Tuesday, 15 January 2013
The Earl's Court Viper's nest
We have reported on the EC project at length. Here are further developments.
Tuesday, 1 January 2013
New Year Update
With the new year underway, it is worth considering where things stand on stadium issues. Little has been heard from the club (we always think this a positive thing at the moment, no matter how frustrating) but things are certainly happening with the Earl's Court development.
CFCTruth have been looking into the residents at West Ken and Gibbs Green and their fight to have the land sale agreement between Hammersmith and Fulham and CapCo declared unlawful. Among three court challenges, they have issued proceedings for urgent consideration to be given by the court to the signing of the conditional land sale agreement that covers the two estates. They argue that the council were trying to hide the contents of the document and when they would sign it. Despite the claimant, who is a a resident of the estates, having lost his legal aid (a real David and Goliath battle, this one) they appear to have thwarted the signing of the deal until the court sits. Their challenge to the land sale is based on four grounds; unlawful consultation procedures, an unclear re-housing plan, breaches of human rights legislation and the most serious, that the demolition of the estates is a case of gerrymandering and bias.
If the residents are successful in having the land sale declared unlawful, there is no doubt that the whole Earl's Court plan will be thrown into some turmoil. The council won't be happy either because according to them, the deal is worth £225 million in cash and other housing provision. There are also investigations by both the police and Deloitte's into the conduct of officers during the case. It isn't pretty.
However, none of this guarantees a positive outcome for CFC. CapCo will be free, under the terms of the pre-agreement, to redraw the masterplan (a plan that is universally doubted for quality and achievability) and that may mean them coming back to Chelsea, who as we know have made several submissions during the planning process and clearly have designs and ideas for the site that also provide the possibility of Earl's Court remaining a major exhibition location. This last is something the exhibition industry is very keen to see. And of course, the club bring ready cash. This also runs alongside the story that Roman has been discussing the purchase of CapCo outright...more of which, we hope, anon.
Despite this emerging situation, we do still see people continuing to think that it is better to believe the council rather than the club over the expansion of Stamford Bridge. The wealth of data and information, including the very revealing minutes of the CPO board's meeting with the council seem not to change this attitude. One particularly ill-informed correspondent to a thread on Vital Football was even peddling the idea that LBHF had nothing to do with the CapCo EC development, rather that it is Kensington & Chelsea's deal. Another said that Abramovich was determined to find a site as far from Stamford Bridge as possible. Such ignorance and misinformation respectively is unhelpful and gets us nowhere.
There are critical issues to consider; that Chelsea moving to another site, be it EC or BPS will involve a land swap with Stamford Bridge. This sweetens the deal in both cases and enables the club to offer the sort of assurances that planning authorities will need as well as providing compensation to the owners of either site for the club occupying a huge lump of their valuable real estate. There is no scenario that will produce great profits for CFC or Abramovich. If the club had been successful in acquiring the entire Battersea development then perhaps that would be the case over a number of years. But CFC are not in that position at present so are trying to elbow their way in.
As we have said in the past, all of us would prefer a dream stadium that does what the club requires at Stamford Bridge. But it is clear now that even if the egress issues could be resolved, to expand adequately would require the acquisition of Oswald Stoll buildings. Consider that for a moment; if the charity were to acquiesce to such a sale (which we doubt; their response to our questions on the matter were extremely frosty) the club would have to buy the building and the land, demolish it and then provide over 150 homes for disabled servicemen somewhere in the area. It is hard to imagine that the residents would want to move far from where they are now and indeed, why should they? However, assume there is a piece of land nearby that can house them, there would then be the acquisition costs, the build costs, the planning and legal costs etc. and then the compensation for the residents etc. Acquiring Oswald Stoll would likely add £300 million to the bill. Then the club would need to demolish the Bridge, rebuild etc. and so we doubt there would be little change from a billion pounds with nothing coming back in return except over an extremely long period of time. People may believe Abramovich can afford this but equally, we do not think it reasonable to expect such a proposition to be engaged with considering the attendant risks and costs. We find it remarkable that fans should consider Abramovich's unwillingness to spend an unrewarded billion pounds on a project fraught with huge obstacles as evidence of his rapacious profiteering.
