Monday 30 July 2012


We are often not sure if SayNoCPO are actually serious with their pronouncements.

They have welcomed Fulham's permission to expand their stadium. We had to laugh at that one.
Apparently, "all sides agree" that 55k is possible at Stamford Bridge "if certain egress problems can be overcome".  We had another - even bigger - laugh at that one. 

They are also promising to monitor future share sales in CPO "for evidence of further gerrymandering or profiteers". This would be a different kind of gerrymandering to the gerrymandering they were furiously tweeting about recently; namely that they would try to buy up over 400 of the 1000 shares available annually to block votes. After their misjudged and enormously wild accusations regarding proxy votes of the chairman, one would think they would be taking a slightly lower profile. At this point we were breathless on the floor with mirth.

We at CFCTruth shall be monitoring things carefully for evidence of gerrymandering and profiteering......

Wednesday 25 July 2012

Comments on this and other websites

CFCTruth allows moderated comments on this website. We have had complaints that we do not. There is a link beneath the posts that shows published comments. We may consider allowing unmoderated comments but this will likely require some form of registration to the website. We do not believe people wish to do that. Let us know if you have problems leaving comments.

And on that point, we do not, ever, leave comments on other websites. Others claiming to be us may do so in order to try to discredit us. Our advice to website owners and bloggers is to consider them false and delete them. We will make our views known via this blog and twitter.

"F***** cowards and liars"

The heading refers to things said in an open EGM to the chairman of CPO.

CFCTruth has been disturbed to read some outrageously ill-informed and speculative articles by indignant shareholders as to the nature of the vote on resolution 3. Firstly, some of the language is the sort of hysterical rantings of the conspiracy theorist who refuses to look at the facts. The first fact they ignore is that the resolution was not "narrowly" defeated.

It was demolished.

It needed a 75 per cent vote to pass and got nowhere near that figure. And now we have a CPO statement, issued just as we write this, that confirms a further fact; Frankham had 103 discretionary votes and all were used to support the resolution.

The absolute murder being committed on the truth by some has taken this whole issue to a previously unknown nadir. Tantrums, disgraceful accusations, quite ludicrous assumptions and childish, foot-stamping frustration deserve absolutely no credibility whatsoever. The article on was quite the most demoralising demonstration of one-eyed, unfounded slander yet seen. And it simply has to stop since it contributes nothing - absolutely nothing - to the debate. We would expect these articles to be withdrawn and apologies issued. Those responsible are shareholders and have a right to comment and they claim to represent groups who they expect and hope will be taken seriously. Right now, the prospect of that is as remote as it is possible to be.

The behaviour of an ever decreasing number of aggressive and insulting individuals is corrupting shareholder desire to engage with the process at a time when we need more people involved. It diminishes the purpose of meetings, it diverts, in the most grotesque ways, the truth of the issues. It has become an insidious, relentless and increasingly unfounded smear campaign using the web and twitter. It is the cyberspace paroxysms of those who cannot accept their role as a minority, playground bullies and bar room lawyers biliously lashing out having parted completely from reality. Their comments become ever more extreme, untruthful, libellous even. It is shameful and will lead nowhere except, perhaps, to the demise of the CPO itself. All shareholders need to stand against this sort of thing without compromise. It embarrasses us all when, without even knowing the facts or seemingly understanding them, a shareholder screams "liar" at the board chairman and it is then reported approvingly in the above mentioned article.

It would be funny if it were not so tragic.

Grow up.

Tuesday 24 July 2012


So another meeting of CPO shareholders causes upset and "controversy". We won't bore you with a full report but suffice to say it was fractious and, when the result was heard, a little distasteful too in our opinion. It really is time that people understood that CPO is a legal entity, bound by laws of the land. It is not a supporter's lobby group or fan club. And shareholders have a right to vote...

Of course, yesterday the result that caused upset was the rejection of the ten vote per shareholder limit. We are pleased that shares are back on sale.

