Quantcast
Channel: Roman Abramovich | The Guardian
Viewing all 351 articles
Browse latest View live

Rafael Benítez stays on but will face Chelsea fans' rage on Saturday

$
0
0

• Manager reiterates his commitment until end of season
• Chelsea board surprised by depth of feeling against Spaniard

Rafael Benítez will run a gauntlet of hate at Stamford Bridge on Saturday as Chelsea's livid support, so riled by his suggestion that their antipathy towards him is damaging the image of the club, renew calls for him to be relieved of his duties with immediate effect.

The Spaniard remains in charge of the European champions and will oversee the visit of West Bromwich Albion despite voicing his frustration at the fans and, more pertinently, his unprecedented criticisms of the Chelsea hierarchy for bestowing him with the title "interim" first-team manager. Yet the chief executive, Ron Gourlay, who was pitch-side at training at Cobham on Thursday, and the chairman, Bruce Buck, will watch on with interest on Saturday tomorrow and gauge whether the poisonous atmosphere is threatening the side's progress.

While Chelsea are not minded at present to replace their temporary manager, who took up the reins only last November following the abrupt dismissal of Roberto Di Matteo, prior to the expiry of his contract at the end of the season, they are acutely aware of the necessity to qualify for the Champions League.

Chelsea are two points ahead of fifth-placed Arsenal, having won only twice in six league outings, and the prolongation of that scrappy form will risk necessitating another change before the end of the campaign. Certainly defeat by West Bromwich, the side who effectively accounted for both André Villas-Boas and Di Matteo, would prompt immediate action.

Benítez, who retains support of some key players – most notably David Luiz and Juan Mata – oversaw a training session with a skeleton squad at Cobham on Thursday and, having left after lunch, subsequently conducted an interview with the BBC's Football Focus programme in which he claimed his relationship with Roman Abramovich remains strong. He reiterated his desire to see out his contract, having conceded the night before that he would not be retained at the club beyond June.

"My relationship with the staff at Cobham is really good, fantastic," he said. "My relationship with the owner is really good. Every time we talk about football I enjoy it. I know he wants to win and I will try to do my best to the last day. But the relationship is fine. I don't have any problems with anyone. I can be happy if we win a game, disappointed if we don't, but after that I have conversations with [the sporting director] Michael Emenalo every single day. We have good conversations, talk about football. When I meet with Roman Abramovich we talk about football. He will say, 'I don't like this' or 'I don't like that', but we talk like normal people and share a passion for football."

His apparent frustration at the inclusion of "interim" in his title surprised senior figures at the club given that Benítez had not appeared to have a problem with that job description prior to Wednesday. Indeed his agent had insisted during negotiations to succeed Di Matteo that his client be granted a short-term deal until the summer, rather than the offer initially put forward by Chelsea which would have seen his stay automatically prolonged by 12 months if certain targets were met.

"I wanted to express my idea that everybody knows I will finish my contract to the end of the season," said Benítez of his criticism of the supporters. "This group of fans that are singing or creating banners or whatever have to concentrate on supporting the team. The rest of the fans, the majority, know – as everybody knows – that it is really important to be in the Champions League next year. I'm thinking about my team. I'm thinking about my club. The way to help the team is to support the players every single game; at home it will be easier for us. But if they continue like Wednesday, singing when we were winning 0-2, that does no favours to our team or our players, especially when we are at home. It's important."

Yet the club's disgruntled support remain just as adamant that the manager's presence will not be tolerated. Benítez has been subjected to prolonged abuse, a legacy largely of his association with Liverpool and the rivalry that erupted between the two clubs during José Mourinho's spell at Stamford Bridge, since accepting the interim role in November. Senior board members have privately admitted to being taken aback by the ferocity of the disaffection towards Benítez, despite having acknowledged there would be initial objections to his arrival, but the abuse has been permanent and vociferous.

Around 1,900 Chelsea fans had travelled to the Riverside Stadium for Wednesday's FA Cup tie against Championship opponents, with the customary anti-Benítez chants sung most notably towards the end of the game once victory seemed assured. The mood will merely have been enflamed by the post-match comments, that sections of the fans had a "agenda", were "making a big mistake" and "damaging the image of the club".

While there are no plans to increase security around the home manager, fans are sure to express their anger at Saturday's game and are expected to bring new banners into the ground after the club clarified its policy on the issue.

A letter to the Chelsea Supporters' Group, in response to claims fans had been told to remove banners from the stadium, stated: "In the past year supporters have freely displayed banners and signs expressing a range of opinions without club intervention. There has been no change to this policy."


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Rafa Benítez's bleats at Chelsea could see him thrown to the wolves | Dominic Fifield

$
0
0

The motives of Chelsea's interim manager are unclear but he was unwise to pick a fight with Roman Abramovich

The switch had flicked towards the end of Rafael Benítez's second post-match television interview on the touchline at the Riverside late on Wednesday. The Spaniard had been asked a relatively innocuous question by Al-Jazeera about reports of negativity within the Chelsea dressing room, the kind of query he has batted away for weeks, but, having apparently misconstrued the interviewer's intention, the red mist descended.

Cue the monologue lambasting a fan "agenda" and, more bafflingly, the hierarchy's "mistake" in labelling him merely as an interim, a diatribe prolonged from television to radio interviews to his press conference with written journalists as he dug himself further and further into a hole.

If the club's top brass do not yet deem his position untenable, despite what could easily have been construed as a direct criticism of Roman Abramovich over Benítez's job title, then the poison that will greet him in the dugout against West Bromwich Albion at Stamford Bridge on Saturday may prove the breaking point. Allowing him to take to the touchline then is tantamount to throwing him to the wolves, not the Baggies.

While the timing of his riposte after 99 days of abuse might have felt surprising given Middlesbrough had just been beaten, his willingness to take on authority is not. Benítez has always been a political animal, a manager prone to misjudging just how much clout he possesses even at clubs where he has excelled. He may not have mentioned Abramovich by name at any point on Teesside but the implication was all too obvious in his criticisms, and he cannot beat the oligarch.

Just as he could not defeat those who have employed him before. At Valencia he had briefly infuriated his players by banning normal ice cream from the training ground – he preferred a variety made from skimmed milk and rice – even if success on the pitch won them over. Yet his issues with the sporting director, Jesús García Pitarch, ran deeper and could not be repaired by two La Liga titles and a Uefa Cup, Valencia having shattered the dominance of Real Madrid and Barcelona. The pair fell out over transfer policy. "I asked for a table and they bought me a lamp," said Benítez and, with that challenge, the hierarchy were alienated. Liverpool were an attractive escape route.

On Merseyside there was a Champions League and an FA Cup to savour, yet life still became a slog of a power struggle behind the scenes. He had attacked the ownership following defeat in the European Cup final to Milan in 2007, his press conference the day after in Athens a demand for investment and reinvention at the club. There were fallouts with the chief executive Rick Parry and, subsequently, the managing director Christian Purslow and the new owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett. His infamous attack on Sir Alex Ferguson, with all that talk of "facts", might have struck a chord with many but left him exposed as Liverpool's title challenge faded.

His departure did not feel surprising at the time, and nor did it at Internazionale when, having claimed the Club World Cup in Japan with victory over TP Mazembe, he publicly challenged the club president, Massimo Moratti, to invest in the squad. Mention Inter now and he still bristles with indignation, the talk switching quickly to broken promises. He had good reason to seek rejuvenation of José Mourinho's side but his approach to instigate it, so provoking Moratti, was akin to scribbling a suicide note. A startled president claimed the time was not right to reinforce and, within days, had sacked his manager of four months.

These are battles Benítez cannot win, even if there is invariably a logic behind his complaints, and yet he rarely seems reluctant to provoke. Lessons are not being learned, and the criticisms of the "interim" tag merely made him look irrational given he had appeared content to operate under that title up until Wednesday. When his representative was negotiating the terms of his employment in November in the wake of Roberto Di Matteo's dismissal, Chelsea had proposed a deal that would automatically renew for a further 12 months if certain targets had been met. It was Benítez's agent who opted for the shorter-term arrangement, presumably in the hope that, should those objectives be met, a more attractive deal might be forthcoming.

There is the possibility the stand-in manager is actually establishing his arguments for when he departs in the summer: that he was damaged from the offset by the temporary nature of his employment, and that the fans were never going to accept him. The irony is that, with Chelsea claiming "business as usual" for now, Benítez could still technically walk away from his seven-month spell with the Europa League claimed, the FA Cup retained and a place in the Champions League restored.

The team's inconsistencies make that all feel unlikely but such a haul would mean he had fulfilled his brief – even enhanced his reputation. In that scenario, having braved Stamford Bridge might appear beneficial. Yet, on Saturday afternoon when the arena is transformed into a bear pit, such a notion will feel utterly ludicrous. The fans feel Benítez is wounded. They can smell blood.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Fabio Capello denies Chelsea approach to take over from Rafael Benítez

$
0
0

• Capello currently manages Russian national team
• In 2009 Guus Hiddink managed both Chelsea and Russia

Fabio Capello has denied that Chelsea have approached him with regard to taking over from the under-fire interim manager Rafael Benítez.

Reports in Italy over the weekend suggested that Roman Abramovich had sounded out the former England coach, who is now in charge of Russia, following Benítez's outburst last week against a section of Chelsea supporters who continue to oppose his appointment, as well as his bosses, for burdening him with the title "interim".

In February 2009 Guus Hiddink, then the manager of Russia, took over at Chelsea on a short-term basis, while continuing to perform his existing duties. The club won the FA Cup and also secured qualification for the following season's Champions League.

But Capello, speaking to an Italian radio station, is adamant that there has been no contact. "I have not received an offer," he said. "I am thinking about the Russian national team, and I feel very happy in Moscow."

Capello accepted his present job after Euro 2012, just six months after resigning as England manager.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Rafa Benítez: the real story of Roman Abramovich's Chelsea master plan | Marina Hyde

$
0
0

The absolutely vital thing to remember when considering Chelsea is that there is always more to it

It goes without saying that anyone who truly wishes to understand what's happening at Chelsea football club these days requires an adviser in the mould of the Gabriel Byrne character in Miller's Crossing. Tom Reagan "knows all the angles", in that Coen brothers classic, and I think we can assume he'd be the first to tell you that only a lunkhead would look at Stamford Bridge and conclude: "It's just one of those transitional seasons."

