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

While not wanting to sound like John Cleese in Monthy Python, what has Roman (Abramovich) ever done for us?

That is, apart from; paying off the large Euro-loan that was due, taking Chelsea Football Club to the next level, buying a succession of world class players (and the odd duff one – not Damien, he was great), our own training ground and one of the best in Europe or the World, three Premierships when I never thought I’d live to see one, a Champions League final (again, I would never, ever have dreamed this would happen), and so much more.

All these wondrous ‘gifts’ yet so many of those naughty, thankless irks who bought the odd £100 share seem not to trust our knight in shinning armour!

That’s fine for all those who have 100% trust in Roman, his heirs and, when the time comes (and it will come), whoever they sell Chelsea Football Club to. Some of us have slightly longer memories or heed that quotation “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Prior to the Ken Bates era, Chelsea Football and Athletic Club was founded by Gus Mears. The club remained in the same family from 1905 until the mid 1980’s when circumstances and maybe poor judgement conspired against the family owned club which was now deep in debt. The club was sold to Ken Bates, but the freehold of the land was effective sold off and traded between property developers.

Love or hate the guy (and there’s plenty in each camp), what you cannot deign is that Ken’s belligerent bull-dog spirit to save ‘our’ club and of course his investment in it, eventually saved Stamford Bridge as the home for the club and quite possibly the actual existence of Chelsea Football Club.

Like virginity, you only need to say yes once and it’s gone. You can not recoup what you had. Likewise the CPO vote. Think very hard.

Why do we need to rush into a yes in three weeks time? Why can’t we ask questions, have time to consider the answers, offer any alternative proposals and maybe decided in a few months? Why does it have to be the way Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay want it and want it now?

The sale of Chelsea Stadium Ltd to the club and the effective closure of the CPO is a big issue. Do not take it lightly and do not be rushed into by the personalities involved. A no vote doesn’t mean a no never, it can be considered a ‘not sure yet’, ‘maybe later’ or a ‘yes but’ vote.

Even if you think ‘yes’ is right, why not vote no to allow better bargaining power for the shareholders trying to get the best deal for the club and the supporters?

Don’t get caught with your knickers down, hold on to your ha’penny!

Everything’s easy with hindsight. I bought my Chelsea Pitch Owners share on the 30th January 1985 on my way to Hillsborough for the quarter final replay of the then Milk Cup.

At that point I’d only ever seen Chelsea win one trophy, the 1970 FA cup … I was only four then and it’s still the earliest memory I have of my life.

So imagine standing on the terraces at Hillsborough at half time that evening … 3-0 down … gutted. The rest of that night is, as they say, history.

Yes Liverpool, history … “3-0 down, 4-3 up, then old Dougie fcked it up.” A hundred pounds was a lot of money for me then but I bought the share as we were fighting a battle to save Stamford Bridge.

It was only really thanks to the property crash in the late eighties that we ended up keeping our home … we we’re that close to ground sharing with Palace. If you’d told me that 25 years later, we would regularly get crowds of over 40,000 I’d have said you were clinically insane.

Remember those days of struggling to get 12,000 and against Cambridge at home if my memory serves me right, less than 7000 in Stamford Bridge ? My point is that a lot happens in 25 years. Will Abravomich still be our owner then ? Probably not.

Having 16,000 fans own the freehold to Stamford Bridge and the name of Chelsea Football Club gives us total protection forever. The offer from Chelsea is insulting. If they don’t build a new ground by 2020 they have complete control over where we play.

I don’t trust Bruce Buck … his last interview on Radio 5 made me cringe … an American stating his life long passion for Chelsea … where was he when we were shit?

Vote no at the AGM … it might seem trivial now but in 25 years time you could look back on it as the decision that saved our club.

A bitterly cold, snowy, winter.  An indifferent summer.  A Royal Wedding.  1986 has a lot in common with 2011.

It was in 1986 that the Battle for the Bridge was at its height.  The words “super stadium on the M25” were enough to strike fear into the heart of any true blue.

Ken Bates finally reached agreement with the banks representing the now-defunct Marler/Cabra Estates in 1992, and in 1993 Chelsea Pitch Owners was formed to safeguard the future of football at Stamford Bridge.

Twenty five years later, we appear to have come full circle.