We will say again that fans and shareholders in CPO would do well to apply pressure in the right places rather than indulge in paranoid accusations against the club. An encouraging number of fans have made it clear that they understand the situation more since we began presenting the facts but too many still indulge in misinformation and conspiracy theories. It is time for fans to turn their energies to forcing the issue in favour of the club, rather than against it. The iron is getting warmer, and should it become hot in the High Court, Chelsea have to be in a position to strike....
CFCTruth have been looking into the residents at West Ken and Gibbs Green and their fight to have the land sale agreement between Hammersmith and Fulham and CapCo declared unlawful. Among three court challenges, they have issued proceedings for urgent consideration to be given by the court to the signing of the conditional land sale agreement that covers the two estates. They argue that the council were trying to hide the contents of the document and when they would sign it. Despite the claimant, who is a a resident of the estates, having lost his legal aid (a real David and Goliath battle, this one) they appear to have thwarted the signing of the deal until the court sits. Their challenge to the land sale is based on four grounds; unlawful consultation procedures, an unclear re-housing plan, breaches of human rights legislation and the most serious, that the demolition of the estates is a case of gerrymandering and bias.
If the residents are successful in having the land sale declared unlawful, there is no doubt that the whole Earl's Court plan will be thrown into some turmoil. The council won't be happy either because according to them, the deal is worth £225 million in cash and other housing provision. There are also investigations by both the police and Deloitte's into the conduct of officers during the case. It isn't pretty.
However, none of this guarantees a positive outcome for CFC. CapCo will be free, under the terms of the pre-agreement, to redraw the masterplan (a plan that is universally doubted for quality and achievability) and that may mean them coming back to Chelsea, who as we know have made several submissions during the planning process and clearly have designs and ideas for the site that also provide the possibility of Earl's Court remaining a major exhibition location. This last is something the exhibition industry is very keen to see. And of course, the club bring ready cash. This also runs alongside the story that Roman has been discussing the purchase of CapCo outright...more of which, we hope, anon.
Despite this emerging situation, we do still see people continuing to think that it is better to believe the council rather than the club over the expansion of Stamford Bridge. The wealth of data and information, including the very revealing minutes of the CPO board's meeting with the council seem not to change this attitude. One particularly ill-informed correspondent to a thread on Vital Football was even peddling the idea that LBHF had nothing to do with the CapCo EC development, rather that it is Kensington & Chelsea's deal. Another said that Abramovich was determined to find a site as far from Stamford Bridge as possible. Such ignorance and misinformation respectively is unhelpful and gets us nowhere.
There are critical issues to consider; that Chelsea moving to another site, be it EC or BPS will involve a land swap with Stamford Bridge. This sweetens the deal in both cases and enables the club to offer the sort of assurances that planning authorities will need as well as providing compensation to the owners of either site for the club occupying a huge lump of their valuable real estate. There is no scenario that will produce great profits for CFC or Abramovich. If the club had been successful in acquiring the entire Battersea development then perhaps that would be the case over a number of years. But CFC are not in that position at present so are trying to elbow their way in.
As we have said in the past, all of us would prefer a dream stadium that does what the club requires at Stamford Bridge. But it is clear now that even if the egress issues could be resolved, to expand adequately would require the acquisition of Oswald Stoll buildings. Consider that for a moment; if the charity were to acquiesce to such a sale (which we doubt; their response to our questions on the matter were extremely frosty) the club would have to buy the building and the land, demolish it and then provide over 150 homes for disabled servicemen somewhere in the area. It is hard to imagine that the residents would want to move far from where they are now and indeed, why should they? However, assume there is a piece of land nearby that can house them, there would then be the acquisition costs, the build costs, the planning and legal costs etc. and then the compensation for the residents etc. Acquiring Oswald Stoll would likely add £300 million to the bill. Then the club would need to demolish the Bridge, rebuild etc. and so we doubt there would be little change from a billion pounds with nothing coming back in return except over an extremely long period of time. People may believe Abramovich can afford this but equally, we do not think it reasonable to expect such a proposition to be engaged with considering the attendant risks and costs. We find it remarkable that fans should consider Abramovich's unwillingness to spend an unrewarded billion pounds on a project fraught with huge obstacles as evidence of his rapacious profiteering.