The first thing to point out is that it would be a very one-dimensional assumption that those who beat away the resolution were all part of the much discussed "dodgy" share issue. They almost certainly were not since we have spoken to plenty of longterm shareholders on both sides of the argument who felt that it was wrong to withdraw their rights retrospectively. They would have preferred it to apply for future sales only. We are curious to know how some of those virulently in the "no" camp and who clearly control a great many shares, voted on this resolution. Nevertheless, we were keen for this resolution to pass, not so much because we felt it was "needed" in a practical sense but more because we believed it would help take the continuing heat out of the matter.

The reality is that the CPO board do not have to allow large purchases of shares and we feel it highly unlikely that there will be a renewed burst of purchases of 100 shares at a time. There will also likely be much tighter vetting. Indeed, and not a little ironically, the most likely course of events if a well known SayNo activist's tweets yesterday are anything to go by, is that there will be a concerted campaign of purchases by SayNo die hards in order to try to skew future votes. You couldn't make it up really.

It is vital that as many fans as possible are given the chance to become involved. Further, it is also critical that more of the current shareholders actually start to exercise their right to vote at EGMs. The turnout is pathetically low.

What is clear is that amidst all this hysterical conspiracy theorising, the real issues have actually been lost. Perhaps that is the intention? What is inescapable is the need for CFC to deal head on with the FFP regulations and it is in a bit of a pickle from the point of view of available options. The debate really does need to move on to just how this can be done. We wonder what might happen if all of the energies and emotions of those now attacking the CPO board and club was turned on LBHF, pressuring them to assist, say, a move to Earl's Court?

The continuing illogicality of their relationship with (and trust of) the council baffles us. These fans won't believe the evidence of the club regarding the expansion of Stamford Bridge but will unquestioningly lap up the unsubstantiated pronouncements of the council? If we all applied pressure and scrutiny to the council's continuing resistance, we might just get somewhere.

Friday 20 July 2012

Reflections on the CPO FanCast

Having listened to the full 125 minutes (phew) of the Chelsea FanCast CPO Special we don’t regret for a moment our decision to decline Chidge’s polite invitation. Of course the debate would have benefited from the presence of a more moderate alternative view but we know we would have found it difficult to present our position without being shouted down. However, it did leave us wondering what questions and points we would have made had we been present. So we made a list...

