On Wednesday evening, I had a text from a Pitch Owner mate who was going to the meeting on Thursday asking what time I was planning to arrive.  I told him and he said he’d keep an eye out for me.  I replied “You’ll recognise me.  I’ll be the one asking the awkward questions”.  As things turned out, it proved to be an accurate prediction.

I don’t know how others in the SayNoCPO campaign slept on Wednesday.  I slept, but woke frequently.  The first thing to always come into my mind was the thought of the meeting ahead.  In an ideal world, I would have taken the day off work, but with our holiday year ending 31^st October, I had no annual leave left, having spent some days nursing Old Mother Baby at the end of September (for the benefit of her fan club, she continues to make an amazing recovery and had her first post-op outing last week). Therefore, my place of employment had very kindly agreed to my absenting myself for a few hours, having previously put in much unpaid overtime in August.

I arrived at work at the unearthly hour of 7.40am, hoping to get about three hours in before I set off for the Bridge.  My breakfast eaten at my desk, instead of the usual bowl of frosted flakes, was a sustaining bowl of porridge and a croissant.  Sadly pre-meeting nerves got the better of me, and it’s better to draw a veil over the unpleasant consequences.

At 10.20am, I could no longer stand it.  I grabbed my appropriately blue raincoat, said my goodbyes with a promise to return at an unspecified time, and set off from the City to SW6.

I honestly believe that it takes longer to get to Fulham Broadway than it used to.  When I first relocated to London, I’d go to the ticket office in person to save on the breathing charge imposed on online transactions, and it used to take about 25 minutes.  Now it takes half an hour.  Last Thursday, the journey seemed endless.

On alighting, I made my way to the Britannia gate and to my joy spied various members of the campaign team talking to camera crews and distributing the “Ten Questions to be Answered by the Board of CPO” flyer.  As it wasn’t quite 11am, I decided I’d put off registering for 10 minutes, and wandered off with a bundle of flyers.  As with the leafleting experience on the day of the Everton game, I was surprised at how engaged people were.  Again, I couldn’t keep up with the demand for flyers, as fresh waves of tube passengers made their way up Fulham Road towards the ground.

At 11.10, I decided it was probably time to queue up for registration as there was only 20 minutes left until the meeting was due to start.  Fellow queue members struck up conversations with each other about the merits of the proposal as the line moved along the West Stand wall where the megastore van stands on matchdays.  Once at the end of the wall, there was a wait till you were allowed over by the West Stand turnstiles to join the queue for the Spackman Entrance.  Once over there, you had to show your valid ID (passport or driving license) to the stewards, you were then searched and warned to turn off your mobile at the start of the meeting.  Once inside, you were then registered and given poll forms (one for the proposal, one for any motions that arose during the meeting) and a pink wristband.  A cloakroom was provided, and the West Lower catering facilities offered tea, coffee and water.

And a considerable transformation had taken place. I had always wondered why the roof of the West Stand had been painted black, making it look gloomy.  I now knew why.  For the concourse had been transformed into a stylish conference venue, black curtains obscuring the walls and exits to the West Stand, screens hanging down so everyone, no matter how far away, would be able to see the boards of the club and CPO, and carpet on the floor.  The upholstered chrome seats were not only smart, but comfortable.

On walking in, I saw my friend who had texted scanning the crowds coming into the room, and I waved to him. Happily he had saved me a seat.  “How considerate”, I remarked “you’ve chosen a seat close to a microphone.  That’ll be handy later”.

The clock ticked round to 11.30am, people were still coming through the doors and there was still no sign of the meeting starting.  With the atmosphere in the hall already at fever pitch, Richard King then announced a 15 minute delay in order to admit the queuers.  Eventually, at 11.50am, the meeting started.

The facts of the meeting can be found elsewhere, but the written word will never convey the feeling in the hall, the sense of occasion and drama.  The actor Jonathan Kydd, season ticket holder and CPO shareholder, later tweeted about this. Personally I’ve never seen anything like it outside of a theatre, and occasionally the meeting even descended into pantomime, with speakers from the floor being cheered, “hear hear”-ed and the club and CPO officials being heckled and booed.

I decided after the opening questions and answers that there was stuff I wanted to get off my chest, so I went and stood in the queue for the microphone.  The chair was recognising each of the four microphones in rotation, but even so it was a long wait, I was becoming nervous, and my mouth was starting to dry up.

Twenty minutes later I was called.  I tried to speak slowly and clearly, and put the points I had on paper and in my head – about Bruce Buck’s comments to the BBC that shares were “souvenirs or mementoes”, that the club saw the meeting as their best opportunity for forcing through the “yes” vote Richard King had promised to deliver before he faced a vote of no confidence at any future AGM, that CPO shareholders were in danger of signing away the club’s birthright, that Hammersmith & Fulham Council hadn’t given any independent verification that the club had exhausted all planning potential, where were the architects’ reports of this, Roman’s fortune, Roman’s family and finally, that in the worst case scenario, we could end up at the super stadium on the M25 that Marler Estates had promised us 25 years ago.

