Tuesday 29 January 2013


And so to the AGM tomorrow and an agenda that is not on the face of it terribly controversial. We would like to commend  @BlueBaby67 for her piece on thechels.net for sounding a moderate and reasoned tone. We would echo her comments regarding new share sales which appear to have enjoyed a real boost recently and, importantly, are overwhelmingly single share sales. The aim of the board should be to generate many more such sales so that the entire constituency of Chelsea fans are involved. We would also encourage the board to introduce easy-pay options.

The primary interest tomorrow will be in hearing the two new board members express their views.  We have offered a platform for both to summarise their approach but no doubt questions will be put from the floor. We hope there is no repeat of the hostility and animosity, accusations and conspiracies that have dogged past meetings and there must be a firm hand shown with any sign of intimidation of speakers.

The board and us shareholders will, at some point in the future, be faced with a decision. We have to be able to make that decision based on facts and analysis of which there has been a paucity in the past 18 months. We have tried to weed out the critical processes that have been affecting the search for a new stadium site that will satisfy everybody (or as many as possible).

In recent days you will have seen the council, in the person of Michael Adam, repeat the assertion that they stand ready to help the club. We have asked repeatedly for this to be articulated in more specific terms, have invited them to answer questions; we have not yet been taken up on the offer. 

Our other blog from today reports on the travails the council are suffering at EC. In reality, the council do not HAVE to want a stadium at EC, no matter how much we believe it would be a good option for all concerned.  But whatever you think are the reasons for that decision, we must consider the council's position on Stamford Bridge in this context. As you can see, lots of people are accusing the council of impropriety and to a certain extent, this is none of our business since the council seem determined to prevent Chelsea moving there regardless.  But fans who are utterly convinced there is no reason to move at all need to recalibrate their thinking in light of all of this.  

We doubt there is one member of the CPO board who would not wish to see CFC stay at SB were it possible. Continuing to suspect the board of being "stooges" is helping nobody. Such internecine warfare weakens CPO and exposes the company to hostility from the club.  We doubt that a certain section of fans will ever be able to see the matter from anything but a caustic, cynical viewpoint, unable to accept or trust any facts or data put before them. That is their right but perhaps they can trust their fellow shareholders to spot a wrongun should it be proposed? To agitate and fight and accuse will only weaken both the board and ultimately the club itself as it seeks to do business with doubtful and anxious conglomerates.  For the council, an opportunity is there for them to articulate in explicit terms just what "helping the club" means and to refute this suspicion. Up to now we have not had the benefit of such an explanation. Are the council talking to the club? Are they having practical, constructive discussions to demonstrate the ways in which they can "help"? We don't know and until they tell us we simply cannot, in light of everything else we know, put full trust in them.

Further, as you will see from yesterday's blog, people appear to believe there are designs forthcoming (from where we do not know although we have a good idea) that prove a stadium at SB is possible. We have heard this before but nothing has materialised. Again, we doubt there is a single Chelsea fan who would not be very eager to see the ideas, look at the data, examine the financial model; as we have repeatedly said, only the club has produced any comprehensive information on the possibilities of expansion at SB so it is up to others, including the council, to prove an alternative, viable option exists. 

It has also become ever more clear that even a move to Earls Court or Battersea is unacceptable to some fans although we don't think they are in anything but a minority. Again, we would respect their right to this opinion but we do not believe that holding such a view gives them a right to obstruct and poison any process that both proves it is not an option and at the same time proposes a move that would be acceptable to the great majority of fans. To abuse, accuse, scaremonger and slander in order to get their way, even at the cost of the club's future, is neither fair nor appropriate. We believe it has already had a deleterious effect on our chances at both 
EC and BPS and continues to do so. Do fans believe that preventing the club from moving at all is in its bests interests? Would that not be a hollow victory were we to be left behind, discovering too late that the promises of help from the council were nothing but delaying tactics? Perhaps one day the club will decide it has to go it alone, the nightmare scenario, whereby it seeks to dissolve CPO and move us to wherever is available, severing decades- long ties with fans who will find the theoretical site beyond the pale? 

At the risk of being called club stooges, we would suggest that shareholders and fans should stand together with the club and board, turn to face those obstructing us and challenge them, apply pressure to them, fight them.


  1. Hi mate.
    I am a regular visiter of the blog. This qustion i wanted to ask for long long time.Is it possible for CFC to dissolve CPO? I was searching in the net regarding this but no clear data on this. Do you have any hard facts on this? Whether CFC is able to move with out the consent from CPO? Are they able to dissolve CPO with out any legal problems like court cases and all?

  2. The biggest threat to CPO, should the club ever decide they want to rid themselves of it, is calling in the loan which is why CPO must endeavour to raise funds to repay as per the agreement. Whether the club could or would pursue legal action to dissolve it is not entirely clear but we believe it is not a course they would willingly choose. Neither option would play well with fans but calling in the loan is by far the most possible of the two scenarios.

  3. So lets say even if the club calls the loan cant the CPO just go to some bank and get the required money? I think its around 8.5M now. The value of SB alone will be in the range of 150 to 300M atleast by various valuations. CAN the club completely dissolve the CPO by going on to the legal route? How about CPO making a legal challenge if the club decided to move but still using the name CFC? Each and every year the club is wasting to find this mysterious new site to hold 60 to 70K fans we are falling further and further behind other big clubs.I know its a tougher decision moving with out the consent of fans but with the way things are going with CPO i dont hold my breath about them doing the right thing ie, giving the shares back to the club. Most of the fans are genuine about their intentions on CPO but some pathetic and myopic fans are winding up other level minded fans by lot of stories about chelsea fc moving to russia and africa. Its clear as a daylight for all level minded fans that CFC need to move. H&F is lying their ass off bcz they know fully well that in 3 to 5 yrs there will be absolutely no site left for CFC to move anywhere in london. If we need to move we need to take on H&F council otherwise there is no way the H& will allow the club to move out. All H&F is doing is creating mysterious panic among the share holders so they wont give the shares back to CFC. Their full tactics are revolving around this only.Its sad that great thing like CPO is now becoming a pblm for the growth of the club.

  4. It is not entirely clear what options would be available to CPO should the club take a hostile position on CPO. Perhaps an email to the board or to Gray Smith would give you better guidance. Our belief is that the club would be unlikely to want to take such action; it wouldn't play terribly well. If, as we believe, the options at various sites are not entirely exhausted, we expect the club will only make a new offer when they can trumpet an acceptable alternative.

    Having said all of that, there is a growing number of fans like yourself who are beginning to think that CPO is little more than an obstruction to the club's future development and we have, sadly, heard many views proposing that disbanding it one way or another should be considered by the club. We would most certainly not want that to happen but who knows if the hostility, abuse and scaremongering continue? There is a feeling at times that some fans are playing into the club's hands should there indeed be a negative attitude within CFC.