the whole point about a group thing is its separate from any individual. It just completely misses the point to single out any individual as being "more" responsible for the group's success.

Chelsea wouldn't function without a great owner, great players, great spectators, great staff and a great coach.

It certainly won't function properly unless individuals one and all are prepared to subsume part of their own agenda to the club's agenda.

Yes it was Roman's money that was a major factor in two premierships, but it now seems just as true that its his meddling that is causing the problems right now.

And could I finish by asking: Can we win the premiership without a great manager?

Like most things the whole point about a group thing is its separate from any individual. It just completely misses the point to single out any individual as being "more" responsible for the group's success.

Chelsea wouldn't function without a great owner, great players, great spectators, great staff and a great coach.

It certainly won't function properly unless individuals one and all are prepared to subsume part of their own agenda to the club's agenda.

Yes it was Roman's money that was a major factor in two premierships, but it now seems just as true that its his meddling that is causing the problems right now.

The subsuming point is a good one.

Kenyon, dispite his poor relationship with the fans, no one would argue he isn't trying to act with the best interests of Chelsea in mind. The question is, if he's being paid X million pounds a year to do his job, then is he subsuming his own agenda for the good of the club or is he just here cause Chelsea are paying him the biggest wages?.

I keep sticking up for Abramovich because he is clearly subsuming for the good of the club, to the tune of 100 plus million pounds every year. But how much are Mourinho, Kenyon and even the Lampards and Terrys really subsuming for the good of the club?, they may all be contributing to the team (some more than others), but would they still be doing what they do if they weren't getting financially compensated for it?. In other words, if we turned to Lampard, Terry or Mourinho and said "we aren't paying you wages anymore, will you subsume for the good of the club and keep doing your job anyway?" what do people here honestly think they would do?. Given that are they subsuming for the good of the club or just entering into a commercial transaction with their own interests in mind?.

And could I finish by asking: Can we win the premiership without a great manager?

I'd say it depends on the squad the manager has working for them. Rijkarrd has proved that you don't need to be a great manager to win things if you have a great squad, you just need to not do anything too disasterously wrong.

I think Mathew Harding gave everything he could in the time he was in charge, and he died coming back from an away game........how much more can you give?

Roman is just in it to feed his ego. Once he is bored he will move on just like Jack Walker did with Blackburn.

In psychology literature I am sure we could find lots of reasons why Roman is doing what he is doing. He is being recognised for his wealth and his ability to give it away. That gives him status that he may not be able to get in other ways.

Who outside of the oil industry and maybe the russian press had heard of Abramovitch prior to his buying CFC.

We may or may not need Abramovitch but certaily CFC needs plenty of ongoing investment, and I would argue it also needs a manager who can create some harmony or at least purpose on the pitch. Perhaps Rijkard is a better manager than he is given credit for. I doubt Barcelona gave the job to a dutchman just because he'd played in Italy.