We always knew that the SayNo rump of no voters were a little flaky but today saw them outdo themselves with a statement of such childishness we are almost reluctant to even mention it! However we must, because there are fans out there who will read such nonsense and be tempted to give it a shred of credibility. The statement, or open letter, carried on weird CFC website thechels.net is accompanied by a footnote, presumably written by the person responsible for Thechels.net. The footnote confirms what our last blog referred to as the graveyard of paranoid football fans; Milton Keynes. There appears no limit to how far these people will go to stir up hysteria and fear.
We ought to laugh, and we do, but even we have to admit there is something grotesque in all of this and laughing won't make it go away. The statement itself centres on Hammersmith and Fulham Council, a council whose current dificulties we have made very clear in these pages. A council who are struggling with two major developments and who have failed to convince CFC to bless their Old Oak Common project. SayNo are peddling the quite ludicrous assertion that CFC merely want to "land grab" Stamford Bridge as a prelude to a hugely profitable flotation, to develop SB and to banish the club to the wilderness of Buckinghamshire. No, really, that is what they assert.
They also accuse the club of being liars because "NO PLANNING APPLICATION WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM COUNCIL REGARDING THE POSSIBLE EXPANSION OR PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF STAMFORD BRIDGE IN THE LAST 7 YEARS."
The capitals are theirs, not ours. Now, quite apart from the fact that CFC have never claimed to have submitted a planning application (which would have been public record!) this blast of childish nonsense demonstrates that the individuals writing it have no idea whatsoever of how such things work. SayNo have been having "weeks of discussions" with H&F. And apparently, several supporters groups have put forward ideas of how Stamford Bridge can be expanded to sixty thousand and would you believe it, the club have refused to consider any of them! (Look, don't blame us. We know this sounds absurd but we are just playing along. They really did say all of this)
Now, far be it from us to doubt the word of SayNo but CFCTruth have been having discussions with quite a few people as well and most of them are way above the level any individual from SayNo could ever encounter. A read of our blog might give you some clues. However, if you are in any doubt about the club's investigations into the possibilities at SB, there is plenty of public record information about the development of the current ground.
So why might Hammersmith and Fulham be concerned to hear talk of Battersea? Well, because they don't want Chelsea to leave the borough of course. Yes, yes, we know that. Anybody reading this blog will have already discovered that. Will anybody from Hammersmith and Fulham (who is anybody) tell a caller from SayNo what they and the club are discussing?
No they won't. We have been telling you for some time that Chelsea's concerted efforts with Battersea and other activity are all designed to bring Hammersmith and Fulham to a point where they need to try to address the issues at hand and to seek genuine options.
It is hardly surprising that SayNo, as they did when H&F made their post vote statement, would take an obvious fact and drain it, strangle it of all sense and logic and then apply a slant that not only shows up their really quite surprising lack of knowledge but also reveals them to be terrified of just about any solution to the club's future that doesn't involve Stamford Bridge. Not only has the club flushed out the council but they appear to have done the same with SayNo.
On that point, there is one other issue we would like to address. Did SayNo stalwart Gray Smith, recently (very generously in our view) invited onto the board of CPO endorse such a ridiculous "letter"? Does he support the ill-informed abuse of the club? Is he not embarrassed by it? Does he also accuse the club of conducting a land grab? Is he representing the interests of shareholders or just his friends? Another reason to ensure he is rejected at the AGM.