Introducing Campaign55 – A New Initiative from Chelsea Pitch Owners’ Shareholders

I’m sure that the events of last Autumn connected with Chelsea Pitch Owners are only too fresh in the minds of most Chelsea fans.

One of the reasons that the proposal put before CPO shareholders at October’s EGM failed to be carried, was the efforts of a group of CPO shareholders who banded together under the name Say No CPO. 

After the EGM, Say No continued to put pressure on the board of Chelsea Pitch Owners in connection with outstanding issues such as the disputed/misold shares, which are the subject of a report currently being compiled by Gray Smith of the CPO board, and also the “marriage value” of the ground and the shares.

However, over the last couple of weeks, following extensive correspondence and meetings, members of Say No have decided to launch a fresh initiative in connection with Chelsea Pitch Owners called Campaign55.

SNCPO stalwarts Clint Steele and Dave Spring have stated their intention that going forward Say No’s position is intrinsically opposed to any disbanding of CPO, and any move away from Stamford Bridge.  However, Campaign55 is intended as a progressive movement. And here I must declare my hand. 

Who are Ya?

I’ve reported and blogged on CPO issues for TheChels over the last couple of years and have been a member of SNCPO.  One of the most frequent allegations against SNCPO (mainly by CFC Truth, themselves a shadowy group with no public spokesperson) was that the group was faceless and “not transparent” – something I have certainly taken issue with, never having sought to hide my identity, save for the nickname I’ve always used in blogs. 

Campaign55 has a steering group of three – myself and fellow CPO shareholders Darren Mantle and Adil Pastakia.  However, we want this group to represent as many fans as possible and we are looking to affiliate with as many supporters’ groups as possible.  We might be the shareholders, but we want to get views of the fans in the street, the pub and the blog, and pass these on to the board. 

A Twitter account, Facebook page and an email address have  been created, and a mission statement prepared. The website is now live at http://www.campaign55.org/ . and an appearance on the Chelsea Football FanCast is planned in the weeks ahead.

What’s It All About, Then?

The choice of Campaign55 as a name took a lot of deliberation and involved not just the steering group, but members of the wider SNCPO group.  It’s our belief that the club should ideally be looking to expand Stamford Bridge to a capacity of 55,000.  We genuinely feel that the 60,000 capacity being mentioned in recent communications from the club is not a realistic ambition.

With the exception of the true marquee games like Manchester United and Barcelona, it’s becoming easier and easier for fans who can still afford tickets to pick up the inevitable “spares”.  Even for games like the recent match with Tottenham, tickets were available for those with nil loyalty points.  Five years ago, that wouldn’t have happened. We’ve seen plans which show how the ground could be extended without disturbing the historically significant, and difficult to dismantle, East Stand, and leaving the relatively new West Stand intact.

However, if, after full consultation with Chelsea Pitch Owners and Hammersmith & Fulham Council, it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and economic viability the ground can’t be extended, then Campaign55 would support moving to a new 55,000 seater stadium within the historic Chelsea FC catchment area, i.e. Earl’s Court or Battersea.

Clubbing Together

We are serious about this endeavour, and as a result letters of introduction will be sent to Bruce Buck, the Chairman of Chelsea FC, together with the Board of Chelsea Pitch Owners.  We are also taking steps to liaise with Hammersmith & Fulham Council in order to make the voices of our fans heard.

Just the Beginning

Campaign55 is in its infancy, but all of us involved are determined to use the movement as a conduit between the fans, the CPO organisation and the club to ensure that in the crucial medium to long term ahead, the interests of all Chelsea supporters are represented.  This is just the beginning.

The Twitter account address for Campaign55 is @Campaign55, you can access the Facebook page via http://www.facebook.com/campaign55 and email the team at campaign55cfc@gmail.com.

I’m also happy to answer questions about Campaign55 on the comments thread here, or through my own Twitter account @BlueBaby67

The Facts

The CPO AGM took place in the Harris Suite of Stamford Bridge at 11am on Friday 20 January 2012.

