|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 12, 2011 21:49:19 GMT
(Although probably not too many on this board!  ) Sporting Life TERRY BACKS CHELSEA STADIUM PLANS John Terry has made an emotional plea for Chelsea fans to back the club's bid to repurchase the freehold of Stamford Bridge, insisting billionaire owner Roman Abramovich was acting in their best interests. Blues captain Terry - who is also a lifelong supporter - spoke out amid what appeared to be growing opposition to the proposal to buy out Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), a plan that is being seen as a precursor to a move to a new 60,000-seater stadium. Terry, who is also president of CPO, told the club's official website: "Obviously, I have great memories of Stamford Bridge. "But what excites me is the thought of my kids, who are Chelsea through and through, being able to grow up watching the team play in a big stadium. "We're talking about the next generation of kids beyond that as well. It excites me because I know for sure that we can grow. "It's not hidden that other clubs throughout Europe have gone out and bought sites for big stadiums. "And we are not the only club with a rich owner. There are others, including QPR locally, who are going to look to expand in west London as well. "For us to go further, we might need to move, and we have to trust our owner. "He has been amazing since he bought the club, along with our fans as well. No one is saying it is going to be an immediate change but we need to be looking. "We have to remember that London is a hotspot, west London especially, and big development companies can build substantial flats and penthouses here, and if we're not putting our name in the hat for these sites, then without a doubt they'll be snapped up by developers." He added: "I wouldn't be coming out, speaking publicly and backing the club if I didn't believe in it. "I could quite easily say nothing and let the club do their thing but I've been here for so long and I've spoken to the owner on numerous occasions. "He is Chelsea mad and wants us to be in with the Barcelonas, the Man Uniteds, and we know that doesn't happen overnight. "All the fans who bought shares in Chelsea Pitch Owners have played a very important part in the history of the club. I am the president of CPO so I understand what it is about. "If the club does decide to move then there are some sites in west London that spring to mind that are not too far and I don't believe Roman ever wants to take us too far away." Several supporters' groups have united to try to convince shareholders of CPO - who have been in possession of the land beneath Stamford Bridge since the 1990s - to vote against the club's proposal. The 'Say No CPO' campaign plan to distribute 10,000 leaflets before this weekend's Barclays Premier League match against Everton, which is being broadcast by Sky Sports. They insisted this afternoon they had no intention of disrupting the game, claiming they were only seeking to raise awareness of their cause. A spokesperson said: "There's no rally, there's no protest - we're just trying to get our point of view across to as many shareholders as possible. "A lot of them haven't received the literature or documentation from CPO, so we just want them to be aware of the vote, our website and the argument we have for them to vote no." Last week saw Chelsea write to CPO shareholders - most of whom are fans - with a proposal to buy back the Stamford Bridge freehold, which they sold to prevent property developers making the club homeless. However, after all but giving up on expanding the stadium due to red tape, the Blues are now considering relocating, but are unable to move unless they can profit from the land on which their current home sits. Fans are divided on the issue of leaving Stamford Bridge, with many genuinely conflicted and some pressing for a no vote at an extraordinary general meeting of the CPO on October 27 simply to force the club to reveal more details about their plans. Others want the existing CPO arrangement transferred to any new stadium but it is understood this is not an option www.sportinglife.com/football/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=soccer/11/10/12/SOCCER_Chelsea_Stadium_Nightlead.html&BID=165 |
|
|
|
Post by maudesfishnchips on Oct 12, 2011 22:28:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 13, 2011 7:12:34 GMT
