// you’re reading...

All

CPO Up-Date

Last night a group of like minded supporters met to discuss the events that have unfolded since the announcement by Chelsea Football Club (not CPO!) that a GM had been called for the 27th October where a vote would be had on the proposal for the club to buy back the freehold of the ground.

Over the course of the last week, tentative discussions between individuals via the medium of social networking have combined with supporters’ groups and CPO shareholders to form an umbrella group aiming to represent the interests of all like-minded Chelsea fans, whether they be Pitch Owners or not, and the meeting last night was an initial gathering to determine a way forward amongst those who have misgivings about not only giving Chelsea FC carte blanche to remove the club from Stamford Bridge without consulting the fans, but those who are concerned that the Board of Chelsea Pitch Owners are not truly independent of the club.

During the discussions it was clear that there were varying opinions even within the group regarding what was best long term for the future of Chelsea football club – whether that would be to remain at Stamford Bridge or to eventually move to a new stadium, but one thing we were all agreed on was that in the absence of consultation prior to the vote by CPO directors and a general lack of information being put forward by the club, that a NO vote in the first instance was the only way to go.

What we are hoping is that a NO vote would then allow for all CPO shareholders to be able to take part (should they so wish) in a proper consultative process. We would then also petition the club to provide additional information regarding the long term strategy and most pointedly, potential site, of a new stadium (should that be the objective). Should a new site be the result we would also insist that the CPO own the freehold there with similar protections for the long-term future of the club.

CPO shareholders could then make an informed decision with all the facts before them. It would also “encourage” the club to not only consult with the supporters, but be obliged to implement aspects which fans feel are most important – whether they be stadium design, ticket prices, family facilities etc.

So what was agreed as the way forward?

We agreed to pursue a number of legal angles which we felt either needed clarification or further investigation – to this end we are currently taking advice.

We also agreed to reach out to any existing shareholders, and ask people to get in touch with any shareholders that they know – we need every vote. Each of our no votes is worth 3 yes votes, so every vote really does count (we need 26% of the vote to win). 

Those with the technical know-how are currently working to create a website that will provide information on the Say No CPO campaign – we hope to have this up within 48 hours and it will form the focus for our campaign.

The media will also be targeted to channel the campaign to those with little/no access to the internet.  In addition, information will be sent out to all Chelsea blogs/fanzines/websites and Podcasts, so keep checking for latest campaign updates.

Above all, we are actively seeking dialogue with the club and CPO directors in an attempt to move things forward following a constructive initial meeting which took place with Bruce Buck last week. We have another meeting scheduled with him later this week and hope to meet with Ron Gourlay next week.

This is just the first of a series of updates in the run-up to the meeting on 27th October, and we will keep you updated of developments as they occur.

Additionally you will be able to follow the #SayNoCPO developments on Twitter on the @SayNoCPO timeline from tomorrow onwards.

If you would like more information or you would like to get involved, please e-mail saynocpo@gmail.com

Posted by Trizia

Discussion

Comments are disallowed for this post.

  1. Thanks, Trizia. This is so important to the club’s future and we have to get this right.

    Posted by Robert Rea | October 11, 2011, 10:46 pm
  2. WELL DONE T.

    Posted by winblue Paul | October 11, 2011, 11:23 pm
  3. Yes – well done, hopefully this can become to ‘recognised’ movement. Hard to pull all strands together. Good luck and thanks for all yere efforts.

    Posted by Vera Coyne | October 11, 2011, 11:31 pm
  4. If you lose or decide to allow them to sell the shares, make sure they promise to build a stadium that holds at least 60000 seats. And that the stadium is better than Wembley in terms of technologically, design and any futuristic looks. Also make them promise that McEachran starts and finishes at least 20 games this season.

    Posted by Chelseaphan | October 11, 2011, 11:48 pm
    • But that is the whole point – if we lose the vote we will not have any say in anything. At the moment it is only a yes or a no vote, so currently our only option is no.

