General opinion on Ken Bates?

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Bates was a bit of a tit. He had his own vested interest and the clashes he had with Matthew Harding, for instance, demonstrate he was a very egocentric man. However he did a lot of good for the club - we can't forget he helped save the club from bankruptcy and oversaw a period of relative success on the pitch. So whilst there are very negative views about the bloke, he did at least help to put Chelsea on the map. He was a bit of a slimy worm though - he'd pose for photographs and talk to the supporters just for a bit of positive PR. He did a lot to keep us at the Bridge, but he can never be "popular" with the fans for his treatment of club legends like Osgood and Chopper Harris, and for his run-ins with Matthew Harding - the original Mr. Chelsea, who had the fans' interests as his sole agenda. Matthew Harding was one of the last "good men" in football and Bates did his best to kick him into touch. So Bates has a bittersweet place in my memory - he did some wonders for the club (indeed keeping us afloat and at The Bridge are two things he should be commended for), but his desire to make Chelsea a brand (Chelsea Village, what a disaster that was...) and his run-ins with club officials and legends means he'll always be remembered as a bit of a sod at the same time.

[zolayes 14,489]

Most of my views on Ken have already been stated by others. In a word Ken was a Maverick and still is .

His faults were numerous as others have mentioned so I will not repeat them except to say I think many were caused by

the vindicative he often showed.

He also was very quick to hire and fire coaches .

To his qualities I would add the appointment of Hoddle (a Spurs hero ) who started our revival . Then the signings of Gullit .Zola

and Viallli plus the appointment of Ranieri.

So much to be thankful for.

Ken Bates a Curate's Egg

[The only place to be 11,313]

He'll never be loved, and he'll even be hated in some quarters, but it's very hard to untangle the progression we had not just on the pitch but off it from him.

Sure you could look at other influences for some of those and even find much to criticise but there's also a very strong case to be made that we're not where we are now without him - even so far as to say we might not even exist without him. The stories I've heard from the early days of his tenure are of a down and dirty fight for survival, something that requires a certain mettle. I tend to believe that the resolve to pull us through those dark days comes from a similar place that the petty, somewhat cuntish other things he did comes from.