Terry Playing the role of Nigel Quashie? Standard Fans must put trust in Roman Abramovich over stadium move, says John Terry 13 Oct 2011 John Terry has told Chelsea fans the club could win even more silverware if they moved to a bigger stadium. Blues captain Terry last night urged supporters to back the board's bid to repurchase the freehold of Stamford Bridge. The England defender spoke out amid what appeared to be growing opposition to owner Roman Abramovich's attempt to buy the land the club sold to Chelsea Pitch Owners - who are made up mostly of fans - in the 1990s. That plan has been seen as a precursor to a move to a new 60,000-seater stadium and although Terry loves Stamford Bridge, he believes relocation would be in the Blues' best interests both on and off the field. He told the club's official website, http://www.chelseafc.com: "For us to have a bigger pitch would be a big benefit. "We have suffered from this at the Bridge in the last few years when clubs come and 'park the bus', as we often say. We find it a little difficult to break them down at times but with a bigger stadium and a bigger pitch, with the quality we have in the squad and the quality we are aiming to have in the future, that would certainly serve us well. "Looking at Arsenal and Man United, they are getting a lot more income due to their capacity than us without an owner dipping into his own pocket, like Roman has done consistently year after year." Terry, who is also CPO president, declared fans had no reason to doubt Abramovich's motives, insisting the billionaire had always put the club first since rescuing it from financial turmoil eight years ago. He said: "We have to put our trust in Roman. "He is Chelsea through and through and he certainly wouldn't have put the money in and shown the attention to detail that he has done over the last eight years, only to suddenly now stop doing what he believes is best for the club. "He realises that, without the fans, Chelsea is nothing. I am one of them, my kids are too, and I want to be part of that for the next 40 to 50 years. "When Roman says that if we do move, he wants it to be within a three-mile radius, we have to trust him, and the people underneath him. Knowing the board as I do, I am sure they will answer questions fans have as honestly as they can." Chelsea have already responded to many supporters' concerns with a Q&A on their own website, while chairman Bruce Buck was expected to meet with fan representatives for a second time today. Several supporters groups have united to form a campaign called 'Say No CPO' and plan to hand out 10,000 leaflets before Saturday's Barclays Premier League game with Everton urging a no vote at the October 27 extraordinary general meeting which will see CPO determine their own fate. The club need 75% of those attending or voting by proxy to agree to sell the land beneath Stamford Bridge to the club, something Chelsea, who have yet to decide whether to move, insist must happen if they are ever to do so. Many of those who plan to vote no say they are not against relocation but believe they need more time to consider all the options. www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-23997527-fans-must-put-trust-in-roman-abramovich-over-stadium-move-says-john-terry.do |
|
|
|
Post by qprtobefrank on Oct 13, 2011 8:40:04 GMT
"Blues captain Terry - who is also a lifelong supporter "
It has been well documented that the charming and loyal to his mates Mr Terry, supported Manchester Utd as a youngster !!!
Maybe that slipped his mind (he has form for slipping up (penalty) don't forget).
Even after the Fulham debacle, I can't wait for the 23rd. Let us hope we can get Iniesta in on an emergency loan !!
|
|
|
|
Post by ozhoop on Oct 13, 2011 10:48:55 GMT
He got half a dozen faberge eggs for that little plea from the heart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 16, 2011 11:17:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 16, 2011 14:57:51 GMT
These things happen in the Soviet bloc, be careful what you wish for. ;D Russians are buying up the whole of west London anyway so they'll have plenty of options should they ever go ahead. |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 17, 2011 23:52:26 GMT
Guardian Chelsea reject campaigners' Stamford Bridge freehold counter-proposal • SNCPO emailed three-point response to chairman Bruce Buck • Chelsea's proposal will be voted on by CPO on 27 October * o o o reddit this * Dominic Fifield * guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 October 2011 15.46 EDT * Article history Stamford Bridge The SNCPO wants Chelsea to exchange the current freehold on Stamford Bridge for the same terms at any new ground. Photograph: Paul Gilham/Getty Images Chelsea have effectively rejected a counter-offer made by opponents of the club's attempt to buy back the freehold for the land on which Stamford Bridge is built, by reiterating that they will not alter the proposal on the table before the extraordinary general meeting of Chelsea Pitch Owners next week. The "Say No CPO" (SNCPO) campaign, a coalition of various supporters' groups, emailed the Chelsea chairman, Bruce Buck, on Monday to put forward its own three-point proposal in response to the club's offer to repurchase the pitch and land upon which the arena's four stands are constructed. In its correspondence, SCNPO pledged to urge shareholders to back Chelsea's plans if, crucially, the club exchanged the current freehold for the same terms at any new ground to which the Londoners may eventually move. That reflects concerns within sections of Chelsea's support over what the future would hold if the safety net of the current arrangement – CPO owns the freehold of the land on a 199-year lease, therefore effectively ensuring the club will never be rendered homeless – were removed and, particularly, in the event that Roman