Having established a quorum, the new Chairman, Steve Frankham, declared proceedings open. A meeting which was always lively and occasionally boiled over into hostility against the board took questions from the floor right from the start.

The first speaker, David Sadler, wanted to know how ordinary shareholders could put forward resolutions for the AGM. This was born of his attempts to obtain an answer by both phone and e-mail. Bob Sewell had not known the answer and Mr Sadler complained that he had received no further response.

Bob Sewell responded to Mr Sadler’s question from the floor by referring the question to Andrew Edge of Stephen Harwood, CPO’s new lawyers, who was present at the meeting, to give his views. Mr Edge advised that to assist a shareholder in property was contrary to a duty of a director and that Mr Sadler should consult the 2006 Companies Act.

Steve Frankham asked CPO director Gray Smith to give an opinion on the technical legal position and Gray promised Mr Sadler that he would contact him with the correct representation, and called for greater transparency from the board as a whole on this issue. Mr Sadler stated that he considered the AGM just as important as the EGM, and Steve Frankham again promised the matter would be addressed.

Mr Sadler asked if it had occurred to the board that shareholders would wish to put resolutions from the floor and requested that in the absence of this occurring, the meeting should be voided. Mr Frankham advised that a further EGM would be called in which resolutions could be put forward by shareholders.

The second speaker wanted to know what the board of CPO was going to do in the next year, and if they were going to make “sensible” decisions. Steve Frankham stated that the company had been formed to sell shares, pay off the debt and look after the assets. At this point, Dennis Wise took the opportunity to promise honesty and that he had previously been on the board as Ken Bates hadn’t wanted the club to be sold to property developers. Mr Wise stressed that he was independent from the club and stated that he wanted all shareholders to put their views across.

Phil Roland addressed the issue of Resolution 9, relating to reinstatement of share sales and queried why this was an Ordinary Resolution rather than a Special Resolution. Hot on the heels of this, Dave Spring raised the issue of the disputed shares sold to shareholders believed to have an affinity with Chelsea FC. Mr Spring said he believed that any resolutions voted on would be nullified by these shares and accused Mr Frankham of not having dealt with the issue. Mr Spring proposed an adjustment and called for further clarification of the identity of the owners of said shares.

Steve Frankham advised that he had tasked Gray Smith with finding solutions to this issue, however Dave Spring stated that Gray Smith had already provided these answers, but the board had not acted on them.

The next speaker, Colin Simmonds asked if the board saw their responsibility as the selling of shares and paying off of the debt, which Steve Frankham said it was.

The meeting then moved on to the issue of developing Stamford Bridge. Gray Smith said the board were trying to keep Chelsea Pitch Owners separate from the football club, and the board of CPO had no right to be consulted by Chelsea FC. However, Steve Frankham added that the board were about to enter into dialogue with the club on the issue.

Tom Broderick stated that he had e-mailed Hammersmith & Fulham Council regarding the issue of ground expansion and that the Council were willing to explore all opportunities for redevelopment. Their feeling was that the club had sought to demonstrate that they were not able to expand the ground, but H&F were not convinced and needed to carry out further investigations to see if there were any viable propositions.

A major development in the meeting occurred when a speaker asked Bob Sewell, as one of only two members of the previous board present, why the previous board had exceeded the authority to sell no more than £100,000 of shares as agreed at the previous AGM in December 2010. Amidst some uproar, Mr Sewell responded that this was a “mistake” resulting from “human error”.

Rick Glanvill cited the difficulties in monitoring volumes of shares sold, and stated he felt that, given the fundamental issues that October’s EGM had presented, as many people as possible should have been given the opportunity to purchase shares. He added that he had not been aware of the limit [NB Rick Glanvill was not on the board of CPO at the time of the 2010 AGM], and that the issues surrounding this had given him sleepless nights.

Dave Spring asked if the issue of the exceeded share sale authority would now be dealt with by the board, and he was advised that a meeting had taken place on 30 November in which ways to make amends were discussed.

