“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To: Bruce Buck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Say No CPO” simply means “no”

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

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

Visit the website: www.saynocpo.org

Email: saynocpo@gmail.com

Follow me: @BlueBaby67 on Twitter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Over course of the last week, tentative discussions between individuals via the medium of social networking have combined with supporters’ groups and CPO shareholders to form an umbrella group representing the interests of a large swathe of Chelsea fans, whether they be Pitch Owners or not.

A meeting took place last night to determine a way forward amongst those who have misgivings about not only giving Chelsea FC carte blanche to remove the club from Stamford Bridge without consulting the fans, but those who are concerned that the Board of Chelsea Pitch Owners are not truly independent of the club.

“What’s in a name?”

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

“No, Nay, Never”

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

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

“Strong Arm of the Law”

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

“Reach Out and Touch…”

Another aim is that we want to reach out to any existing shareholders, and ask people to get in touch with any shareholders that they know – we need every vote. Each of our no vote is worth three yes votes so your vote can make a difference (we need 26% of the vote to win).

Our boffins are currently working to create a website and e-mail address that will provide information on the Say No CPO campaign, and the media will be targeted to channel the campaign to those with little/no access to the internet.  In addition, information will be sent out to all Chelsea blogs/fanzines/websites and Podcasts, so keep checking for latest campaign updates.

Above all, we are actively seeking dialogue with the club and CPO directors in an attempt to move things forward, following a constructive initial meeting which took place with Bruce Buck last week.

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

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

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.