Abramovich ever relinquished control. "All fans appreciate what Roman has done, so we are willing to try and meet the club with a proposal that should be reasonable to both sides and are open to discuss other options," said a SNCPO spokesperson. Yet Chelsea have made it clear they feel the current arrangement is redundant, with Buck suggesting last week that the club are now worth more than the value of the site, on which Stamford Bridge is built, would ever be to property developers. They therefore argue there would be no long-term risk to the club's future, and that CPO's existence is therefore no longer required. "We have made what we believe to be a reasonable proposal to the CPO shareholders, and that is the proposal that will be put to them on 27 October," said a Chelsea spokesman. "We've been discussing our proposal with shareholders and supporters' groups and we'll continue to do so." Chelsea need to secure 75% of the shares owned by shareholders present, or those who are voting by proxy, in next Thursday's meeting for their proposal to be carried. With that in mind, Buck and the team captain, John Terry, were meeting major shareholders on Monday night to outline why they believe the offer that has been made represents the best long-term future for the club. Chelsea insist they have yet to determine whether they will seek to move from Stamford Bridge but they have actively lobbied Hammersmith and Fulham council in recent years to ensure sites at both Earls Court and White City could be used to house a football stadium, thereby keeping their options open within the specified three-mile radius of their current home. SNCPO had also suggested giving Chelsea "total freedom" to move to a larger stadium within three miles of Stamford Bridge at any time before 2030 "as long as Roman Abramovich is still in control", and had pushed for consultation over the design, facilities on offer and ticket pricing issues in that new home. That latter issue will be brought into focus on Wednesday night when Genk visit Stamford Bridge for a Champions League group game which large sections of the home support had intended to boycott in protest at ticket prices. It remains to be seen whether their protest will see fans stay away in numbers. However, Chelsea still anticipate a crowd approaching their European capacity. Fernando Torres is expected to start – he is in the midst of a three-game domestic ban following his sending off against Swansea – though the Brazil midfielder Ramires will not feature as he awaits the results of a scan on a knee injury sustained against Everton on Saturday. Medical staff hope the injury will not prove serious, but the player is doubtful for the trip to Queen's Park Rangers on Sunday. www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/17/chelsea-sncpo-stamford-bridge |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 17, 2011 23:54:07 GMT
INDEPENDENT Chelsea in freehold row with fans Club refuses to negotiate with supporters who want assurances over move away from Bridge By Sam Wallace, Football Correspondent Tuesday, 18 October 2011 Chelsea have refused to negotiate with the supporters' groups who want a new set of assurances over a possible move away from Stamford Bridge – including giving fans ownership of the freehold at any potential new stadium. The counter-proposal was put to Chelsea by the "Say No CPO" (SNCPO) campaign, which opposes the sale of the freehold of the current stadium back to the club by its present owners, Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), made up of around 12,000 fans who bought the £100-each shares. CPO is due to vote on the sale of the Stamford Bridge freehold to Chelsea on 27 October, with the club saying that being permitted to reacquire ownership is crucial to any potential move in the future. In its three-point plan, released yesterday, SNCPO said it would agree to the sale of the freehold by CPO – which encompasses the four stands and pitch at Stamford Bridge – in return for being given the freehold at any new stadium. Chelsea have made clear that condition is unacceptable to them. Last night CPO shareholders who own significant holdings attended an invitation-only meeting with the Chelsea chairman, Bruce Buck, and captain, John Terry, at Stamford Bridge aimed at convincing shareholders to vote in favour of selling the freehold back to the club. The SNCPO campaign has also promised to back any stadium move within three miles of the Bridge up to 2030 on the basis that owner Roman Abramovich is still in charge of the club. The club have pledged to CPO shareholders that in the event of them buying back the freehold they would not move more than three miles away should they leave Stamford Bridge before 2020. Abramovich has pumped around £800m into Chelsea since he bought the club in 2003 and while fans are broadly grateful for the Russian's support – they have won three League titles under him – they would like assurances about the plans of the multibillionaire. Chelsea believe that any potential new stadium would, along with land acquisition, cost £550m to £600m, and would require significant