Former SNCPO stalwart James Greenbury rose to say that he looked forward to the report on the extra shares, and called for voting rights to be limited to one per shareholder. He suggested, to general applause and laughter, that if the board were unable to identify those recent bulk purchasers, Chelsea FC chairman Bruce Buck might be able to help them.

Clint Steele of SNCPO then initiated a discussion regarding the value of the shares themselves. Whilst the financial cost of a share remains £100, Clint called for an independent valuation to establish the “market value” of the share. Some speakers suggested that this might run into tens of thousands of pounds. Clint Steele stated he felt most shareholders there wouldn’t want their money back as CPO was set up to prevent the ground from being sold. As Roman Abramovich is the first new owner of the club since the founding of CPO, he felt a realistic assessment needed to be made of the market value.

Clint added that the additional sales over the authority in the autumn had made a farce of the meeting as if the bulk sold shares had registered their proxy votes, these would nullify the say of everyone else. Mr Steele also considered that if, had the proposal gone through in October, would these shareholders might have received their money back? If so, there might be a case to answer in respect of money laundering.

Rick Glanvill’s status as a director was once more called into question, and it emerged that former chairman Richard King had promised a vote on a resolution requiring all CPO board members to be shareholders, and although this proposal was voted through, it was never adopted. Steve Frankham advised he couldn’t comment on a matter which occurred in 2006. At this point, Dennis Wise provided laughter as he pulled a wad of banknotes from his pocket and handed them across the table to Mr Glanvill.

Rick Glanvill went on to clarify his position by stating that when he was appointed to the board of CPO in February 2011, he advised Richard King that he didn’t own a share, but was told it didn’t matter. He was sufficiently concerned about the issue that he had been going to purchase a share, but then as a result of Chelsea FC’s approach to the CPO board with their proposal forming the basis of the EGM, decided that purchasing a share at that stage would be perceived as opportunistic and look bad.

The meeting threatened to spiral into chaos, with calls for an open meeting to be held with Hammersmith & Fulham Council, and for an adjournment in the meantime. Paul Todd requested a straw poll for the latter and was refused. The board went on to state its opinion that voting rights should be limited to 10 per shareholder, however, as failing to pay off the loan would be a dereliction of duty, it would be wrong to stop people from buying shares.

Mr Gordon Isaacs was another speaker who called for an adjournment, stating that the only thing proven was the incompetence of the board. Steve Frankham advised that all share sold were legal, and the validity of this had been resolved. Concerns were raised regarding the poor maintenance of the share register and the need for a new class of share holding fewer voting rights.

Gray Smith reiterated his belief in the need for an EGM stating that many shareholders weren’t present at the AGM and that their views also needed to be represented.

Adil Pastakia made an impassioned speech saying that CPO was not about money, but if the proposal had been accepted at the EGM in October, CPO would have gone out of existence and the assets been handed over for a song. Mr Pastakia had looked at recent local property deals where land had been sold for in excess of £75 Million per acre. He also spoke in respect of the political situation in Russia and the problems which that might cause Roman Abramovich going forward.

Steve Frankham responded by saying that as a Chelsea fan, he would do everything possible to protect the asset and he was there to do his best for CPO. He was also in favour of CPO continuing at any new ground. Clint Steele asked if the board members were aware of the potential damage to their reputation should the safeguards provided by CPO be lost. Gray Smith said that CPO should be a wonderful asset available to the club, whoever owns it. However, at the present time, the board were not aware of any proposal to sell the ground and nothing to say that we would have to.

Rick Glanvill pointed out that as the board had not yet been re-elected, they were not in a position to discuss issues such as a further EGM. Steve Frankham made a further commitment to discuss the share issue, and Gray Smith opined that no further shares should be issued until after an EGM. Dennis Wise described himself as being “relaxed” about holding an EGM.