We will say again that fans and shareholders in CPO would do well to apply pressure in the right places rather than indulge in paranoid accusations against the club. An encouraging number of fans have made it clear that they understand the situation more since we began presenting the facts but too many still indulge in misinformation and conspiracy theories. It is time for fans to turn their energies to forcing the issue in favour of the club, rather than against it. The iron is getting warmer, and should it become hot in the High Court, Chelsea have to be in a position to strike....
Monday, 17 December 2012
New board member Charles Rose speaks
New appointee to the CPO board, Charles Rose, has posted a comment on our last blog. It is a form of mini-manifesto that we are sure many fans will be interested to read so we print it below along with his twitter feed; we were startled by the apparent modesty failure in the title of his twitter account but quickly realised this is related to a product he sells!
Anyway, here you are.
"Thank you for this comment. Whilst I do have experience of fundraising, I hope I bring more than just that to CPO. I used my law degree in Manufacturing and more recently in Construction and indeed Retail. I have also done quite a lot with regional as well as the National Chamber of Commerce and have media experience along side of this.
My objective as I hinted at in the all too brief comment on the CPO website is to bring some calm and rational thought to CPO to regain some of the credibility lost during the last years meetings. As I stated at the last EGM this needs to be done through a proper well thought through strategy and decisive implementation. It will not be possible without the support of the very people who elect the board - the members of CPO, which is why our communication must get a lot better than it has recently.
To that end I am grateful for the folks who have already posted on various sites along the lines of lets see what these new members are about. That is all that I can ask. If you wish to communicate more then you can find me on twitter @prettyfabguy . Best Wishes Charles Rose"
New board members at CPO
After the recent appointment of Sean Jones QC and Charles Rose to the board of CPO, we note, with some exasperation, the broadside issued by SayNoCPO.
"SAYNO notes CPO chairman S. Frankham has once again chosen to impose new directors of his choice on shareholders rather than allow a full, open democratic election with a variety of candidates – particularly given an AGM is now to be held just 7 weeks away on Wed 30th January!" they thunder.
A board is not compelled to hold democratic elections when selecting its members; the demonstration of shareholder opinion comes when the new appointees are ratified at the forthcoming AGM. As we understand it people submitted their credentials for consideration and the board, including SayNo's own fox in the coop, Gray Smith, made the selections. A board with a good range of skills is vital and Jones, a vociferous critic of the club over the initial share buy-back we believe, is a renowned operator in his field and we welcome an alternative legal opinion to that of Smith on the board. The QC would seem to be anything other than a "yes man". Mr Rose has a background in fundraising which should be useful.
No doubt several SayNo individuals forwarded their own CVs for consideration and are unhappy with the choices but it seems extraordinary to us that they would expect a board, who have suffered some pretty outrageous accusations and abuse, to invite such people into their midst. One member on the board seems to us to be a fair representation of the group. Indeed, we would argue that they are over-represented and with the appointment of another, less "managed" legal mind, we wouldn't be terribly unhappy to see Smith's removal.
With a growing sense that CFC are becoming more aggressive in their efforts to acquire a suitable site for a new stadium, it is disappointing that a few fans should continue to chuck mud and mischief around. Shareholders will have their chance to vote the new directors on or off the board in January and that is as it should be. The fact that the individuals concerned are not the favourites of the phalanx that is SayNo is irrelevant. Are they dedicated to achieving the best for the club? Are they bright, balanced and sensible? These are the judgements we should make when voting.
We say this in the context of a growing feeling among fans that CPO is becoming a pointless, toxic obstruction to club progress. The hysteria and misinformation spread about by fans during the buy-back vote, gleefully picked up and encouraged by a media pack we know to be pungently opposed to everything CFC, has left a lasting legacy. People doing business with the club at the two favoured sites are worried it will happen again. Perhaps this is the intention of SayNo in which case they have done a good job. The rest of us - the vast majority - should ensure those people get a clear and unqualified message; do business with the club and we will support it.
