New board member Charles Rose speaks

New appointee to the CPO board, Charles Rose, has posted a comment on our last blog. It is a form of mini-manifesto that we are sure many fans will be interested to read so we print it below along with his twitter feed; we were startled by the apparent modesty failure in the title of his twitter account but quickly realised this is related to a product he sells!

Anyway, here you are.

"Thank you for this comment. Whilst I do have experience of fundraising, I hope I bring more than just that to CPO. I used my law degree in Manufacturing and more recently in Construction and indeed Retail. I have also done quite a lot with regional as well as the National Chamber of Commerce and have media experience along side of this. 

My objective as I hinted at in the all too brief comment on the CPO website is to bring some calm and rational thought to CPO to regain some of the credibility lost during the last years meetings. As I stated at the last EGM this needs to be done through a proper well thought through strategy and decisive implementation. It will not be possible without the support of the very people who elect the board - the members of CPO, which is why our communication must get a lot better than it has recently.

To that end I am grateful for the folks who have already posted on various sites along the lines of lets see what these new members are about. That is all that I can ask. If you wish to communicate more then you can find me on twitter @prettyfabguy . Best Wishes Charles Rose"

New board members at CPO

After the recent appointment of Sean Jones QC and Charles Rose to the board of CPO, we note, with some exasperation, the broadside issued by SayNoCPO.

"SAYNO notes CPO chairman S. Frankham has once again chosen to impose new directors of his choice on shareholders rather than allow a full, open democratic election with a variety of candidates – particularly given an AGM is now to be held just 7 weeks away on Wed 30th January!" they thunder.

A board is not compelled to hold democratic elections when selecting its members; the demonstration of shareholder opinion comes when the new appointees are ratified at the forthcoming AGM. As we understand it people submitted their credentials for consideration and the board, including SayNo's own fox in the coop, Gray Smith, made the selections. A board with a good range of skills is vital and Jones,  a vociferous critic of the club over the initial share buy-back we believe, is a renowned operator in his field and we welcome an alternative legal opinion to that of Smith on the board. The QC would seem to be anything other than a "yes man". Mr Rose has a background in fundraising which should be useful.

No doubt several SayNo individuals forwarded their own CVs for consideration and are unhappy with the choices but it seems extraordinary to us that they would expect a board, who have suffered some pretty outrageous accusations and abuse, to invite such people into their midst. One member on the board seems to us to be a fair representation of the group. Indeed, we would argue that they are over-represented and with the appointment of another, less "managed" legal mind, we wouldn't be terribly unhappy to see Smith's removal. 

With a growing sense that CFC are becoming more aggressive in their efforts to acquire a suitable site for a new stadium, it is disappointing that a few fans should continue to chuck mud and mischief around. Shareholders will have their chance to vote the new directors on or off the board in January and that is as it should be. The fact that the individuals concerned are not the favourites of the phalanx that is SayNo is irrelevant. Are they dedicated to achieving the best for the club? Are they bright, balanced and sensible? These are the judgements we should make when voting.

We say this in the context of a growing feeling among fans that CPO is becoming a pointless, toxic obstruction to club progress. The hysteria and misinformation spread about by fans during the buy-back vote, gleefully picked up and encouraged by a media pack we know to be pungently opposed to everything CFC, has left a lasting legacy. People doing business with the club at the two favoured sites are worried it will happen again. Perhaps this is the intention of SayNo in which case they have done a good job. The rest of us - the vast majority - should ensure those people get a clear and unqualified message; do business with the club and we will support it.

Battersea update

Much fanfare and optimism over at Battersea recently when the owners - rather too effortfully we thought - trumpeted their optimism over the start of work on the site. According to the developers, lots of people have expressed an interest in the residential properties that have been proposed. Work starts on the power station too which to many fans appears to close the door on a Chelsea stadium there. Not so. There is a legal obligation upon the owners to start repair and listed building work immediately. The infrastructure plans for the power station do not actually begin for some time which still leaves plenty of room for Chelsea to come to some arrangement with the Malaysians over the building's eventual use. Phase 1 is residential and doesn't overly impact the solution Chelsea have planned. The commercial element of the site is further away.