Roy Hinchcliffe of the Chelsea Supporters Club asked for minutes of board meetings to be published. Gray Smith commented the board would be unable to give a blanket commitment, but that he broadly agreed. From the floor, Julian East asked how could the board not make a commitment to transparency, to which Mr Smith responded that people had to have the chance to speak to the board confidentially.

Martin Knight called for Resolutions 9, 10 and 11 to be “knocked out” due to the bulk shareholders not being in attendance at the meeting.

Dan King of The Sun newspaper, who had carried stories relating to the identities of the bulk shareholders in the run-up to the meeting rose to ask if the board accepted the articles raised questions which needed to be addressed by CPO and CFC. Steve Frankham simply reiterated that Gray Smith would look into the matter, but eventually agreed that no shares would be sold until after the EGM.

Kim Holdaway, who had been a speaker at October’s EGM, asked if proxy voters had already cast their votes or whether they were at the chairman’s discretion. She called for Mr Frankham to either have the resolutions withdrawn, or to use his discretionary powers to try and have them voted down.

At this point – approximately 1.15pm – the debate concluded and the vote taken. The meeting was adjourned for the count, with many shareholders leaving. The vote was conducted under the auspices of the Electoral Reform Society and the results were returned as follows:


Resolution 1 (Accounts approval) For 3723 Against 279 Passed

Resolution 11 (Increase in directors to 7) For 2102 Against 1930 Rejected (needed 75%)


Gray Smith explained that as Resolution 10 was defeated, it had the effect of nullifying Resolution 9, in that shares could only now be sold to existing shareholders. As a result, shares sales would remain suspended pending an EGM, and Steve Frankham declared the meeting closed.

The Opinion

I always heave a huge sigh of relief when I’ve finished the bit above and turn to my impressions of the event. Firstly, it was great to see that the momentum of shareholder interest carried over from the EGM. To have 150 – 170 people turn up on a working day is no mean feat and demonstrates how much the issues surrounding CPO have now come to mean to people.

I’m reliably informed that the biscuits, although reduced in quantity from the last AGM, were excellent, however I can’t personally vouch for this (although the man *coughtimrollscough* who ate most of them can). It was also good to see many familiar faces in attendance.

I genuinely don’t believe the atmosphere in the room was quite as bad as it was at the EGM, but that could be due to the fact that we now have some breathing space in which all parties can come together and take matters forward ahead of any future proposals made by the club.

Rick Glanvill, to my mind, provided a totally reasonable explanation as to why he didn’t buy a CPO share. But I just wish to heaven that he had been able to come out and state the precise reason prior to the EGM in October. I honestly believe he was hamstrung by the edict that no director would speak publicly about CPO, and that if he’d been able to publicly clarify his position he would not have received so much of the (in any case unreasonable and unjustifiable) abuse that he was subject to.

One of the really pleasing aspects were the suggestions that were put forward from the floor. In particular, when share sales re-open, it would be hugely beneficial to our younger and less well-off fans if they could purchase shares and pay by Direct Debit/Standing Order. This will give the opportunity for even more supporters to become shareholders.

However, I am concerned that the issue of the “market value” of the shares is starting to raise its ugly head. Whilst there is no getting away from the fact that if last October’s proposal had succeeded Chelsea FC would have come into possession of the assets (i.e. the lease) of CPO at a fraction of the true market value, if too much emphasis is placed on what a share is worth, shareholders may well start to lose sight of what the share represents.

A share in CPO should represent what you feel in your heart about the club. When people get engaged, surely they don’t’ see the ring as “hmm, that’s gonna be worth a few quid in 20 years’ time, we’ll be able to flog it”. They think “that’s a pledge of love and commitment”. The same should be true of a CPO share. It should be a pledge of the love and commitment you feel toward Chelsea FC. The fact you want to protect it, not just now, but always.

Whilst many of the speakers on Friday could reasonably be described as the usual suspects (in my case, guilty as charged), it was good to see so many participants recognised by the chair. In particular, Adil Pastakia’s contribution was outstanding.