The club’s announcement yesterday of their “proposal” to CPO shareholders is a defining day in our history, and there are serious matters to take into consideration.  I attended the last CPO meeting in the Vialli Suite at the Bridge, and reported on that meeting for TheChels.net.  I now quote directly from that article with regard to the moribund nature of share sales:-

“I expressed my concern, which is that we simply don’t seem to be paying off the loan, and why the developing overseas markets weren’t being targeted.  Mr King advised that it was his opinion that the market is saturated and he felt we were unlikely to sell many more shares.

I countered this by asking how did he know this?  There must be many Chelsea fans in place like America, India and Russia who weren’t aware of the organisation, and that a comment on an internet forum indicated there were fans in Britain who’d never heard of CPO.  Mr King said that CPO didn’t have a marketing budget and that a considerable amount money might have to be spent on such a campaign.  He advised he would look into it.”

No wonder Mr King swept the suggestion aside.  It would appear that answers given at last year’s AGM were nothing more than a subterfuge for the “buyback” proposal.  CPO had no intention of marketing themselves actively.  It is worth remembering that this was enshrined in the aims of CPO and trumpeted in the FAQs in the CPO section of Chelsea’s website:-

“What are the responsibilities and aims of CPO in the ‘Roman era’?

Nothing has changed, the objective remains the same – to actively market and sell shares to raise money in order to pay off the loan used to purchase the freehold of the pitch.”

It appears that there is a prima facie case that the Directors of CPO have failed in this.  One hesitates to ask why this might be.

I bought my share in CPO to ensure that football remains played at the Bridge, regardless of owner.  Roman Abramovich might love the club, but what if his children, or grandchildren grow tired of it?  Even if we move to, for argument’s sake, White City, the club formerly known Chelsea FC – the ramifications of the name ownership connected with CPO being a lit firework waiting to go off – will still be sitting on a piece of desirable real estate, and the “super stadium on the M25” will remain a spectre at the feast.

The promise of a move no more than a 3 mile radius from the Bridge before 2020 without CPO’s agreement is disingenuous.  In truth, there is little likelihood of the club being able to move before that date – a mere nine years away.

And then there’s the “inducement” being offered to shareholders by the club.  A place on a “Walk of Honour” (more properly “Walk of Shame”) and preferential season tickets is nothing more than a poor attempt at a bribe.

And there’s the matter of the timing.  Fourteen days notice has been given of this meeting, the minimum at law.  That’s very little time to marshal an effective campaign against buyback.  I salute those who have already rallied to the cause.

Let us be absolutely truthful about this.  I adore my club.  This is why I’ve spent the best part of the last 24 hours thinking about little else that this indecent proposal.  But there is an elephant in the room.  We couldn’t even fill the Bridge for a game against Bayer Leverkusen at a (albeit slightly) discounted rate.

In fact, having been a critic of Boycott Genk, in the bigger picture, this could help the fight to save the Bridge. How are we going to fill a 55,000 seater stadium? We will always sell out the big European nights, the premium Premier League games, the domestic Semi-Finals.

What happened to our much-vaunted, carefully cultivated, season-ticket waiting list?  To quote Blackadder, “vanished, like an old oak table”.  And let’s be honest about another aspect.  Some supporters pin their hopes on a move to a bigger ground resulting in lower ticket prices.  This simply will not happen.  I would expect ticket prices to be broadly the same, and increases smaller, and at longer periods.   The days of “cheap” football have gone forever.  The corporate areas will expand.  There’ll be more prawn sandwich eaters.  And tourists.

If you are a CPO shareholder, you can help us Save the Bridge.  Attend the meeting on 27^th October.  If you can’t attend in person, send back your proxy form.  All it takes it a first class stamp and five minutes of your time to complete the form and vote against the proposal.

I cannot stress how important it is to return the proxy form – any votes not returned will revert to the Chair, with the result that you may unwittingly vote for relocation.

Finally, given the events of the past 24 hours, perhaps it’s time to re-write an old favourite:-

Our Chelsea flag is deepest blue

It’s covered heroes old and new

From Fatty Foulke to AVB

It’s part of our great history

So keep the blue flag flying high,

As it’s done in days gone by

You’ll never take our heritage

We’ll keep the blue flag at the Bridge

Follow me @BlueBaby67 on Twitter

Many of you will already have seen the statement put out on the official Chelsea website earlier today, where the club went public on its bid to buy back the freehold of Stamford Bridge from the Chelsea Pitch Owners.

A contentious issue for sure, but for us here the news is not unexpected.  As we wrote back in March of this year, the club has been actively looking for options in order to move Chelsea FC to a larger stadium and we were expecting an announcement this summer. Weather wise at least, we were spot on.