Mr Buck’s first mistake was to start his reply with a stammer, followed by the words “well, the firm…”, drawing instant heckling from the audience.  I’d got in Paul Todd’s comments about the problems of naming rights, and the shareholders were generous in their applause not only during my peroration, but in the comments made to me afterwards.  By the time I sat down, though, my legs were shaking and I swigged half a bottle of water I’d brought with me.

For the SNCPO team, another crucial point was Richard King’s announcement of the number of votes needed in the hall. Having previously favoured an adjournment due to the issue of possible voting irregularities, it suddenly dawned on me that we needed only 300 votes in the hall to defeat the proposal.  I’m not supposed to run, but I trotted as quickly as I could back to where several of the Say No campaign were huddled and we conferred.  Whilst James Greenbury went over the legalities with the platform, excited chatter arose in the hall.  A show of hands was requested on whether the vote would take place after 10 minutes’ further questions, and was carried unanimously.

I used the extra 10 minutes to pop out of the hall to Gate 8 of the West Lower, which was being used as a smoking/telephoning area.  In spite of the grey day and the smokers, it was wonderful to be out in the fresh air after the heat of the conference.  I phoned Old Mother Baby to say things were looking good, but we weren’t counting our chickens, and my boss to say I’d be back later than anticipated.

When our votes were cast, my friend and I went round to Frankies, he for a beer, me for a coke.  Here’s a little tip.  Don’t have a drink in there.  You’ll get a 12.5% service charge. At least it was a break, although we continued to discuss the meeting. The screens in Frankies were showing Sky Sports, and we could see the strapline at the bottom saying that the meeting was taking place.

At 2.35, we made our way back into the Great Hall.  As a lot of voters had left, we were able to join the SNCPO huddle.  The CPO and club officials filed back in, and then the press returned to their roped-off area at the back.  Richard King announced the proposal had been defeated by 38.4% of the vote.  We clapped and cheered, though not too loudly.  We knew that this wasn’t going to be the end of the matter.

Bruce Buck spoke on behalf of the club and Richard King made his closing speech.  The Say No team had arranged to go to the Butchers Hook to mark the occasion, but I, sadly, had to get back to work, so mine was a fleeting visit.  Walking back to Fulham Broadway I met a few of the team who had been doing TV interviews, made my apologies, and travelled back to the City, where I got in a good couple of hours.

At the moment, this is a story without an end.  The CPO shareholders defeated last week’s proposal, and in the wake of Richard King’s resignation on Friday, Steve Frankham has been appointed Chairman of CPO.  The question is, by whom?  The slogan “Say No CPO” is no longer appropriate.  There are many issues to be resolved and the next column will take a look at what potentially happens next.

Follow me @BlueBaby67 on Twitter.

Amidst extraordinary scenes, the Say No CPO campaign saw their will and determination to defeat the proposal put by Chelsea Football Club to CPO shareholders come to fruition.

The West Lower concourse at Stamford Bridge was suitably transformed for such a dramatic occasion into The Great Hall, festooned with black drapes and with banks of comfortable seating, the latter being a consolation as the meeting stretched into a fourth hour with the results of the vote still awaited.

A grey and drizzly day greeted the shareholders as they arrived at Fulham Broadway. They were also greeted by members of the Say No campaign, who were handing out a leaflet entitled “Ten Questions to Be Answered by the CPO Board”, and again the distributors were hard pressed to keep up with demand as almost everyone attending the meeting seemed to want one. Registration opened at 10am, with stewards in attendance to marshal the 700-strong crowd into lines ensuring a steady flow to the ERS desks.

Identification was requested even before the voters got to the doors of the Spackman Entrance, and once inside voting cards were handed out and wristbands administered to ensure that only shareholders were admitted. A strict “no mobiles” policy was implemented, and although the media were permitted to enter the meeting, no filming was allowed.

In fact the meeting began some 20 minutes later than the scheduled start time of 11.30am, simply due to the number of people attending. Finally, at 11.50, Richard King in his role as Chairman as CPO called the meeting to order, and set out how events would proceed.

There were immediately a number of points of order relating to whether a debate would be allowed and whether the meeting would be minuted. Richard King advised that an audio recording of events would be kept.

The first real questions came from Paul Todd, who demanded to know whether club CEO Ron Gourlay was there as a shareholder. Mr Gourlay admitted to having bought a share just two days earlier. Mr Todd subsequently questioned Bruce Buck regarding the voicemails that were left on the phone of a club contractor.

Mr Buck attempted to bat this away, commenting that every effort had been made to contact Mr Todd to arrange a meeting prior to the voicemails being left, and that the club’s press statement was perfectly accurate. Again, Mr Todd pressed Mr Buck regarding the club’s comment that Todd had attacked CPO directors. Mr Buck maintained that this referred to emails and correspondence. He went on to say that he felt personal attacks were unwarranted.

The next questioner, Rachel Baker, asked why there was such a rush to hold the meeting. Mr Buck conceded that they had thought until waiting until the CPO AGM, but considered that giving CPO 28 days notice of the meeting was sufficient time. Ms Baker additionally commented, to loud applause, that she felt the tone of the club’s proposal was patronising.

