Main developments from today’s EGM:-
- Wise and Sewell in no-show
- Plea for early vote on Resolution 3 denied
- Board promises to “vet” future share applications
- Row over debt repayment rumbles on
- Pledges to investigate fund-raising options
Today’s hotly-anticipated Chelsea Pitch Owners EGM ended in uproar after many believed Steve Frankham used the chair’s proxy vote to sink Resolution 3, which called for voting rights to be limited to a maximum of 10 per shareholder. (Ed’s note: This point has since been clarified by Steve Frankham – click here for his statement).
With Resolutions 1 and 2 passed, giving the Board authority to recommence sales of shares immediately, the defeat of Resolution 3 means that attempts to head off the influence of the so-called “Concert Party” shares owned by shareholders believed to have an affinity with Chelsea Football Club (also known as “the dodgy shares”) have been severely impacted.
Beleaguered Company Secretary, Bob Sewell, and former Blues’ captain Dennis Wise, failed to appear with their fellow board members. Steve Frankham advised that Wise was absent on business, but in response to a point of order from the floor enquiring as to Sewell’s absence, Frankham bluntly stated that he was “unable to make it”.
Issues surrounding the repayment of the debt on the freehold and loss of revenue streams were the subject of considerable dispute, with the board appealing for shareholders to submit ideas for fund-raising.
The chair rejected an application from the floor to vote on Resolution 3 prior to the other resolutions being voted on. Had Resolution 3 been voted on at this stage and passed, with voting rights being restricted to the first 10 votes per shareholder, this may have resulted in Resolutions 1 and 2 being defeated.
Today’s meeting is not the first time that the chair has used the proxy to vote down a resolution. At January’s AGM, the Chair’s discretionary proxy votes led to the rejection of a proposal to extend the board of CPO from five to seven. Today, with realisation dawning on the shareholders in attendance that the Chair had in fact authorised the concert party shares to “Carry On Fixing”, demands were made for Mr Frankham to explain himself. However, having declared today’s meeting closed almost as soon as the results of the vote was announced, with no opportunity to discuss the chair’s use of proxies to defeat a key resolution, the Harris Suite erupted in anger, with one incandescent shareholder denouncing Mr Frankham as a “liar” .
TheChels.Net will be back later in the week with a full report and opinion on today’s proceedings.
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Facebook
Is this right, did Frankham actually use discretionary proxy votes to vote down Res 3 or was he simply appointed as proxy for those who had given their choice on the proxy form? If it’s the first it’s a massive story, if it’s the second there’s nothing much he could do about it.
No its not right (see statement on CPOs website), and its probably libellous. Bloody dsgraceful this hasn’t bin taken down. SaynotoCPO have become the Militant Tendency. Need to take back the company from extremist’s.
Since the contentious point of article 3 has been clarified by Mr Frankham, I’ve added a note to the article to clarify any confusion.
Let me just state that we are not SayNoCPO, they are their own organisation with their own direction, just as Campaign55 are too.
Whilst we are generally more than happy to lend the support of TheChels to various groups and organisations as requested, as well as publishing alternative views should they be submitted to us, this does not mean we endorse their every move nor their opinions.
Thanks for that – I’ve spoken with Steve Frankham today and I am more than happy to set the record straight by way of an apology and retraction of the original comment filed in haste on Monday evening.
There’s no other explanation for the.spike in the votes,a breakdown of which will follow in the main report
proxy votes are just that – proxy
frankham merely put forward what had been sent him – i suspect the sayno side had proxy votes given to them too
result of the votes look pretty non controversial too, shares back on sale with existing shareholders rights retained
the above description of what happened is sensationalist
There is another explanation, which is that those with more than 10 shares directed him to vote in favour of resuming sales but against the motion restricting their rights.
I’m happy to say that Mr Frankham has now clarified the position with regard to the proxy votes and there’ll be an update on this in the forthcoming article.