With Stamford Bridge lagging way behind the clubs we deem our peers across European Football, and with the financial handicap that brings, it’s no surprise that the club has made this move on the chess board in order to smooth the way for a future move. Quite how smooth it will be, is another story.

The club held a behind the scenes briefing for the majority of the media this afternoon for several hours, with all journalists embargoed until 8pm so the club could break the news first.

During the briefing it emerged that Chelsea still hold out hope for Earls Court, even though the developers would rather build residential holdings, but with the economy and housing market as it is they could yet change their mind. White City is also on the list of possibles and they are having a look a site around Nine Elms in Battersea.

Fulham and QPR are also reported to be in the early stages of moving stadiums, and as such the possibility of the Old Oak Common site becomes possible if QPR move away from the area.

There are certain to be many arguments for and against a move, if you would like write your feelings on the subject, please send them to editor@thechels.net and the best ones will be published on our site.

For those not familiar with the CPO, there is information on our Wiki, and also a good piece by BlueTinted.com on their site.

We’ll have more on this development in the coming days.

Ever since Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea Football Club in June 2003, one rumour has persistently risen and fallen as regularly as the tide; that Chelsea will leave Stamford Bridge.

Many reports have, over the years, linked us with a move just up the road to the Earls Court site.

However a recent story in the Daily Telegraph put those rumours to rest once and for all, stating that the site owners had revealed a plan to build 7,500 new homes as part of the regeneration of the 77-acre plot.

This of course leaves very little room for any stadium on the Earls Court site, not even one as laughable as Loftus Road, and more importantly for us means that Earls Court is no longer a viable facet in this story.

Now, leaving aside all the well documented potential issues with the Chelsea Pitch Owners, what we’re going to look at is what’s been said, what’s happened, is happening, and how the situation has changed in recent months.

When Ken Bates unveiled his vision for Stamford Bridge it seemed an unrealistic target and one that was a million miles away. Those of us still contributing our hard earned to the blue buckets of the ‘Save The Bridge’ campaign were simply happy to still have a team and a stadium to call our own.

The modern ground and 42,000 capacity was way beyond what many of us could have ever dreamed of some ten years earlier, and having been almost bankrupted by building the East Stand, many were sceptical.

With all due credit to Bates, not only did he foresee it, his drive, determination and at times his sheer bloody mindedness saw the project through many fights with local councils, planners, residents and more, to deliver on his promise of a top class stadium, with a little help from Matthew Harding, of course.

The difficulty in expanding Stamford Bridge has however, been a thorn in the side for the Abramovich regime ever since the day he bought the club.

With a limited site area, only one exit way from the ground, and due to the ever increasing reach of the health and safety brigade, regulations have put paid to any expansion and has actually decreased the capacity by a few hundred over the years.

With United having a capacity of 76,000 at Old Trafford, and Arsenal now able to seat 60,000 at the Cameldome, Chelsea are lagging behind by over 18,000 on Arsenal, and 34,000 on United.

In financial terms, averaging out at £40 per ticket, Chelsea are earning £720,000 less than Arsenal, and £1,360,000 behind United. Over the course of a season calculating league games alone, this works out to £12,960,000 extra revenue to Arsenal, and £24,480,000 for United.  That’s the cost of a new Didier Drogba, every season.

With this in mind, and the fact Chelsea need to generate more funds as part of UEFA’s financial fair play initiative, something has got to give. Naming rights are a short term financial shot in the arm, but will only go a very short way in addressing the disparity between the incomes of our club, and those classed as our primary challengers for silverware at the end of the season.

Now this isn’t just the opinion of your average two bit blogging hack, even our Chief Exec agrees; “The difficulty the club’s got is that we’re competing against Manchester United and other clubs who operate from larger stadiums than ourselves” said Ron Gourlay at the tail end of last year.

“There are three revenue channels: broadcasting, where we compare well with our competitors; commercial, which is sponsorship, where if you look at the last figures posted Manchester United were about £66 million, we were £61 million and I think Liverpool were about £54 million.”

“The biggest challenge is match-day revenue and we’re limited with a capacity of 41,800″ noted Gourlay; “It’s very important that if there was ever a move for the club, it would have to be in a close location and that’s never really opened up. I’d prefer to stay at Stamford Bridge, although we could fill a 55,000 or 60,000-seater stadium on a regular basis.”