Wednesday, 5 December 2012
Battersea update
Much fanfare and optimism over at Battersea recently when the owners - rather too effortfully we thought - trumpeted their optimism over the start of work on the site. According to the developers, lots of people have expressed an interest in the residential properties that have been proposed. Work starts on the power station too which to many fans appears to close the door on a Chelsea stadium there. Not so. There is a legal obligation upon the owners to start repair and listed building work immediately. The infrastructure plans for the power station do not actually begin for some time which still leaves plenty of room for Chelsea to come to some arrangement with the Malaysians over the building's eventual use. Phase 1 is residential and doesn't overly impact the solution Chelsea have planned. The commercial element of the site is further away.
Our understanding is that an offer is on the table that includes Chelsea paying for the expensive and somewhat bloody awkward repair and restoration work but that the funds won't be forthcoming until a deal over the land swap with Stamford Bridge is complete and nobody
appears to expect a resolution until the summer. It would seem the matter boils down to whether the development company can deliver before the Malaysian masters get nervous. Who will blink first?
Our understanding is that an offer is on the table that includes Chelsea paying for the expensive and somewhat bloody awkward repair and restoration work but that the funds won't be forthcoming until a deal over the land swap with Stamford Bridge is complete and nobody
appears to expect a resolution until the summer. It would seem the matter boils down to whether the development company can deliver before the Malaysian masters get nervous. Who will blink first?
Monday, 26 November 2012
Chimneys? No problem!
It has been another normal week of fantastically weird goings on at the Bridge. We ought to be used to it by now.
Our interest is, however, mightily piqued by two particular issues that should they end up being true and/or successful would put the management departures and arrivals into the shade. The first we have alluded to in our previous blog; the issue of talks with the Malaysians who own Battersea Power Station.
It is certain, according to our various sources, that the club are engaged in trying to reach an agreement with Setia over the development of the power station itself, a toxic and expensive problem for the owners. Individuals within the owning organisation have conflicting opinions on whether CFC are the answer but the biggest doubt appears to be over the ability of CFC to offer Stamford Bridge as part of a contra arrangement. Our last blog addressed this very matter and knowing it to be true now only strengthens the view that something should be done to ensure we all make our feelings known. We were quite good at that on Sunday....
The other issue to interest us is the persistent rumour that Roman Abramovich is showing an interest in buying, lock stock and barrel, CapCo, owners of Earls Court. The implications of doing so are clear and it would not surprise us in the least if the rumour was true. Indeed, the stories in the press are well sourced (and logical) and we ourselves have heard similar suggestions from people linked to the political establishment in the areas. CapCo are having trouble at EC, with High Court hearings pending and almost universal condemnation of the master plan from residents, designers, the exhibition industry etc. Not to mention the issue of money. The sharp rise in CapCo shares suggests the market is keeping a wary eye on things too. RBKC gave approval to their part of the scheme recently and this was to be fully expected - there was never any doubt that they would. But the problems persist.
There remains, at both sites, the question of planning permission and political will but owning something gives the club a bit more leverage to say the least. And money talks - especially now.
If the club are indeed taking an aggressive and acquisitive approach to both sites, we would be very pleased. In fact, we think it highly likely that this is the case and one expects they have finally reached the conclusion that working with, and trying to gently negotiate, the political self interest and duplicity surrounding both sites has produced little. A decision to confront it head on with cash and determination is to be heartily welcomed by Chelsea fans.
Our interest is, however, mightily piqued by two particular issues that should they end up being true and/or successful would put the management departures and arrivals into the shade. The first we have alluded to in our previous blog; the issue of talks with the Malaysians who own Battersea Power Station.
It is certain, according to our various sources, that the club are engaged in trying to reach an agreement with Setia over the development of the power station itself, a toxic and expensive problem for the owners. Individuals within the owning organisation have conflicting opinions on whether CFC are the answer but the biggest doubt appears to be over the ability of CFC to offer Stamford Bridge as part of a contra arrangement. Our last blog addressed this very matter and knowing it to be true now only strengthens the view that something should be done to ensure we all make our feelings known. We were quite good at that on Sunday....
