Launching charm offensive

Peter Kenyon interview:  Matt Scott finds the Chelsea chief executive smarting over accusations of arrogance and the club buying success, insisting they just want to be loved.

Peter Kenyon is wiping the snarl off Chelsea's face. Having introduced a heraldic crest to replace the lion's maw club badge of the Ken Bates era, Kenyon is now trying to massage other aspects of their image.

Close observers of the Stamford Bridge soap opera might consider it strange. A few months ago Kenyon seemed to delight in the crass claims that this season's Premiership champions will come from a "select group of one". Instead the chief executive's mission statement of aggressive intent has now given way to a sort of corporate lullaby. They have won the battle for Premiership primacy; now this is hearts-and-minds Chelsea, where declarations of social responsibility and community inclusiveness prevail.

"I think it's an essential core part of what we do; it's the anti to what most people take out from us," he said after launching the Spaces for Sports initiative in the local borough's West London Stadium, which the Premiership champions part-funded. "If you look at how Chelsea have been perceived over the years it's been that cool, King's Road club, in London, a stylish, trendy type thing. What's happened is that's been superseded or added to by the whole money tag. I'm not sure we're going to change it but I think football in general's responsibility to the community has improved dramatically over the last 10 years and Chelsea's done as much and probably more than anybody else."

Kenyon ignores the other image of Chelsea, which Bates' notorious talk of electric fences did nothing to reduce: that of a Shed End shuddering with the clashes of rival fans. But those memories are not marketable and underlying his goodwill message is a commercial imperative. "With success it means your programmes have more impact," he said. "The important thing is there's a bigger attendance."

Attendances, though, have suffered this season. The Premiership champions managed to draw fewer than 30,000 to the Champions League group match against Anderlecht and have been reduced to advertising in London's Evening Standard to fill certain league games.

The attempt to overhaul the opinion of the football-watching public will prove a mammoth task but Kenyon is prepared to don a horsehair shirt to do it. Remarkably for someone involved in football, where a bone-headed self-importance often prevails, Kenyon confessed that he does have his regrets. Meeting Sven-Goran Eriksson in a hotel where the curtains were transparent was foolish, he accepts.

He also laments the Royal Park Hotel rendezvous with Ashley Cole and his agent, which so damaged relations with Arsenal. As Kenyon listed his pangs, there was also an apparent reference to the cosy chat with Rio Ferdinand in a London restaurant.

"Everybody likes to be loved, don't they? There are certain people who would take great pleasure in being hated but we'd rather be liked than disliked," he said. "Of course, I'd do things differently. We didn't set out to create those headlines; being in a restaurant . . . whether it's Sven (-Goran Eriksson), whether it's Ashley (Cole), you wouldn't want to do that again."

As a man who invited opprobrium by quitting Manchester United for Chelsea, Kenyon's public guise has never given any hint of a craving for affection. The new-found humility might merely be expedient, but he plays the part to the full: there is softness to his words in terms of volume as much as content. Being brash, it seems, is so last season.

Naturally, events have shaped his outlook. Cole's manager Arsene Wenger accused Chelsea of a breathtaking arrogance in choosing so public a venue for an illegal meeting. It was a theme reprised by Lyon's president Jean-Michel Aulas during Chelsea's negotiations for Michael Essien last summer and the label has stuck, with Jose Mourinho's claim that he is "the special one" unforgotten.

"I think there's this view that Jose was arrogant and I think we've got to distinguish self-belief and ability and success from arrogance," said Kenyon. "We don't want to be seen as arrogant. We don't consciously go out there to be controversial. We'd be disappointed if over a period of time that was a tag that stuck."

Yet, there are those who find that success in itself distasteful. The hegemony of Manchester United and Arsenal was tiresome to many, but Chelsea's relentless spending spree, which finally broke it, was considered somewhat unsporting. Kenyon is preparing to wrestle with this reputation, too. "It is annoying that we get tagged with 'buying the title'," he said, although conceding: "I can empathise with the whirlwind that was created. Right at the start it was a bit like the Wild West. There was £75 million spent in that first season. We moved out 14 players and brought six in. We started to get control."

Kenyon insists the policy for promoting young English talent, by reducing the average age of the first-team squad and improving the woefully under-resourced training and academy facilities, should be recognised. Against the backdrop of such an eye-popping first-season transfer budget, he also feels able to justify the sub-£50 million spend of last summer, though that hardly provides evidence for Kenyon's comment that he tries to be frugal with Roman Abramovich's transfer cash. "I take it personally because it's part of my responsibility," he said of the sums paid. "Yes, there's a Chelsea factor (to fees) but that's not about us getting anybody at any cost.

"The ultimate success of a transfer is when the player is playing regularly and contributing to the team. A bad transfer is, irrespective of what you pay, the ones who never play. That's the reality."

Shaun Wright-Phillips, who accounted for £21 million of those summer acquisition costs, has made only six Premiership starts this season. However, Kenyon pointed to a stellar performance in Wednesday's 4-1 FA Cup win over Everton.

Yet, Chelsea's capacity to leave an exciting England international on the bench for most of the season troubles other clubs, most specifically the old duopoly. "Had we spent all this money and not won anything I don't think there would be any fear," said Kenyon.

"There is all this talk about Chelsea dominating and killing football, but you only have to look at United's domination and we are not even close. People look at the strength, age and stability of our squad and that upsets them. We are very together. People cannot see beyond this continuing."

With Abramovich willing to underwrite Chelsea's losses for at least another four years, the west London club are certainly in a position to dominate this decade. Revenues rose last year on the back of hugely increased football incomes, but, with a capacity of only 42,522, there is one fly in the ointment.

The hurdle that must be overcome to match the all-important turnstile takings of Manchester United and those projected by Arsenal at the 60,000-seat Emirates Stadium may prove insuperable.

"We'd like a bigger stadium, above 50,000 - 55,000, 60,000 maybe," said Kenyon. "We have been looking at a full evaluation to extend (Stamford Bridge) and that would be our first choice.

"Arsenal have spent that sort of money (around £400 million) and think they can make it work. But that magnitude of spend is a big commitment on top of what is already (for Chelsea) a significant investment."

Even Abramovich's largesse has limits.

Guardian Service