By Samindra Kunti and Andrew Warshaw
February 28 – With pressure mounting over his ownership of Chelsea, billionaire Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich has passed the stewardship of the club to the trustees of its charitable foundation in what appears to be merely a cosmetic move designed to save face and his investment.
Far from relinquishing ownership of the club, Abramovich issued the shortest of statements that, pointedly, did not include any reference to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“During my nearly 20-year ownership of Chelsea FC, I have always viewed my role as a custodian of the Club, whose job it is ensuring that we are as successful as we can be today, as well as build for the future, while also playing a positive role in our communities,” said Abramovich.
“I have always taken decisions with the Club’s best interest at heart. I remain committed to these values. That is why I am today giving trustees of Chelsea’s charitable Foundation the stewardship and care of Chelsea FC.”
“I believe that currently, they are in the best position to look after the interests of the Club, players, staff, and fans.”
Abramovich did not give any details of why he was passing on stewardship or how the arrangement would work. According to the BBC the trustees of Chelsea’s charitable foundation have not yet agreed to take control.
The foundation is headed by Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck. The other trustees are Emma Hayes, the Chelsea Women’s manager; Piara Powar, executive director of the anti-racism organisation Fare; Paul Ramos, Chelsea’s director of finance; the sports lawyer John Devine; World Athletics president Sebastian Coe; and Hugh Robertson, the chairman of the British Olympic Association.
However, it is also being reported that Coe has never been a trustee, rather a senior advisor who has been a Chelsea fan all his life.
Several Russian individuals and entities have been placed under sanction by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Abramovich isn’t one of them but many British lawmakers have urged that he be added to the list. Last week the UK Parliament was told that in 2019 Abramovich was named as a person of interest over alleged links to the Russian state as well as “association with corrupt activity and practices”.
Opposition Labour party MP Chris Bryant is one of those who wants the government to remove Abramovich’s ownership of Chelsea FC and seize his assets.
On Sunday, Bryant tweeted after Abramovich’s statement: “Unless and until he condemns the criminal invasion of Ukraine I will continue to call for the UK to sanction him and seize/freeze assets.”
It would appear for the moment, however, that nothing will significantly change off the pitch for Chelsea aside from Abramovich, who rarely speaks in public and has been conspicuous by his absence at most Chelsea matches since withdrawing a UK visa application in 2018. His stepping back is regarded as more of a symbolic than meaningful gesture.
Abramovich has long been at pains to deny he is close to Russian president Vladimir Putin but their longstanding relationship is an open secret.
When Russia was awarded the 2018 World Cup, Putin cracked a joke at a press conference, suggesting his friend Abramovich would get some big World Cup-related contracts. In 2012, a UK high court said that Abramovich had “privileged access to Putin”.
Abramovich acquired Chelsea in 2003 for £140 million, ushering in the age of the super clubs, and has since reportedly loaned them a further £1.5 billion.
Having had precious little previous success prior to his arrival, the London club was suddenly catapulted into the spotlight and last month won a 19th trophy, the Club World Cup, under his ownership. On Sunday, however, Chelsea lost the League Cup final to Liverpool on penalties.
Only after Abramovich’s statement did Chelsea, as a club, condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine saying, in what many regarded as something of an afterthought, that the situation was “horrific and devastating.”
Taylor Heath, Head of Sports Law at JMW Solicitors, said: “In a legal context stewardship means no more than the job of supervising or taking care of something, in other words the job of ‘caretaker’. If you were to give somebody the ‘stewardship’ of your home because you were going abroad you would be somewhat affronted if on your return the caretaker sought to claim ownership of your home…
“Should the government decree that Abramovich should not be in control of the club the Premier League would immediately have to analyse whether ownership of the club has in fact been transferred to the Trust.
“A shareholder or stakeholder may well appoint a nominee to the board of a company to look after their interests. There is a possibility that Abramovich is in fact saying that the Trust is to act as his de facto nominee on the board…
“Clearly the club and the Trust itself will need to elaborate on Mr Abramovich‘s statement to clarify the legal situation.”
Contact the writers of this story at moc.l1734999834labto1734999834ofdlr1734999834owedi1734999834sni@w1734999834ahsra1734999834w.wer1734999834dna1734999834 or moc.l1734999834labto1734999834ofdlr1734999834owedi1734999834sni@i1734999834tnuk.1734999834ardni1734999834mas1734999834