Evening Standard (London): Russian roulette at the Bridge but the Abramovich offer was right on

WHETHER you see Roman Abramovich's takeover of Chelsea as a piece of effrontery or great news, the execution was dazzling.

Serious talks only began on Thursday and by last night - little more than 100 hours later - the deed was done. His offer of 35p a share values the club at 60 million.

But by the time the debts are paid off and the promised money made available for new players it could end up costing him 200m . . .

and that's just for starters.

An awesome amount of money for most of us; for Abramovich, rumoured to be worth more than 4billion, a mere bagatelle.

Why did this 36-year-old, who jets around the world in his own 767 and will be arriving here again today, but who speaks little or no English, decide on Chelsea? Serendipity.

He looked at Manchester United and deemed it too expensive. He came to London, looked at Spurs and Arsenal as well as Chelsea, and chose the Bridge.

What impressed him most about Chelsea, which he visited, was the quality of the facilities. Plus of course their Champions League place, and the club's availability.

This is a power-play by an extremely wealthy man who sees Chelsea as a fitting vehicle for his ambitions and what he will want to do is to put his resources into the club.

There's no doubt for Ken Bates, who stays on for an undisclosed period as chairman, that Abramovich's offer came at just the right time.

Chelsea never were a Leeds, as I have repeatedly made clear. Chelsea had tangible assets whereas Leeds had none. But Chelsea had real financial problems, not to do with the long-term prospects of the business, but everything to do with short-term cash flow.

Servicing a 75m Eurobond at a whopping 9 per cent was costing the club more than 7m a year. Then there was a 5m debt to the Royal Bank of Canada and an 18m debt owed to a consortium led by Barclays - due for repayment or rescheduling this very month.

The Eurobond conditions were also onerous in terms of what the directors could do with the property assets, further limiting their options.

A full-scale financial restructuring had been on the cards for months, but it had become increasingly obvious that doing this through conventional means at a bad time for football was going to be difficult and protracted.

It was time Chelsea simply did not have, with cash needed to satisfy their paymasters, to secure the services of defenders William Gallas and John Terry, as well as strengthening the midfield as they bid for honours both domestically and in Europe.

Apparently Abramovich's men are promising to make Chelsea Champions League winners in a few seasons. And if money's all it takes, they could do it. Many will be absolutely thrilled to watch them try. Others, like Tony Banks, will be deeply upset that a Russian about whom we know nothing can come in and snatch the club lock, stock and barrel, just like that, as the great Tommy Cooper used to say.

Who is this Abramovich? Where did he get his money? Does he come to the table with clean hands? No doubt every investigative journalist in London will be clearing his desk this morning to begin the task of telling us.

For me, Bates was between a rock and a hard place. He could have struggled on alone, but the prospects of doing so with a crippling short-term debt and an ageing, dwindling, unhappy squad must have been unappealing.

Even so, giving up his beloved Chelsea, as must surely happen in a matter of months, must have been distressing too. But that way a Leeds-style fire-sale, inevitable decline and fan disillusionment has been avoided.

Whatever else Abramovich offers, and it will not all be good I'm sure, there is now the opportunity to take the club on to a new level - beyond anything that has been achieved at Stamford Bridge, or even contemplated.

What I think we have to hope, as Chelsea fans, is the kind of investment that is being talked about will give Claudio Ranieri's team a good run-out against Europe's best clubs.