Questions from the floor followed thick and fast, covering areas as diverse as the club obtaining an Act of Parliament to obtain the lease, and previous planning applications submitted to Hammersmith & Fulham Council by Chelsea FC. A shareholder who had travelled from Canada complained that neither he, nor a number of overseas shareholders, had received correspondence about the proposal from CPO. Bob Sewell of CPO’s commented that any overseas shareholders who had contacted CPO had been supplied with proxy forms by e-mail.

Mr Mark Wyeth QC, cited three breaches of company law with regard to the recent share issue, and called for the club to enter into a Conditional Sale Agreement with CPO whereby should the club fail to adhere to its proposal, the lease would revert by to CPO. This suggestion received considerable acclaim, but Bruce Buck refused to answer.

For those who were watching the platform, it was clear that the body language of those representing both the club and CPO was incredibly defensive, and they had good reason. By this time, every microphone in the hall had a handful of potential speakers behind it. Further questions covered issues that might arise in the event of anything happening to Roman Abramovich, and why the club weren’t working with CPO to identify an appropriate site.

Clint Steele of the Say No CPO campaign was recognised by the Chair. In an impassioned speech, he asked if CPO’s share were stolen today, what happens when Roman’s family eventually sell the club? He pointed out that it was 75 years after Joe Mears originally founded Chelsea FC his grandsons sold the ground to Marler Estates. Mr Steele additionally sought further clarification from Mr Buck regarding planning issues, including walkways, and ground expansion.

In what became one of the defining moments of the meeting, Mr Steele alluded to approximately £200,000 worth of shares that had been recently sold to 20 individuals. Mr Steele asked why would any individual wish to buy such a shareholding unless they wished to vote “yes”, and questioned whether it was ethical to regard these more recent shareholders in the same light as those in the hall, who had owned their shares for many years.

Richard King stated that CPO had sought Counsel with regard to a cut-off date for shares sales and felt that the board of CPO were in a no-win position as if shares had been taken off-sale they would have been criticised in any event.

Bruce Buck caused a stir of anger in the hall at this point by stating that the Club’s research suggested that only 12% of CPO shareholders are currently either season-ticket holders or members of the football club.

Mr Steele maintained that the vote should have been carried out on a basis of one person, one vote, rather than voters being allowed a maximum of 100 votes. He was then invited on to the platform to address the meeting. His next question was the identity of the new bulk shareholders, and asked why CPO weren’t willing to disclose their names to the media. Data protection concerns were cited.

At this point, Mr Steele called for a vote of “no confidence” in the current board of CPO, but this was overruled by the Solicitor acting for CPO. Mr Steele then proposed that an Adjournment be called whilst irregularities such as the recent share issue and loss of proxy form identified at the start of the meeting were looked into, but it was ruled that the meeting should continue.

The next questioner, Ms Kim Holdaway, professed herself unhappy with the “Trust Roman” message put forward by the club, stating that Mr Abramovich had only been associated with Chelsea FC for eight years. She also described the “Roll of Honour” idea as “shabby” and requested that in the event of this coming to pass, it should include the names of all shareholders, not just those voting “yes”. Mr Buck’s answer was that he respected this view, but it did not form part of the proposal put by the club.

There was a call from the floor that a representative of Hammersmith & Fulham Council should have been in attendance at the meeting to explain why the ground couldn’t be expanded, and also the issues surrounding planning proposals.

A West Lower season ticket holder put a variety of points, firstly citing Mr Buck’s description of CPO shares as “souvenirs” and that it was unlikely anyone attending the meeting regarded them as such. More tellingly, Mr Buck was asked if the timing of the meeting was due to the board of the Football Club believing it represented their best opportunity of forcing a “yes” vote, as Richard King had promised to deliver this, and he would face a no confidence vote as the next AGM.

In an aside, Paul Todd requested the speaker to raise the issue of difficulty in selling naming rights at a ground so universally known as Stamford Bridge. Ron Gourlay denied this was a problem. The speaker concluded that the meeting were running the risk of selling the club’s birthright, and, after 2020, there was the real risk that Chelsea FC could, as Marler Estates promised 25 years ago, end up at a “superstadium on the M25”.

Mr Terry Molloy was subsequently recognised by the Chair and asked about the process of transferring the lease to a new Stadium. Bruce Buck stated that he believed that the brand of Chelsea FC was worth a great deal more than it was in 1993 and therefore was worth more than any land it occupied. Therefore transferring the lease was not a viable proposition.

At that point, there were further calls for the meeting to be adjourned with requests for the club to go away and consider everything they’d heard and return with an amended proposal.

Richard King called for a report of the proxy vote following which a decision would be made by a show of hands on whether to adjourn or vote. James Greenbury of Say No CPO asked for assurances from the Chair that if an adjournment was called, a further meeting would be convened to discuss the proposal. Mr King then revealed that as a result of the proxy vote, 1400 of the 1700 votes present in the hall would be required to carry a “yes” vote.

There was then a period of off-microphone legal arguments, and, following a show of hands, a decision was taken to allow a further 10 minutes of questions, followed by a vote on the proposal.

Last speakers cited the gulf between the boards of the football club and CPO and the feeling of shareholders and fans, the reticence to discuss the proposal with fans and a reminiscence from a supporter who had taken his wife to Stamford Bridge on their first date, and had taken his children and then grandchildren to the ground.