      We are hoping that the no vote wins just so that we can then enter into further negotiations with the club and ensure that fans are represented in what they want going forward

      Posted by Trizia | October 12, 2011, 8:14 am
  5. “We need 26% of the vote to win”???

    CPO was created to stop Stamford Bridge falling into the hands of property developers at a completely different time!!!

    Things have changed and now CPO members are using this to hold the club to ransom over issues that are not what the CPO is about…

    Legal Angles? Reaching out to other Shareholders and Creating Websites???

    We asked the club for clarification and they did what we asked and now we change the goal posts again!

    I for one welcome the club looking to the future and will remain a faithful Chelsea fan “Wherever we may be”

    Posted by Paul O'Brien | October 11, 2011, 11:55 pm
    • We too welcome the club looking to the future, but we feel as supporters that we too should have an input into this future. We feel the CPO is something unique and not to be given up lightly – and if it is to be given up, we want some assurances that there are equally stringent policies in place to protect the club.
      We are not saying that we never want to sell back the freehold, we are saying we want more information and transparency – but currently there is no option to vote that way.
      This is an ongoing process so we do not feel we have moved the goal-posts – the club recognise that which is why they have opened lines of communication – but there are still many unanswered questions.
      Also we are being asked to simply accept some very fundemental issues on blind faith – it would be foolhardy to do this. We, like most supporters, are very grateful for what Roman has given us, but we must not let that blind us into taking for granted that his vision for the future is necessarily our vision – the fans are the very heartbeat of any club and it is only right and proper that their voices should be heard

      Posted by Trizia | October 12, 2011, 8:22 am
      • I agree the CPO is unique but is now not needed!
        The club have been open and explained that Stamford Bridge cannot be expanded and are actively looking at other options within 3 miles!
        Roman has given us 8 years of amazing highs and lows and still he forks out money to make this roller coaster continue…
        In thanks we hold him to ransom over shares which he has offered to buy back for what we paid and knew we would never make money on…
        I am sorry but in my opinion CPO shareholders who vote no are taking advantage of their position and should consider their actions seriously!!!
        Let the club make the decisions they see fit… No one will ever agree on what the new stadium should have and we will all have differing opinions…
        Lets trust for once… Roman will not let us down!

        Posted by Paul O'Brien | October 12, 2011, 4:17 pm
        • 2020 is only 8 years away – they are not going to move in that timeframe – so in my view they have already decided to move further afield – possibly even have a site identified – I am sorry but I am not prepared to “trust” them on this one. The people at the top at Chelsea are all relative newcomers – I don’t suppose many of them have the affiliation with the area that many of the supporters have. Would you support Chelsea if it was moved to say – Kingston in Surrey?

          Posted by Trizia | October 12, 2011, 6:48 pm
          • I’d support Chelsea wherever they went!!!
            Yes 8 years isn’t that long but are we all that naive to think the club don’t already have a site in mind???
            Earls Court and Nine Elms are both perfect locations… If we think it do you not think Roman has known this for years???
            I have read numerous posts on this site and on Chelsea Chat and am embarrassed by some supporters comments!
            I can only hope that all CPO shareholders vote yes… And those that don’t look back in years to come and realise that Roman did stick around and do what was best for this club apologise for their lack of trust in a man who made our club one of the best in the world!
            Your attempts to block what is essentially our owner trying to make us able to compete financially with the biggest clubs in Europe are in my opinion selfish ans small minded!

            Posted by Paul O'Brien | October 13, 2011, 12:07 am
          • Paul is absolutely right. Roman has put in a fortune and demanded nothing back and certain suporters treat him with mistrust and resentment. Shame on you!

            Posted by mark harris | October 27, 2011, 4:33 pm
  6. Totally agree,we need a “NO” vote now, to give cpo time to reflect and weigh up the whole situation,we must not be rushed & bambuzelled into a rash decision,even Ken Bates wants to stand with us,morals are still alive,thank you Ken X

    Posted by steve moss | October 12, 2011, 5:06 am
  7. I personaly think the cpo should say yes,the club future is strong and secure with the Roman as owner,if anything should happen he’s still going to sell the club to a better owner,and he’s helping with the debt so we have to help him with this by saying yes,we don’t have to be selfish.He’s looking for a better stadium for chelsea and for the progress of the club.