The absolutely vital thing to remember when considering Chelsea is that there is always more to it, with an ability to see all the angles the most righteously prized quality in modern football criticism. Oh, I know there are some people who swallow official lines, the same ones who claimed that Ashley Cole was acting alone when he shot the work experience kid at the club's Cobham training ground. But just as insiders will tell you there had to be a second gunman on the grassy knoll, so they will imply darkly All Is Not As It Seems in the current mass debate over the interim manager Rafael Benítez.

The smart money couldn't agree more. One of my own theories is that Roman Abramovich has recently begun playing the commodity markets, and is attempting to cause significant fluctuations in cotton prices by keeping Benítez in place, thus ensuring a biweekly run on bedsheets, on whose threadcounts fans can inscribe messages that appear to insult his appointee, but in fact trigger huge dividends for the inscrutable Russian. Is the John Lewis bed linen department in on the plot? It's not talking, but can it honestly be a coincidence that global cotton prices took a reversal of fortune and began rising last November – the very month that Benítez took charge at Stamford Bridge?

That reading, of course, suggests that the master plan is Abramovich's. But following Rafa's so-called rant during the press conference following last week's win over Middlesbrough, I note other high level analysts offering different schools of thought. "This wasn't a rant," parsed the erstwhile Liverpool managing director Christian Purslow a few days later. "It was a planned outburst, as Rafa plans everything."

Aha! Angle upon angle! Indeed, Rafa would have known the Chelsea website would have felt unable to mention a single word of said outburst in its report on his press conference – as it duly did in its Pravda-shaming report– so the upshot is clear. He is gaming it into the most savage self-parody. Yes, Rafa Benítez is actively living his life as a satire on managing Chelsea.

It takes a certain level of self-regard to turn one's life into a performance, but I am given to understand that Benítez is not without the necessary qualities. The question, creatively, is where he goes from here. Almost inevitably, he will instruct Chelsea opposition analyst Xavi Valero to compile one of those famous dossiers on each banner-waver, or perhaps begin retaliating with banners of his own. ("Interim, interim! You've all got it interim" etc). But my fervent hope is that whatever the result in Bucharest on Thursday, Benítez will resign, delivering a broadside that makes last week's rant look like … well, look like the press conference the Chelsea website reported.

And then? Why, then he should turn up to training the next day as if nothing had happened. Seinfeld fans will recognise the move from an early episode called The Revenge, in which George regrets quitting his job in anger one Friday afternoon, and Jerry suggests just going back without mentioning it. "You mean just walk into the staff meeting on Monday like it never happened?" George asks. "Sure," deadpans Jerry. "You're an emotional person. People don't take you seriously."

Anyone who doubts such a move could happen in real life is reassured that it did, to Larry David, during the Seinfeld co-creator's unsuccessful stint as a writer on Saturday Night Live under executive producer Dick Ebersol. Immediately regretting quitting in fury one Saturday night, David recalled: "I went in Monday morning and just pretended the whole thing never happened. And Dick never mentioned it. I think maybe he said: 'Is that Larry David down at the end of the table?' But that was it. The writers were looking at me, that's for sure. I was getting some very strange looks from the writers – like: 'What the hell are you doing here?'"

Would this not be the logical climax to what feels like years of absurdist managerial theatre at Stamford Bridge? Mr Benítez is implored to consider it, and upgrade his master plan accordingly.

Swiss feel at home with IOC but not with Olympics

Elsewhere I am shocked – shocked! – to learn that Switzerland will not even bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics, despite the country being the longtime home of the International Olympic Committee. Last weekend, a state referendum voted against funding even so much as an approach for the event, with a majority of Swiss declining to accept the traditional argument that the Olympics boost tourism and that the multibillion spend by any host nation trickles down the economy.

Naturally, it is to be hoped that the news has not ruffled the IOC chairman Jacques Rogge, much less taken the edge off the glass of exquisitely fine wine he doubtless enjoys while surveying the Alps from his palace on the shores of Lake Geneva. But if Dr Rogge feels the darkness descending even momentarily, he may console himself with the thought that successful crack dealers never partake of their own product, and hawkish Republican senators would not dream of encouraging their own teenage sons to join the military.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

How Roman Abramovich's son Arkadiy is following in his father's footsteps

$
0
0

The oligarch's 19-year-old son has bought a stake in a Siberian oilfield for $46m. And he's not the only wealthy Russian's child to be making his own mark

Billionaires probably don't have too many cares in the world. But raising well-grounded children is one of them, it seems. In 2011, Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One magnate, spoke to the Guardian about his socialite daughter, Tamara: "Yes, for sure, she goes and buys loads of shoes and bloody clothes. Unnecessary. Completely unnecessary. I suppose it's because … one wonders ... and this is not in her defence – how many other girls her age would do the same if they could?"

Nowhere is the density of super-wealthy offspring greater than in Russia. Many oligarchs keep a tight lid on the lives of their children, but, occasionally, the public gain an insight. This week, for example, it was reported that Arkadiy Abramovich, the 19-year-old son of Roman Abramovich, had bought a stake in an oilfield in Siberia for $46m. Arkadiy, who is currently working as an intern at the London office of a Russian investment bank, acquired the oilfield in a complex deal via a shell company of which he owns 45%. That a 19-year-old even knows what a shell company is, let alone controls one, tells you something about the life of a billionaire's child

In true "like father, like son" style, not only has Arkadiy developed a taste for his father's investments in Russian oil fields, but in 2010 he was linked to an unsuccessful attempt to take over the Danish football club FC Copenhagen. It doesn't seem to be wildly speculative to suggest that Arkadiy might one day pick up the reins at his father's beloved Chelsea FC.

Ekaterina Rybolovleva, the 23-year-old daughter of fertiliser billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev, has a similar taste for multi-million-dollar purchases. Last year, she bought New York's most expensive apartment for $88m– to live in while she completes her university studies in the US. Ekaterina's representative – yes, she has a spokesperson – confirmed to the press that she had acquired an apartment at 15 Central Park West. Press reports said the property boasted "10 rooms including four bedrooms, a wraparound terrace of more than 2,000 square feet, four bedrooms and two wood burning fireplaces". But it later emerged that the apartment had become the subject of a legal tussle as part of a bitter divorce between her father and his estranged wife.

Kira Plastinina, the 20-year-old daughter of Russian dairy magnate Sergei Plastinin, is also a busy student. While attending a university in Dallas, she also finds time to be an international fashion designer. Her retail chain filed for bankruptcy in the US in 2009 – when she was aged just 16 – but she now owns clothing stores in Russia. When she launched her label in 2007, her father reportedly paid $2m for Paris Hilton to attend the party in Moscow.

But not all oligarchs hand their wealth to their heirs. Anastasia Potanina, the daughter of metals-and-media billionaire Vladmir Potanin and a former aquabiking world champion, said in 2010 that she supported his decision to give away all his fortune to charity.

And earlier this year, oil billionaire Vagit Alekperov announced that he had placed strict conditions on how his son Yusuf, who works as an oil technologist in Siberia, would be able to manage his company once his father had died. "My son won't have the right to split and sell [the company]," he said. "Let him choose his fate for himself."


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Boris Berezovsky death: house given all-clear by hazard police

$
0
0

Radiation experts investigating death of Russian oligarch have given his Ascot mansion the all-clear

Radiation experts investigating the death of the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky have given his mansion the all-clear.

The businessman was found dead at his Berkshire home on Saturday by a bodyguard, and specialist officers in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear substances were examining the property.

Thames Valley police said they were continuing to investigate the death of the 67-year-old.

The circumstances of his death were unclear, though there were unconfirmed claims that the former power-broker of Russian politics had killed himself at the property in Ascot.

In an interview with Forbes Russia magazine on the eve of his death, Berezovsky said he had lost "meaning" from his life and wanted to return to Russia. He said he had "underestimated how important" Russia was to him, and he felt uncomfortable as an immigrant in Britain.

Berezovsky is believed to have written to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, recently to float the idea of going back to his homeland. If he did, he said, he had no interest in engaging in politics and would focus on science.

His death comes only months after he lost a high-profile and personally disastrous court case against his fellow Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. He had accused the Chelsea football club owner of blackmail, breach of trust and breach of contract in relation to a Russian oil company.

After the claims were dismissed, he was ordered by the high court to pay £35m of Abramovich's legal costs. His financial difficulties were exacerbated after his former mistress, Elena Gorbunova, 43, claimed Berezovsky owed her £5m in compensation over the sale of their £25m residence in Surrey.

Berezovsky is said by friends to have become deeply depressed last year, not just because he lost to Abramovich, but because the damning judgment at the end of the case had so badly damaged his reputation.

The businessman thought highly of the British legal system – explaining in an interview with the Guardian six years ago that it had been one of the reasons he settled in the UK – and is said to have been distraught that the judge, Mrs Justice Gloster, described him as "dishonest", "unreliable" and "deluded".

One close friend said Berezovsky had taken antidepressants last year and had checked into the Priory clinic for a brief period about four months ago while being treated for depression, adding: "He was very, very low. He talked about suicide. He would say to me: 'It's all over, it's all finished, there's no point in anything – the best thing that could happen to me is that I have a heart attack.'

"But I still don't believe he had the courage to take his own life – he loved life too much."

Following the loss of his fortune, Berezovsky was said to have been concerned about his ability to support his children. He had six children by three women: his two ex-wives and Gorbunova. While two of his children are in their 40s, two are in their 20s and his youngest are aged 12 and 10. The businessmen had been mired in a series of legal disputes, and is said to have been worn down by his long battles with the Russian state, during which there were reports that he had faced a number of assassination plots.

Berezovsky, a Kremlin insider in the days of Boris Yeltsin, left Russia in 2000 after a quarrel with Vladimir Putin and has been the subject of an extradition order by Russia. He had appeared on Moscow's most wanted list since 2001 on charges of fraud, money-laundering and attempted interference in the Russian political process. A Russian court sentenced Berezovsky in absentia for embezzling $2bn from two major state companies. Moscow repeatedly requested his extradition, but British authorities did not comply.

He had forged close contacts with a number of influential British figures around the time of the 1996 Russian election, in which Yeltsin defeated a communist challenger, and was permitted to settle in the UK. In time, he changed his name to Platon Elenin, Platon being the name of a character in a Russian film based loosely upon his life. He was subsequently given a British passport in this name.

In 2007, Berezovsky said he had been told to leave by British police for his own safety after the British security services claimed they had evidence of an assassination plot against him.

In the meantime, he led a lavish lifestyle, with properties in London, the home counties and the south of France, a private plane and a 1927 Rolls-Royce.