The other issue to interest us is the persistent rumour that Roman Abramovich is showing an interest in buying, lock stock and barrel, CapCo, owners of Earls Court. The implications of doing so are clear and it would not surprise us in the least if the rumour was true. Indeed, the stories in the press are well sourced (and logical) and we ourselves have heard similar suggestions from people linked to the political establishment in the areas. CapCo are having trouble at EC, with High Court hearings pending and almost universal condemnation of the master plan from residents, designers, the exhibition industry etc. Not to mention the issue of money. The sharp rise in CapCo shares suggests the market is keeping a wary eye on things too. RBKC gave approval to their part of the scheme recently and this was to be fully expected - there was never any doubt that they would. But the problems persist.
There remains, at both sites, the question of planning permission and political will but owning something gives the club a bit more leverage to say the least. And money talks - especially now.
If the club are indeed taking an aggressive and acquisitive approach to both sites, we would be very pleased. In fact, we think it highly likely that this is the case and one expects they have finally reached the conclusion that working with, and trying to gently negotiate, the political self interest and duplicity surrounding both sites has produced little. A decision to confront it head on with cash and determination is to be heartily welcomed by Chelsea fans.
Sunday, 18 November 2012
Time for a message?
It has been a while since anything of note regarding CFC's stadium situation emerged. Earl's Court remains interesting now that the residents of West Ken and Gibbs Green estates have won the right to challenge the development in the High Court. All sorts of things might happen there.
One curiosity though is Battersea. More specifically, since it was announced that the Setia bid had been successful, we have heard nothing from the club; no submission, no statements giving up on it - nothing. We do find that a bit curious and as ever lots of rumours are flying regarding what is going on there, what might be happening with the development, hints of viability issues for the Malaysians. More specifically that Almacantar were the only recognised developer in the
running with an end-user for the Power Station. If we were the Malaysians, we would ask why none of the big UK players wanted it? It all leads us to believe that the club have certainly not given up the ghost; the circumstances have changed now that the Malaysians own the
site. Those chimneys, no doubt English Heritage and the costs of conversion et al are causing issues for the developers but could Chelsea be digging around, offering to remove the major "risk"? We think it highly likely but it got us thinking about the new status quo that exists.
It is our firm belief that the "no" vote caused a critical blip in our plans to hijack the Earl's Court development. Big players in the property market play all the angles, especially when they own the rights to a lucrative plot - CapCo most certainly did that and it was up to CFC to deliver. Crucially, what one imagines they will have to deliver is Stamford Bridge so that a developer has something to make up for allowing the club to occupy a swathe of valuable potential residential property space. Can CFC provide that as part of any deal? Is the first "no" vote giving Setia, or CapCo for that matter, pause for thought? It seems unlikely to us that SAYNO would muster enough support to stymie a stadium at either Earl's Court or Battersea. And we have heard even the most ardent SAYNO supporters say that they would be happy to see the club move to either site.
With locations limited, the club find itself in a very awkward position. It is one thing CFC wanting to play its cards close to its chest but one imagines that Setia and/or CapCo, searching as they are for capital and political support, feel the same way about revealing anything radical. The
one uncertainty remains the reaction of this small band of Chelsea supporters. The fact is that Chelsea fans are generally inactive when it comes to forcing positive change but are adept at working themselves and others into a lather about perceived wrongdoing. Conspiracy theories have dogged this entire issue. The almost total acceptance of LBHF's position is evidence of that.
The conundrum is impossibly tricky. For the club to ask CPO shareholders for their shares, one expects they will now, after the first fiasco, explain the plan. That plan may depend on swift manoeuvres and secrecy up to a point. But any potential CFC partner will want to know
that the club can deliver the land at Stamford Bridge in return for a plot at either EC or BPS. But how can it do that until a vote is taken?
The only solution we can think of is for Chelsea Pitch Owners to make it abundantly clear what they WOULD accept by way of location and perhaps then the club can enter into negotiations with confidence should such negotiations be on offer.