    Posted by Hamza | October 12, 2011, 7:46 am
    • This campaign is not about whether we move or not move – its about what is better for the club. And what is better for the club is if its fans are consulted. After consultation, if it is decided that a new stadium is the answer, so be it.

      Posted by Trizia | October 12, 2011, 8:26 am
  8. Thanks for the info.

    All seems a bit shifty by the club, I have to say I have lost a bit of trust. I do not like the way Buck has purchased CPO shares this year. More transparency needed.

    Posted by mcleanmuir | October 12, 2011, 8:12 am
  9. What’s the big bloody deal in owning the pitch. This is just a sorry state of affairs where people need to take a step back and let the club go forward. Let go of your sentimental pathetic ways. Who cares if you own a part of the pitch.. jeez. SAD

    Posted by graham martin | October 12, 2011, 8:23 am
    • It’s not about owning a piece of the pitch – its about what that share represents and it represents the chance for fans to have a say in the future of the club. All we are asking is that the club involve the fans in going forward whether that be at Stamford Bridge or elsewhere

      Posted by Trizia | October 12, 2011, 8:58 am
    • The pitch owners are not holding the club back. In fact the CPO (pitch owners) are a not for profit set up. We do not make any money, therefore any profits in any new stadium would go to the club for new players or line their pockets. We are here to protect the rights of Chelsea FC Supporters for the right of our football club. Just look at whats happening to Man U and Liverpool. We need to know that RA is not going to take the £700M profit in SB, relocate our club to the back of beyond as happened to Wimbledon and leave us with the huge debts that the club OWE HIM in loans. He hasn’t GIVEN anything for free. Wake up man!

      Posted by Joseph Fernandes | October 17, 2011, 12:34 pm
  10. …to add. If you own the pitch or not. What have you done for the club in recent years? I can see no evidence at all!!!!

    Posted by graham martin | October 12, 2011, 8:24 am
  11. I am not opposed to moving as long as it is somewhere fairly close by but as has been pointed out the club are making us no assurances. We could end up in the arse end of Surrey – we need something in place to ensure that doesn’t happen so good on you for what you are trying to do!

    Posted by Baz | October 12, 2011, 9:01 am
  12. I agree. Voting No is the only way forward. When the club present a proper plan, with site, ground design and capacity, naming rights or not, ticket price structure, etc without smoke and mirrors then they can come back.

    Posted by Chris white | October 12, 2011, 9:02 am
    • Exactly – I think the club are fixated that the fans are not for moving – I think fans would move if all those aspects you mentioned were a) communicated and be sensible

      Posted by Trizia | October 12, 2011, 9:05 am
  13. I have shares and I would welcome more info before I decide how to vote. I think there is something really fishy about how this whole thing has played out which makes me think the club have something to hide.
    I want what is best for the club and at the moment I do not trust the board – I believe they will only do what is best for short term. SO more info please!!!

    Posted by Jen | October 12, 2011, 9:03 am
  14. RE CPO Vote on 27th October: I’ve just spoken to the Electoral Reform Society who will be handling the voting procedures on the day. They told me the following. 1. There will be a register for those who attend which will have listed those who have appointed you their proxy. 2. You will need photo id to prove who you are. 3. each vote will then be by a poll, not a show of hands and the number of proxies you have will be counted at that stage. 4.Only those who attend as a shareholder or have appointed a proxy will be counted, if you don’t attend or appoint a proxy your vote will not be counted and cannot be taken as an automatic yes vote by the chairman. The ERS are independent of both Chelsea and the CPO and are there to make sure the vote is done fairly and correctly.

    Posted by Alan Davidson | October 12, 2011, 10:06 am
  15. I do not know anyone who is in this for the money. Not one person and to the contrary some people have said they would willingly give their share up if the club was open and had he support of the fans. If the club can organise, in 21 days, a meeting for such cataclysmic changes then they could easily organise a meeting if they ‘found’ a site – as if they haven’t. Look at the principle objective for the company – page nine – http://www.wembleycarpark.co.uk/chelsea/formation.pdf

    How can King, Sewell, Glanvill even consider this meeting given that over-riding purpose.