It is of interest that only one speaker, Michael Volpe, gave 100% support to the board of CPO, and the voting figures suggest that a large number of voting shareholders have misgivings about all board members. Indeed, one shareholder said to me afterwards, “how Bob Sewell is still on the board after this is unbelievable”.

Well, all the board have been re-elected, and they now need to sit down and decide exactly how they are going to take CPO forward, and prepare for another EGM in the spring at which another attempt at thrashing out outstanding matters will be made.

It will be interesting to see in the light of the rejection of Resolution 11 whether an ad hoc decision will be taken to expand the board, as it was in November, or whether Steve Frankham will decide to stick with what he’s got. It is arguable that in Gray Smith, whose performance on Friday was outstanding, the Say No lobby have sufficient representation on the board for the time being. One thing is certain, if a proposal to extend the board is put forward again at the EGM, this time prospective candidates will be ready and waiting.

As usual, apologies to anyone whose name I’ve misspelt; any errors of fact are mine and unintentional.

I’d like to thank Tim Rolls for keeping a better record of the results, which I have used above, than I did. His own splendid take on the meeting is at plainsofalmeria.com, and you can find his brilliant Pythonesque-parody of the CPO factions there too.

Follow me on Twitter @BlueBaby67; the SNCPO campaign team are @SayNoCPO; the delightfully named cerebral blog is @plainsofalmeria; and @CFCTruth provides an alternative view of CPO issues.

After a hiatus over the Christmas/New Year period, the issue of Chelsea Pitch Owners is once again moving to the centre of attention in SW6.

The Annual General Meeting will be taking place in The Harris Suite at Stamford Bridge on Friday 20th January at 11.00am, and whilst it’s unlikely to be conducted before as big a crowd and in such a febrile atmosphere as October’s EGM, attendance is still likely to be a good deal higher than in recent years due to ongoing interest in events and issues that are still the focus of dispute between Say No CPO (SNCPO) and the CPO board.

How did we get here? A Recap

For those who are new to the story, or need a refresher course, the CPO EGM on 27th October 2011 resulted in a defeat for the proposition put to shareholders by the board of CPO.  The proposition required 75% of votes cast at the meeting or by proxy, but the only 61.1% of the votes cast were in favour.  In an emotional speech after the result was announced, Richard King stated that he was hurt by the allegations made by a number of the speakers, and that he would reconsider his position as Chairman.  He resigned 24 hours later.

In a statement released on 31st October, Steve Frankham, who was a founding director of CPO and became the second chairman following the late Tony Banks’ resignation after his ministerial appointment in 1997, was invited to rejoin the board and act as chairman by the remaining directors.

In mid-November, following Mr Frankham’s appointment, Dennis Wise was invited to re-join the board. Gray Smith, who joined the SNCPO steering group subsequent to his well-received speech at the EGM regarding the possibility of implementing Conditional Sale Agreement to protect the interests of shareholders in the event of a move to a new stadium, was also appointed.  The date for the AGM was announced in the statement issued on 17th November.

Under the Radar

Although there has been little open activity since the EGM, the SNCPO group have appointed a steering committee, one of whose first decisions was to retain the name Say No CPO.  This decision was pragmatic, as the group felt a change in identity would be confusing to a press and fanbase having grown used to the title.  Following discussions with Steve Frankham and Rick Glanvill on 10th November 2011, it was decided that SNCPO would not pursue any legal redress into the disputed shares whilst discussions continued.

However, the group had extensive discussions with Hammersmith & Fulham Council during November and December, which disclosed that no planning application had been submitted to H&F Council regarding the possible expansion or partial redevelopment of Stamford Bridge during the last 7 years.  This information was made public in a statement of 31st December 2011, which also appealed to Chelsea supporters to put forward their own ideas to the group to present to the Council.

The New Year has kicked off with the news that Gray Smith has been tasked by Steve Frankham with looking into the issue of the “concert party” shares with a view to resolving this, and the launch of SNCPO’s AGM campaign statement, setting out their policy for the meeting and also offering themselves as a proxy for voters unable to attend the AGM.