Richard King then spoke the Resolutions before the meeting, stating that if Resolution 1 was voted down then none of the other resolutions would be voted on. The representatives of the ERS positioned themselves around the hall and collected the votes. The meeting was adjourned for an hour.

A tense wait ensued for all parties. A number of shareholders continued to mill around the hall, whilst others temporarily left for stronger refreshment elsewhere.

At 2.55pm, those not already in the Hall returned and Richard King called for order. Members of SNCPO huddled together at the back. Around half of the audience had stayed for the finale. Mr King announced that yes votes cast were 61.1%, with No votes cast at 38.4%. Therefore the resolution had failed and no further resolutions would be voted on.

In emotional closing remarks, Richard King stated that he would now consider his future* and described himself as “hurt” at some of the allegations levelled against him. Bruce Buck said that they would accept the decision of the shareholders, and hoped that everyone would come together on Saturday to “beat the crap out of Arsenal”.

The mood amongst the Say No Campaign was one of relief and joy, tempered with the knowledge that there would be hard work to come. However, in a fitting tribute to the origins of the club, they convened in the Butchers Hook where Chelsea FC was formed in 1905.
___________________________________________________________________

The above is a factual account of yesterday’s events. Any errors are mine and I apologise in advance of same. Next week, there’ll be a personal view of the meeting, together a look at where the future may lie for CPO. Follow me @BlueBaby67 on Twitter and continue to #SayNoCPO

*In a dramatic development this afternoon, Richard King resigned as Chair of CPO. Again, more to come on this story.

So, here we are. Vote taken; situation more-or-less unchanged. Time now, perhaps, for forces on both sides to regroup and plan their next move?

A fine display of solidarity coupled with getting the truth out to as many people as possible (without the aid of a corporate machine) and SayNoCPO have succeeded in safeguarding the future of the club.

Or halted the clubs ambition in its tracks.

Whichever way you want to see it, both arguments have their validity.

For me, yesterday was something of a tainted victory. I hate standing in the way of the clubs ambition. Loath it. It’s like smacking your own kids. I never much liked the saying “you have to be cruel to be kind”, I always thought it was the ultimate cop-out for the ultimately unimaginative.

But I honestly cannot stand by and stay silent as the club makes a decision now which could, in hindsight, prove to be short-sighted, naive and the catalyst for its own demise.

In amongst the anodyne statements coming out of the Bridge after the vote was over was the acknowledgment, at long last made verbal, that they recognise three important facts

- they recognise that fans are not opposed in principle to a move away from Stamford Bridge;

- they recognise the worries induced by a move away from the Bridge and outside the “Golden Circle” – the often-quoted three mile area;

- they recognise the worries of fans when they consider a post-Roman Abramovich era.

Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay have responded to the situation on the Chelsea website (here) and understandably put a positive spin on the defeat. And while Mr Gourlay states that he is aware of the concerns of Chelsea fans, he has neither addressed them nor has he said anything to allay those fears.

His words: ‘Where I think Chelsea Pitch Owners had two concerns which prevented us from getting the 75 per cent was what happens after 2020, and what happens if something happens to Mr Abramovich.”

He has not addressed those issues, true, but possibly now is not the time. In the immediate aftermath of the vote the club not only needs to reconsider its position it also needs to reconsider its attitude to its fans. Because that I believe is where a major problem lies.

I don’t really want to go over old ground, but Chelsea fans have perhaps more than most, learned to fear the property developer.
Had certain individuals in the past not had the foresight to create Chelsea Pitch Owners, there may not have been a club for Roman Abramovich to take over.

It is quite conceivable that an identity-crushing ground share could have eventually strangled the life out of Chelsea – or worse still an amalgamation with another club may have been forced on us and Chelsea’s death would have been not-so-slow.

All “ifs and buts” I know, but the fact remains that property developers could have destroyed Chelsea. No one wants to risk returning to that position – and that is what Chelsea Football Club must understand and accept.

Whether it be in 2020 or a hundred years from then, no one who has the clubs best interests at heart will be prepared to go down that road again. If the club fail to understand that, they have failed to understand one of the prime factors motivating Chelsea fans today.

I understand that the Board believe they are acting in the best interests of the club – I hope they do, anyway. But I am not wholly convinced that they are up to the job. To a layman they appear to be doing the job business-wise, but if you look at the PR debacles they have overseen in the past few years including this current situation… well, you wonder don’t you? But I trust Roman Abramovich, so I’ll suspend my cynicism on that one.

But I fear that without the experiences of the Save the Bridge and the once-terrifying ogre of Marler Estates leading up to the formation of CPO, they are acting without a true appreciation of the clubs roots.
And that is why I am delighted that, despite their best efforts, Chelsea failed. I hope that this will have opened their eyes to the strength of the love we all have for the club and the desire of everyone to move forward together.

Bruce Buck himself confirmed “We all love Chelsea Football Club and we’ll move on and conquer together.’

So with the aim of moving on together, perhaps our club can now appreciate the meaning of the word “together” and actually talk to fans. All we seek are assurances.