All that was wiped out by the disastrous defeat in the Abramovich case. Last week, he was reported to have been selling a £50,000 Andy Warhol portrait of Lenin.

One Russian lawyer, Alexander Dobrovinsky, said Berezovsky "was in a dreadful, horrendous state; covered in debt, almost broke".

According to Putin's official spokesman, Berezovsky wrote a personal letter to the Russian president two months ago, asking for forgiveness. "Boris Berezovsky passed a letter personally written by him. He admitted that he made lots of mistakes and asked Vladimir Putin to forgive him," said Dmitry Peskov. "He asked Putin for a chance to come back to Russia."

Peskov said nothing about Putin's reaction to Berezovsky's letter, adding: "I can say that in any case information about somebody's death – whoever the person was – cannot bring positive emotions." In the UK, however, friends of Berezovsky cast doubt on this claim.

In Russia, Berezovsky's death was greeted with surprise, with former associates and observers offering opinions on his legacy and the possible causes of his unexpected demise.

The opposition politician Boris Nemtsov, who was a rival of Berezovsky in the late 1990s and knew him well, said: "His life at the end was terrible … he lost money, he lost to Abramovich and he lost his wife … he not only suffered financially but also personally.

"His minuses for the country were more than his pluses, but he wasn't too much of a devil – although he often wanted to look like a devil."

The prominent opposition activist Sergei Parkhomenko, talking to the liberal radio station Ekho Moskvy about Berezovsky's differences with Putin, said: "We were talking once and we turned to the strange topic of health and illness. He told me: 'My health is yet another weapon. Who dies first, loses. And I never lose.'"

Parkhomenko added: "He didn't seem like a potential suicide."

Mark Feigin, a lawyer, who worked as a civil servant in the 1990s and met Berezovsky several times, said: "He was not a little person in politics and had unbelievable energy … things you couldn't do, Berezovsky could do.

"Over the last few months he had been experiencing a full exhaustion of his internal reserves. Maybe this caught up with him."

Andrei Sidelnikov, a Russian emigrant, told gazeta.ru he had known Berezovsky for 11 years. He said: "Such a person could never commit suicide. He was an exceptionally joyous person and, despite his various reverses in life, always remained as such. My personal opinion is that his death has either natural causes, or [is the work of] the Russian secret service. Everybody knows that Boris was Putin's enemy number one."

RIA Novosti, a state-run news agency, cited a source close to Berezovsky, saying he had died of a heart attack, and had recently undergone treatment for health problems in Israel.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Boris Berezovsky obituary

$
0
0

Russian oligarch who fell foul of his former protege Putin and sought exile in Britain

Boris Berezovsky, who has died aged 67 in uncertain circumstances at his home in Berkshire, was the most powerful Russian oligarch of the Yeltsin era. He projected himself as a patriot fighting for a democratic Russia against an ever more repressive President Vladimir Putin – his former protege, whom he had helped into the Kremlin. But to most Russians, Berezovsky epitomised the worst excesses of the crony capitalism that, after the collapse of communism, reduced Russia in the 1990s to impotent failure and impoverished its people.

The former general turned politician Alexander Lebed called Berezovsky "the apotheosis of sleaziness … not satisfied with stealing – he wants everybody to see that he is stealing with impunity". The American journalist Paul Klebnikov wrote in Godfather of the Kremlin (2000) of Berezovsky's rise to power: "No man profited more from Russia's slide into the abyss."

Berezovsky helped Putin to succeed Boris Yeltsin as president in 2000, but soon afterwards was forced into exile in Britain. He publicly blamed Putin for a catalogue of crimes, including the bombings of Moscow apartment buildings in 1999 that killed more than 200 people – but boosted Putin's party in elections later that year; and the polonium poisoning of a former Berezovsky associate, Alexander Litvinenko, in London in 2006. Berezovsky had supported Litvinenko and other anti-Putin exiles. Russia responded by twice convicting Berezovsky for fraud in his absence and accusing him of complicity in murder and other crimes. He was the target of at least one murder plot prevented by MI6.

In the last two years, Berezovsky had suffered a series of severe setbacks. His wealth was drained by serial, expensive and largely unsuccessful litigation and an estimated £100m settlement after his divorce from his second wife, Galina, in 2011. In 2012, he was hit with a large bill for legal costs after losing a court battle with his old business associate Roman Abramovich. Then his former partner Yelena Gorbunova obtained a freezing order on his assets.

For Berezovsky, litigation in the British courts had become war by other means to restore his finances and provide a platform to publicly embarrass the Kremlin. His gamble ended in a humiliating defeat when he was described as "dishonest" and "deluded" by the high court judge who dismissed his more than £3.7bn claim against Abramovich over shares in the Sibneft oil and Rusal aluminium groups. Other cases against former business partners were riding on the Abramovich result. They soon settled, but without the billions Berezovsky was seeking, leaving further legal bills and his reputation trashed. He was no longer a player and had no way back to Russia.

Born in Moscow, the son of a construction engineer and a nurse, Berezovsky graduated from Moscow State University to the prestigious Academy of Sciences. He earned a master's degree and PhD in mathematics, becoming a professor at the Institute of Control Sciences in Moscow. In the 1980s perestroika opened the doors to the world of business. "Science is less dynamic than business," declared Berezovsky, who saw the opportunities faster than most. He combined charm with relentless desire and drive, his motto "never stop attacking". It was a world in which, he explained, "only the most decisive could succeed".

The vehicle for Berezovsky's rise to riches was his company Logovaz and its 1989 deal with Avtovaz, Russia's largest carmaker. Russians were desperate for cars. Logovaz was to provide software to boost production. Berezovsky was not interested in the factory, with its debts and need for reinvestment, but in the cashflow from selling Ladas through Logovaz showrooms.

He pioneered the tactics that the early oligarchs used to enrich themselves. He used the Logovaz cashflow to create a network of companies inside and outside Russia, siphoning off money from Avtovaz into Swiss bank accounts to acquire other business interests, such as banks and the Russian TV channel ORT. He later repeated the Avtovaz manoeuvre at Aeroflot, establishing a Swiss company that received most of the state-owned airline's foreign currency revenues. In 2007 he was found guilty in absentia by a Russian court of embezzling £4.4m from Aeroflot, and jailed for six years. He was given a second sentence of 15 years over Avtovaz in 2009.

Berezovsky described politics as "the best investment". Yeltsin's security chief Alexander Korzhakov recalled how he was approached by the slight, non- sporting Berezovsky in the showers of the president's sports club. "He came to the club to approach the necessary people. He uses every person to the maximum. That is his principle in life."

But Berezovsky's key to the Kremlin was financing the publication of the second volume of Yeltsin's memoirs in 1993. Berezovsky was introduced by Yeltsin's ghostwriter and subsequent chief of staff Valentin Yumashev. The book deal also brought Berezovsky close to the president's influential daughter, Tatyana. For the next seven years he became what was euphemistically described as "financial adviser" to the Yeltsin family. In 1996 Yeltsin made Berezovsky deputy secretary of the Security Council and in 1998, executive secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Success in Russia, then and now, is not possible without a krysha or roof – protection not just from the political and security authorities but also organised crime groups, which in the 90s dominated several business sectors, including the sale of cars. Berezovsky's krysha was the Chechen crime groups who fought for control of Moscow with rival Slav gangs. A gunfight occurred outside a Logovaz showroom in 1993.

The following year, Berezovsky narrowly escaped death from a car bomb. He was later accused of helping to fund anti-Kremlin Chechen separatists. The connection to the Chechens was his Georgian business partner and fellow exile Arkadi "Badri" Patarkatsishvili. After Patarkatsishvili's death in 2008, Berezovsky launched a £3bn legal action in Gibraltar and London against his estate.

Berezovsky used money and television to ensure a Yeltsin victory in the 1996 presidential elections. In return the bankrupt government entered into the infamous loans-for-shares privatisations which saw Russia give away most of its oil, gas and metal industries. The loans could not be repaid, so Berezovsky ensured that Abramovich ended up with Sibneft for a fraction of its value after rigged auctions in 1995 and 1997. One bidder was persuaded by Patarkatsishvili to drop out. Another deliberately bid low. A third was disqualified. "It was not fixed, I just found a way" Berezovsky told the high court last year.

Berezovsky was by then Russia's richest man but the 1998 rouble crisis – which saw banks collapse and Russians lose their savings – began the erosion of his influence. When Putin came to power in the following years, he agreed not to revisit the privatisations – if the oligarchs stayed out of politics. Berezovsky was seen to have broken that pact by criticising the new president. Saying that he was the victim of politically motivated persecution, he left Russia in 2000 for France, where he had a home, then moved on to Britain. He did not return. Berezovsky claimed he had been forced to sell most of his interests to Abramovich, who had played his Kremlin cards more astutely.

Britain refused to extradite Berezovsky and angered the Kremlin further by giving asylum to its most vocal critic in 2003. The former British ambassador Sir Andrew Wood described Berezovsky as "an extremely useful channel into the Kremlin and beyond it" who had been "a demonstrative friend of British interests". That help had included obtaining the release of two British hostages of the Chechens in 1998.

In 2007 Berezovsky told the Guardian he was plotting Putin's violent overthrow. He delighted in taunting the Kremlin and pumping money into its political opponents. Berezovsky badly misjudged Putin. At their last Kremlin meeting, in August 2000, Putin told him: "You were one of those who asked me to be president, so how can you complain?" Hard to take for a man who described his hobbies as "work and power".

Berezovsky divorced his first wife Nina in 1991 to marry Galina, whom he divorced in 2011. He lived for many years with Gorbunova. He had two children from each relationship; they all survive him.

• Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, businessman, born 23 January 1946; died 23 March 2013


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Boris Berezovsky death: super-rich no longer feel so secure in Londongrad

$
0
0

UK courts resist extradition back to Russia – but several oligarchs have died in Britain in mysterious circumstances

When Boris Berezovsky and his bodyguards cornered Roman Abramovich among the silk scarves and handbags of the Hermès shop on Sloane Street and served him with a $5bn writ, it was the clearest sign yet that London's most desirable corners have increasingly become Russian turf.

From the streets of Kensington and Belgravia to the suburban mansions of Surrey and Berkshire, the capital and its fringes are now a battleground as well as a safe haven for Russian billionaires including the aluminium oligarch Oleg Deripaska, Alisher Usmanov, a majority shareholder in Arsenal football club, and Alexander Lebedev, the ex-KGB man turned owner of the Evening Standard and Independent newspapers.

