Confusion abounds at Chelsea with one crucial role to fill

“What does he actually do?” was a favoured question of those critical of the Nigerian's 10-year tenure at the top of Roman Abramovich's west London footballing empire.

But as Chelsea chug-on through the summer, without anyone from a true footballing background in a board-level position, the problems brought about by his absence are plain to see.

Chelsea have been linked with a number of potential names for that technical director role, since Emenalo headed-off to Monaco: Juliano Belletti, Michael Ballack, Frank Lampard even.

But with a new season approaching, there is still no sign of any vacancy being advertised – less so, one being filled.

The club's other directors appear to be sharing around duties previously carried out by the role of lead football-based executive.

The most obvious was the issue of what to do about the manager: a weeping sore for two months after the season's end; finally salved by the messy sacking of Antonio Conte, and the appointment of Maurizio Sarri – just four days before the start of a pre-season tour.

The reasons why relations had got so bad between Conte and Chelsea are many, and complex.

We will doubtless have to wait for autobiographies, or maybe court cases, before all are entirely clear.

But what is known is that the main point of lubrication between the abrasive fronts of Conte and Abramovich was Emenalo; and that his removal coincided with a worsening of relations, seemingly never to be repaired.

Emenalo was often accused of all sorts of treachery by those fans loyal to one manager or another. But his function within the club was often that of the diplomat – acting as a buffer between the money/business side of things, and the footballing one.

Marina Granovskaia is often cited as the Ms Fixit on business deals; Emenalo was clearly her ceremonial consort, when it came to footballing matters.

Conte and Emenalo shared a grudging respect, and a perfectly workable relationship; the same, according to close witnesses, was far less true of Conte and Granovskaia.

She now has an increased role in dealings with agents: which in the modern picture of Premier League football amounts to about 90% of what signings are about.

While the selection of targets is still, presumably, the same group effort that we saw under previous managers; the increased priority of business sense in recruitment is clear to see.

An example being the signing of Olivier Giroud.

Successful winter-window stop-gap that he was, the 31-year-old Frenchman was recruited on an 18 month deal: in the full knowledge that his manager would be gone in the summer, and with a view to making returns after six months.

This while younger, longer-term prospects – inside and outside the club – were skimmed over.

Even the case of that pre-season tour became a ball which was dropped, in the absence of a lead footballing exec.

The word back in May was that chairman Bruce Buck was making arrangements: a curious responsibility for a such a highly-placed figure, not to mention an international lawyer, to have at a top club in 2018.

Confirmed trips to Poland and Sweden were later cancelled, when it became clear (among other issues) that the Polish stadium had not been booked.

Chelsea now move on from Australia to France and Ireland, instead.

Abramovich does have footballing advisors outside the club: Guus Hiddink, Pini Zahavi and others have all been close at varying times.

But the lack of one in a senior role inside it is clearly starting to grate.

As owner, it will be his call how significant he feels that to be; and whether he takes action to correct it.