  • There was lots of support on the panel for the idea that the CPO should start to charge substantial rent for Stamford Bridge in order to pay off the loan from the club. What makes the people on the panel - even Gray Smith, a lawyer – believe that there is a legal basis on which to tear up the existing lease for the ground and for the CPO to start imposing a rent on the club? Would the club not be within its rights to also ask for the terms of the loan repayment to be renegotiated?
  • Why do so many people persist in expressing a lack of trust in Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay but say that they can and do trust Roman? Do they really think anything BB or RG do is against Roman’s wishes? People have to start being honest with themselves. You are entitled to doubt Buck and Gourlay's motives and actions but this also means you have to apply the same measure of mistrust in Roman.
  • People on the panel all insisted that the way the CPO is being used now is no different from its original purpose when it was established. Are they seriously suggesting that protecting Stamford Bridge from our own club's ambitions and using the CPO as a lever to gain fan control over the club is really what it was set up for in 1993?
  • Lots of talk in the discussion about 15-17,000 CPO shareholders being a healthy and substantial number of Chelsea fans to ‘hold the club to account’. But this is the total number of shares sold, not the number of shareholders. And even then only 5796 shares were used to cast votes at the crucial 2011 EGM. For the sake of argument, lets remove the 2686 shares sold in October 2011 - that leaves just 3110 original CPO shares which were deployed in the EGM and only 2227 (shares not shareholders) saying No to the club’s proposal. This is far too few people to be holding such power over the future of the club (and let us not forget that we are told only 12% of CPO shareholders are current members or season ticket holders). The CPO as an organisation is in desperate need of selling more shares to fellow Chelsea fans and therefore becoming more representative and democratic.
  • We also heard another myth being stated and accepted unquestioningly – that if it wasn’t for the CPO and individual CPO shareholders the club would have been evicted from Stamford Bridge. Simply not true. The CPO shareholders of course deserve credit for investing in shares and helping to protect the club from potential threats at the time from property developers. But in fact our protection has never been tested or required. The real battle of Stamford Bridge had already been won by Ken Bates when Cabra Estates went bust in 1992.
  • We were fascinated by Adil Pastakia’s expectations regarding the forthcoming report from Campaign55’s friendly stadium architect. Can we ask, if this architect is not a Chelsea fan, exactly what are his motives for providing expert advice on stadium planning at Stamford Bridge? Is he receiving a payment of some kind? How do we know whether to trust his conclusions without fully understanding his agenda? Anyway, we nevertheless look forward to carefully surveying Campaign55’s plans for the Bridge when they appear.
  • We noted that the panel were still peddling the myth that new stadia equal blanket increases in ticket prices. The fact is that larger stadiums allow a wider range of prices. Therefore, for example, while Arsenal season ticket prices are higher than ours and adult tickets for big matches are also higher (cheapest adult ticket for a top game is £62 at Arsenal compared to £56 at Chelsea next season) the cheapest adult price ticket for the lesser games are much lower (£25.50 at Arsenal compared to £47 at Chelsea). Perhaps this is something for the panel members to consider when promoting the idea of a maximum capacity of 55,000 and telling us tales of traditional fans now being priced out of attending games.
  • We remain completely confused as to why most of the panel members seem to have complete confidence that LBHF are genuinely supportive of the idea of a 55,000 capacity at Stamford Bridge. This question was asked at the FanCast but it was never really answered. Facts: the council has a declared intention to keep the club where it is and, when put on the spot,  they have never supported the club’s ambitions before. But they are still trusted more than the man who has invested more than £1bn in the club and who has made us Champions of Europe? It would be funny if it weren’t so bizarre.
  • Finally, we continually see the new TV rights deal being cited as a reason that the stadium issue doesn’t matter anymore and this same point was made in the FanCast. But this misses the point. According to the latest Deloitte Football Money League report, Manchester United earned £108.6m in matchday income in the 2010/11 season compared to £93.1m for Arsenal and only (a creditable) £67.5m for Chelsea. Regardless of the rise in TV income this builds in a persistent £41m annual deficit in income for Chelsea compared to United and a £25.6m deficit to Arsenal. And given that a proportion of the additional TV income will be allocated on the basis of the on-field club performance, the matchday income gap will go towards supporting an increased TV income gap too. Stadium income still matters, regardless of the TV deal.
Overall, we found the experience of listening to the FanCast illuminating if a bit depressing. Chidge marshalled the discussion very effectively and sometimes the odd sensible and thoughtful point did make it through. But the overall tendency was for everyone to agree with one another a bit too much - which we suppose was always the inevitable outcome given the skewed balance on the panel. Roll on the EGM.

Thursday 19 July 2012


We were pleased to see the statement from the CPO board confirming the need to sell shares. The apparent change of view from Gray Smith during the recent fan cast needed clarification because we cannot have information going out on EGM papers that is then seemingly contradicted by one of those who had put his name to the advice.

We continue to say that as many fans as possible should be given an opportunity to have their say in this process, whatever the eventual proposals. And they should be given as many "easy-pay" opportunities as is practicable. A small rump of an already small minority of Chelsea fans cannot continue to obstruct, divert and bring an unpleasantly toxic tone to this whole process.

An exchange on Twitter last night gave quite an enlightening insight into quite how "personal" the matter has become. In answer to a comment that shares should go on sale to as many as possible, one tweeter responded that to do so now would "only benefit the club". This was further explained with "for club, read BB/RG". Really? This is all just a battle with two men? This is only about giving two executives at CFC a bloody nose? They represent the "club"? We don't like either of them so the "club" can go hang?

There seems no sensible reason why the constituency of CPO should not be increased. Well, there is one but we are not being fooled otherwise by people who simply appear determined to keep the process as contained and "winnable" as possible. With every day, this becomes clearer and clearer.