Money is no object. Abramovich bought up a pair of neighbouring mansions in Lowndes Square to create a Belgravia palace, but is now reported to be preparing to sell up and is instead refurbishing a £100m home on Cheyne Walk in Chelsea. On trips to London, Deripaska lives in a huge Belgrave Square mansion or out at St George's Hill in Surrey while Usmanov lives in Highgate and Leonard Blavatnik, a Russian-born American billionaire, owns one of central London's biggest homes in Kensington Palace Gardens.

The prime attractions for some have been security and legal protection, according to Mark Hollingsworth, author of a study of Russians in the capital, Londongrad.

"Until a couple of years ago they believed if they moved to London they are not going to get assassinated or kidnapped," he said.

The feeling of imperviousness may be waning. Last year, Russian banker German Gorbuntsov was in a coma after being shot at Canary Wharf and Russian supergrass Alexander Perepilichnyy dropped dead from mysterious causes in Surrey.

"More important still is the legal protection against extradition, charges or investigation," added Hollingsworth. It is the work of the judges who preside at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand that means most to many oligarchs. The UK courts' resistance to efforts to extradite Russians back to face charges in Moscow amid ongoing concerns about the fairness of trials in Russia is priceless.

London's lifestyle – the Michelin-starred restaurants and luxury apartments that have for decades attracted Arab tycoons – remains a significant attraction, though, not just for the oligarchs who made fortunes under Yeltsin, but for newer immigrants of rich whose wealth has flowered under Vladimir Putin.

Yevgeny Chichvarkin, who made a fortune as a mobile phone retailer, fled to London in 2009 after apparently falling out with the Kremlin over his tax bill. He has since set up shop as a luxury wine merchant.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Roman Abramovich's spokesman denies claims of US arrest

$
0
0

• Reports by Russian TV suggested Chelsea owner held by FBI
• 'He is in the US but he has not been detained'

Roman Abramovich's spokesman has denied reports the Russian billionaire had been arrested by United States authorities on Monday.

A Russian TV station reported that the Chelsea owner had been held by the FBI and promised details in its 6pm Moscow bulletin but failed to substantiate the rumours.

The story spread on social networking site Twitter until Abramovich's agent, John Mann, released a statement while the FBI and Chelsea also insisted Abramovich had not been arrested.

"It's not true," Mr Mann said. "He is in the US but he has not been arrested or detained."

Abramovich is visiting New York, where his partner Dasha Zhukova is due to give birth to his seventh child.

The rumours saw shares in Evraz holdings, the steel firm in which the 46-year-old is a major shareholder, drop by 6% in London.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Next stop New York: wealthy Russians hurry money from Cyprus to US

$
0
0

Manhattan real estate feels benefit from Europe's financial crisis as city becomes a money haven for Russians with cash to protect

On the west side of Manhattan, a strange sight greets the tourists and natives who happen to be walking, running or cycling by Pier 90. Pearly and serene amid the beeping and bustle of highway traffic, a 536ft, bulletproof yacht called the Eclipse has been anchored in the freezing water of the Hudson for over a month. It is the world's largest yacht, owned by Roman Abramovich, a secretive Russian oligarch whose net worth, at Forbes' last count, was about $10.2bn.

It's no coincidence that Abramovich's glistening ship is anchored in New York. The city has been a haven for wealthy Russians for at least three years, as oligarchs and demi-oligarchs moored their money far away from the political whims of Vladimir Putin or the growing fiscal fiasco of the eurozone. "In Russia, whether you're friendly with the government is a very important thing, and that changes like the wind changes," said David Newman, a partner with Day Pitney who has represented the ex-wife of former potash magnate Dmitry Rybolovlev in a prominent divorce case. Evidence of Russian wealth has been everywhere.

"They have boats, they have cars; you go buy a plane for $40m, it's not a big deal any more," said Newman. Rybolovlev's 2012 acquisition of an $88m Central Park apartment once owned by Citigroup chief Sandy Weill still stands as one of the biggest real estate deals in New York history, and a soaring example of Russian influence and ostentation in high-end New York real estate. "How many Maybachs can you have, how many Maseratis can you have?" Newman recently learned of an extravagantly priced crocodile-skin T-shirt for sale. "I thought right away, 'there's going to be a Russian at Hermes buying that $100,000 t-shirt."

The shirt is still sitting in the Hermes store. As Newman notes, Russians have sought assets that stick around a little longer. The wealthiest Russians knew months ago that the Cypriot economy was failing and hurried their money out into other investments.

The European crisis has forced more and more money out of the bank accounts of wealthy Russians in Cyprus and elsewhere and into the US. "This past year, we've been seeing a shift in investments in the United States as a result of the financial state of the European Union," said Ed Mermelstein, a New York real estate lawyer who advises wealthy Russians.

The meltdown of the Cypriot financial system came as no surprise to well-connected, wealthy Russians, who bundled some of their money to the United States. "Many of our clients had a heads-up on this issue," said Mermelstein. "Cyprus had started having the conversations about what it was intending, and that's been going on for half a year."

That's why some wealthy Russians seemed insulted by the insinuation that the collapse of the Cypriot banking system this week caught them by surprise. Cypriot banks were suffering "substantial outflows" for weeks before the meltdown, according to the country's finance minister, Michael Sarris.

Igor Zyuzin, a Russian oligarch, nearly bit off a reporter's head when asked whether his finances would suffer from the debacle in Cyprus. "You must be out of your mind!" Zyuzin reportedly barked.

He wasn't the only one who had hustled most of his money out. Gennady Timchenko, the head of commodity trading firm Gunvor, only had a "few hundred thousand euros" in Cypriot banks, he boasted to a Swiss newspaper. Alfa Capital Holdings, a Cyprus-based investment firm owned by Russians, informed visitors to its website that its subsidiaries "are not and will not be affected by any levy on deposits imposed by the Government of Cyprus."

The financial woes of Cyprus may have become the blessings of New York. Large chunks of Russian cash started falling into the New York real estate market – larger, that is, than usual. Wealthy Russians haven't just been buying apartments as individual investments; according to investment bankers, lawyers and wealth advisers, over the past six months to a year – as the eurozone crisis intensified with elections in Greece and Italy as well as the debacle in Cyprus – those Russians have been looking to build real estate. Lawyers and advisers have been making construction loans and sinking money into the concrete foundations of the big real estate developments in Manhattan as well as other centers of east coast glamor, including Miami.

Mermelstein's Russian clients are making no secret of their glee at having avoided the bulk of the Cypriot fiasco, which would have taken up to 40% of their deposits from bank accounts there. Six months ago, Mermelstein said, one of his Russian clients took a few million dollars from his bank account in Cyprus and made a loan to a real-estate project in New York. After Cyprus announced an overnight bank raid into the deposits of rich customers, "he was happy the loan came out of Cyprus and doesn't have to go back any time soon." Such investments, ranging in size from $5m to $25m, have "gone up substantially" according to Mermelstein.

Part of the reason wealthy Russians are attracted to real estate developments in New York is that few investments in other assets are making any money. With interest rates at a record low, savings accounts aren't paying much interest, and assets like art and cars often depreciate in value. As a result, wealthy Russians have been stepping into the market that, as any beleaguered Manhattan resident will tell you, always seem to go up: New York real estate. So Russians – their names obscured, their involvement shadowy – have been signing deals as financing partners on big commercial real-estate buildings – including everything from shopping malls to hotels to high-end condos – to provide financing that banks cannot or will not. While banks may have once asked for only 20% of a project's value in cash, now they are asking for 50%, Mermelstein said. "That differential is made up by foreign investors," he says, and they're not always Russians. One beneficiary of such a deal, according to sources in New York real estate, is One57, the luxury high-rise that has booked over $1bn in sales.

The estimates of the investments are always anecdotal. Russians, especially in real estate, tend to work through investment funds and private companies, creating a warren of paperwork and almost no access to their names on public documents. "They have very closed mouths and keep a very small circle of people," said Newman. "They are very wary of outsiders and it's difficult to get information. In terms of their advisers, they hold them close to the vest." As Cyprus has found it, it's not easy to track exactly where Russian money is going. Cyprus's central bank estimated Russian deposits at a mere €10bn maximum, while Moody's said Russian businesses alone probably held €19bn in the bank.

The anecdotes, however, are growing. In Miami, wealthy Russians have caught up with South American tycoons that have traditionally dominated the property market. Investment banker Denny St Romain at Jones Lang LaSalle Capital Markets says his team is getting a call a week from wealthy CEOs or ex-CEOs who want to invest in real estate. The investors usually work with an operator, an experienced real estate hand. What is notable is the size of the investments: "We've seen a couple of deals go down at $100m, and on average $40m and $50m," St Romain said. The Russian investors rarely team up with others.

Still, while many wealthy Russians pulled some of their money out, there are still billions belonging to "the little guy", or mini-oligarchs, or those who left Russia to escape the financial prying of Putin's government. That's the money that, ultimately, will help fund Cyprus's bailout.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

José Mourinho's grand return to Chelsea requires egos to be put aside | Daniel Taylor

$
0
0

The chaos at Stamford Bridge makes the reunion between Roman Abramovich and manager almost inevitable

Perhaps the most relevant question is what precisely has changed since those last, difficult days together when José Mourinho and Roman Abramovich came to resemble a couple who had forgotten what it was they liked about one another, still sharing the same oxygen but with none of the old joys?

Mourinho, in that political and often romanticised way of his, was certainly applying a wonderfully selective memory when he talked of working in a loving environment at Chelsea and made sure not to allow any of the more inconvenient facts to get in the way of his nostalgia.

It is true that he was adored by the supporters, afforded a rare form of reverence in those days when he had Sir Alex Ferguson on the run and looked like he wanted to take on the world. They were great times, undoubtedly, and the sense of excitement those same people will be experiencing about the prospect of him swinging back into Stamford Bridge ought to be shared, for the most part, by the rest of English football. Mourinho brings a spark that possibly nobody else possesses. He has the ability, singlehandedly, to invigorate an entire league and we could probably do with it judging by how mundane the current season has been and the feeling of anti-climax when a title race is all but done by the second week of February.

