Wednesday 30 January 2013


Overall a fairly constructive and, by recent standards, peaceful AGM.

You will no doubt have heard the results from the ten votes at the AGM. We won't bother to rehash and repeat them. In short all resolutions were passed and both new directors were confirmed; both made a decent impression, seem thoroughly competent and determined to ensure new era of probity and efficiency is ushered in. We hope to see the results soon.

Several speakers made the expected points about the contentious shares and the board agreed to write to a number of the most allegedly questionable ones although there is pessimism as to what this will achieve. But it is continuing to be an open sore and so we think on balance the board have made a wise decision. On that matter, much was made of the idea that in order to dilute questionable shares, more individual shares to ordinary supporters need to be sold. One speaker made the very good point that it is shareholders themselves who can do much in this regard, evangelising to their friends and acquaintances. We are also pleased to discover that both Gray Smith and Sean Jones are examining the idea of pay-by-instalment.

It was not surprising to hear challenges from the floor to both new board members regarding their recent comments on CFCTruth (Twitter exchanges had revealed a level of outrage in this respect). It was, however, startling to hear one speaker challenge Frankham directly on whether, in effect, he was either behind CFCTruth or associated in some way with us. We do not know how many times we have to say this but nobody from the board of CPO or CFC is associated with us; our sources are varied and extensive and frankly, we don't need them! There is an assumption that challenging statements by the council, being inclined to a sensible view about expansion at SB and refusing to participate in conspiracy theories means, by definition, that we are, as one Twitter correspondent said earlier, "a mouthpiece for the club". Nonsense.

People are free to examine what we say, to believe it or not. We analyse and interpret. You may not agree with it but that is really all there is to it. Our anonymity, as we have repeatedly pointed out, is necessary for several very sound reasons but it is, ultimately, neither here nor there. You are interested in what we say or you are not. When we ask you for money, for votes, for support, to sign up to something etc. then you will have a right to know who is asking you to do so. You are free to judge for yourselves the veracity of our information, the credibility of our arguments and the accuracy of our interpretations. We are, when all is said and done, the most neutral of all the groups commenting on this matter and thousands of fans are clearly interested in what we bring forward. We like to believe we have made a constructive contribution.
Or not, depending on your view.

In summary, we feel it was generally a good day and that there is skilled set of individuals on the board. Time will tell, but there is a feeling that a period of reduced emotion and useful, productive work by both the board and shareholders may be around the corner. We can but hope at least.

We just have to get those new shareholders and to improve the woeful turnouts too.


  1. "Our anonymity, as we have repeatedly pointed out, is necessary for several very sound reasons"

    But why? The people I saw today asking questions at the meeting didn't seem to have any problems about making themselves known? What's so special about your group?

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. There are pieces on the blog explaining this in full. People speaking at the AGM give their personal names as shareholders....