But because of our past experiences those assurances must be as cast-iron as possible.

Perhaps when the dust has settled, they can explain, clearly and unambiguously the nature of the safeguards they have in place.
Perhaps they can assure us that the future of the club as an entity in south west London is safe; that the hands that guide its future are more than competent; that our children and our grandchildren will be able to get the same pleasure and thrill out of supporting the club that we do.

I’m not in a position to say where we go from here, but I know what I would like to see.

I would like to see the club being less blandly corporate with its fans. I would like to see the club being more honest and open about its future plans. I would like to hear cast-iron guarantees and invitations to fans to the processes of rebuilding or relocation.

I believe and care about Chelsea’s future. I want us all, in Mr Buck’s words, to move forward together. The CPO believes and cares about Chelsea’s future and similarly wants us to move forward together. We have shown that, openly and unequivocally.

It is now up to the Board to show the same.

This is written on the morning of one of the most historic days in the eventful life of a great football club, and by this time tomorrow we will know whether shareholders in CPO have signed away the Chelsea FC’s birthright forever.

The last three weeks have seen unprecedented sales of Pitch Owner shares.  Indeed, more shares have been shifted than in the previous seven years.  So much for Richard King’s assertion, at last year’s AGM, “the market is saturated”.

For those in the Say No CPO Campaign, the last three weeks have proved in turn exhilarating, exasperating and frustrating.  The Everton game was a good day, giving an opportunity to take the message to the whole of the match-going Chelsea fanbase.  The exasperation has come through a seemingly endless supply of old heroes trotted out to toe the club line.

The frustration has been in knowing that the club have far greater resources at their disposal (Chelsea programme, Chelsea website, Chelsea TV) with which to influence the voters.  And in knowing that in spite of our efforts, some shareholders and supporters have not wanted to hear the campaign’s core message; that the campaign is not intrinsically opposed to a move away from Stamford Bridge.

All we want are safeguards that will ensure that the club cannot be moved more than a certain number of miles away from its spiritual home, and/or in the event of a downturn in the fortunes of Roman Abramovich, or his family, that the lease of the football club will remain in the hands of an independent party (i.e. CPO) so that any ground Chelsea FC play on cannot fall into the hands of property developers, as it did in the 1980’s when Joe Mears’ grandsons sold the ground to Cabra Estates. We’d also like assurances that the club have exhausted every avenue in order to extend Stamford Bridge (perhaps Hammersmith & Fulham Council would be kind enough to extend their co-operation in this last respect).

Sadly, some people just don’t want to hear that.  We are continually exhorted to “trust in Roman and the board”, but given the revelation by Sam Wallace in the Independent newspaper today that Chelsea FC chairman Bruce Buck left a number of voicemails exhorting a club contractor to “sideline” one particularly prominent CPO activist, the fan in the street may well be justified in asking why they should put their faith in club hierarchy when they willing to take such drastic action against their own fans.

I can’t speak for other members of the “Say No” team, but whilst I go into the meeting with hope, being a realist I am aware that the meeting could mark the end of any influence that the supporters of the club have over our future.

Finally, if you are coming to the meeting tomorrow, keep in mind the following:-

1)      You MUST carry photographic ID, i.e. driving license or passport.  If you don’t have this, you will not be admitted.

2)      Please arrive in good time; registration commences at 10.00am.

3)      Please be aware that the meeting is likely to take some time.  The ERS advised me on Monday that they anticipate the meeting is likely to take 2½ to 3 hours, but this will depend on the number of attendees and issues such as questions from the floor to the Chair.  The ERS were not willing to be drawn on the number of attendees, but as the meeting has been switched from The Harris Suite (capacity 450) to the Great Hall (West Lower Concourse), they are obviously expecting a substantial turnout.

4)      Due to the extensive interest in the story, the media will be in attendance.  Not only are the press being admitted to the meeting, there will very likely be camera crews outside the ground and in the surrounding streets.

My own tips

5)      Whilst refreshments have traditionally been available at CPO AGMs, if there’s a large crowd tomorrow, you might be pushed to get a drink, and the meeting is likely to drag over lunchtime, so a bottle of water and a small snack may well be in order.

6)      Bring a pencil and paper.  You may want to make notes.

Today we may find out what the medium-term future of the club will hold.  If the club prevail, I truly hope that generations of Chelsea fans to come will find themselves watching football no further afield than the three miles cited in the proposal to Chelsea Pitch Owners.

In Handel’s 1719 opera “Tamerlano”, the defeated Ottoman Emperor, Bajazet, declares to his captor “my spirit will return to haunt you”.  Only time will tell whether the spirits of Chelsea’s former greats will return to haunt those in whose hands tomorrow’s decision lies.

Since the announcement of Chelsea FC’s proposal to Chelsea Pitch Owners, the club have used every possible medium at their disposal to try and influence shareholders to vote “yes”.

We have seen the club utilise current players, former players, columnist, the medium of Chelsea TV and the matchday programme. The intensity of their campaign indicates how seriously they are taking this matter.

In the interests of balance, the “Say No CPO” campaign have bent over backwards to get their message to not just shareholders, but all Chelsea fans. Flyers, letters, blogs, you name it, they’ve tried it.