There was not a great deal of love, however, behind the scenes at Stamford Bridge during his final year, when his relationship with Abramovich broke apart and Mourinho seemed to morph before our eyes. That handsome man of charisma and wit was replaced by someone with a manic stare and dark smudges beneath his eyes. His hair became wild and bouffant. The sharply tailored black suit was replaced by a dowdy grey tracksuit. We have seen this a lot from Mourinho in his final season at Real Madrid. When he is happy, he would not look out of place on the front cover of GQ; when he is unhappy, he can resemble a man who has just missed the last bus home. He was seriously unhappy in the year or so before the final call, asking him to collect his belongings, on 20 September 2007.

The healing process has taken a long time, as it was bound to when we are talking about male pride and ego and two people who are entirely used to getting their own way. Abramovich came to resent the way Mourinho craved control. Mourinho sulked, conspired and used every trick in the book to get his way. It is a particularly thick book in Mourinho's case but this was one argument he was never going to win.

So why would Abramovich give serious consideration to bringing him back? Pragmatism, mostly. Abramovich might have an unorthodox way of showing it sometimes but his focus has never shifted from what he really wants: to see Chelsea consistently at the top. Mourinho is plainly a man who could re-energise the club and at least it shows Abramovich is willing to bend when the occasion demands it. For all his faults, it is not always the case with the super-rich that they would go back to someone who has been fired and try to find common ground.

A lot of this still seems slightly presumptuous and it is worth pointing out there are people at Stamford Bridge, acutely aware of how Mourinho operates, who are advising caution and reiterating this is a man who plans his professional life like a chess game. It cannot entirely be ruled out that his comments were strategically designed to apply pressure, force the issue and whip up even more support from the people who still chant his name. It backs Chelsea into a corner, at a time when they are looking for a new manager and a restless crowd need to be placated. For Chelsea to go elsewhere now would risk open mutiny among their supporters. Checkmate, you could say.

Abramovich does not always indulge these games but, equally, Mourinho's carefully designed words after Madrid's game against Borussia Dortmund, and the timing of it, was not a complete surprise. The Guardian has been reporting for some time that relations have soothed between the relevant people and that a feeling exists on both sides that they can be good for another once again. Mourinho has been planning his escape route for most of the season and a return to his old club is no secret given that Ferguson, on two separate occasions, has talked in press conferences about Chelsea making a better fist of next season's title race – primarily because the Manchester United manager expects his old rival to be back in charge.

If so, it is surely something to be welcomed, whatever your position on Mourinho's shortcomings, bearing in mind the way the past couple of seasons have played out and the clear sense that the two Manchester clubs are getting everything their own way.

The media would gratefully usher him back, even if that relationship was not always as cosy as Mourinho would remember either, but what the headline writers, pressbox denizens and television people want should not really be a huge consideration. The bottom line for Chelsea is whether Mourinho still has the uncommon ability that took them to back-to-back championships, accumulating a record 95 points the first time, and whether he can fumigate the club of the disenchantment that has been building up since the removal of Roberto Di Matteo on the back of winning the Champions League and appointment of Rafael Benítez. At 50, older, wiser, there is no reason to think it is beyond Mourinho. If anything, he should be a more rounded manager after his experiences at Madrid and previously Internazionale.

Mourinho is said to be lining up Radamel Falcao as a priority in the transfer market. His appointment would potentially increase the chances of Frank Lampard being offered another contract. More than that, it should refocus a group of players who must find it a blur sometimes trying to keep up with Abramovich's trigger reflex and this permanent sense that a couple of bad results might do for whoever is in charge.

In Benítez's case, they have known pretty much from the start that he is a stopgap measure, with no fully integrated plan for the future and enough bad feeling to give every home match an edge. On that basis, who can be that surprised the players have not always seemed entirely fixed on his ideas? Footballers, on the whole, want some form of security and consistency and Chelsea have been without that for too long. They finished 25 points off the top last season and are 20 adrift this time around. The old adage in management is never to go back but the timing for Mourinho, and Abramovich, could hardly be better.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

José Mourinho will face greater expectations at Chelsea this time round | Dominic Fifield

$
0
0

Second coming at Stamford Bridge will be popular, but it's likely to be a very different experience for the returning manager

There will be some familiar faces awaiting José Mourinho when, as expected, the Special One – newly liberated by Real Madrid – secures his second coming at Stamford Bridge. Five senior players remain on the books from his glittering first spell in charge at Chelsea and a sixth, Michael Essien, will accompany him back from Madrid. Some of the medical and performance staff, whether analysts or masseurs, linger on. Even Gary Straker, the steward-cum-Italian interpreter turned player liaison officer and one of the great survivors at the club, is still on the day to day scene down at Cobham.

Mourinho will presumably relish renewing old acquaintances, yet it is how he copes with the aspects of the job that may feel rather alien that will determine how long this reconciliation endures. This is a very different Chelsea to the one he left so abruptly, and acrimoniously, in the autumn of 2007 when his relationship with the owner, Roman Abramovich, appeared fractured beyond repair. His original brief had centred upon winning a first Premier League title in half a century, a task achieved at the first attempt, and an inaugural European Cup. That was only secured in his absence, albeit largely with his team. Regardless, he had overseen a revolution featuring a blend of charisma and siege mentality that was ideal at a club muscling its way into the establishment. These days Chelsea talk more of evolution. Therein lies the anomaly of turning to a manager whose appointment tends to guarantee both trophies and, ultimately, a messy divorce.

The Portuguese will arrive mid-project. As Rafael Benítez has been quick to point out over recent weeks, this is a team in transition, a side that includes the first wave of younger talent recruited at significant expense. Juan Mata, Eden Hazard, Oscar, and even César Azpilicueta, Victor Moses and David Luiz, were bought to fit into a framework that aped Barcelona's quick-step, the same ideal Mourinho has spent the last three years attempting to usurp.

The club's extensive recruitment and scouting department, overseen by the technical director, Michael Emenalo, is apparently working towards a long-term strategy, even if there has been an imbalance in the senior squad assembled so far. The hope is that Mourinho buys into the overall vision and does not merely set back what progress has been made. Chelsea spent about £90m during his first summer in south-west London, an outlay that would not feel outlandish if repeated nine years on. But, back then, that bought eight players who arguably became integral to his first-choice line-up. Emenalo would suggest the spine is already in place this time around, and that no radical overhaul is required. Indeed, the new manager must also assess the entire squad of youngsters loaned out last season – from Romelu Lukaku to Jeffrey Bruma, Patrick van Aanholt to Josh McEachran – before determining the make-up of his side.

Working with Emenalo will be key. Since joining as a scout under Avram Grant a month after Mourinho's exit, the former Nigeria and Notts County defender has made himself a powerful figure, close to the owner and hugely influential within the set-up, whether earmarking potential signings or reporting back on the current staff. The 47-year-old's rise may have appeared rapid and unexpected, but he has arguably become the owner's eyes and ears down at the training ground, a man whose input is valued. Emenalo is here to stay. Mourinho will have to work with him in a way he would never have accepted with Grant, who had been imposed upon him as a director of football in the summer of 2007.

Indeed, he will have to accept the entire infrastructure of the club this time around, from the chairman, Bruce Buck, to the chief executive, Ron Gourlay. The schism that occurred with his employers six years ago had been born of a perception within the hierarchy that Mourinho felt, and acted, as if he owned the club. The parting of the ways represented the owner reasserting control. The problem is that Abramovich has lurched from manager to interim in the years since and never stumbled upon a candidate capable of amassing the trophies the Portuguese secured in a little over three seasons at the helm. Mourinho may be volatile, a ticking time-bomb off the pitch, but he generally succeeds on it.

This time he must also contend with expectation. He had arrived a Uefa Cup and Champions League winner in 2004, but was still a relative unknown. Chelsea's supporters at the time felt a certain loyalty to the deposed Claudio Ranieri, but were blown away by the sheer brilliance of the new manager: whether he was defending the club in public, riling opponents so brazenly, or transforming matches with tactical tweaks that felt bold and innovative. He was a breath of fresh air. This time round, the fans – so disenchanted by the treatment of Roberto Di Matteo and the willingness to turn to Benítez as a stop-gap replacement – expect their idol to have a similar effect again, completing the team's transition in a blaze of glory reminiscent of those title successes in 2005 and 2006. Yet he will arrive at a club that has secured European trophies in the past two seasons, the margins for progress so much tighter than they were. Mourinho will be welcomed by those in the stands and will savour the task ahead, but this feels like a very different challenge.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Jeremy Deller's visions of England

$
0
0

The spirit of Albion, as conjured in the British pavilion at the Venice Biennale, makes for some surprising and dramatic connections. The Turner-winning artist explains his thinking

'Things obsess me," Jeremy Deller says, "but I don't think of myself as obsessive." At 9.30 on the morning before his show opens in the British pavilion at the Venice Biennale the artist is sitting in the sunshine in a cafe across the water from the domes and towers of San Marco, having a go at explaining himself. Deller likes, in his own way, to look the part, so he has adopted something of the Englishman abroad. Khaki shorts, pale legs, socks with sandals, the kind of safari shirt favoured by David Attenborough, a broad-brimmed straw hat which could have done service for John Ruskin, and, around his shoulders, a hot pink sweater. Give him a butterfly net and he could pass for a louche Victorian botanist. He is a precise student of English manners – of dressing up in costumes and playing silly games – so none of these associations will have escaped him.

Like his work, which most famously ranges from his restaging in 2001 of the miners' strike battle of Orgreave to his road trip across America with a car mangled by a bomb in Iraq in 2009 to his touring bouncy castle Stonehenge of last year, Deller is a quick and compelling presence. He is a great persuader, and is straightaway telling me in his generous, conspiratorial manner about how he felt when the British Council called a year ago to invite him to represent Britain in the closest the art world comes to the Olympics. "It's like a lot of things, like when I was asked to do the Turner prize show in 2004," he says. "The first thing is that your mind goes blank. Complete emptiness. You are on the phone and thinking: why on earth are you asking me? I've had all my good ideas already! I have none left. Then just as quickly it dawns on you that if you don't do it someone else will. So you say yes, and then you have to have ideas. But it takes a bit of time."

Deller's show is called English Magic, and though he's reluctant to think of himself as such, he is its conjuror-in-chief. He doesn't paint, draw or sculpt so people tend to call him a curator but what he does seems both more spirited and more human than that dusty word suggests (in the watery fantasy of Venice it is tempting to think of him as an inspired am-dram Prospero).

