It can't have been the way that Roman Abramovich thought his time at Chelsea would come to an end.
The Russian billionaire changed the English football landscape forever when he arrived on the scene in the Premier League in 2003, his money changing the fortunes of the Stamford Bridge club and transforming them from rank outsiders to part of the League's elite.
Big money signings played a significant part in changing the transfer market, something that has continued to this day. For almost a decade he was able to invest in a pre-Financial Fair Play world, with his money helping deliver multiple Premier League, Champions League, FA Cup and League Cup successes.
The debt to him continued to rise, although he was never going to call it in. That debt now stands at around £1.5bn.
READ MORE: UEFA fire warning shot over Super League as Liverpool stance confirmed
MOMENTS MISSED: Jordan Henderson outburst overheard as Norwich chant speaks volumes about Liverpool
But Russia's military invasion of Ukraine has changed things immeasurably. Abramovich, a man with alleged ties to Russian president Vladimir Putin, is already thought to be selling some of his UK assets such as real estate, while he had attempted to hand over control of Chelsea to the Chelsea Foundation trustees. With EU sanctions being handed down to numerous Putin-linked Russian businesses and oligarchs, including Alisher Usmanov, commercially linked to Everton, there has been a growing focus on whether Abramovich would be next, something that would create major problems for his ownership of Chelsea.
Liverpool have now returned themselves to the elite in English football on the pitch, and their approach over the past decade has seen them grow and flourish competitively under Jurgen Klopp and financially under Fenway Sports Group. They have been able to push past Chelsea once again, but in terms of Premier League crowns delivered over the past 20 years they remain four shy of their London rivals.
Abramovich, in a statement released on the Chelsea website on Wednesday, confirmed that he was to sell the club he has owned since 2003. The asking price for the club is believed to be around £3bn, with Abramovich committing to write off the £1.5bn owned to him in loans and to setting up a charitable foundation for the benefit of the victims of the war in Ukraine, with the net proceeds of the sale going to that foundation.
The statement read: " I would like to address the speculation in media over the past few days in relation to my ownership of Chelsea FC.
"As I have stated before, I have always taken decisions with the Club’s best interest at heart. In the current situation, I have therefore taken the decision to sell the Club, as I believe this is in the best interest of the Club, the fans, the employees, as well as the Club’s sponsors and partners.
"The sale of the Club will not be fast-tracked but will follow due process. I will not be asking for any loans to be repaid. This has never been about business nor money for me, but about pure passion for the game and Club. Moreover, I have instructed my team to set up a charitable foundation where all net proceeds from the sale will be donated. The foundation will be for the benefit of all victims of the war in Ukraine. This includes providing critical funds towards the urgent and immediate needs of victims, as well as supporting the long-term work of recovery.
"Please know that this has been an incredibly difficult decision to make, and it pains me to part with the Club in this manner. However, I do believe this is in the best interest of the Club.
"I hope that I will be able to visit Stamford Bridge one last time to say goodbye to all of you in person. It has been a privilege of a lifetime to be part of Chelsea FC and I am proud of all our joint achievements. Chelsea Football Club and its supporters will always be in my heart."
But just how will Chelsea fare in a post Abramovich era?
According to the Telegraph, Abramovich is inviting bids for the club that he has owned for nearly two decades.
Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss has claimed via Swiss daily newspaper Blick that he is one of those to have been offered the chance to purchase the club from the Russian, with Abramovich, who has always attempted to distance himself from links with Putin, claimed to be seeking £4m for the sale, although expected to receive offers half that figure.
Wyss told Blick: "Like all other oligarchs, he (Abramovich) is also in a panic. Abramovich is trying to sell all his villas in England. He also wants to get rid of Chelsea quickly. I and three other people received an offer on Tuesday to buy Chelsea from Abramovich.
"I have to wait four to five days now. Abramovich is currently asking far too much. You know, Chelsea owe him £2bn.
