E-Mail 'Chelsea Pitch Owners 'AGM' - CSG Committee Thoughts' To A Friend

11 thoughts on “Chelsea Pitch Owners ‘AGM’ – CSG Committee Thoughts”

• Excellent article, well-balanced well thought out. I’m not, however, convinced that everyone involved has the best interests of CFC at heart. Is there no one in a position of responsibility within the club seeking to regain control of the ground for short term financial gain – either directly or indirectly? If I could believe that all the board cared more for the LONG TERM future of the club than for short term gain I’d be ecstatic. To safeguard CFC our first stance must be cynicism until they convince us

• Mostly very well written, but some big holes in your criticism of the SAYNOCPO people surely !
  I happen to know Gray Smith WAS one of those that spoke passionately from the floor, and he was unknown to their group then. Infact that is exactly what unites them as a group – individuals with a common passion for CPO surely ? (Which used to include yourselves !)
  You unfairly state they have been as untransparent as CPO, and yet go on to quote from one of the 3 statements added to thier website since xmas – which only states facts as far as i can read !
  By all means take the middle ground CSG, but come on – do it properly !

• Totally agree about lack of information – especially from Frankham. As chairman (who chose him btw and why>) he should have come out and stated clearly what his vision is as far as CPO is concerned. Strikes me he doesn’t want to come out with anything now that he may be held to which I find suspicious

• Before any sort of vote we should be given full information about all those “dodgy shares” – if they are indeed a concert party then no vote from now on in will be fair surely? Shouldn’t everything CPO related be suspended before we know once and for all whether those votes are legal?

• A google search of the word cryptome and chelsea gave me some insight into the shares.It appears very unlikely that anyone voting against those whose position relies on the dodgy share vote will win the day on Friday.I wonder if Frankham Consultancy Group’s clients would be happy to know that Mr Frankham is chairman of an organisation controlled by virtue of shares bought in those circumstances?

• Is there an opportunity for resolution proposals from the floor at the AGM.
  Reverting back to the 1 vote only per shareholder (i.e. doesn’t matter how many shares you have).
  This would have the dual benefit of ensuring that only those that have a genuine interest in the club’s wellbeing stump up for mutliple shares and would prevent ‘concert parties’ being formed to subvert any future votes.

  • I think such a decision would need 75% of the shareholders and that is not part of the plan of those who invested in October last year. They have a different agenda.

    • It is my opinion that most of the shares bought after the announcement were in fact bought by people wanting to vote no – no problem with that after all both sides were campaigning for people to buy and I pestered my friends to do so to get a no vote

      I have as much evidence for that btw as you do for saying they were used to vote yes – ie none

      What does really concern me though is the revelation that sayno attempted to put forward three candidates for placement on the board, without having made this plain to people they were asking to send them their proxy votes much earlier

      I voted no originally, but I am afraid the actions of sayno since have not been those I would have expected from people with the clubs true interest at heart, I am deeply disappointed disillusioned and now not sure I did the right thing originally

  • How would this work for all the people that have already bought 100 shares? Buy back? Would not be popular – although I agree with you – or perhaps permitted to buy and have up to 10 shares/votes?

• The Sun has an interesting story today.

  I wonder what the significance is of the man who works for KPT. I wonder if KPTm who have an enviable worldwide name, have assisted Chelsea in lobbying the local council to accept that Stamford Bridge cannot be re-developed.

  It seems odd that such a firm have not responded to The Sun either by way of a reply from their London Office or the New York office and that Chelsea have not respoded either.

  Probably all perfectly innocent. I wonder if they have details on other shareholders?

• The Sun newspaper is not a friend of our club, never has been never will be

  I voted no, I quite clearly recall that sayno were actively campaigning to get people to buy shares prior to the vote, which is all this rag is accusing the club of doing, I myself was asking friends to get involved and buy so they could vote no too

  I’m afraid sayno are losing lots of friends by adopting this aggressive attitude and it has become quite clear to me at least their collusion with members of the Chelsea phobic fourth estate

  Lets get back to constructive dialogue, we fans arn’t interested in muck raking and conspiracy theories we want what’s best for our club and lets keep it in house and civilised the club are not the enemy

Comments are closed.