His skill is juxtaposition, he is a master of putting things and people next to each other, altering contexts, lighting touchpapers and standing well back. Like any illusionist worth his salt he is wary of explaining this too closely: "My work is really either things that bother me or things that I like," he says at one point. "Sometimes they are the same thing, sometimes separate things." In his first widely noted piece, Acid Brass of 1997, in which he had the Stockport-based Fairey brass band play rave anthems, he made his thinking explicit by using a jokey associative mind map on a blackboard – showing the maze of connections between the two music genres, and bringing both to fresh life: "Summers of love, melancholy, the north, open air, the miners' strike…" and so on. Subsequently he has tended to let his audiences find their own cat's cradle of reference points in his work.

For my benefit, in the sunshine, he explains a little of how the alchemical elements of English Magic came about. Deller, who is now 47, studied art history at the Courtauld Institute, specialising in the baroque, and Venice made him think of frescoes, particularly images of power and destruction. On his mind from the beginning was a memory of the last time he came here, in 2011. "Even if you're just a visitor, as an artist you feel quite vulnerable," he recalls. "It is like an aspiring film-maker going to Cannes, I suppose, and seeing that whole world set out for you, how big it is, how much money there is, the yachts, all that. And asking: where do I fit in?"

In 2011 one particular yacht had loomed large. Roman Abramovich had parked his tall ship right next to the Giardini where we are sitting, blocking the eternal view. "A huge security detail was on the shore," Deller recalls, "so everyone had to walk by to the show in a little corridor. It was kind of like the bed art had made for itself." In coming here Deller felt he might mark out a bit of territory for another idea of art, his more inclusive one. So he commissioned a mural from his mate Stuart Sam Hughes, who does very precise spray painting, usually customising motorbikes, of a great colossus picking up the oligarch's yacht and chucking it into the lagoon. The colossus is a wild, bearded William Morris. Why Morris?

He laughs. "Well Morris came to Venice, and loved aspects of it, and he was apparently a great chucker around of things. I had the sense this yacht and its connection to the art world was the kind of thing that would have pissed him off. So I kind of summoned him up."

One thing with Deller always leads to many more, though, and he found lots of fertile territory in the gap between the Chelsea oligarch and the Kelmscott printmaking revolutionary. For a start, they bookended communism – Morris was in on its idealistic beginnings, Abramovich made his billions out of its collapse. He pursues this theme by placing together some of Morris's hand-carved wood blocks with the intricately self-printed promissory notes and share certificates in which Russian wealth was hastily divided in 1992. In following the oligarchs' money he then discovered how many of the further deals were done in London in the late 90s, so that rooted it more. And then there was the opposition between the homespun, handcrafted vision of art for Morris and the bloated global money-laundering business of it, which many of those oligarchs have bought into. (Deller was of the same generation as Damien Hirst and the YBAs, went to the same parties, but never made any money, so feels qualified to talk). Anyway, he says, "there was a theme, which is vaguely newsy, and about power and art. Where is the power? Is it with Morris or with Abramovich? Will we know about Abramovich in 50 years' time? We will certainly know about Morris…"

In most of the other national pavilions that crowd the Giardini this opposition would probably have sufficed as a show. In the Russian gallery, for example, the courageous Vadim Zakharov presents a pointed version of the Danaë myth in which an insouciant dictator (of whom it is hard not to think: Putin) sits on a high beam on a saddle, shelling nuts all day while gold coins rain down from a vast shower-head only to be hoisted in buckets by faceless thuggish men in suits. Deller wants more going on than that. He wants all angles. The phrase he uses most often in our conversation is "it's really complicated, isn't it?" And anyway, when he came to think about the show, his shifting idea of Britain, there were other things his mind was snagging on.

One of them, presciently, eight months ago, was corporate tax avoidance. He came across a diagram on the internet which detailed the complicated offshore scheme favoured by Tesco; the diagram looked like a face so he commissioned a tapestry mask of it like a totem on one wall, and still in clairvoyant mood, another mural of destruction: "I wanted to include a picture of St Helier in 2017," he says of the large-scale burning street scene. "I said 2017 but really I should have said 2014 the way things are going. British taxpayers have gone to Jersey to demonstrate against their tax avoidance culture and basically the city of St Helier gets burned to the ground. It is like a medieval sacking…"

It is, in Deller's national vision, payback time in other ways too. From 100 feet away, walking up the promenade to the British pavilion, the first thing you see is a mural of a hen harrier picking up a Range Rover in its talons. The third story that had lodged in Deller's head and wouldn't go away was that 2007 incident of two of these rare birds being shot down over the Sandringham estate. The only people shooting that day, if you remember, were apparently Prince Harry and his friend William van Cutsem. Shooting the protected birds would carry a prison sentence but after police inquiries no action was taken. "That really annoyed me," Deller says with another smile, "so I thought I would do something with a giant hen harrier taking revenge on man, not Prince Harry necessarily, but man in general. It's called A Good Day for Cyclists because I am a cyclist in London, and as every cyclist knows, Range Rover drivers are the worst drivers by far, along with Porsche drivers. They are beyond the pale."

Why does he think these particular stories hold his curiosity?

"They are almost news stories but I have tried to give a mythological slant to them," he says. Into this rich fairytale mix – princes and hawks and taxes and corruption – he adds a couple of other layers of recent legend. In one room fans' pictures of David Bowie's Ziggy Stardust tour (seemingly inescapable in 2013) are juxtaposed with contemporaneous photos from the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The original genesis of this was Deller's discovery of the fact that Bloody Sunday was the day after the Bowie tour opened. In another room he finds new layers for a different conflict, having invited some of the many soldiers who wound up in prison, usually for assault after coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, to document the conflict with portraits of Tony Blair, Dr David Kelly and others, and their memories of what they witnessed. Add in steel bands playing Vaughan Williams, and neolithic axe heads, and you are presented with a complex series of observations which might add up to something like the white noise of our current anxieties.

Talking to Deller you come to think of him as a sort of aerial for those concerns, constantly tuning out static. I suggest to him that he might see himself as a national conscience, and, rightly, he winces. A lightning rod then?

"I'm in a position where I can explore things in a tangential way. I'm not writing the definitive book about any of it, I just want to explore some of it visually, emotionally. It gets it out of my system so it gives me satisfaction. I think, I know, other people are concerned about these things, so maybe it helps them get it out too."

Where does that compulsion come from? "I'm just obsessed with the news. It's there in your head all day, and if you don't try to make sense of it, it just drives you crazy. Or it does me anyway. Twitter and all this makes it worse."

He has of late been rewatching The Day Today, Chris Morris's mid-90s satire of our addiction to the packaging of television reporting. "It has all actually come true," Deller says. "Everything now is fodder for 24-hour news. I've been listening to Radio 4 on my phone while I've been setting things up here, just to keep up with stuff, and last week was insane. You had all the weird gay marriage stuff, Norman Tebbit ranting, and then the terrible Woolwich event. Seen from here, Britain just sounded completely mad."

If he looks back he has always had, for better and worse, a sense of that madness. In his own mind a lot of it began with school, Dulwich college. Deller grew up in south London (he has since migrated north of the river to a flat in Highbury he shares with his girlfriend.) His parents were, he says, "incredibly lovely first-generation middle-class churchgoing people. Very proud of me. They hadn't been to university so it was really a big deal for me to go to a private school. My father worked for the council, my mother was a receptionist at the NHS. So it was a big sacrifice. I am grateful for it." But what it also did was to place him in close proximity to an alien and very British establishment.

"I went to school with Nigel Farage. He was two years above me. I don't remember him really but I totally know who he is. The school is quite a liberal and inclusive place now but at the time it was totally white, male, aspiring middle class. Maybe 10 black kids out of 1,500, two women teachers, and these people like Farage, totally chauvinistic. It was completely homophobic. Monocultural. We did a mock election at school in '80 or '81 and they had to abandon it because the National Front were winning. It was done as a jokey, bantery thing. But it was a grim environment in lots of ways."

That 80s period has informed a lot of Deller's work, from his Sealed Knot recreation of Orgreave on, and remains a touchstone. How, I wonder, did he spend Thatcher's funeral day? "I was in a prison in Wales, doing drawings of the Iraq war with the ex-soldiers," he says. "It was funny because prison officers and prisoners and soldiers were united over it. Everyone was cursing her."

As a lover of the spontaneity of popular demonstration, did he enjoy the effigy burnings and the rest in former pit towns?

"In Orgreave they did that great surreal funeral procession, a proper piece of folk art. It was what it would have been like 200 years ago when Palmerston died, or some unpopular monarch. I thought: congratulations…"

Deller has long had a fascination with the energy and symbolism of British parades, staging his own alternative pageant of Boy Racers and Big Issue Sellers and Unrepentant Smokers at the Manchester festival in 2009. It links him to that spirit of nonconformity and of reclaiming the streets prized by the likes of Iain Sinclair and his fellow tramping psychogeographers, and also to the British habit of parochial eccentricity. What was his first experience of that?

"Growing up," he says "my parents were involved in the church and we would get involved in fetes and carnivals and all that. I was interested in the weirdness of Britain from an early age. Trying to tap into that strange sort of WI spirit which had loads of parts to like but also a deep conservatism."

He never went on foreign holidays as a kid, always Dorset, Scotland or wherever, and he thinks that led to total immersion in the culture. "Being in Britain all through childhood, and the comparative lack of stimulus there was then. You were bored a lot of the time so you had more time to dwell on stuff around you."

In this sense, at its best Deller's own autobiography becomes all our autobiographies. He has a sixth sense for the pressure points of our lives. His Bowie room, quietly juxtaposing teenage pop hysteria with the Troubles, could seem too easy a contrast but the quality of his looking saves it from that. His instinct that there was something there in the association beyond simple chronology is rewarded in the details.

"I was six or seven in 1973," he says. "It was an awakening moment for me, seeing bands dressed strangely on Top of the Pops, a first epiphany of that kind of popular culture. And also the time I first became aware of politics. The three-day week and power cuts brought all that home. So those things happened for me at the same time. I was worried about it seeming glib, having a picture of a pop star next to pictures of riots and so on. But then if you look at the pictures of Northern Ireland you see the people involved are largely kids that look a lot like those at the Bowie gigs. The point is they could have been going to those gigs but the tour never went to Northern Ireland because it was too dangerous. It becomes about youth and identity. National and religious identity on the one hand and weird escapist made-up identity on the other."

That fascination for the masks people wear, and with the randomness of mediated culture, links Deller with Andy Warhol, who became something of a 15-minute mentor after the pair met at a book signing in 1986 and Deller saw Warhol again in New York. He has fashioned a very British understanding of Warhol's possibilities. Talking of that now brings him back to William Morris, who he likes to think was the "Warhol of his day, a man of his time, and finding bizarre ways to change them through, in his case, soft furnishings".