The suggestion that CPO should tear up the legal process and do whatever is asked of them is absurd. To propose that the club should be charged rent in order that the loan they hold the ticket on is repaid is nonsense. Suddenly, because a minority doesn't like what the majority may vote for, it wants to change the basis for the entire company, curtail the rights of other shareholders and to compress the constituency as much as possible. And they talk about "gerrymandering"? It is desperate, chaotic thinking of the most narrow-minded kind and we find it deeply unpleasant. It says that other fans, now that there is a real prospect of the club considering a move, should not in any circumstances have a right to contribute to that process. We are told that we should countenance such a thing because there are "dodgy" shares. Limiting the voting rights of all, including those "dodgy" shares has made no difference.

Because it isn't really about those shares.
It is about preventing the potential for a wave of other Chelsea fans, seduced and excited by the prospect of a new stadium, getting in on the act.

Why would the club NOT take a more hardline view of this now? They have been attacked, abused, assailed by endless accusations (none of which even nod respectfully in the direction of logic) that are more fancifully embroidered with every passing day. Land values trip off a myriad tongues, each seemingly eager to outdo their compliant interlocutors for outlandishness. "Gangsterism" and "criminality" are words flung about with abandon. Would any of us be surprised if the club decided to take every action necessary to disband Chelsea Pitch Owners in a trice? Would an owner, a billion pounds lighter in the pocket as his price for the joy we have all experienced in recent years, but now being accused of all manner of betrayal, malice and barefaced avarice, be harshly judged if he decided he'd had enough of it?

As sad an outcome as that would be, he wouldn't find himself condemned on these pages.

Wednesday 18 July 2012

What is it all about

"Why do you remain anonymous? It just makes you seem a bit sinister. Are you really paranoid? Or are you agents working in the shadows feeding false information into the debate on behalf of unseen forces with a financial interest in a move from Stamford Bridge? (that's us being paranoid)."

And thus was a comment left on our blog.  In recent weeks CFCTruth appear to have become central to the argument with a plethora of tweeters focusing on our desire to remain out of the public eye and with our decision not to take part on David Chidgey's fan cast; we have become the great, dark force of evil, the touchstone for the "yes" camp, even though nobody knows yet what there is to say "yes" too. It is nice to be wanted.

It is not clear how many times we have to say this but CFCTruth is not a campaign group. This really is a crucial position. The birth of CFCTruth came about in response to the sort of debate we were seeing around the original CPO EGM back in October last year. It was full of misinformation and conspiracy. As we saw it, a small minority of fans were trying to determine the future of Chelsea Football Club, appointing themselves guardian of all that the club was, is and will be. We felt that there was a role for a group who could gain information and facts, analyse them and put them before the majority of Chelsea fans (CPO and non CPO shareholders) and let them draw conclusions from what we discovered. Occasionally it is necessary to point out the inconsistencies, untruths and at times downright dishonest arguments of those determined to thwart the club's desire to move and this position will inevitably, given the minds of habitually and notoriously absolutist football fans, bring down opprobrium upon us. There is a presumption that WE believe the club should and must move. The issue is more subtle than that. 

We set out to discover what the club had been doing about a move. When it made its offer, we suspected that there were things afoot. We were also inclined to "trust" the club and Roman Abramovich to do something that would have a positive effect on the club's future. In the end, the EGM became a referendum on trust. Taking that view has cast us indisputably in the role of monstrous club puppet. There is little we can do about that.  But what we discovered and what then came to light in public submissions was that the club had been actively involved in pursuing Earl's Court and needed to move on it quickly. Without rehearsing the arguments about how they handled the offer, this is a fact that people continue to ignore.

So our position has remained, since then, one of information gatherer, analyst and possibly even gossip monger, all rolled into one. We have revealed the full picture behind the reasons for LBHF's position on SB and Earl's Court. Some of that through contacts but mostly through searching through public documents and drawing a picture for fans to examine themselves.  We hoped in our blogs that the club should publish more information about their own findings in respect of the potential for a Stamford Bridge development because this was crucial if we were to understand the basis of their claims. They did so and on examining it, talking to others in the industry and those engaged with these orts of -and actual- feasibilities, we are generally convinced that the club's stance on this is a correct one. This is further confirmed by the apparent agreement of the council that Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions is a necessary acquisition for the development. 

So where does this leave the club?