investment from Abramovich. They have said that alone would show his commitment to the club and he would not need to give supporters the freehold. The sale of the Stamford Bridge site would also be crucial in funding a new stadium, the club say, and they cannot go ahead with redevelopment without owning the freehold. SNCPO also want "ongoing consultation, and transparency of information" from the club over a new stadium. However, the club are sticking to their original offer that fans will be recompensed at £100 a share for the 15,000 shares in existence and those voting 'Yes' will have perks such as a choice of season ticket at a new stadium and their name on a "roll of honour". There are disagreements between SNCPO and the club on the valuation of the Stamford Bridge site, which occupies 12 to 13 acres of prime west London land. Some believe it could be worth as much as £750m once the club also have the freehold. Buck has indicated the club value it at much less than that. The club need 75 per cent of CPO voters and proxies at the meeting a week on Thursday to vote "Yes" to selling the freehold. The likes of Terry and the former Chelsea left-back Graeme Le Saux have come out in favour of the "Yes" campaign. A Chelsea spokesman said the club had already put a "reasonable" proposal to CPO shareholders and would continue to discuss it with fans. www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/chelsea-in-freehold-row-with-fans-2372072.html |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 22, 2011 9:10:21 GMT
I know that style! Club Posts on its official Site a fan who supports what they want to do re Ground Move and evokes the Sainted-to-Chelsea, Matthew Harding (who died 15 yrs ago today) to justify that move CHELSEA OFFICIAL SITE AN OLD QUESTION Posted on: Fri 21 Oct 2011 Following the announcement of the proposal to acquire the Stamford Bridge freehold from Chelsea Pitch Owners, supporter Graham Bell replied to the letter he received from the club, wishing to recount a conversation he once had with Matthew Harding over the future of the ground… The debate following the club's proposal to Chelsea Pitch Owner shareholders to allow the club to buy back the freehold land on which the stadium sits is certainly not the first occasion fans have discussed the possibility of leaving Stamford Bridge. That option and where prospective new sites are located have been raised on many occasions in recent years as the team accumulated silverware and the fanbase grew. However, two prominent Chelsea supporters were giving thought to the prospect way back in 1995 when just two of Stamford Bridge's current stands were built and sold-out games were the exception rather than the rule. Those supporters were Matthew Harding and Graham Bell, who as dyed-in-the-wool Blues had taken their love of the club as far as putting large amounts of their own money into it, and on receiving his letter this month from Bruce Buck regarding the proposal, Bell replied wishing to recount the story. By 1995 Harding had already invested heavily in the club and was a director. He asked Bell as a fellow Chelsea supporter who worked in the same reinsurance industry in the City of London to also become more involved. 'I said right then, what am I doing, and he said our youth set-up is quite badly ignored,' recalled Bell this week. 'So I went along to our youth games and I liked what I saw. Graham Rix, the youth team coach at the time, was a terrific coach so I got involved. 'I also became a director of the Chelsea Children's Trust which Lord Attenborough ran and was able to bring disabled and abused kids to home matches, and I was also asked to become a director of Chelsea Pitch Owners. 'For a bit of fun I used to buy a share every time the youth team scored and at the time they had a prolific goalscorer called Joe Sheerin who cost me a fortune. So I had the pleasure of buying a lot of CPO shares but also had the pleasure of watching Jody Morris, Jon Harley, Neil Clement and John Terry come through the youth ranks.' Nick Crittenden and Graham Bell As well as backing the junior level of the club financially, Bell (pictured above presenting the Chelsea Young Player of the Year trophy for 1997 to Nick Crittenden) funded a long-overdue extension to the main building at the club's then training ground at Harlington. Harding and he also paid for the original giant blue flag that memorably appeared during the latter stages of Chelsea's run to the FA Cup Final in 1994. Harding (pictured below), who later became vice-chairman of Chelsea before his death in a helicopter accident in October 1996 when returning from a game, spent a considerably larger sum when he purchased the freehold of the Stamford Bridge stadium site from the Royal Bank of Scotland. The bank was the custodian since property developers Cabra Estates, who had wanted to evict Chelsea, had run aground financially. Harding's action was to underpin the future of the ground and remove the risk that it would be taken away according to Bell, but at the same time he believed that one day the club would have to move on. It was from Harding's estate following his death that Chelsea Pitch Owners, helped by a loan from the club, acquired the freehold. Matthew Harding 'I remember really clearly a conversation I had with Matthew Harding in a pub right next to Lloyd's of London, where we both worked,' Bell said. 