Wednesday 25 July 2012

"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 We would expect these articles to be withdrawn and apologies issued.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.


  1. We will see if "Blue Baby" (don't these people have names?) on Thechels publishes an apology, I expect not.

    CPO needs surely to concern itself with getting a similar arrangement on the new site wherever that may be rather than clinging on to the past. I will be sorry to see SB go (I have been going there for 50 years nearly) but we have to move on and do what is best to secure the future income of the club

    Mark Wells

  2. I view the CPO with some scepticism: they are a minority of Chelsea supporter who were financially fortunate enough to be able to buy shares. Some I am sure have the best interests of the club at heart, sadly I think there are some who are burying their heads in the sands of reality, to them I say come into the real world Stamford Bridge is too small and I doubt it can be changed to the level needed to compete financially on the larger World stage. Then I suspect there are some who view the value of the SB ground and see a potential financial killing, shame on them!
    With regard to finance, I also believe the Chelsea offer should have been more generous, but not to the point of absurdity.
    I am not a 'johnie come lately' - I have supported Chelsea for 65 years. Within reason I do not care where Chelsea play; the SB today is nothing like that I first went to, I doubt there is anyone administering the club and certainly not playing, change is inevitable. Wherever, Chelsea will always be in my heart and mind. - Chris Price

  3. Not sure I understood who was saying what and to be honest I probably don't care as the CPO to me, although started with the best intentions seems to be now ploughing a path of self interest rather than for the good of the football club. If they can't trust someone who has sunk huge amounts into the club and would be the last person to see that disappear then who can they trust? There are obviously people there with huge chips on their shoulders or believe they should be making money out of this. The latter sounds a bit like the people that the CPO were formed to protect against.

  4. There is no point in having a rant if you do not explain what you are talking about, so much writing but not actually saying anything or explaining what you are talking about..


  5. Blimey, no toys left in the pram :(

    Tom Twits