Does Deller find a kindred spirit in Morris's rage against industrialism, his chucking things around?

"No," he says "I never lose my temper. Maybe once every three years or so I raise my voice. My art is my way of losing my temper, I get everything out through that."

One thing Deller doesn't do is take sides in his work. If his guiding principle is only connect, then it applies to people as much as things. He is a Morris-like utopian in this sense, though never forgetting the vague absurdity of that position. His new Jerusalem is as much Women's Institute as William Blake – of children cartwheeling on his inflatable Stonehenge, the studious mixed-race steel band hammering out Vaughan Williams, the harrier taking its revenge on trigger-happy Harry. He wants to hold all these things together fleetingly, and at once.

We walk up to the pavilion where Deller hands me a 300,000-year-old axe-head dredged up from the Thames, as if to summon the spirit of Albion. Through one door I can see William Morris emerging from the waves, through another the criss-crossing route map of Ziggy Stardust's tour of Britain which offers a template to the connective magic Deller is after. For a while those associative connections fizz between his gathered elements, and singular co-ordinates of a Britain enmeshed in memories of conflict and culture, dirty money and idealism, power and subversion obtains before tying itself in knots. Happily, Deller has also incorporated the traditional British antidote to knottedness and complication in his pavilion. They are serving Earl Grey and English Breakfast out the back. "Have a good look round," he says, "and then get a cup of tea."

Jeremy Deller's British Council commission is at Venice Biennale until 24 Nov. The exhibition will tour national venues in 2014; britishcouncil.org/visualarts

Read Laura Cummings's review of the Venice Biennale here


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

José Mourinho: decision to return to Chelsea made in minutes – video

$
0
0

Returning Chelsea manager José Mourinho describes the 'very pragmatic' conversation he had with club owner Roman Abramovich before agreeing to sign a four-year contract at Stamford Bridge


Peter Duggan's Artoons: Jeremy Deller takes on Chelsea's tractors

$
0
0

It's the Venice Biennale, and British artist Jeremy Deller is discussing his artistic assault on the gross wealth of Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich ...



José Mourinho reveals his secret pact with Sir Alex Ferguson

$
0
0

The former Manchester United manager told his friend of his retirement plans 'months ago' and José Mourinho in exchange told Sir Alex Ferguson his hope to return to Stamford Bridge

In an attempt to counter suspicions that Old Trafford was the destination he really coveted on his return to England, José Mourinho has revealed that he and Sir Alex Ferguson privately confided their plans to one another months before they became public. Mourinho said the now retired Manchester United manager told him of his intention to step down "many months ago", swearing him to secrecy, and in return that he hankered after a return to Stamford Bridge.

"I knew that Ferguson was retiring many months ago and I was so happy to have his trust. It was big news for the world. I can imagine that just a very close circle around him knew that and it was a big responsibility for me to know that," he said. "Why do I know that? Because we are friends. If I am his friend to know he is going to retire, he is also my friend to know that the club I want to coach in England is Chelsea. Of course I told him," added Mourinho. "For Chelsea, I would turn down every job in the world."

If the recent history of Chelsea has been mostly retold in recent weeks as though it were a Mills & Boon reunion of two star-crossed lovers, Mourinho also moved to insist this relationship with Roman Abramovich – or "the boss" – never cooled. Despite the plethora of evidence to the contrary, Mourinho insisted that he and Abramovich remained on good terms throughout his departure, his time away and his return. He said they remained in intermittent but regular contact, either personally or via other members of the Chelsea board.

Dismissing the persistent suggestion it was Abramovich who foisted the £30m striker Andriy Shevchenko on him during his first spell, one of the factors thought to have contributed to an increasingly poisonous atmosphere, Mourinho said he was not even their first choice. "We wanted to buy Samuel Eto'o. That was our target. He was more than ready to do everything to bring Eto'o here," said Mourinho, who believed the then Barcelona striker was the only player with the flexibility to play alongside Didier Drogba in either a 4-4-2 or his favoured 4-3-3 and later bought him for Internazionale.

"The boss did everything to bring Eto'o. At the last moment, Barcelona refused to sell. So we looked at other options. I was happy with Shevchenko," insisted the Portuguese, who swept back into Stamford Bridge preaching a mantra of serenity and stability.

The Ukrainian was simply a big money bet who did not work out, he said. "Even with the top dogs, when you buy and pay £30m, £40m, £50m, sometimes it doesn't work."

One of Mourinho's immediate tasks when he meets his players for the first time on 8 July will be to decide on the future of another expensive curate's egg who was widely believed to have been the choice of the owner. He rated the contribution of Fernando Torres to the Chelsea cause so far to be "so-so", but has resolved to give him a chance to prove himself; the Spaniard himself is keen to stay and impress. "Somebody could expect more because of what he did before. But not so bad as people sometimes try to say," said Mourinho.

The 50-year-old, who at times last week appeared to be doing his best to rewrite recent history, insisted that Abramovich had always been the model owner. "I tell you that never in my time did the owner do something like that or try to interfere in the basic things of a manager – training sessions, team selection, the profile of a player you want to bring. He never interfered," he said.

But just as Mourinho claimed to have learned many lessons in his six years away from west London in Italy and Spain, and said he was relishing the challenge of proving himself over a longer period, so he said Abramovich would have learned much over a decade that has brought him a host of trophies but at a cost of more than £1bn.

"Like everyone who doesn't belong to a football world or doesn't have a football background, you can't expect that after two clicks he knows everything. Ten years is a long time, he went through a lot of experiences and I can imagine he uses that experience in his favour."

Asked whether he was aware of the phrase "never go back", Mourinho reached instead for the example of Jupp Heynckes at Bayern Munich, joking that he should go away and come back for a third time so he could win the treble. "We know each other very well. The club knows me, I know the club. I think this should be a plus not a minus. I come here now and it's completely different from when I arrived for the first time.

"From an emotional point of view, I feel I'm coming back. It's my dugout. It's the stadium where I never lost a match. It's my dressing room, it's Cobham, it's my office, it has the same table. Emotionally, you get it," he said. "But from a purely professional point of view it's no different to arriving at a new club. It's the same ambition. I don't want people to think that this is comfortable for me. It's difficult. And that's what I want."


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A classic boat race brings home the vulgarity of today's have-yachts

$
0
0

A regatta on the Firth of Clyde gathered together the creations of the Fife shipbuilding family – who thrived during the last great age of rampant inequality

The cloud was so low and the air so blurred with drizzle on the Firth of Clyde last Sunday that even the most knowledgable spectator would have found a yacht race hard to follow. We weren't knowledgable enough. A long bowsprit made the Ayrshire Lass (built 1887) identifiable, but all we could say about the rest of the smaller boats heading for the finishing line in Rothesay Bay was that they looked very lovely – for reasons that were hard to articulate, though a sailor or a naval architect might have pointed to the smooth overhanging stern that is such a feature of yachts designed by William Fife, or to the wooden masts, spars and booms that mark older yachts in general.

They sat low in the water and came dipping round Bogany Point on a following wind after a straight six-mile run across the firth from Largs. The bigger yachts had been set a longer course, but eventually their leaning shapes began to appear through the mist: the Solway Maid, the Fintra, the Saskia, the two-masters Latifa, Kentra and Astor. All of them came from William Fife's drawing board in the 1920s and 30s, which were the final decades of the Clyde's era as one of the world's great yachting playgrounds, replete with regattas, slipways, grand clubhouses and boatbuilding firms such as Fife's of Fairlie that for a time set standards of sailboat design unrivalled outside New England.

What we were witnessing was a recreation of that time through an event called the Fife Regatta, which every five years since 1998 has drawn yachts from all over the world to race in the estuary of their birth. This year 20 Fifes took part out of the 50 or more thought to be still sailing, though three generations of the Fife family built more than 1,000 from the early years of the 19th century until the last of them (William Fife III) died in 1944. "Fast and bonnie" was his motto, but as fibreglass, aluminium and steel replaced wood and as the adjective "Clydebuilt" vanished as a recommendation, so Fife became a footnote in the history of a rich man's sport. Then in the 1980s, the same feelings that had preserved buildings and old cars and steam locomotives spread to yachts, which began to be expensively restored, sometimes so completely that barely a plank was original.

The result was the "classic" or "vintage" yacht, and a cult among yacht-lovers that, like the auteur movement in the cinema, made the maker's name of paramount importance. In the US, the name that looms largest is Nat Herreshoff, whose racers won every America's Cup between 1893 and 1920. In Britain, the third Fife and the Glaswegians GL Watson and Alfred Mylne form the leading trinity, though only the first had his own yard. All rose to their success during the peak years of British imperialism and America's gilded age, when the gap between the rich and poor and the excesses of the wealthy were as large as they are today. This was the first age of the great yacht; it can be no coincidence that we live in the second. It might have been a racer or a cruiser, driven by steam or sail. Whatever the type, the one certainty was that it required huge amounts of money to build and maintain. A competitive racing boat might have a crew of 20 or 30, to increase or reduce sail quickly or spread themselves down one side of the deck to counterbalance the wind.

We saw a crew doing something like that on Sunday, huddling together in their uniform red outfits as the Astor sped towards the finish. There might have been 20 of them – more crew than there were spectators, because only half a dozen of us had gathered at this little headland to see the boats sail by. It was hard to believe that before the first world war, yacht racing had been a popular spectator sport and dense crowds had stood at this and other viewing points on the Clyde and formed partisan loyalties to boats owned by Scotland's industrial plutocracy. Paisley's two formidable business dynasties, Clark and Coats, owned about 80% of the world's thread-making capacity, and when in 1885 they took their rivalry to sea in a yacht race that led them 60 miles around Ailsa Craig, two packed excursion steamers followed the race all the way even though the weather was bad enough to strand John Clark's boat on a reef.

By 1897, Clyde regattas were covered by no fewer than nine yachting correspondents and several specialist photographers. Four years later the town of Dumbarton turned out en fete for the launch of Sir Thomas Lipton's Shamrock II, which the tea tycoon and self-publicist hoped would win him the America's Cup (the second of five attempts). As Martin Black writes in his wonderful biography of Shamrock II's designer, GL Watson, the yachting challenge "generated as much excitement and fervour" among the general public as golf's Ryder Cup produced 100 years later.