So much for the facts.  Here’s my own view.

Steve Frankham said at the outset that he had an obligation to represent all shareholders.  It’s pointless to try and hide the fact that a sizeable number of shareholders, even discounting those holding disputed shares, voted for the proposition.  However, the outlandishness of the proposal itself was what galvanised a good many reasonable people into forming SNCPO. The organisation itself is poorer for the fact that so many of the known faces associated with the initial campaign (including Michelle Shaw, Trizia Fiorellino, Tim Rolls, James Greenbury) stood back after the EGM.  A number of members were alienated by the threat of legal action; how would such a course be funded and how would this damage not only CPO but also the football club were just two of the pitfalls foreseen.

The main objectives of the steering group continue to be disputing the legality of the “concert party” votes and a determination to remove all those who served on the CPO board prior to Richard King’s resignation, together with CPO’s auditors (new lawyers are already on board following the departure of Richard King).

Whilst the initiative to ask fans to forward ideas for ground expansion to be put before the Council, and a recommendation to limit voting rights to no more than 10 shares per shareholder is entirely laudable, other propositions put forward such as a new “class” of share and a continuing suspension of share sales are more difficult to find a rationale for.  This should actually be a golden age for sale of CPO shares to ordinary fans.  Many fans were unaware the organisation even existed until the fight to defeat the proposition began.  It is a unique opportunity to invigorate share ownership amongst the rank and file fanbase and should not be missed.

That is not to say that the board of CPO are perfect.  However, given Rick Glanvill’s comments in November that he was now aware of the mishandling of issues by the board whilst Richard King was chairman and wanted to put these right, the right strategy may be to give them a year in the job.  Once the AGM takes place and a/the board is elected, Mr Frankham has stated that the newly elected Board will then decide the strategy of CPO for the next 12 months.  One would hope that these discussions are already well in hand.

“I don’t think I can stand another 10 years of this fighting…”*

There are clearly issues surrounding Chelsea Pitch Owners which still need resolution.  The names of those who bought the disputed shares are floating out in cyber-space and a glance at the identities of the buyers (which I am not going to repeat here) show why SNCPO are right to continue to be concerned about these blocks.  However, it should not debar ordinary, genuine supporters from in effect having a stake in the future of the club.  And when the term “stake” is used, it is not to be interpreted as a speculative investment.  “Stake” in this context means philosophical, from the heart, wanting what’s best for the club and all the fans.  Not wanting to make a fast buck.

Also the SNCPO steering group need to make clear what other than resolution of the disputed shares their long-term aims are. Is their intention to take control of the board of CPO?  This is one of a number of allegations made against SNCPO and a counter-campaign operated by a shadowy blogger entitled CFC Truth ( @CFCTruth ) has recently been launched.  Mr/Ms Truth has blasted the SNCPO steering group for a lack of transparency, whilst he/she himself/herself retains a cloak of anonymity courtesy of their Twitter account and on-line blog.  Therefore, this column challenges CFC Truth to make their identity known.**

One cannot but help have an uneasy feeling that having won the PR battle in the autumn, SNCPO are in serious danger of losing hearts and minds unless they can present a clear and cohesive way forward, which doesn’t necessarily exclude working with the board of CPO.

Steve Frankham’s statement on accepting the chair that the board was that he was “… keen to re-establish the identity of CPO and to bring in new ideas and new blood. …Together, we will aim to reassert the independence of Chelsea Pitch Owners, while recognising that it is natural and correct we maintain strong ties with Chelsea FC going forward.”  One hopes that he will continue to pursue these aims.  However, questions still remain about his own appointment.  Notwithstanding his previous involvement with CPO, and the statement that he was the choice of the CPO board, were the board nudged by the football club?  Is Dennis Wise a pawn in the ongoing power struggle?  (friend of Mr Frankham, adored former player installed to win over the fans.)

