E-Mail 'CPO says 'NO!'' To A Friend

18 thoughts on “CPO says ‘NO!’”

• if I was RA I would Refuse to finance the club any more! I hope this is not the demise of Chelsea as an Elite club! if so you will only have your selfish selves to blame!
  You are in a clear minority so it is time to give up this idiotic attempt at blackmailing the club!

• As a Blues supporter since the late 60s I have to say I’m very disappointed. I’ve read a lot from both sides on the issue and ultimately I can see no good reason not to have given Roman his head on this one. There’s a hefty stench of ‘look how important I’ve suddenly become’ in the campaign from many CPO members. As they have been so quick to point out, nobody is more important than the club and, unfortunately, a puffed-up feeling of self-importance has robbed them of a common sense approach to the situation.

• Great result but as you suggest it’s likely that this was just round 1.

  Very poor turnout at less than 50% (5,750 votes in total) and I can’t help thinking that CFC wouldn’t have reached 61% had more original shareholders been aware/bothered or if share sales had been stopped at the end of March (March 2011 is when the CPO were first informed of CFC’s intention not October).

  Assuming shares go back on sale in the near future then it wont take much to gain the extra 15% needed for round 2.

  Here’s hoping my paranoia is unfounded!

• Oh dear – some very I’ll thought out comments here. I am a CPO shareholder – I voted no, not because I am on an ego trip, nor blackmailing the club or any other such reason. I actually support proposals such as this that will ultimately enable the club to compete at the very top in a self sufficient way and not reliant on wealthy individuals. What I am against is the pathetic attempt by Buck and Gourlay to railroad this through in a way that so clearly demonstrated their disdain for the ordinary supporter, their ignorance over the reasons why supporters such as me bought shares and without even considering consulting with the CPO and agreeing a way forward. It is their arrogance and lack of vision that has led to the success of the say no campaign. They have managed to alienate supporters, manyof whom have stated they agreed with the proposal in principle.

• Fantastic result today – time for the club for now to consult and hopefully we can all find a position we are happy with. One thing is evident the club HAVE to be more transparent

• To the board of Chelsea FC – find a location and show us the plans – then we can all know what we are voting on.

• Well said Brian, this was not a vote against Roman or even against moving it was a vote against the lack of transparency, the railroading of the decision and the shoddy way Buck and Gourlay have gone about this.

• Brian your support for Chelsea is conditional whereas a true supporters support is unconditional.
  RA has spent 800,000,000 for what? to be held back by a bunch of self serving, out of date, ill informed, and selfish minority!
  You are now clearly in a minority (38.1%)
  and should accept that a minority is now holding back the wishes of the majority!
  i guess the democratic principle holds no water in your eyes!
  Call yourself a true fan? not in my eyes!
  why don’t you head of to Brentford FC? they may well have ideas in keeping with your own!

  • Why are the yes voters so aggressive? Anyway – answer me this – would you still go to Chelsea if the ground was in Guildford? Also, had not he 20 anonymous people bought the £200,000 of shares in the last 4 days, the no’s would have won with a majority of over 60%

  • Paul B’s venom is notable by it’s lack of accuracy as is the case for much of the spurious ‘facts’ issued by the club. How can the ‘Yes vote’ be in the majority when well over half of it’s vote was reported to be bought by just 20 individuals with £10k to loose ?? Juorno’s and lawyers are now digging and once confirmed, without those 20 individuals the ‘yes vote’ had just 41% of the vote, and prove yet more dirty tricks have been employed by someone?! Tell it like it is Paul B – who’s really in the minority ??

• Are you a CPO shareholder, Paul? If so, then you presumably voted yes. However, many of us feel that although we trust Roman, we do not know what his successors (and there will be successors) will do. The CPO is as relevant today as it was when it was formed. Who thought that the Mears heirs would sell us to property developers. Who knows that Roman doesn’t have a buyer lined up, waiting for him to acquire the freehold? You don’t know and nor do I. No-one is saying we don’t need to move – all the SayNo campaign is wanting is clarification and input. Why only 23 days’ notice for one of the most important decisions in recent history? Why the panic if no plans are in place? If there ARE plans, tell us. Do not presume to tell people how unconditional your support is. We have campaigned on behalf of others to ensure a future and a club for our children and our children’s children and we will continue to endeavour to safeguard that future.

  • The ‘no’ luddites keep trumping up the ‘what if’ scenario. What if Roman, whose stewardship of the club has been without fault, sods off? Shame on the lot of you small-minded morons. It’s Roman’s club and deservedly so after he’s put in £800m. Get real for the sake of the club you claim to support.

    • It’s not Romans club, nor Ken Bates, Nor the Mears – it’s our club, and Chelsea supporters are in the enviable position of having a tangible stake in it via CPO. Is the eloquent Mark Haris aware that our gracious benefactor RA is still owed £726m for the money he has LOANED to CFC via a holding company, payable on 18 months notice ?? I think not.

    • And the “yes” luddies keep trumping up the “don’t worry, trust Roman, he’ll be here forever” scenario.

      Michelle is absolutely spot on. None of us can predict the future, none of us know if Roman will be here forever or leave tomorrow and none of us know if in 10, 20, 30 years time CFC will actually be worth more than the land it resides on.

      The difference is that if us “no” luddies are wrong it really doesn’t matter. If, on the other hand, it’s you “yes” luddies who have misread the situation then it could be farewell CFC.

    • Why can’t you discuss this without throwing insults around?

• Paul B – without getting into a pointless argument with you, yes, my support is conditional, just as it was when I bought the CPO shares – the condition being that a new generation of shysters didnt try and turf the club out of our ground to build houses and flats.

  I dont really understand your aggression or even the point you are trying to makae to be honest.

  If the club come back with a sensible proposal that addresses the real and legitimate concerns that people hold – concerns that led them to buying the shares in the first place – then I will be happy to agree, I dont even want the money I paid out to be returned in those circumstances.

  You should direct your obvious ire against Buck and Gouraly for the shocking and shoddy way they have handled the whole thing.

• A deal clincher will be the transfer of the freehold of any new stadium to the CPO in exchange for the freehold of the old one. Surely not a problem for the club?

• Paul b.
  You obviously don;t care if Chelsea move to a new ground and in the future it is sold off to a developer.
  You can’t be Chelsea fan.

Comments are closed.