Today, however, through the club website, Chelsea FC have committed what may turn out to be a serious tactical error. Tomorrow marks the 15th anniversary of the death of one of our most greatly loved supporters, Matthew Harding.

I don’t think there wasn’t a single one of us who wasn’t touched by his death, whether he was known to us personally, or whether we just saw him in the street, or at games in his seat. We had the feeling he was one of us.

An article on the official Chelsea website, by Mr Harding’s friend, Graham Bell, extols the virtue of Chelsea’s potential move away from Stamford Bridge which basically carries the message “it’s what Matthew would have wanted”. No-one, not even as close a friend as Mr Bell, can presume to know what Matthew Harding would have wanted at this time.

Given that his initial contact with the club came through the fact that he was trying to buy a CPO share, it is far from certain that, had Matthew been alive, he would have supported the club’s proposal. At least not without giving some safeguards to the future of Chelsea’s home, which is what the “Say No CPO Campaign” is striving for.

I apologise unreservedly to anyone offended by this article, which is my view only. However, it is my belief that invoking the name of Matthew Harding at the anniversary of his death marks a new low in the campaign by Chelsea FC to secure a “yes” vote at next weeks’s EGM.

Follow me @BlueBaby67 on Twitter

*Previous articles on the forthcoming EGM have been entitled “The Road to the Harris Suite”. It’s now been announced that due to the number of shareholders anticipated to attend, the CPO EGM will be held in the “Great Hall”.

Saturday was a key day for the Say No to CPO campaign, with volunteers taking to the streets and pubs of SW6 to hand out leaflets and discuss issues with supporters face to face.

It was a hugely positive experience.  Many fans, even those in favour of the “yes” proposal, wanted to have a chat about what the campaign means and its objectives.  Many of those I spoke to had relatives/friends who owned shares, but hadn’t received the proposal pack from CPO.

Whilst I strolled up and down the Fulham Road outside the shopping centre exhorting passers-by to “visit our website, find out the facts and then say no CPO!”, many people approached me for a leaflet.  Sometimes I found myself having to scramble in my bag, having been left empty-handed as people grabbed a flyer in passing.

My route took me from The Imperial in the Kings Road, to the Goose in North End Road, followed by the White Horse in Parsons Green. Then it was back to the Fulham Road (by tube this time rather than the Shanks’ Pony of the outward route) and a stop at the CIU before I hit the shopping centre an hour before kick off.  Whilst we had promised we wouldn’t distribute flyers in the ground, I took an A3 version down to the front of the West Stand before kick off and stood before the cameras.  Rather to my surprise, I wasn’t approached by any steward asking me to desist (not the case at the White Horse where we were requested politely but firmly to cease leafleting).

The team were blessed with extremely clement weather – I don’t expect to be wearing a t-shirt to a game again pretty much till next April – and a fine win, albeit disappointment with a sloppy goal conceded, added up to an exceptionally enjoyable day.  Love and congratulations to everyone in the “Say No” team who worked so hard on Saturday to bring the campaign and its aims to the match-going fans.

Whilst Saturday’s leaflet campaign has been the focus of everyone’s attention, discussions have continued and on Monday the Say No CPO group sent an e-mail to Bruce Buck, Chairman of the football club, with the following counter-proposal:-

To: Bruce Buck

Following our meeting last week and subsequent telephone conversation we would like to propose an alternative way forward, as follows:

1. The club to have total freedom to move to a larger new stadium anywhere within three miles of Stamford Bridge at any time before 2030 so long as Roman Abramovich is still in control of Chelsea.

2. Chelsea to save £1.5m by leaving Chelsea Pitch Owners in place. The CPO will sell the freehold at SB to the club in exchange for the freehold at the new ground on the same terms as currently in place.

3. The club to agree to ongoing consultation, and transparency of information, with the fans regarding any new stadium.

We await with interest your response and we are happy to meet at any time to discuss this further.

Regrettably, Chelsea FC subsequently issued their own statement dismissing the counter-proposal.

From the outset, SNCPO have made it clear that if the board of Chelsea FC could find some middle ground with us, then the “no” could become a “yes”.

“Say No CPO” simply means “no”

•           without proper consultation with fans (not just CPO shareholders)
•           without safeguarding CPO
•           without protecting Chelsea FC from property vultures in years to come

SNCPO will continue to press for further discussions and meetings with the club, and we will keep readers informed.

Visit the website: www.saynocpo.org

Email: saynocpo@gmail.com

Follow me: @BlueBaby67 on Twitter

Update 1 of The Road to the Harris Suite addressed the ethos of the “SayNoCPO” (SNCPO) campaign, issues that have arisen to date, and our strategy going forward.

Whilst meetings with club officials are taking take place, and a meeting with CPO Directors is envisaged, this weekend’s home game against Everton, televised on Sky, and the only significant home game before the meeting on 27^th October, provides an opportunity for the campaign team to take the battle to those who matter most – Chelsea’s fans.

At Monday night’s meeting it was agreed that 10,000 flyers would be printed and a crack team of enthusiastic volunteers will be out in the streets (and licensed premises) around SW6 distributing these.  We’ll also be wearing snazzy “SayNoCPO” T-shirts and they will also be happy to discuss the campaign with supporters who have any questions.