Our understanding is that an offer is on the table that includes Chelsea paying for the expensive and somewhat bloody awkward repair and restoration work but that the funds won't be forthcoming until a deal over the land swap with Stamford Bridge is complete and nobody
appears to expect a resolution until the summer. It would seem the matter boils down to whether the development company can deliver before the Malaysian masters get nervous. Who will blink first?

Chimneys? No problem!

It has been another normal week of fantastically weird goings on at the Bridge. We ought to be used to it by now.

Our interest is, however, mightily piqued by two particular issues that should they end up being true and/or successful would put the management departures and arrivals into the shade. The first we have alluded to in our previous blog; the issue of talks with the Malaysians who own Battersea Power Station.

It is certain, according to our various sources, that the club are engaged in trying to reach an agreement with Setia over the development of the power station itself, a toxic and expensive problem for the owners. Individuals within the owning organisation have conflicting opinions on whether CFC are the answer but the biggest doubt appears to be over the ability of CFC to offer Stamford Bridge as part of a contra arrangement. Our last blog addressed this very matter and knowing it to be true now only strengthens the view that something should be done to ensure we all make our feelings known. We were quite good at that on Sunday....

The other issue to interest us is the persistent rumour that Roman Abramovich is showing an interest in buying, lock stock and barrel, CapCo, owners of Earls Court. The implications of doing so are clear and it would not surprise us in the least if the rumour was true. Indeed, the stories in the press are well sourced (and logical) and we ourselves have heard similar suggestions from people linked to the political establishment in the areas. CapCo are having trouble at EC, with High Court hearings pending and almost universal condemnation of the master plan from residents, designers, the exhibition industry etc. Not to mention the issue of money. The sharp rise in CapCo shares suggests the market is keeping a wary eye on things too. RBKC gave approval to their part of the scheme recently and this was to be fully expected - there was never any doubt that they would. But the problems persist.

There remains, at both sites, the question of planning permission and political will but owning something gives the club a bit more leverage to say the least. And money talks - especially now.

If the club are indeed taking an aggressive and acquisitive approach to both sites, we would be very pleased. In fact, we think it highly likely that this is the case and one expects they have finally reached the conclusion that working with, and trying to gently negotiate, the political self interest and duplicity surrounding both sites has produced little. A decision to confront it head on with cash and determination is to be heartily welcomed by Chelsea fans.

Time for a message?

It has been a while since anything of note regarding CFC's stadium situation emerged. Earl's Court remains interesting now that the residents of West Ken and Gibbs Green estates have won the right to challenge the development in the High Court. All sorts of things might happen there.

One curiosity though is Battersea. More specifically, since it was announced that the Setia bid had been successful, we have heard nothing from the club; no submission, no statements giving up on it - nothing. We do find that a bit curious and as ever lots of rumours are flying regarding what is going on there, what might be happening with the development, hints of viability issues for the Malaysians. More specifically that Almacantar were the only recognised developer in the
running with an end-user for the Power Station. If we were the Malaysians, we would ask why none of the big UK players wanted it? It all leads us to believe that the club have certainly not given up the ghost; the circumstances have changed now that the Malaysians own the
site. Those chimneys, no doubt English Heritage and the costs of conversion et al are causing issues for the developers but could Chelsea be digging around, offering to remove the major "risk"? We think it highly likely but it got us thinking about the new status quo that exists.

It is our firm belief that the "no" vote caused a critical blip in our plans to hijack the Earl's Court development. Big players in the property market play all the angles, especially when they own the rights to a lucrative plot - CapCo most certainly did that and it was up to CFC to deliver. Crucially, what one imagines they will have to deliver is Stamford Bridge so that a developer has something to make up for allowing the club to occupy a swathe of valuable potential residential property space. Can CFC provide that as part of any deal? Is the first "no" vote giving Setia, or CapCo for that matter, pause for thought? It seems unlikely to us that SAYNO would muster enough support to stymie a stadium at either Earl's Court or Battersea. And we have heard even the most ardent SAYNO supporters say that they would be happy to see the club move to either site.

