Where Is Abramovich's 5-Year Plan?

Since the departure of Jose Mourinho, Chelsea has struggled to replicate the success experienced under “the special one.” The shortcomings the club has faced have often been attributed to the management. The case and point: Felipe Scolari’s sacking. What’s gone wrong at Chelsea?

Although Chelsea would not be the club it is today without the investment of free-spending owner Roman Abramovich, his participation has also hindered the club’s development. It is undeniable that he has paid the big bucks to bring top players to the club (24 million pounds for Didier Drogba, 30 million pounds for Andriy Shevchenko, and 24 million for Essien… just a few examples); however, he has also brought in the culture of the dictatorial quick fix to Chelsea.  

Abramovich tired of Jose’s style so he drove him away; Abramovich was unsatisfied with Avram Grant’s performance after just 8 months in charge so he sacked him, and Scolari, well we all know that saga. Right now interim manager Guus Hiddink has enjoyed some success, but again it appears he is a short term appointment.

At the very least Chelsea is not following the model of their Premiership rivals, and at worst Chelsea is ignoring vital lessons that have been the only proven recipes for sustainable success in the Premiership. This is not to say that those rivals don’t invest heavily in on talent; however, they do so in a very different way.

Using Manchester United as an example we see that there is a definite emphasis on long term planning and club maturation. Paul Scholes and Ryan Giggs are only a few of the names that have come through the youth academy. The academy is not the only sustainable practice-- the transfer market is also used as a tool for future success. Looking back at some of the transfers it is easy to recognize the long term value of investing in younger up-and-coming players such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Anderson, Nani, and Rafael just to name a few.

Chelsea has improved their academy record lately and they did benefit from the pre- Abramovich era in which the youth system regularly produced top players such as Carlton Cole of West Ham. The transfer market policy definitely contrasts the Manchester United model. Instead of addressing the long term needs of the club, the transfer policy is designed to satisfy the shortsighted owner who demands immediate success. These incentives have led to the signing of players like Drogba (age 31), Ricardo Carvalho (age 30), Michael Ballack (age 32), Nicolas Anelka (age 30), Mineiro (age 33), Deco (age 31), and Shevchenko (age 32), just to name a few.

Chelsea is an aging squad that represents a single generation of players.

 In other words they will all hit retirement age at the same time and the huge investment made by Abramovich will have to start all over again. This is not sustainable policy.

It is not a coincidence that two or three seasons ago Chelsea enjoyed incredible success, but unfortunately their success will follow the trajectory of a player at the end of his career if these policies continue.

Chelsea has become a team of mercenaries. 

Ultimately Chelsea needs to re-focus on English talent.

Although all major clubs have lost that hometown feel, the successful clubs do actually have players that have some sort of connection to the club. They are not merely there to see out the remainder of their careers collecting on lucrative contracts. Whether the connection is with a manager, a city they adore, or even just a style of play, players need to be able to invest in the place they play as much as the place invests in them. 

The only way for that to happen is to re-gear and construct a team that is a cohesive unit that plays together for extended period of time with plenty of security surrounding them. Let them invest in each other. This is simply impossible with Abramovich constantly signing players to address his short term ambition.