Any comment on Steve Frankham’s statement today about his use of his discretionary proxies (see http://www.chelseafc.com/page/ChelseaPitchOwnersNews/0,,10268~2859746,00.html)? Hope the situation will be clarified in your main report of the EGM. For me, Frankham is doing what he can in what is an impossible job and he doesn’t deserve either the abuse or the unfounded accusations that are thrown at him.
Christ I’m glad I didn’t buy any shares and involve myself in this nonsense being played out by a few fans lacking in a real life. The need for CPO disappeared when, after five seasons of ownership, it became clear that Roman was here for the long haul. Disband the CPO and let’s get on with supporting the European Champions and trying to ensure that we remain at the top of the tree!
But what about who comes next? The Mears family owned Chelsea for the best part of 100 years, but eventually nearly sold us down the river.
When will people realise that CPO is not about protecting the club in the short or medium term, it’s about protecting it for generations to come.
At the following link: http://www.chelseafc.com/page/ChelseaPitchOwnersNews/0,,10268~2859746,00.html
you will see that Mr Frankham cast the 103 diiscretionary votes in favour of the resolution so “Blue Baby” whoever you are, we will all look forward to the apology you are about to publish.
In future perhaps you could write an article with the hype and hysteria replaced by sensible analysis of the proceeedings.
As an overall comment, I think we owners of CPO shares need to be open to the prospect of moving location as it is pretty clear that expanding SB would at the minimum be hugely expensive and anyway may not get planning support.
In my opinion the sensible route for the CPO to take is to pursue a similar arrangement at wherever the new location may be. I have been going to SB since 1963 and it would be shame to see it go but we cannot hold on the the past forever.
See my comment above. I’ve no doubt you’ll revel in it.
So the whole premise of this article turned out to be a lie made up just because the writer didn’t get her way with the vote.
Steve Frankham deserves a full apology – not just for this rubbish, but for the unnecessary bile directed at him at the EGM.
The good news is, it’s clear SNCPO/C55 clearly have shot themselves in the foot with their childish behaviour – that’s why they didn’t get the vote they wanted -not because of the CPO board, who voted exactly the way they said they would.
Resolution 3 was proposed with the aim of limiting the influence of shareholders with alleged links to the football club who bought up to 100 shares apiece in the run up to last October’s EGM. It is to the credit of Mr Frankham that he cast his votes, together with the discretionary votes at his disposal, in favour of the resolution. So by your reasioning he’ll be disappointed too.
Can’t believe this rubbish is still going on,CPO should have been disbanded years ago,Roman’s in if for the longhaul any idiot can see that,the quicker we can move to a bigger stadium the better,some people don’t wanna move on they would rather be stuck in the eighties with papa smurf as dictator/chairman.we’re european champions now and bigger than we’ve ever been,get over yourselves it’s about the club not individuals.
and today Roman proved yet again how he only wants the best for chelsea – Oscar is signed – a fantastic investment for our future
all sensible fans know that if roman moves us to a new stadium it will be the best damn stadium his money can buy and it WONT be in Milton Keyenes – enough with these stupid conspiracy theories
roman is not out to diddle us and poor old frankham is not some sort of club stooge – he is just a genuine fan doing the best he can under very trying circumstances – give the guy a break
“If Roman moves us to a new stadium”. He cannot. He bought Chelsea with his resources knowing he needed the consent of the fans who invested in Chelsea Pitch Owners. Battersea dead in the water. Earls Court dead in the water. Roman has a 180 year lease. He can expand the existing ground and raft over the railway line if he chooses to struggle to sell seats for most games. He should not try and steal the freehold from Pitchowers to repay his debt and then provide a debt financed new stadium and float the club to make 750 million. If his aims are true then why not show that it is not simply a property deal for him? Why the subterfuge and dishonesty to try and get hold of Pitchowners? Why the dodgy share purchases? The answer is because you are being fed a lie to see the control wrestled from the fans and the club owner by multi nationals who care only in return on investment.