    Posted by Paul Todd | October 12, 2011, 3:47 pm
  16. I love the blues

    Posted by Orimoyegun mayowa | October 13, 2011, 12:22 pm
  17. The reasons I will be voting no are because of my opinions below:

    Firstly I want to reiterate, that I am not against a move from Stamford Bridge in the future, however, there are ways to do it and consultation with fans would be a huge step forward. I would find it extremely difficult to vote yes at this current time. I find it difficult to understand the clubs stance at this moment in time too. If anybody has read the Fans Forum minutes (And I urge people to read them) the club stated that there were no plans for redevelopment, or for moving. This, at the time of the FF, was the perfect time to let fans know that they had something in mind and they would keep the fans on the forum updated.

    I’m also of the feeling that, like many others, there has been a rush into this. The club has pointed out that three weeks legally, is more than enough time for a vote, but if they knew about buying CPO shares prior to the FF (Of which they clearly did due to Mr Buck’s letter being dated September 22) then why the sudden rush and why the sudden expectancy of a vote?

    As a fan I want what is best for Chelsea Football Club, I also want the truth from my Football Club. There are certain clouded issues, which make no sense. If I were to vote yes and the club do not find a site before 2020, what happens? Do we all up sticks and move to Glasgow, or Asia? Okay, these places might be exaggerated, but where would we actually play football? We’re also getting talk of we may not move anyway, so if that were to happen, why do the club want to buy the shares now? It appears as though the left doesn’t know what the right is doing.

    Unless something drastic happens between now and October 25 (When my proxy vote needs to be sent in) I will continue to have a no stance toward selling my one share to the Football Club. I am not against change, but what I am against is change for changes sake. What will I really be voting for? Where will I be voting the club to go to? There are enough politicians out there who tell lies and are deceitful; I really don’t want my Football Club to be the same.

    Please respect us as fans; we do not want to end up in the same boat as what happened during the 80’s fearing that we might not even have a ground to play football in. Give me some concrete plans to get my vote, not just wishy-washy politics, with the possibility of a ground at Wormwood Scrubs, White City, or Wandsworth, or wherever. Where do the club plan to build a new stadium, have plans really been exhausted for Stamford Bridge, if so, can we see them?

    I am positive that if the club gave us assurances that we could, for example, move to Earls Court with the CPO shares being transferred, then my vote would be assured.

    At the moment however, it’s like the blind leading the blind.

    SayNoCPO

    Posted by Pete Bull | October 13, 2011, 5:14 pm
  18. I don’t have any CPO shares unfortunately but recently applied to buy one as I hoped it would give me some sort of voice in all of this, although I am unsure if this would be the case?
    I do not understand the people disagree with the no vote? At present the fans, or some of them actually have some sort of say in the club and a means of protecting it. What is wrong with that? Surely it would be in every one connected with CFC interests to have the fans and club work together rather than the owners doing what they like whether it is good for the fans or club in the long term.
    People bought shares in the club to protect it in truly dark days. Why should they be surrendered now when the future is equally unknown. Fans ,Club and Owners together is the only way forward in my view.
    The share owners have power so why give it away and why did Bruce Buck buy 100 shares incidentally?

    Finally I would like to say pull down that poxy hotel and apartment complex and build a 14,000 seater Shed don’t move and job done!

    Posted by Peter Fordham | October 14, 2011, 8:38 am
  19. I find it sad when I see Chelsea fans slagging of the CPO. They seem to forget there was only 12,000 fans who answered the call to buy shares to protect the clubs future. How many Chelsea fans are there in total?

    Many CPO members have passed on while there must be some members who are down on their luck and could use the £100 paid for a share over 17 years ago.

    Give the CPO the respect it deserves.

    Posted by mcleanmuir | October 16, 2011, 8:33 pm

Article Categories