Now the key point here is that there has never been a viable location for our ‘new’ stadium. With Earls Court now out of the equation, Imperial Wharf, Chelsea Barracks and also Battersea Power Station all previously considered, but ultimately turned down for various reasons, options for the move were dwindling.

However that all changed, and we have been led to believe that the club are looking at two sites that have recently been earmarked for total redevelopment and regeneration, that could comfortably house a new stadium.

The first is White City (adjacent to the A40) as rumoured by Telegraph recently.  The local regeneration and development plan can be viewed on the Hammersmith & Fulham website.  We’ve taken a Google Map of the area to show how it compares in size to our current stadium, and that of Wembley too.

Clearly the site is large enough to house a new stadium, albeit a slightly tight squeeze if the new stadium is to be larger than our current one, and the area benefits from good transport links with White City (central line) & Wood Lane (Metro/circle lines) tube stations nearby, this also neighbours the Westfield Shopping Centre which has itself only recently opened after a massive redevelopment.

The second area, and the one we’ve heard is the more likely candidate for the new site, is at Old Oak Common, just north of the neighbouring Wormwood Scrubs Park , between Old Oak Common Lane and Scrubs Lane.  The redevelopment plan for this area can also be viewed on the Hammersmith & Fulham website too.

This is close to the existing Linford Christie stadium, also has good transport links surrounding it in Willesden Juntion, North & East Acton stations, and as the area will be undergoing wholesale regeneration, it’s expected there may be more stations in the pipeline as the area is surrounded by existing railway track. Crossrail is also likely to place a station there.

Both locations are roughly 4 miles (as the crow flies) from current Stamford Bridge location, yet are closer to Wembley than Stamford Bridge, and not far at all from QPR’s ground; Loftus Road, prompting some fears about an eventual ground share should it happen.  The NW10 postcode for the Old Oak Common site could itself be a sticky point for supporters.

Now with the areas of land being relatively cheap in comparision to Stamford Bridge, and Old Oak Common especially inviting investment rather than being sold as prime real estate, and with the land value in SW6 among the most valuable in UK, the affordability of the project starts to become very viable.

There is a very real possibility that the sale of land in SW6 could itself generate the funds required to not only buy the land in new location, but also got a long way in funding the build of the new stadium too.  From a financial perspective, and remember that is Gourlay’s prime outlook, a new stadium looks not only possible, but cost effective.

Even if the net outlay is something approaching £200million once the sale of Stamford Bridge is completed and the new stadium built, then this cost could feasibly be recouped within only eight years, and as UEFA allows spending on stadium development and it doesn’t count against a club in their new financial rules, there aren’t many barriers in the way of this project.

The whispers we have also heard about the move is that the club have commissioned Lord Norman Foster of Fosters & Partners to design the new stadium, his experience includes Wembley, and he is also down to redesign Barcelona’s Camp Nou, as well as building the flagship stadium for Qatar 2022.

We’ve heard that the club will look to announce this news once the season has ended.  If this is to happen, what’s vitally important is that the supporters are consulted and we get to have a sufficient input in the design of the new stadium.

Roman and the board need to understand that leaving Stamford Bridge is a highly sensitive issue for many supporters, we don’t want an identikit stadium to those at Wembley and Emirates, soulless arenas where people spectate rather take part in the match and its atmosphere.

If we are to move, it MUST be to a stadium that meets not only ambitions of Roman and the board of directors, but also that supporters will be happy to call their home for the next 100 years.

The Facts:

On Friday I attended the AGM of Chelsea Pitch Owners, which was held in the Vialli Suite at Stamford Bridge. Despite the company having over 14,000 shareholders, only 380 chose to return their proxy ballot papers, and only 20 shareholders attended. This inevitably meant that any dissent in the room would be overturned by the proxy vote, being in the hands of the Chair.

The meeting was chaired by Richard King, the Chairman of CPO, with the Company Accountant Bob Sewell sitting alongside him. They were joined by Roy Butler of Stone King, CPO’s legal advisor.

The meeting opened with a plea from one shareholder that this year an account of proceedings would be made public. Richard King agreed that a minute of proceedings of the “open forum” part of the meeting will be issued – although e-mails were mentioned, it will probably take the form of a pdf document on the CPO website.

