As you can imagine, the residents of the two threatened estates are not pleased. Many of them have written and submitted evidence in the past of conversations with officers and councillors who they say made explicit offers in return for support for the scheme.
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Council accused of a "whitewash"
The Evening Standard have reported that LBHF are being accused of a whitewash over their investigation into wrongdoing by officers over the Earls Court consultation. By abandoning the Deloitte's investigation at phase one, before talking to residents, the prosecution has effectively refused to take evidence from the alleged victims.
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.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Some updates on the battle of Earls Court
We have come into possession of a copy of the WKGG residents' latest newsletter in which they give details of a new petition they have going. We also link to another blog post on the matter by Dave Hill of The Guardian.
It is our belief that CFC continue to discuss EC with the owners of the site, despite protestations by the council and the apparent "shoulder to shoulder" stance between CapCo and LBHF during the latest rounds of the increasingly acrimonious battle. You may have been perplexed recently by the strident and apparently unprompted statement from LBHF on the impossibility of a stadium at the site (to the effect "neither we nor the developer wants a stadium"etc.) You may have wondered what drew this outburst. So did we....
However, words of caution; things continue to be weighted against the club but it hasn't given up yet....
----------------
Extract from WKGG newsletter below. We neither endorse nor vouch for the accuracy of their information, nor the charges and accusations contained in the extract.
"Petition to the Government
There has been much reporting of exciting developments in our campaign, including in the Guardian and on ITV news, which you can read and watch on the media coverage page of our website detailed below.
In March, the Secretary of State will decide whether to allow the Council to sell our homes to EC Properties LP, a firm whose sole investment is £2 from its Limited Partner registered in the tax-haven of Jersey, and which is fabricated to funnel hundreds of millions of pounds in profits to CapCo.
We shall petition the Government not to allow this scheme because we are against demolition, it would harm vulnerable neighbours, destroy 761 decent homes, is criminal, and would undermine the economy.
The Prime Minister promised power to the people and freedom for communities to determine their future. We shall ask the Government to give us the vote so we can decide whether our homes should be sold off, and request it fulfils its undertaking to implement the law that would liberate the local community to take ownership of our neighbourhood. We are the People's Estates, and we shall not be moved!"
Dave Hill's blog.
Thursday, 31 January 2013
The Telegraph - check your facts
We should no longer be shocked by inaccuracy when the media reports issues relating to Chelsea but we have to confess to being a little taken aback by the Daily Telegraph's report on yesterday's AGM by Ben Rumsby. The report, which not surprisingly had little to say that reflected the rare positive side of the meeting focused on the board's agreement to write to certain shareholders;
"But the annual meeting at Stamford Bridge saw shareholder Theresa Magee point out the company's Articles of Association allowed it to remove the voting rights of anyone who failed to respond to a letter asking them to state whether or not they had any connection to the club. Magee told Telegraph Sport:
"I'm absolutely staggered that nobody's paid any attention to Article 41 of the Articles of Association before.
"I'm a layperson, I've got absolutely no knowledge of the law, and I found this out simply by reading them."
CFCTruth stated yesterday that it felt the decision to write to shareholders was on balance a wise one in order to try to bring the issue of these shares to some sort of conclusion. However, as has been the media's general slant, the Telegraph was a little bit hasty in their sensationalism.
In his report to the board some months ago (published on the CPO website) director Gray Smith set out the limited legal measures available to the board when it comes to the controversial shares. At the meeting, too, he was very explicit in his belief that there was little that can be legally achieved. Ms Magee may be "staggered" that "nobody paid attention to article 41" but she wouldn't have been if she had taken the trouble to read the report, an extract of which we print below. For someone so concerned with the matter, we are a little "staggered" that she doesn't appear to have read the report we might reasonably expect her to have been eagerly awaiting;
Notice Requiring Information re Shares
Given that there are concerns with regard to the share issue, CPO could make use of the provisions in the articles of association, coupled with the Companies Act, to serve notice on any person who is interested in the shares. The notice can require the shareholder to:
Indicate in writing the capacity in which he holds the shares or any interest therein, or ….the persons who have an interest in them and the nature of their interest or whether any of the voting rights attached to the shares are the subject of an agreement or arrangement under which another person is entitled to control the exercise of those rights.
The serving of the notice would require the recipient to give the information within a set time. If someone is holding as a nominee, this should be disclosed. There is a possibility of tying this in with a Companies Act request, which would lead to the making of a false reply a crime. Under article 41 of the Company's articles of association if a person does not comply with this information request their rights to vote, receive dividends and transfer their shares may be suspended.
Ms Magee would have been less staggered still had she been listening to Mr Smith speak at the meeting when he said writing the letter had been considered and rejected as likely to be an academic and pointless exercise.
The problem is simple; the board have undertaken to write to certain individuals and ask them questions about their connection to the club. Having a connection to the club is not disallowed and so those individuals may well declare that they do. They may not. However, this means nothing when it comes to taking action. If a person refuses to reply then legal pursuit is possible but it may well be costly and subject to counter action. We would all like to see the issue resolved but we must be realistic about what can be achieved under law.
Mr Smith, a corporate lawyer no less, has made it very clear what he thinks about these shares but he is very certain that little can be done. It is unfair to criticise when the critic hasn't even read a report which proves the very person under attack was well aware of the Article so sensationally "revealed". Such continuing, unfounded hostility to the board is unhelpful - surprising as it is, too, towards a director who the SayNo camp have in the past claimed as their own.
We are happy to set the record straight for those concerned.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
AGM
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.
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.
Tuesday, 29 January 2013
Editorial
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.
Resident to appeal High Court decision on Land Sale at EC
Some news just in on the Earl's Court development. We pass on the residents' statement unedited.
-----------------------
On 28 January 2013, Harold Greatwood, the Claimant in the judicial review challenge of Hammersmith and Fulham's decision to sell off the West Kensington & Gibbs Green estates for demolition, requested that the Court reconsider his request for permission at an oral hearing.
Harold Greatwood, who lives on the West Kensington Estate, said:
"Having had regard for the Judge's reasons for refusing permission, I feel obliged to renew my application for permission because there is real and significant evidence that the decisions to sign the CLSA were unlawful. The consultation process was flawed and Defendant has not addressed the full facts. The involvement of the Metropolitan Police and the serious complaint that was referred to the IPCC by the Greater London Authority suggest that political impropriety is a substantial and material issue, which, if true taints all the bases for the decisions."
Community Organiser, Jonathan Rosenberg, said:
"The more the Council and developer prosecute their scheme, the more they harden residents' resolve to defend their community and save their neighbourhood."Keith Drew, Chair of West Ken & Gibbs Green Community Homes and fellow resident on the West Kensington estate, added:
"Harold Greatwood's heroic action held back the signing of the sell-off agreement (an 800 page document) with the developer for five weeks. We are so proud of what he has achieved on behalf of his 2,000 neighbours. He is undaunted, and so are we. We wish him God speed and we pray that the Court should hear our case and deliver us from this unlawful oppression."
----------------
In effect the oral hearing is an "appeal" of the previous judgement referred to in a recent blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)