We would like to stress that this is not a demonstration, neither will we be distributing the flyers directly outside the gates of Stamford Bridge.  We do, however, intend to make ourselves visible.

If you take a flyer, and you believe that the proposal to CPO’s to be voted on at the General Meeting scheduled for 27^th October is lacking in key areas of information and consultation, then please feel free to show your support for the campaign by holding up your flyer during the game.

We would particularly appreciate your support if you are seated in the following areas which are likely to be in view of the television cameras:-

• by the corner flags at either end of the ground
• behind the goal at either end
• seated in front rows of the West Stand (particularly if you sit in the middle blocks)

Also keep an eye out for camera crews outside the ground – given the intense media spotlight that the campaign has attracted there’s the possibility that there will be television cameras outside the ground as well as those inside covering the match, and if you’re happy to support the campaign please flash a flyer at them too.

In addition, please support the campaign during the game by chanting “SAYNOCPO” (think “we are top of the league” for the beat), or singing any songs that the bards among you may come up with – get your thinking caps on and be creative!

In a further development, the official SNCPO website has now been launched.  Please visit http://saynocpo.org for full details about the campaign, including a simple guide to voting.  Alternatively if you have any questions that the website doesn’t answer, please send an e-mail to saynocpo@gmail.com

In the interests of balance, Chelsea FC continue to work to promote the “yes” vote, most notably with John Terry’s interview to Chelsea TV in which he urged CPOs to vote yes to the proposal.  Ron Harris has also publicly backed the campaign, as has Giles Smith of The Times, through the medium of his TOCWS column.  CPO Directors continue to maintain their silence; in accordance with the proposal documents, none of them will be publicly commenting ahead of the meeting.

Update 1 addressed the drive for hearts and minds amongst SNCPO, and it is clear that Saturday will prove a key battle to target not only current CPOs who are undecided about their vote, but also to reach out to CPOs who have not received documentation regarding the meeting.

You can follow #SayNoCPO developments on Twitter, or check out their website at http://saynocpo.org and you can you can follow me via @BlueBaby67

It’s now been eight days since Chelsea FC announced that a General Meeting of Chelsea Pitch Owners would take place on 27^th October, at which their proposal to buyback the Leasehold of Stamford Bridge would be voted on.

Over 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 representing the interests of a large swathe of Chelsea fans, whether they be Pitch Owners or not.

A meeting took place last night 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.

“What’s in a name?”

One of the aims of last night’s strategy meeting was to give the “No” campaign an official name.  Over the internet during the last week the phrases “No to CPO” and “Say No” have been very much to the fore.  During the last couple of days “SayNoCPO” has gained currency and, following a vote at the meeting, has been designated as the official campaign name/slogan.

“No, Nay, Never”

Those who are in favour of the club’s proposal have castigated the “Noes” as Luddites who wish to take the club back to the 80s.  One particularly misguided blogger has described the “No” campaign as a vote for racism and a return to the days of “pissing in pockets”.  This couldn’t be further from the truth.

The campaign has a number of aims. One of the biggest is that we want to raise awareness that the current campaign is a “no” to the current offer – not a “no” to never moving from the Bridge.  We require more consultation and information before we believe we should be asked to give up anything.  We have no wish to alienate any supporter or fan group, whether they believe that we should leave Stamford Bridge or not.  At the end of the day, we all love the club.

“Strong Arm of the Law”

We’ve received advice on legal issues relating to the campaign, and some of these issues are currently being pursued.

“Reach Out and Touch…”

Another aim is that we want 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 vote is worth three yes votes so your vote can make a difference (we need 26% of the vote to win).

Our boffins are currently working to create a website and e-mail address that will provide information on the Say No CPO campaign, and the media will 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.

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

You can follow #SayNoCPO developments on Twitter, and you can you can follow me via @BlueBaby67

A few days ago we ran a survey and asked as many Chelsea supporters as possible to give us their opinions on the proposed buy out of the Chelsea Pitch Owners, and also any possible stadium move.

We were amazed at the response to the survey with over 1000 people filling it in, although some were only partially completed we have included those questions answered in the results, this is why there is a varying number of answers to each question.

What is immediately clear from the results is that supporters in general aren’t against the move, with over 50% fine with the move so long as it’s well designed and in a suitable location, many also want the club to communicate their plans to us or at least be honest about its intentions with us, which many feel is currently not happening.

The club constantly trots out the reasons it can’t stay at Stamford Bridge, such as health and safety issues about exit routes, the railway line and underground lines causing problems and all the other often discussed problems with Stamford Bridge. Most respondents would like to see the club publish evidence of these facts in order to believe them, we simply don’t trust their word on the matter.

Many supporters feel we should both have a say in the new stadium and also the running of the club as a whole, and despite the recent subterfuge with the CPO, belief in Roman Abramovich is still strong.  The same cannot be said of CEO Ron Gourlay though, with less than 1/5th of respondents claiming to trust him.