No new proposals were avowed ahead of the formal part of the meeting which saw all four resolutions proposed and seconded, albeit the proposition that Richard King be re-appointed to the board of CPO met with a number of abstentions from the room. At the behest of “TheChels” I asked a question in relation to Proposals 3 and 4;

3. That the Directors of the Company be and they are hereby generally and unconditionally authorised pursuant to Section 551 of the Companies Act 2006 to exercise all the powers of the Company to allot relevant securities (with the meaning of the said Section 551) up to an aggregate nominal amount of £100,000 during the period expiring at the end of 5 years from the date of the passing of this Resolution save that the Company may before such expiry make an offer or offers which would or might require relevant securities to be allotted after such expiry and the Directors may allot relevant securities in pursuance of such an offer or offers as if the authority conferred hereby had not expired. The authority hereby given shall be a substitution for any previous authority granted to the Directors.

4. To empower the Directors to make all allotments of equity securities (as defined fo the purposes of Section 561 of the Companies Act 2006) (the ‘Act’) pursuant of the authority confirmed upon them to allot relevant securities (as defined in Section 551(2) of the Act) of the Company pursuant to Section 551 of the Act as if Section 561(1) of the Act does not apply to any such allotment provided that this power should be limited to allotment of equity securities which are to be wholly paid up in cash to an aggregate nominal amount of £100,000 during the period expiring at the end of 5 years from the date of passing of this Resolution save that the Company may before such expiry make an offer or offers which would or might require relevant securities to be alloted after such expiry and the Directors may allot such securities in pursuance of such an offer or offers as if the authority conferred hereby had not expired. The authority hereby given shall be a subsitution for any previous authority granted to the Directors.

Richard King thanked me for asking the question in order to be able to explain to the meeting what the wording meant. Resolution 3 and 4 simply mean that if, say, 100,000 people came forward to buy CPO shares, the Directors of CPO can issue these without having to write to existing shareholders to ask their permission (we’ll come on to this later in the article).

Following passing of the Resolutions, a lively “open forum” took place. Richard King admitted that he has been seen by many as being too close to the current regime at Stamford Bridge and a conscious decision was taken to move CPO away from Stamford Bridge and now operate from Bob Sewell’s offices in Weybridge. Thus, the current regime support but don’t interference.
Mr King went on to stress the lack of interference from the current CFC board when compared with the Ken Bates era. Mr Bates actively encouraged CPO to undertake commercial activities; however the only activity CPO now organise is the annual Lunch. It was Peter Kenyon who encouraged CPO to support the Past Players Trust, and Richard King now chairs the Ossie Trust. Mr King describes himself as having “no formal relationship with CFC”.

It was confirmed that CPO have an agreement in place surrounding the name Chelsea Football Club. As a result, should Chelsea Football Club move away from Stamford Bridge, the playing area and a small area beyond that remains under the control of CPO, and the rights of the name Chelsea Football Club remain with CPO. Since the drawing up of the original agreement, no clauses have ever been touched or renegotiated. If Chelsea Football Club ceases to play at Stamford Bridge, CPO simply calls for the lease to the playing area which the club hold to be surrendered.

There was some heated discussion between Mr King and a shareholder regarding the resignation of Paul Baker from CPO, and a number of articles which can at best be described as “unkind” regarding Mr King’s chairmanship after his alleged comment that CPO had “served its purpose”. Mr King said he has chosen not to respond or retaliate to these. Another speaker said that the internet accusations were shameful but Mr King needed to clarify his comments.

Mr King illustrated this by advising that an American Venture Capital firm were seriously looking into buying CFC prior to Roman Abramovich’s involvement in the club. The firm had undertaken Due Diligence and, when they saw the extent of the agreement with CPO, ran a mile. Hence his opinion that CPO has served its purpose in warding off property speculators, although he admitted that “continues to serve its purpose” is probably a better phrase.

He was also asked why Mark Taylor’s resignation wasn’t made public until some six months after the event. He took the opportunity to announce that although that was a mistake, Mark Taylor had been approached to re-join the board, and had not voiced an objection to this proposal.

According to a paper circulated by Paul Todd during the meeting, Dave Johnstone, who will be known to many Chelsea fans, has also expressed an interest in joining the board in order to increase the number of Directors (more on this below). At present it is felt that a board of just three is a very small number and the meeting expressed an opinion that the current arrangements lead to matters being driven through by Mr King.

There was also a frank discussion regarding the disappearance of information regarding contractual rights from the CPO website; Mr King now admits this was a mistake and the content has been restored, and that he was “carrying the can for someone else” on this. He advised the original wording was misleading and that this has been amended to read “CPO has contractual rights in the name Chelsea Football Club”, and blamed Ken Bates for misunderstandings regarding the original wording.