"As of today, we don't know the exact selling price. I can well imagine starting at Chelsea with partners. But I have to examine the general conditions first. But what I can already say: I'm definitely not doing something like this alone. If I buy Chelsea, then with a consortium consisting of six to seven investors."
But would Chelsea be such a force without Abramovich's backing, without the backing of a man willing to let them rack up £1.5bn worth of debt to him in pursuit of success? For Abramovich it was never about the money, Chelsea was a hobby that also gave him important visibility and profile.
The £4bn asking price, on the face of it, seems wholly unachievable.
Liverpool are a club valued just north of £3bn at present. They have undergone significant expansion in infrastructure, have one of the biggest global followings in sport, have a winning side with an elite manager, have major revenue streams and, crucially, are a sustainable business. FFP issues have never been a concern under FSG, neither has mounting debt. The business and football sides of the business work in tandem, with both lifting each other up.
The approach has been markedly different at Chelsea.
In December, Chelsea posted a £145.6m loss after tax for the year despite being crowned European champions the previous May.
In the breakdown of their financial report the club stated that they were "reliant on Fordstam Limited for its continued financial support". Fordstam Ltd is a company owned by Abramovich and the vehicle he uses to fund Chelsea.
Fordstam Ltd had, in the accounts, committed to funding the club for "the forseeable future", but this was before a Russian invasion of Ukraine would cause a major crisis and a raft of economic sanctions to be imposed on Russian businesses and oligarchs.
Abramovich, as yet, has not been sanctioned by the EU or US since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began.
Finding the support of someone as generous with his money as Abramovich has been won't be easy, and anyone coming in would have to face the reality of a heavy loss making business that doesn't have the same appeal as clubs such as Liverpool and Manchester United do globally, and doesn't have the ability to spend like Manchester City without racking up more heavy losses.
Of the 20 Premier League clubs, only two are in the black when it comes to economic profit and loss over the past five years; Liverpool and Burnley.
Economic profit and loss is the method used by financial analysts Vysyble when measuring the financial performance of a business and is different to the commonly used metric of EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation).
The formula for working out economic profit and loss is taking the net operating profit figure and subtracting all of the capital invested into the business. Until a business turns a profit greater than the cost of its capital then it is a business that runs at a loss.
In the past five years, while taking into account the impact of the pandemic, only the Reds and Burnley have been run as profitable businesses using the economic profit model, something that Vysyble believe provides the best indication of business performance.
Up to the 2019/20 accounts, Liverpool had posted a £21.5m economic loss. Last week the Reds published their 2020/21 accounts which showed that despite a season played behind closed doors they had made a loss of just £4.8m to take their overall losses over two pandemic affected years to £50.8m. Chelsea's, by contrast, stands at a combined £156m over the two years.
The combined losses, so far, of the Premier League's 'big six', the clubs who were agitating to form a new European Super League last year, stands at £775m over the two pandemic-affected seasons. That figure comes after Arsenal posted their financial results for 2020/21 on Monday, their losses leaping from £54m in 2019/20 to £124m for 2020/21.
Chelsea, according to Vysyble data, have since 2009 registered over £1bn in economic losses, accounting for a fifth of all economic loss in the Premier League up to 2020.
Abramovich created the blueprint for how much money was required to mix it at the very summit of the Premier League, and the mega investment has, in turn, played a part in helping to make the League the most watch globally, which has helped lead to huge media rights that dwarf other domestic markets.
But the pandemic highlighted the weaknesses in many club models, with very few showing the resilience that Liverpool have due to a strong, business focused model.
When Abramovich moves on then Chelsea will have to hope that whoever follows him has pockets just as deep and is willing to match his generosity towards the club. If not then they risk falling behind clubs that are able to spend without worry, such as City and Newcastle United, and clubs who have managed to create success through investing wisely and not requiring huge sums of capital injection to fund transfer activity, such as Liverpool.
The landscape could change again.