We appreciate this survey is only a cross section of supporters and in no way represents the feelings of every supporter or group.  If you are a supporter group or organisation, or a CPO member, then we will be happy to share the raw data with you (minus names and email addresses) for your own analysis.  Please get in touch if you feel this would be of use to you.

The Burning Question: Chelsea & The CPO: Results;

Question 1. What are your initial thoughts on Romans bid to buy the CPO?

Question 2. Do you believe the club has exhausted all options in terms of increasing capacity at Stamford Bridge?

Question 3. Would you like to see the evidence of this presented by the club to prove their case?

Question 4. Do you believe the club has identified a site, despite denying it?

Question 5. Do you feel the club intends to move further than the three mile radius from Stamford Bridge?

Question 6. How do you feel about Roman having complete ownership, and a unilateral say in the running of the club?

Question 7. Does it worry you what happens in say 50 years time, should Roman not be around any longer, who will own the club?

Question 8. Do you think it is important that supporters have a say in the running of the club?

Question 9. If the club were to move stadium, do you think it is important supporters get to have a say in the location of the new stadium?

Question 10. If the club were to move stadium, do you think it is important supporters get to have a say in the design of the new stadium?

Question 11. Do you understand what the CPO is?

Question 12. If you are aware of the CPO, do you feel that CPO board of directors have failed to discharge their duties to the CPO?

Question 13. Do you feel there needs to be more time for supporters to make such an important decision?

Question 14. Do you trust Roman Abramovich?

Question 15. Do you trust our chairman; Bruce Buck?

Question 16. Do you trust CEO; Ron Gourlay?

Question 17. Do you believe Roman and the board of directors have the clubs best interests at heart?

Question 18. Do you want to move to a new stadium?

Question 19. If there was to be a new stadium, how large should it be?

Question 20. What is an acceptable distance to move Stadium?

Question 21. Which of the following would describe you?

Question 22. How many games do you go to a season?

Question 23. How old are you?

Question 24. How long have you supported Chelsea FC?

Question 25. If you all had a vote on selling the freehold of Stamford Bridge and the name of Chelsea FC to Roman Abramovich right now, how would you vote?

Our thanks go out to all those who took the time to fill in the survey, as well as those on the various Chelsea sites around the internet who were kind enough to link to it, or otherwise encourage people to complete the survey, it’s much appreciated.

Dear Bruce and Richard,

You have both made serious misjudgements on the proposal to buy back Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) shares.

So serious, that I feel neither of you have any credibility left in your respective roles and I call for both of you to resign… but more about that later.

Seeing as neither of you are prepared to answer emails or phone calls, I thought I’d outline my points here. But before I do, let’s get one thing clear… the majority of Chelsea Pitch Owners are not opposed in principle to a move away from Stamford Bridge.

We are opposed to you calling an extraordinary general meeting on 27th October with the minimum legal notice to try and get us to sell out shares back. Why the sudden rush?

Why not wait until you’ve found a definite site for a new stadium and then consult us on our views? Why not recognise that Chelsea Pitch Owners represent the hard core support of Chelsea FC and offer us the chance to transfer our shares over to the new stadium? We don’t want our names engraved on a brick in the new ground.

Your offer to give us the right to buy a season ticket is insulting. And as for paying us back our original investment of £100 per share… did you come to that decision after a heavy bout of lunchtime drinking? We never bought these shares as an investment. We bought them because we came very close to losing Stamford Bridge and ground sharing with Palace or QPR… either of which, still makes me come out in a cold sweat 20 years later.

In case you are unaware of what happened in the 80’s and early 90’s here’s a quick history lesson. David Mears and Lord Chelsea sold their shares in Chelsea FC to Marler Estates whose plans to turn Stamford Bridge into a housing estate were approved by Hammersmith and Fulham Council in 1986.

In 1989 Chelsea FC were officially served notice to leave Stamford Bridge and without the impending property crash it would have been game over. Cabra estates, who had since purchased Marler estates, filed for bankruptcy which enabled Ken Bates to a do a deal with their creditors and reunite the freehold of Stamford Bridge with our club. That’s when we, the fans, bought our shares… the perfect way of protecting Chelsea FC forever.

Until this news broke a few days ago, I’d never again looked at my CPO share. No need… times have changed. Like most people, I’ve moved a few times over the last 18 years since I bought my CPO share and I’ve never updated my address details with them. This must apply to thousands of other CPO shareholders who have received no proposal or proxy voting forms from CPO. I’ve tried to contact CPO by email and phone, but no reply so as things stand I can’t vote. There’s a rumour that any votes not received will be taken as a yes vote… is this true?

Having total control of Chelsea FC in one man’s name is dangerous. What happens if Abramovich dies and his son hates football? We could be back to the same situation as the late 80’s.

Now on to why both of you need to go.

Bruce… your interviews on radio and TV make me cringe … an American talking of his life long love for Chelsea FC… where were you when we were shit? Your offer has insulted the hard core support of Chelsea FC and you have proved yourself out of touch with our feelings.

Richard… By condoning this deal with Chelsea FC you have undermined your responsibility to act in the best interest of CPO shareholders and as such there is no choice but for you to resign with immediate effect.

Best regards,
Ian Wood
CPO shareholder No 1958