Could a resolution committing to sell for a site within, say, 2.5 miles of SB be a way forward? It would probably be unwise to mention the specific sites or tie it down to the two main ones; who knows what might emerge? And we have to bear in mind the delicacies. But we do know that certain areas, previously discussed, would be unacceptable so the mile marker is crucial. Could the various fan groups make it abundantly clear what their position on the two sites are? We, for example, are more than happy to say that we would sell our own shares for Battersea or Earls Court.
Whatever is done, we have an awful fear that the unpredictability of CPO shareholders and the recent bad blood is shackling the club somewhat. How often might the club be asked "can you get the shares?" Maybe the destiny of the club is more in our hands than we think? Maybe we have to give a strong positive message to the club and others about what we will do and thus strengthen their hand as they try to achieve what we all aspire to?
One curiosity though is Battersea. More specifically, since it was announced that the Setia bid had been successful, we have heard nothing from the club; no submission, no statements giving up on it - nothing. We do find that a bit curious and as ever lots of rumours are flying regarding what is going on there, what might be happening with the development, hints of viability issues for the Malaysians. More specifically that Almacantar were the only recognised developer in the
running with an end-user for the Power Station. If we were the Malaysians, we would ask why none of the big UK players wanted it? It all leads us to believe that the club have certainly not given up the ghost; the circumstances have changed now that the Malaysians own the
site. Those chimneys, no doubt English Heritage and the costs of conversion et al are causing issues for the developers but could Chelsea be digging around, offering to remove the major "risk"? We think it highly likely but it got us thinking about the new status quo that exists.
It is our firm belief that the "no" vote caused a critical blip in our plans to hijack the Earl's Court development. Big players in the property market play all the angles, especially when they own the rights to a lucrative plot - CapCo most certainly did that and it was up to CFC to deliver. Crucially, what one imagines they will have to deliver is Stamford Bridge so that a developer has something to make up for allowing the club to occupy a swathe of valuable potential residential property space. Can CFC provide that as part of any deal? Is the first "no" vote giving Setia, or CapCo for that matter, pause for thought? It seems unlikely to us that SAYNO would muster enough support to stymie a stadium at either Earl's Court or Battersea. And we have heard even the most ardent SAYNO supporters say that they would be happy to see the club move to either site.
With locations limited, the club find itself in a very awkward position. It is one thing CFC wanting to play its cards close to its chest but one imagines that Setia and/or CapCo, searching as they are for capital and political support, feel the same way about revealing anything radical. The
one uncertainty remains the reaction of this small band of Chelsea supporters. The fact is that Chelsea fans are generally inactive when it comes to forcing positive change but are adept at working themselves and others into a lather about perceived wrongdoing. Conspiracy theories have dogged this entire issue. The almost total acceptance of LBHF's position is evidence of that.
The conundrum is impossibly tricky. For the club to ask CPO shareholders for their shares, one expects they will now, after the first fiasco, explain the plan. That plan may depend on swift manoeuvres and secrecy up to a point. But any potential CFC partner will want to know
that the club can deliver the land at Stamford Bridge in return for a plot at either EC or BPS. But how can it do that until a vote is taken?
The only solution we can think of is for Chelsea Pitch Owners to make it abundantly clear what they WOULD accept by way of location and perhaps then the club can enter into negotiations with confidence should such negotiations be on offer.
Could a resolution committing to sell for a site within, say, 2.5 miles of SB be a way forward? It would probably be unwise to mention the specific sites or tie it down to the two main ones; who knows what might emerge? And we have to bear in mind the delicacies. But we do know that certain areas, previously discussed, would be unacceptable so the mile marker is crucial. Could the various fan groups make it abundantly clear what their position on the two sites are? We, for example, are more than happy to say that we would sell our own shares for Battersea or Earls Court.
Whatever is done, we have an awful fear that the unpredictability of CPO shareholders and the recent bad blood is shackling the club somewhat. How often might the club be asked "can you get the shares?" Maybe the destiny of the club is more in our hands than we think? Maybe we have to give a strong positive message to the club and others about what we will do and thus strengthen their hand as they try to achieve what we all aspire to?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)