The sites that are available are well known. Battersea seems to be a lost cause (although a lack of comment from the club gives us some hope that something may be going on) and Earl's Court is difficult. The greatest bar to Earl's Court is the council. We believe that CapCo would welcome Chelsea's participation. Politics is the game here and we have written extensively about it. One of our roles, we believe, is to get as much information about the issues as we can so that fans can actually apply some pressure on the council. What appears to be happening is that certain fans groups are in sympathy with the council, applauding their stance, despite all of the history and evidence. In fact, the debate has hardened into being about Chelsea not leaving Stamford Bridge at all. And that is not a very forward looking way of thinking about the club's future in our opinion.

As a group of many people, we happen, through our working lives, to come into contact with those who can provide information that is useful and relevant. As is the way of such things, that means we cannot, if we expect them to speak to us, identify ourselves. In fact, amid all the charges that we are a club organ, are in league with the CPO board etc, what gets missed is that we often know far more about the process than certainly the CPO board! As for the club, we have often stated that we don't want information from them in order that we can be sure of the veracity of our information.

We are not "yes" or "no". We are perceived as the "enemy" according to one group because we would countenance a move away from Stamford Bridge. We are the enemy because we don't necessarily believe that Roman Abramovich should shell out hundreds of millions of pounds without the project offering any prospect of a return for the business. 

We are fans and shareholders with a clearly less heated view of the issues who believe all supporters of the club should know the facts. It is often ignored that the great majority of fans see the argument quite clearly, as put by the club, and can see the sense of a move should it be possible, going forwards into a new era, even though they may mourn the loss of Stamford Bridge. Many of those fans don't actually have a voice either. Our Twitter account is approaching 2,000 followers and our blog has had over 30,000 visits. That at least shows there is an appetite for what fans perceive as information, analysis and a more balanced view that isn't infected by accusation, hysteria, suspicion and nastiness. That obviously makes us a target for those whose minds are closed or who have ulterior motives.

There have even been quasi legal threats to "expose" us, presumably in the hope of revealing some dark and sinister phalanx of club or CPO operatives! Anybody would think we were criminals! But it shows the extent to which some people will allow their emotions to carry them away and, it has to be said, does little to promote a sense that their arguments are based on anything other than those emotions. 

Our advice to other co-ordinated campaign groups is to stop accusing people of conspiracy and darkness and to just put forward cogent arguments, based on more than the urging of the council. Don't claim one thing and then do another. Don't obfuscate, dissemble and divert. Fans are not quite as stupid as you think. Don't attack those who disagree with you or put before Chelsea fans information that contradicts your claims. Don't accuse the club of criminality and conspiracy. See the whole picture and then support the club you profess to love in taking us forward. 

And most of all, don't simplify the matter. Face realities. We know it is the way of football fans to see things in black and white, to instinctively want their cake and eat it, to see the monied owners of clubs as being the "enemy". We require something more sophisticated than that. Because often, whilst you are standing up, playing to the gallery and getting cheered on in your display of old school dedication and terrace authenticity, you might just be missing the point.  The truth is out there, usually somewhere in the middle, and you are shouting over it.  

Monday 16 July 2012


We have recieved a comment from someone purporting to be LBHF (which we have taken at face value) asking us to correct the belief, stated in a recent blog, that they had an owning interest in Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions. This we did soon after and were indeed happy to do so in the interests of Truth. We have also apologised. Even the best of us make mistakes. We still challenge the council's assertion that SB is a potential site for a 55-60k stadium and would like them to produce feasibility studies, in the manner of Chelsea FC's recent dossier, to support their claim. We would prefer it if they assisted Chelsea at Earl's Court for example. Suffice to say, CFCTruth will strive to bring the information and analysis forward that will help fans and CPO shareholders to make informed decisions, free of hatred, intimidation and unfounded allegations. We are also saddened to read statements by Campaign55 on Twitter tonight that "anyone who promotes the idea that 55k is not achievable and financially viable is the enemy". We would suggest that they withdraw that remark and suspect a moment of temporary anger was responsible. The truth is, we would all like to see a viable expansion of Stamford Bridge but many feel it is just not a sensible solution. Campaign55 claim to be on the cusp of producing a report that will prove an expansion IS visble. We will study it and comment when they have concluded their work. We believe our website and twitter account have helped bring some balance and reason to the debate and will continue to do so.