The meeting then went on to discuss the future of CPO. The question was asked, if Chelsea Football Club find a new home, what is the real power of CPO – can we stop the move? Richard King advised no. The power that we have is that they couldn’t sell the land (i.e. the pitch and surrounding area) – they can sell the hotels, health club etc. CPO would then be in the position to sell the land to any real estate company.

A shareholder asked precisely what area of the pitch individual shareholders own, and Mr King advised he would look into this.

I expressed my concern, which is that we simply don’t seem to be paying off the loan, and why the developing overseas markets weren’t being targeted. Mr King advised that it was his opinion that the market is saturated and he felt we were unlikely to sell many more shares.

I countered this by asking how did he know this? There must be many Chelsea fans in place like America, India and Russia who weren’t aware of the organisation, and that a comment on an internet forum indicated there were fans in Britain who’d never heard of CPO. Mr King said that CPO didn’t have a marketing budget and that a considerable amount money might have to be spent on such a campaign. He advised he would look into it.

Mr King was asked if anyone from CFC had spoken to him regarding a move, and he advised that this had not happened. He expressed a personal wish that CFC remain at Stamford Bridge, but he would consider any such proposal. He said his job was to represent shareholders.

There was a general view in the room that as long as CFC were to remain in the Borough and there was a possibility that CPO would retain a “pitch ownership” role, members were not totally opposed to a potential move.

Mr King stated that CPO would never respond publicly to speculation.

With regard to CPO continuing to support other club charities, he advised that all attendees at the CPO lunch he spoke to regarding this issue were in favour.

The meeting closed at 12.07pm

The Opinion:

Phew, glad that’s over. Now for the juicy bits. I’ve never been in the Millennium Reception before and it’s certainly very nice. A courteous young lady directed me to the lifts which took me to the third floor and into the Vialli Suite (turn right before the Dolce & Gabbana Lounge). Hallways all very chic and wood-panelled.

My jaw dropped when I saw how few people had arrived by 10.50 when I arrived, and although the meeting subsequently swelled to 20, it’s very clear to me that unfortunately many shareholders are totally apathetic about the organisation. And that’s a shame. We were invited to help ourselves to tea and biscuits (and water in my case).

Please believe me when I say I have absolutely no personal axe to grind with Richard King. He is doing what appears to be a fairly thankless task, but I am concerned that he and the current board are not doing enough to push CPO share ownership – it’s worth reminding that this is enshrined in the aims of CPO:-

“What are the responsibilities and aims of CPO in the ‘Roman era’?

Nothing has changed, the objective remains the same – to actively market and sell shares to raise money in order to pay off the loan used to purchase the freehold of the pitch.”

Whilst the meeting proved reassuring in that all agreements are copper-bottomed, and that there is an agreement in place to ensure that football is played in perpetuity, you do have ask yourself if that aim is being met.

Certainly the comments made regarding CPO’s commercial activities now being limited to the annual lunch aren’t encouraging, and Mr King’s comments regarding the lack of a marketing budget were of concern. (Paul Todd suggested after the meeting that maybe the shareholders attending the meeting should have had a whip-round ourselves to pay for an ad in the programme or a magazine).

Given the comments regarding “saturated” share ownership, it looks as if Resolutions 3 and 4 are a complete waste of time, as it will be a long cold day in Hell before we get 50,000 Chelsea fans demanding CPO shares at once.

I was also slightly concerned about the question regarding the precise area of “ownership”,that almost looked as if someone was counting their profit before it’s hatched. And that also begs questions about why certain parties aren’t interested in pushing the ownership envelope. If the club ever move away from the Bridge, your share will be worth much more if you’re one of only 15,000 as opposed to one of 100,000.

I totally support an increase in number of Directors. As one attendee said to me after, “Bob’s a lovely bloke but he’s a ‘yes’ man” – I don’t know Mr Sewell at all, but if he’s inclined to agree easily, then new Directors are needed simply to provide points of reference and, if needed, opposition. Therefore the news that Mark Taylor has been asked to return is positive, and I wholeheartedly agree that some much needed fan representation would be provided in the form of Dave Johnstone.

I took a day off work because I was concerned about the future of CPO – and this leads to another issue; if the meeting was moved to a weekend, surely more people would be able to attend – and whilst it proved a fascinating insight into the organisation, it certainly didn’t answer all my questions.