Chelsea trustees have not agreed to 'stewardship' following Roman Abramovich statement

Trustees of Chelsea’s charitable foundation have not yet agreed to Roman Abramovich’s idea to hand them “stewardship” of the club and only learned of the dramatic plan on Saturday.

Although Chelsea’s statement quoted Abramovich as “giving trustees of Chelsea’s charitable foundation the stewardship and care of Chelsea FC”, the trustees say that they have major unanswered questions and are still considering the request.

Concerns include whether running a football club as part of the foundation could be compatible with charity law, if some sort of new entity would therefore need to be created, who they would ultimately be answerable to and questions of liability over future decisions.

The trustees currently also have no idea whether Abramovich might be sanctioned by the British Government and the nature of any sanctions.

There has been a meeting of trustees since Saturday’s announcement and lawyers are now working on proposals for a potential structure that could be put before the trustees.

There is a view that trustees would not want to act or be seen as a front for Abramovich, although that was not collectively raised as a central concern in the meeting.

Chris Bryant, who is the chair of the Russia All-Party Parliamentary Group, said on Sunday morning that parts of the media had fallen for the “Abramovich line on ceding control” and said that “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”.

Chelsea’s charitable trust is traditionally focused on delivering schemes in grassroots football or events such as the International Holocaust Memorial Day Workshop and there was considerable surprise on Saturday at the sudden suggestion that trustees could now be running the football club.

Such questions from the trustees were expected by Chelsea and they will now try to act on Abramovich’s wishes and work through a solution.

The charitable foundation is currently headed by club chairman Bruce Buck but also includes the manager of Chelsea women, Emma Hayes, the executive director of anti-discrimination group Fare Piara Powar, the chairman of the British Olympic Association Sir Hugh Roberston, Paul Ramos and John Devine.

The move to hand over ‘stewardship’ to the Chelsea Foundation’s trustees was strongly criticised by Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville, who ahead of Chelsea’s appearance in the Carabao Cup final at Wembley, said that the London club had “embarrassed” themselves and that Abramovich’s statement was “cowardly” in passing responsibility onto others.

“I don't think they've handled it really well. I think that the couple of statements they've put out - I think it's been really poor,” Carragher said.

“I think they've let themselves down badly. I think the club came out today and put out a statement as well, but I think that was trying to rectify what Roman Abramovich put out the night before.

“And I don't think they did that well either, really. So it's not worked out well for them at all. I think they've embarrassed themselves.

“They should've been a lot stronger with what they said really and the thing of Roman Abramovich passing (control) onto Chelsea trustees that's not him relinquishing the club.

“Stewardship is not ownership, it's completely different, he's still in charge, he's still running it which is fine but his actual statement to not mention what was going on in Ukraine was really poor.”

'The owners of the top six are insulated from reality'

Neville added: "Maybe myself and most others who saw that statement thought, 'Oh, this sounds like a noble gesture and the right thing to do', but this when you look at who the charity trustees are, Emma Hayes, the Chelsea women's manager, Piara Powar, who set-up Kick it Out, John Devine, it's quite clear they're not going to be running Chelsea football club.

"I think one of the smartest things Roman Abramovich has done over the past 20 years is not speak, not make statements, because the statement he made last night left more questions than answers.

"In fact, if anything, I thought it was a cowardly approach to throw a hospital pass to good people on the charitable and foundation board, when it's quite clear he runs the club.

"These owners of the top six clubs are insulated from reality, they think they can put a smart PR team around them and con us with fancy words, but unfortunately it doesn't work.

"There's no way the charitable foundation of Chelsea are running the club and I'm not quite sure why Roman Abramovich made that statement.

"If he wanted to make a statement of any note, it would've been whether he supports the war in Ukraine or he doesn't support the war in Ukraine."

Abramovich retains full control and ownership of Chelsea FC

Chelsea have made no formal legal approach to the Premier League to change their ownership status and, as far as the club’s relationship with the league is concerned, Chelsea is still owned and controlled by Abramovich.

Chelsea remain insistent that the club is not and will not be for sale, but the move is likely to encourage interested groups and individuals to test Abramovich’s resolve with takeover offers.

Any change of ownership of any of the Premier League’s 20 shareholders has to be approved by the league executive who have tight controls and an owners’ and directors’ test (OADT) – no such change has been applied for and Abramovich, via his company Fordstam Limited, is still the ultimate controlling party of Chelsea. It also means that if the British Government chose to impose sanctions on Abramovich this week, the club would potentially still be affected.

Although many Chelsea fans claim that nothing will change, the key question now being posed inside football – with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the refusal of Abramovich to directly condemn the action – is whether the owner will ever come back in full capacity. Saturday’s announcement appears to be chiefly a public-relations exercise aimed at protecting the club’s reputation and allowing it to make statements on the Ukraine invasion independent of Abramovich.

Chelsea posted a brief statement on their website on Sunday morning. “The situation in Ukraine is horrific and devastating,” it said. “Chelsea FC’s thoughts are with everyone in Ukraine. Everyone at the club is praying for peace.”

The club would also have to submit any new executives for Premier League vetting and approval. As things stand the key personnel running the club remain in place, including director Marina Granovskaia, who had long been the key figure under Abramovich; chairman Buck; chief executive Guy Laurence; and technical and performance director Petr Cech. Granovskaia, Buck, Laurence and Eugene Tenenbaum - a Ukraine-born Canadian and close associate of Abramovich - make up the club’s plc board.

The Premier League’s OADT lays out the requirements for individuals wishing to own clubs or sit on club boards. Those with criminal convictions are prohibited from doing so as well as those who have reached sporting or football regulations or been found guilty of match fixing.

Further clarification on legal situation needed

Lawyers said that further information was required to clarify the legal situation following Chelsea’s statement. “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’,” said Stephen Taylor Heath, the head of sports law at JMW Solicitors, said: “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.

“In this regard it would be prudent for the trust to consider at this stage whether in fact it should even accept the concept of acting as stewards … on the basis that may in fact compromise their position.

“Abramovich says that he believes the trust has the best interests of the club at heart as he does. The authenticity of that statement will be brought into sharp focus should the situation arise where the interest of the club may conflict with the interest of Abramovich. What if Abramovich were to seek to call in his loans? What if the club were to seek to take steps to sever legal ownership?”

Abramovich said that he had always seen himself 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.”