LOSERS

Speaking to the press after his third successive defeat Chelsea Leader Abramovich pinned the blame squarely on Manchester United's power on incumbency, helped by inconsistent decisions on the part of the officials and by a controlled and spiteful media, owned by friends of the friends of friends.

It was also clear, he said, that so many people of a different colour had been given special privileges to travel and show their support for the other lot that it was impossible to know whether the cause of true democracy had been served.

"This was why" he said "we always objected to joining UEFA."

At a loss to understand how, yet again, he had been unable to take his club to the pinnacle of power, Abramovich pointed out that when clubs like Man U are able to waive income tax demands, grant planning permits, shower jobs like confetti and generally bestow largesse on all and sundry, the purity of the game is sullied beyond redemption and the future of civilisation is threatened.

The failure of the powers that be to recognise that it was Chelsea's turn this time also ensured that yet again, the people's choice was perverted and the wrong team won. In fact, continued Abramovich, such was the manifest injustice of the whole thing that he was going to thkweam and thkweam and thkweam until he was given a lollipop too. After all, he continued, Man U won by only the slimmest of slim margins, which means that they were obliged, under the rules of footballing democracy as re-defined for his own convenience, to recognise Abramovich as a co-winner.

In fact, he emphasised, Man U did not win at all, Chelsea did, so there. Asked to pinpoint the basic reason for Chelsea's failure to convince the public on the day, Abramovich said that it was too early to be able to say who was to blame but a report would be published in a few days, just as soon as he had had time to write it. He knew that the report would be a good one, because he was going to write it, and in it there would be nothing but words of praise for him.

Pressed for a fuller answer, he did say that the decision to play for an extra half hour certainly did not help the cause of true democracy, as it was clear that the other side would do everything in their power, legitimate or not, to ensure that the result was swung their way, for all that this would mean a travesty of justice and a perversion of the will of the people. Abramovich said that his abject failure to live up to the traditions of the beautiful game and concede gracefully, accepting responsibility and congratulating the winners, was absolutely not connected to his inability to stand up and be counted when the chips were down but was to be taken as yet another good reason why he would be given a standing ovation at the next General Meeting of the Club, during which he or his chosen one would be nominated to chair the Board of Directors again.

When it was pointed out that this was yet another example of the way his stewardship had led half the footballing nation up the garden path to disappointment, Abramovich said that this was quite simply not true.

Under him, they had won any number of inconsequential and irrelevant trophies and, anyway, the questioner was obviously forgetting that on at least one occasion, Man U's triumph was false, because more people, including Abramovich's own late great-aunty, had made it clear that they did not want them to win, so there. In concluding his speech from the throne, Abramovich hinted that his deputy leader was going to be singled out internally for the fullest portion of blame. It was irrelevant, he said, that this gentleman had conducted himself with dignity and given everything he had to the contest: he was the one who had actually led the team at the venue and therefore he had to take the full blame.

Asked whether he was referring to his campaign manager or to the leader of the technical group at the venue where the contest took place, Abramovich said that it would be unfair to individualise but the whole world had seen who had walked across to the other side and conceded defeat while he, Abramovich, was skulking away refusing to show his face.

As for the team's technical leader, Abramovich had nothing but ill-disguised annoyance because of the way he had snatched defeat from the very jaws of victory. When asked whether his key man's performance and attitude was a factor in their defeat, Abramovich said that it was unfair to blame this gentleman, whose bright smile was evidence of the fact that he was a perfect fit for the job, which entailed doing everything asked of him by him (Reporter's note: Abramovich clearly meant himself when referring to the second him but English is not his first language) When it was gently pointed out that it was the one who had got a red-card who was being asked about, Abramovich was heard to mumble

"Oh, I thought it was the one who got a black eye and who is Drogba anyway?". Concluding, Abramovich said that his supporters' deep disappointment was nothing to do with him, he wasn't there at the time, he wasn't to blame, not him, he would come up smelling of roses yet again, and nor was it anything to do with anyone who supported him.

"It was everyone else's fault" he said "especially those who don't realise exactly how utterly, utterly brilliant I am and how I know everything about everything that there is to know anything about. It was the power of incumbency, supported by those of forces of evil, the bribed columnists and the rest of the lick-spittle media, which made sure that the will of the people was perverted."

Abramovich promised to be at the beck and call of the people, even if he would now pretend to take a back-seat.