Monday 11 February 2013

Another club stooge!

We hadn't intended to comment on the new Chelsea Supporters Trust.  As an organisation they appear to be following the standard Supporters Trust model and seem well intentioned, committed and eager to be truly representative of fans from all sections of the support. Time will tell how this pans out and what sort of organisation emerges. 

However, we have to confess to some surprise (and not just for the obvious reasons, either) at a piece on CFCnet yesterday which addressed the existence of this new group. It has raised all manner of suspicions. We quote the relevant section below - the emphases are ours;

"Finally, CFCnet was asked about Chelsea Supporters' Trust, who had a well-publicised meeting after the Wigan game.  We want it put on public record that we have nothing against this new organisation.  However, we are not in a position to either endorse it or give it any publicity until we are clear about their stance on CPO.

Simply put, any organisation claiming to represent fans' interests must back either SaynoCPO or Campaign55's overall stance(s).  Failure to do that, in our view, is either a demonstration of incompetence or, even worse, the mark of the hidden hand of the Club manoeuvring behind the scenes.  We fear the latter.  For that reason we are holding judgement on the new Chelsea Supporters' Trust until we know their stance on CPO."

It is difficult to know where to begin when considering this statement.  The breathtaking arrogance of two small and unrepresentative minority groups dictating to a new fans organisation who they should back? The demonstration, yet again, that these people believe that anybody who disagrees with them in any way is an enemy, who is created by and/or in thrall to Chelsea FC? The inherent menace in the statement? Take your pick.  

We already know that there is, for example, an absolute assumption that all votes cast at AGMs and EGMs have been cast by club stooges and "dodgy shares" despite evidence to the contrary. But we have to confess to some real surprise that anybody would actually make this accusation against CST on a public website and it causes us, against our original instinct, to ask some questions. Does the author officially speak for SayNoCPO or Campaign 55? Do Campaign 55 and SayNoCPO agree with the author's comments? Are people involved with Campaign 55 or SayNoCPO associated or involved with the new CST? (we have noted the individuals involved so far of course). If they are, then the infant Trust is in danger of imploding with internecine fighting before it has even stood on its feet and fans with a more open view, who want to be part of the new trust, should demand to know what those behind it are drawing them in to. Indeed, is the Trust just a new face of SayNoCPO/Campaign 55 and the piece referred to above just a clumsy feint to put us everybody off the scent? We will be watching very closely whatever the truth and we genuinely make no assumptions at this stage; it would be unfair to do so but the comments from CFCnet have set alarm bells ringing....

We do, though,  have sympathy with CST for having joined the ranks of those accused of being a club stooge. We would like to say it is a select group but unfortunately there appear to be many of us.  There is no question that a great deal of work has gone into the inauguration of the Trust and it must be depressing to see fellow fans condemning them in such terms already. 

We encourage them in their aim of a constructive relationship with the club. It would appear there is an appetite for such a group if their launch meeting is anything to go by and so we must take them at face value and wish them the best of luck. We suspect they are going to need it.


  1. And where does cfctruth stand on the CPO issue? Looks like cfcnet have made a valid point. There are a lot of sites out there dedicated to polishing reputations. But it's sometimes more than difficult to polish mud.

  2. Our position is pretty clear; we want to know as much as possible about the future possibilities, want to stop the lies and abuse of the club and board, want shareholders to have all the facts available should the time come for another vote on a move.

  3. Mr Parker's Dogbite11 February 2013 at 06:05

    What I don't understand is why anyone has to take a stance on the CPO issue at the moment. There is no offer on the table and no likelihood of one for some time. The club's misconceived offer from late 2011 is old news now and any new proposal would be very different. So as far as I'm concerned the only position anyone needs to take on the CPO right now is to encourage as many ordinary Chelsea fans as possible to buy CPO shares and vote when the time comes. Anything else is just trying to stir up further discord when there is no need to do so.

  4. We couldn't agree more.
    People keep asking us "where we stand" when there are countless blog posts that show where our interest is - which isn't necessarily the same thing. What there appears to be is a constituency who will countenance no move whatsoever, regardless of where it is. That is absolutely fine but it is evident that they wish to prevent any discourse to the contrary.

  5. Do you have a connection to one of the reputation polishing websites? Seems a reasonable question.

  6. We are not sure what you are referring to but presume you mean fan sites or organisations? Is it your impression that we are connected to any other websites or organisations? Or do you suspect that the almost universal opprobrium we receive from them is just a clever little ruse?
    If you suspect CST of just being about individuals "polishing their reputation" then that is a matter for you. You can join them or not join them. But this particular blog post was about the demand from one group that the only genuine stance for fans to take is that held by two other small and aggressive pressure groups.

  7. I'm referring to sites such as this: dedicated to making negative vibes disappear and god knows CFC are in dire need of that.

  8. With the press attention on Chelsea we doubt such a site could assist the club. We also doubt we could negate the worldwide Google capacity to return negative stories on CFC.
    In any case, we just report on issues surrounding stadium and CPO. It is extremely rare for us to comment on any other aspect of the club/team - positive or negative.

  9. Seems a simple yes or no is not forthcoming. That leaves me thinking I'm on to something.

  10. We were just being polite. We think you are a little too wedded to a conspiracy theory and are talking absolute nonsense, in fact.

  11. CFCnet are an embarrassment to the clubs support in its online manifestation. To be honest, the self aggrandised 'junta' of individuals interested largely in ego stroking and pocket lining can come under that umbrella too.