Many questions remain unanswered.  Hopefully the AGM will provide some of the solutions.

I’ll be there and if you aren’t attending you’ll be able to read a report of events on TheChels.Net

Follow me on Twitter @BlueBaby67.

Follow @SayNoCPO for the news from the SNCPO group.

@CFCTruth provides an alternative view from an anonymous source.

_________________________________________________________________

*Well done if you’ve spotted this quote from Tom Robinson’s 1983 classic, “War Baby”.

** In the interests of transparency, the writer of this article is Theresa Magee, a West Stand Lower season-ticket holder and CPO shareholder who was a member of the original SNCPO campaign team and remains sympathetic to a number of the issues being pursued by the group.  Theresa has blogged extensively for TheChels.net on CPO over the last 18 months, and whilst she has always used a pseudonym, has never sought to hide her identity.

“After extensive discussions with Hammersmith and Fulham Council over the last few weeks, it has become very clear that the council do not want Chelsea Football Club to leave the borough and have been surprised at the media reports recently, in regards to the club exploring the possibility of moving to Battersea power station, as an alternative to redeveloping Stamford Bridge.

You might recall that the club previously stated that they had `explored every avenue possible in redeveloping Stamford Bridge`. This has now been confirmed by Hammersmith and Fulham council to be a lie.

NO PLANNING APPLICATION WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM COUNCIL REGARDING THE POSSIBLE EXPANSION OR PARTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF STAMFORD BRIDGE IN THE LAST 7 YEARS.

The council are quite willing to sit down with the club and explore every opportunity of redevelopment if the club so wish. Many suggestions have been put forward to the club from different supporters groups about how Stamford Bridge could be expanded, to accommodate between 55 and 60 thousand supporters. But the club have continually ignored these suggestions.

We as supporters don`t wish to hold our club back. We have to expand and to be able to compete with other clubs without the benefit of a wealthy benefactor. We all know that.

But increasing the capacity of Stamford Bridge has got to be the priority, which would enable the club to stay in its ancestral home since 1905.

If the capacity can`t be increased and we have no alternative but to move, then so be it. and as sad as that might be, we will no doubt all understand.

The time has come for all supporters young and old to submit any suggestions they might have, in possible expansion of part, or all of Stamford Bridge to reach the desired capacity. PLEASE EMAIL YOUR SUGGESTION BY 18th JANUARY 2012 TO saynocpo@gmail.com

Once all suggestions have been received, we will present them to Hammersmith and Fulham council to discuss their feasibility, before forwarding them onto the club.

If the club then refuse to entertain pursuing any sensible planning solution, we will then understand that the clubs sole intention is to wrestle the CPO shares away from the shareholders and to either float the club on the stock market for financial gain, or redevelop the land themselves by relocating the club and benefiting from an enormous financial return.

We hope this is not the case, but by presenting the club with serious solutions of redevelopment, the response and decision will be with the club, with all to see.

We must not forget that the present board are only passing through and any decisions that they wish to make, have to be in the sole interests of the club and not individuals.”

____________________________________________________________________

Given the club’s repeated assertion that they’ve fully explored possibilities of an expansion, this is certainly an important development, and clarifies that what shareholders in CPO and our supporters should be saying “no” to is a land grab. Remember that the club’s proposals only extended as far as consulting CPO until 2020 – now a mere eight years away. After that, Chelsea FC could end up playing their home matches anywhere. Ask yourself this – do you want Chelsea to become the Milton Keynes Dons of the 21st Century?

Get your thinking caps on. If you’ve got a suggestion to make about ground expansion, this is the time to put it forward. Our supporters now have an unrivalled opportunity to materially affect the future of the club in a positive way. Don’t let us become Franchise FC. Keep Chelsea in or as near to SW6 as possible.

There’ll be further updates ahead of the AGM on 20th January. In the meantime e-mail the saynocpo@gmail.com with your suggestions on expansion, follow the @saynocpo account on Twitter and follow me @BlueBaby67.

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