Sunday 15 July 2012

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

Tuesday 10 July 2012

EGM and other things....

It has been a while since our last blog but we have been busy talking to people and listening to the various stances taken by fans' groups on the forthcoming EGM.

Battersea has occupied many minds and the recent news of its successful purchase by the Malaysians has been disappointing. "It is not a dead duck", said one who is extremely close to the process, "but it is a severely injured one". A watching brief. One expects the club's lack of statement on the matter is a glimmer of hope that all is not lost there.

On our travels we have also managed to garner information from others who have been closely involved with the process of Chelsea's stadium search (no names of course). One industry source had revealed that CapCo had commissioned a stadium feasibility at Earl's Court and a "third party" (i.e. not CFC in this instance) had also asked for a stadium expansion at SB to be studied. The outcome of the latter also deduced (like CFC's) that major compulsory purchase was necessary, particularly of Oswald Stoll mansions. Which is intriguing when you think about it. LBHF recently strongly suggested to the CPO board (in the report of that meeting published on the CPO website) that the club should try to buy the old soldiers homes. When we asked (the industry source of the information for the third party study for those who have difficulty understanding) what it would cost just to rehouse the tenants should they accede to the sale, the answer was "between 100 and 150 million pounds". So we could add that to the enormous cost of a not very productive expansion. As well as the land. And the planning war that would ensue, the dreadful PR etc etc. There was some interesting exposition on the nature of the stadium design they came up with too...and you wouldn't like it!

Anyway, on the subject of Earl's Court, this would appear to now be CFC's best hope. We had heard that the study ordered by CapCo had determined that the design would be best placed at the West Brompton end of the development site which is where the most profitable residential properties would be located. CapCo are not mad keen for that to happen of course but the answer to that is to be found at Stamford Bridge.....

We just have to wait and see.

Which brings us on to the EGM. Some fans groups and websites are still trumpeting about "dodgy shares" and have been suggesting that fans should vote for shares to remain suspended. We have read clarion calls for "democracy" from people who fear the involvement of other fans, especially younger ones who they obviously don't believe should have a say in Chelsea's future. The slogan appears to have become "you 'aint a real fan!" if you feel CFC should move away from Stamford Bridge.

The shares from last October have been dealt with by Mr Smith and he has firmly advised that the company must urgently begin to sell shares again. Mr Smith's conclusions may not have been what some intent on a witch hunt wanted to hear but that is that. What groups who are supposed to cherish the existence of CPO, believe they will achieve by this advice we do not know. It is highly likely that should the vote on share sales be lost, CFC will seek the immediate liquidation of the company which seems an odd aim for fans to have. We know that many fans, who feel CFC should be free of the conspiracy theories and accusations to do what they think is best for the club, have decided to vote no to the resumption of sales in order that CPO is indeed disbanded. Which is a shame.

The shares that people keep harping on about did nothing to change the outcome of the October EGM. They did nothing to change the outcomes of votes at the last AGM either, despite a procession of speakers claiming the whole event was a farce because those "dodgy" shares would swing everything. Besides, the ten share limit resolution tabled for the EGM should deal with the matter. As a footnote to this point, some individuals ought also to be very careful with their accusations against certain people too. Just some friendly advice.

Our own position on the vote is that shares should go on sale and the CPO should begin to engage with many more fans of all generations so that they have their say too.
We would also welcome measures to prevent profiteers; something it becomes ever more worryingly obvious is the driving motivation behind some shareholders' actions.

CFCTruth will continue to search for the facts and bring them to you. You will no doubt be assailed by ever more hysterical statements and accusations over the next few days and the EGM will no doubt descend into a bar room brawl of misinformation, conspiracy and intimidation. If you are attending the EGM, don't be intimidated. Stand up and say your piece (whatever side of the fence you sit). Don't allow yourself to be harangued or swept up by showboating campaigners. It is your club too. Have your say and cast your vote as you see fit.