Some further facts

Our recent blog has caused some consternation. In that blog we speculated as to the ownership of Oswald Stoll Mansions. Our information was that there was some connection to the council and we asked a question as to the ownership of the property. There appears to be some confusion as to whether LBHF would have a financial interest in any sale that might ever occur and as such we have removed the question/suggestion from that particular post.  We did not intend to mislead anyone and apologise for not having made ourselves clearer at the time. We were merely seeking clarification ourselves. We will look into it further.

However, the suggestion from the council that the club buy the property to aid any SB expansion is a matter of public fact, published on the CPO website in their report of the meeting the board had with the council. There was, you may recall, some controversy about that aspect at the time.

We have not, in our blog or anywhere else suggested that the council CLAIMED to have ownership of OSM, merely that our various sources have a) supported the conclusion that OSM land is needed and b) that the council had suggested to the CPO board that CFC approach OSM about purchase. We quote from the CPO statement of 7th May, 2012;

"In order to provide extra egresses to clear that capacity from the area, LBHF believed that just one end of terrace property would need to be compulsory purchased and removed. They questioned whether CFC had inquired as to a possible purchase of Oswald Stoll Buildings, next to Stamford Bridge."

In a curious turn, a tweeter by the name of @MichaelfAdam has claimed to be a councillor at the meeting and has suggested the account of the CPO board is wrong. We have asked the tweeter whether this is a formal denial by the council and if so, to put it in writing to us, using his official councillor email address at LBHF. If he does so, we will report the denial. The CPO statement does not list attendees of the meeting so we do not know if the tweeter, or anybody with the same name, was in attendance or not but we look forward to hearing from him. We will only countenance publishing his version if it comes from a dedicated, verifiable LBHF email address.

In that same blog we reported on information we had received from an industry source into a third party study that had concluded, just as Chelsea's had, that OSM would be a necessary purchase in order to feasibly develop SB and to comply with regulation. That same source suggested that rehousing the residents of OSM would be expensive...between 100 and 150 million. This figure does not refer to the purchase price of OSM. 

It would appear that all parties tend to agree that the acquisition of that land is necessary but various fans' groups disagree. Our view, based on CFCs published report, the industry sources we have spoken to, and most crucially LBHFs suggestion to the club, is that it probably is necessary.  The financial arguments regarding the expansion of SB have been well rehearsed already too and it seems to us a terribly difficult task.  It probably goes without saying that we, like all fans, would love to be proven wrong on the matter. But we are still somewhat perplexed by the council's position on SB given the history of the ground's development thus far. It remains hard to fathom why they seem so sure that what they would not allow Ken Bates to do, they would now allow the present incarnation of CFC to do.

One final thing. There are continuing suggestions from some that CFCTruth is in some way linked to, originated or influenced by CPO chairman Steve Frankham. This continues to be a ridiculous and dangerous suggestion and we can state once and for all that it is categorically incorrect. We have said before that CFCTruth is a group of fans and shareholders who come by information from various sources. Everything we have published is either in the public domain or comes via industry sources who are separate from both the club and the CPO board.  Campaign groups (of which we are not one) are no doubt searching for information from people closely connected to the process and have revealed as such in their blogs, tweets and websites