With locations limited, the club find itself in a very awkward position. It is one thing CFC wanting to play its cards close to its chest but one imagines that Setia and/or CapCo, searching as they are for capital and political support, feel the same way about revealing anything radical. The
one uncertainty remains the reaction of this small band of Chelsea supporters. The fact is that Chelsea fans are generally inactive when it comes to forcing positive change but are adept at working themselves and others into a lather about perceived wrongdoing. Conspiracy theories have dogged this entire issue. The almost total acceptance of LBHF's position is evidence of that.

The conundrum is impossibly tricky. For the club to ask CPO shareholders for their shares, one expects they will now, after the first fiasco, explain the plan. That plan may depend on swift manoeuvres and secrecy up to a point. But any potential CFC partner will want to know
that the club can deliver the land at Stamford Bridge in return for a plot at either EC or BPS. But how can it do that until a vote is taken?

The only solution we can think of is for Chelsea Pitch Owners to make it abundantly clear what they WOULD accept by way of location and perhaps then the club can enter into negotiations with confidence should such negotiations be on offer.

Could a resolution committing to sell for a site within, say, 2.5 miles of SB be a way forward? It would probably be unwise to mention the specific sites or tie it down to the two main ones; who knows what might emerge? And we have to bear in mind the delicacies. But we do know that certain areas, previously discussed, would be unacceptable so the mile marker is crucial. Could the various fan groups make it abundantly clear what their position on the two sites are? We, for example, are more than happy to say that we would sell our own shares for Battersea or Earls Court.

Whatever is done, we have an awful fear that the unpredictability of CPO shareholders and the recent bad blood is shackling the club somewhat. How often might the club be asked "can you get the shares?" Maybe the destiny of the club is more in our hands than we think? Maybe we have to give a strong positive message to the club and others about what we will do and thus strengthen their hand as they try to achieve what we all aspire to?

Earls Court in more stormy water...

We at CFCTruth have to admire the doggedness of the residents of the West Ken and Gibbs Green Estates whose homes are critical to the CapCo/LBHF Earls Court master plan. Recent successes include winning the right to a High Court hearing which has delayed the development's commencement until next year. Now they have got the council to buckle on the claims over alleged dodgy dealings with respect to "bribes" and promised homes in return for support. Having fervently denied any such activity, the council have appointed Deloittes to investigate the matter. You can read more on the link;

http://shepherds-bush.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/council-instructs-deloitte-to.html

We also noted in a residents newsletter that there are further legal challenges on the way. We quote;

"Judgement that our case shall be heard in the High Court has caused Kensington & Chelsea Council to delay their consideration of the scheme. In turn, the Mayor's decision is delayed. If we win the hearing next year, the whole scheme could be declared unlawful.We're not relying on just one High Court action to wreck this scheme.We're working with several legal firms to prepare more legal challenges, which are far greater in scale and involve vast expense. Our Solicitors and Barristers have advised us that our High Court actions will prove deadly. "

Of course, if this scheme as it stands is wrecked, this in no way means that CFC are guaranteed a crack at it. But we would be very surprised if CapCo were not, as we speak, working up their options should the residents be triumphant. They might even have already been on the phone to the club....

High Court ahoy

Those admirably dogged residents of West Ken and Gibbs Green estates won a significant victory last night when a judge granted them permission to take the Earl's Court development to the High Court. 

This means nothing in isolation of course (they still have to win their case) but being given the permission, with the judge clearly thinking a challenge was legitimate, means some serious rethinking of the whole project may be necessary. With the twin pronged attack by the residents also challenging the government to stand by their claims for the Big Society, we predicted that the granting of outline permission would not be the end of this affair. Now the matter is in the High Court it is naturally difficult to predict outcomes but the residents have put together a very strong case which features some fairly serious allegations against the council. The possibility that the residents may win should be haunting the council and the developers, CapCo. If a High Court judge rules that the estates should be protected, the whole master-plan will require redrawing and the council will lose out on £100 million from the conditional land sale (and, they would claim, lots of new housing). They may also have to repay CapCo the upfront fifteen mill the developer coughed up although this is not clear.

It has long been our assertion that the approach and strategy of the council towards CFC and Stamford Bridge was questionable. Hopefully, those who chose to believe their claims will be starting to see how high the stakes have been for them.