Some of this craze is easily explained. Few other sports could be watched in a Scottish summer; the yachts sailed past resorts crammed with working-class families; small-boat sailing had by then become a popular middle-class hobby; Clydeside workers felt that ships and therefore the sea were proud features of their natural heritage. Moreover, the boats were owned by industrial capitalists who lived locally and made or sold tangible things – tea, thread, transatlantic liners. The modern oligarch or financial speculator has multiple addresses and obscure sources of wealth, and the ships he chooses for his amusement, the so-called superyachts, float like giant steam irons in Mediterranean anchorages, as ugly and secretive as the sins committed to afford them.

Does owning a nice thing make you nicer? Or might it simply make you better liked? The evidence isn't easily obtained. Proof would require impossible experiments with control samples: sheikhs with and without their racehorses, Abramovich with and without Chelsea, the late J Paul Getty plus and minus his Rembrandts. But with old sailing yachts we at least have the word of an owner: the Swiss-German businessman Ernst Klaus, who said recently, "Wherever you go in a classic boat, you never provoke negative reactions."

For 20 years Klaus has owned the ketch Kentra, a 100ft long and built by Fife in 1923 for another Paisley thread magnate, Kenneth Mackenzie Clark, grandfather of the diarist and politician Alan Clark. We saw her under sail in Sunday's drizzle and again on Monday lying off Tighnabruaich, her white hull shining in the sun. There could be no question of negative reactions. Sailing ships make a fine, free public display and touch us sentimentally, romantically and aesthetically. Knowing that their owners share our admiration, we feel that they cannot be all bad.

Kentra is now for sale for £2.45m, which is a tiny fraction of the price of a new superyacht. Oligarchs and financiers worried by their public image might like to consider buying her both for their pleasure and as a precaution against the angry mob.


guardian.co.uk© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Fabio Capello denies Chelsea approach to take over from Rafael Benítez

$
0
0

• Capello currently manages Russian national team
• In 2009 Guus Hiddink managed both Chelsea and Russia

Fabio Capello has denied that Chelsea have approached him with regard to taking over from the under-fire interim manager Rafael Benítez.

Reports in Italy over the weekend suggested that Roman Abramovich had sounded out the former England coach, who is now in charge of Russia, following Benítez's outburst last week against a section of Chelsea supporters who continue to oppose his appointment, as well as his bosses, for burdening him with the title "interim".

In February 2009 Guus Hiddink, then the manager of Russia, took over at Chelsea on a short-term basis, while continuing to perform his existing duties. The club won the FA Cup and also secured qualification for the following season's Champions League.

But Capello, speaking to an Italian radio station, is adamant that there has been no contact. "I have not received an offer," he said. "I am thinking about the Russian national team, and I feel very happy in Moscow."

Capello accepted his present job after Euro 2012, just six months after resigning as England manager.


theguardian.com© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Rafa Benítez: the real story of Roman Abramovich's Chelsea master plan | Marina Hyde

$
0
0

The absolutely vital thing to remember when considering Chelsea is that there is always more to it

It goes without saying that anyone who truly wishes to understand what's happening at Chelsea football club these days requires an adviser in the mould of the Gabriel Byrne character in Miller's Crossing. Tom Reagan "knows all the angles", in that Coen brothers classic, and I think we can assume he'd be the first to tell you that only a lunkhead would look at Stamford Bridge and conclude: "It's just one of those transitional seasons."

The absolutely vital thing to remember when considering Chelsea is that there is always more to it, with an ability to see all the angles the most righteously prized quality in modern football criticism. Oh, I know there are some people who swallow official lines, the same ones who claimed that Ashley Cole was acting alone when he shot the work experience kid at the club's Cobham training ground. But just as insiders will tell you there had to be a second gunman on the grassy knoll, so they will imply darkly All Is Not As It Seems in the current mass debate over the interim manager Rafael Benítez.

The smart money couldn't agree more. One of my own theories is that Roman Abramovich has recently begun playing the commodity markets, and is attempting to cause significant fluctuations in cotton prices by keeping Benítez in place, thus ensuring a biweekly run on bedsheets, on whose threadcounts fans can inscribe messages that appear to insult his appointee, but in fact trigger huge dividends for the inscrutable Russian. Is the John Lewis bed linen department in on the plot? It's not talking, but can it honestly be a coincidence that global cotton prices took a reversal of fortune and began rising last November – the very month that Benítez took charge at Stamford Bridge?

That reading, of course, suggests that the master plan is Abramovich's. But following Rafa's so-called rant during the press conference following last week's win over Middlesbrough, I note other high level analysts offering different schools of thought. "This wasn't a rant," parsed the erstwhile Liverpool managing director Christian Purslow a few days later. "It was a planned outburst, as Rafa plans everything."

Aha! Angle upon angle! Indeed, Rafa would have known the Chelsea website would have felt unable to mention a single word of said outburst in its report on his press conference – as it duly did in its Pravda-shaming report– so the upshot is clear. He is gaming it into the most savage self-parody. Yes, Rafa Benítez is actively living his life as a satire on managing Chelsea.

It takes a certain level of self-regard to turn one's life into a performance, but I am given to understand that Benítez is not without the necessary qualities. The question, creatively, is where he goes from here. Almost inevitably, he will instruct Chelsea opposition analyst Xavi Valero to compile one of those famous dossiers on each banner-waver, or perhaps begin retaliating with banners of his own. ("Interim, interim! You've all got it interim" etc). But my fervent hope is that whatever the result in Bucharest on Thursday, Benítez will resign, delivering a broadside that makes last week's rant look like … well, look like the press conference the Chelsea website reported.

And then? Why, then he should turn up to training the next day as if nothing had happened. Seinfeld fans will recognise the move from an early episode called The Revenge, in which George regrets quitting his job in anger one Friday afternoon, and Jerry suggests just going back without mentioning it. "You mean just walk into the staff meeting on Monday like it never happened?" George asks. "Sure," deadpans Jerry. "You're an emotional person. People don't take you seriously."

Anyone who doubts such a move could happen in real life is reassured that it did, to Larry David, during the Seinfeld co-creator's unsuccessful stint as a writer on Saturday Night Live under executive producer Dick Ebersol. Immediately regretting quitting in fury one Saturday night, David recalled: "I went in Monday morning and just pretended the whole thing never happened. And Dick never mentioned it. I think maybe he said: 'Is that Larry David down at the end of the table?' But that was it. The writers were looking at me, that's for sure. I was getting some very strange looks from the writers – like: 'What the hell are you doing here?'"

Would this not be the logical climax to what feels like years of absurdist managerial theatre at Stamford Bridge? Mr Benítez is implored to consider it, and upgrade his master plan accordingly.

Swiss feel at home with IOC but not with Olympics

Elsewhere I am shocked – shocked! – to learn that Switzerland will not even bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics, despite the country being the longtime home of the International Olympic Committee. Last weekend, a state referendum voted against funding even so much as an approach for the event, with a majority of Swiss declining to accept the traditional argument that the Olympics boost tourism and that the multibillion spend by any host nation trickles down the economy.

Naturally, it is to be hoped that the news has not ruffled the IOC chairman Jacques Rogge, much less taken the edge off the glass of exquisitely fine wine he doubtless enjoys while surveying the Alps from his palace on the shores of Lake Geneva. But if Dr Rogge feels the darkness descending even momentarily, he may console himself with the thought that successful crack dealers never partake of their own product, and hawkish Republican senators would not dream of encouraging their own teenage sons to join the military.


theguardian.com© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

How Roman Abramovich's son Arkadiy is following in his father's footsteps

$
0
0

The oligarch's 19-year-old son has bought a stake in a Siberian oilfield for $46m. And he's not the only wealthy Russian's child to be making his own mark

Billionaires probably don't have too many cares in the world. But raising well-grounded children is one of them, it seems. In 2011, Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One magnate, spoke to the Guardian about his socialite daughter, Tamara: "Yes, for sure, she goes and buys loads of shoes and bloody clothes. Unnecessary. Completely unnecessary. I suppose it's because … one wonders ... and this is not in her defence – how many other girls her age would do the same if they could?"

Nowhere is the density of super-wealthy offspring greater than in Russia. Many oligarchs keep a tight lid on the lives of their children, but, occasionally, the public gain an insight. This week, for example, it was reported that Arkadiy Abramovich, the 19-year-old son of Roman Abramovich, had bought a stake in an oilfield in Siberia for $46m. Arkadiy, who is currently working as an intern at the London office of a Russian investment bank, acquired the oilfield in a complex deal via a shell company of which he owns 45%. That a 19-year-old even knows what a shell company is, let alone controls one, tells you something about the life of a billionaire's child

In true "like father, like son" style, not only has Arkadiy developed a taste for his father's investments in Russian oil fields, but in 2010 he was linked to an unsuccessful attempt to take over the Danish football club FC Copenhagen. It doesn't seem to be wildly speculative to suggest that Arkadiy might one day pick up the reins at his father's beloved Chelsea FC.

Ekaterina Rybolovleva, the 23-year-old daughter of fertiliser billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev, has a similar taste for multi-million-dollar purchases. Last year, she bought New York's most expensive apartment for $88m– to live in while she completes her university studies in the US. Ekaterina's representative – yes, she has a spokesperson – confirmed to the press that she had acquired an apartment at 15 Central Park West. Press reports said the property boasted "10 rooms including four bedrooms, a wraparound terrace of more than 2,000 square feet, four bedrooms and two wood burning fireplaces". But it later emerged that the apartment had become the subject of a legal tussle as part of a bitter divorce between her father and his estranged wife.

Kira Plastinina, the 20-year-old daughter of Russian dairy magnate Sergei Plastinin, is also a busy student. While attending a university in Dallas, she also finds time to be an international fashion designer. Her retail chain filed for bankruptcy in the US in 2009 – when she was aged just 16 – but she now owns clothing stores in Russia. When she launched her label in 2007, her father reportedly paid $2m for Paris Hilton to attend the party in Moscow.

But not all oligarchs hand their wealth to their heirs. Anastasia Potanina, the daughter of metals-and-media billionaire Vladmir Potanin and a former aquabiking world champion, said in 2010 that she supported his decision to give away all his fortune to charity.

And earlier this year, oil billionaire Vagit Alekperov announced that he had placed strict conditions on how his son Yusuf, who works as an oil technologist in Siberia, would be able to manage his company once his father had died. "My son won't have the right to split and sell [the company]," he said. "Let him choose his fate for himself."


theguardian.com© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Viewing all 351 articles
Browse latest View live