If you were rich and powerful and wanted something to happen, it
happened.
Any dissent would be crushed ruthlessly. Money talked.
But trying to railroad a passionate group of football fans into
giving up the very rights which once saved their club is not nearly
so easy, even in the moneybags world of the 21st Century Premier
League.
There were shouts of 'resign', 'corrupt' and 'sham' before
Chelsea and Abramovich failed to win the 75 per cent of votes they
needed from the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) organisation to buy back
the freehold of Stamford Bridge.
And the amazing thing is that the majority of the people in the
room — even the most militant — accept that Chelsea will probably
need to leave their home of 106 years in order to remain
competitive.
But the way the club went about trying to regain control of the
earth beneath the pitch and stands led them into a totally
unnecessary conflict.
The two biggest issues were allegations of vote-rigging and the
uncertainty over what would happen to the club if Abramovich were
no longer around.
Suspiciously, 20 individuals bought the maximum 100 shares each
at £100 a time AFTER Chelsea announced their
proposal three weeks ago, fuelling conspiracy theories.
One long-standing shareholder, Clint Steele, said: "Why buy
£10,000 of shares if it was not to over-ride the 'no' vote?"
Chairman Bruce Buck, who bought 100 shares himself in the spring
and has complained about one opponent of the plans, said: "During
the course of the three weeks, there have been people who have come
up to us at Chelsea and said, 'What can we do to help?' and we
said, 'Vote in favour if you have shares or want to buy
shares'.
"If we wanted some kind of a conspiracy on this particular
issue, we would have bought them some months ago."
But the damage had been done. The hostile crowd also refused to
accept Buck's assurances that Abramovich would make sure no one
could sell out a new ground from under Chelsea if the Russian
oligarch disappeared from the scene.
"He could go under a bus tomorrow," said one fan, no doubt
mindful of the helicopter crash which killed former Chelsea
director Matthew Harding 15 years ago last week. Why not allow the
CPO to have a similar arrangement at a new stadium? The questions
kept coming. Why had Chelsea given CPO shareholders only the legal
minimum of three weeks to consider the plans?
Why the 'shabby' scheme to create a roll of honour at a new
ground for those who voted yes?
Chief executive Ron Gourlay weathered the storm better than
tetchy Buck but even he cracked when one shareholder suggested
everyone was on same side — Chelsea's.
Gourlay said: "Maybe I don't get the feeling you are on the same
side as me."
The huge boos and the odd call of 'resign' told their own
story.
Amid all the fire and the fury, there were touching reminders of
what Chelsea and other football clubs mean to those who devote
their lives to them.
Among the 700 or so who had queued to have their say in 'the
most important decision in the 106-year history of the club' was a
man who had travelled from Vancouver to be there. And another who
revealed he had taken his wife to a Chelsea game on their first
date — a 2-0 defeat by Arsenal — and had since brought children and
grandchildren to Stamford Bridge.
But mostly there was a lot of anger and resentment.
And then relief and joy when CPO chairman Rich King, who seems
likely to resign today, announced Chelsea had lost.
The whole day called to mind that episode of Blackadder III when
Pitt the Even Younger reveals his horror at being defeated by
Baldrick in a by-election.
The teenage Tory fumes: "I smeared my opponents, bribed the
Press to be on my side and threatened to torture the electorate if
we lost.
"I fail to see what more a decent politician could have
done!"
Abramovich and Chelsea did not go to those lengths.
But the Russian billionaire will want to know why he did not get
his way.