'It was on a Monday in 1995 before we were going to Kingstonian on the Saturday for a pre-season friendly. 'He said, "I want you to answer this question with your honest opinion, don't answer with what you think I might want to hear." He would often pose questions like that. 'He said, "If we achieve the sort of success that I dream of for Chelsea, what do you think about changing the location of our stadium?" 'I retorted straight away without even thinking, absolutely not, we can't leave the Bridge, the Bridge is our spiritual home, don't be stupid. And he said to me you are completely wrong. 'He said the club is the people, and we will still be the club, but if we have the chance of really taking off and if we achieve the sort of success I dream of for this club then we are going to have to move, we will have no choice. 'So I asked how far then and he said well let's put it this way, it will be a disaster if we occupied that bit of land between the M4 and the M25 that is empty at the moment. We need to be as close to Stamford Bridge as possible but we need a bigger stadium and we will need to move.' Sixteen years on from that conversation it is a question Bell, as a CPO shareholder (he resigned as a director on amicable terms when new business commitments prevented him giving it due attention), finds himself pondering again. His father was best friends with the father of that most local of Chelsea players, Alan Hudson - and his home has never strayed more than half a mile from the stadium, but he is ready for that to change. 'We have to move grounds. I don't think the club has a prayer of redeveloping Stamford Bridge. The only way out of Stamford Bridge in an emergency is onto the Fulham Road. That certainly isn't going to work with 60,000. 'We have not got room to develop the Bridge. 'In order to be able to move if a site comes up we have to be able to move immediately, and when I say move I mean move on the deal. In contrast to the opinion of a lot of people I really like and whose opinion I value, and I do understand some of the conversations going on, I do not feel uncomfortable about it at all. 'I loved the idea of supporters owning the pitch, I thought it was brilliant, and it was something that was a great source of comfort to a lot of people. I do understand and appreciate that some people are reluctant to give that source of comfort up. 'I do understand that some people want to talk to the club more about it but my view is I trust the club. 'The more I see this regime operate, the more I realise that they are genuine. I have no idea how much it must have cost to change from the badge we had to our proper badge but it must have cost a fortune, but they did it because they knew it was what the supporters would want, any genuine Chelsea supporter wants a rampant lion on the badge. That demonstrated to me that they were listening to the fans. 'Another example is the 10 per cent of seats set aside for young supporters and families if we have to move grounds. 'I am comforted by my dear old mate who did so much for the club who made it clear to me that moving wasn't a problem. 'If I have to get public transport to the stadium from my home rather than walk then it isn't going to be the end of the world if we move within a three-mile radius, and I really think there is a decent chance we could. 'I will be reluctant to leave the Bridge, especially having never lived more than half a mile away from it, but it is my belief, and it would have been Matthew's belief, that it is an inevitability.' www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2489213,00.html |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 26, 2011 7:01:10 GMT
The Independent
Buck takes matters into own hands in Bridge war
Sam Wallace's exclusive investigation into the struggle for Stamford BridgeThe desperate lengths that Chelsea have gone to in order to win a crucial vote tomorrow, which will ultimately decide whether they can sell Stamford Bridge and move to a new stadium in west London, can be revealed today by The Independent. In voicemails left by the Chelsea chairman, Bruce Buck, and heard by The Independent, Buck asks for help from a waste disposal contractor at the club to put a shareholder in Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) who had asked awkward questions "on the sidelines". Since Buck announced the club's intention on 3 October to buy back the freehold of Stamford Bridge from CPO so they can sell the ground and move on, the club has faced concerted opposition from fans' groups. The Independent has also learnt that an extraordinary volume of shares has been sold in an open sale that closed on Thursday ahead of tomorrow's vote, in which the club needs 75 per cent of CPO shareholders to vote "Yes" to their proposal in order that they can buy back the freehold – which they say is crucial to any future stadium move. In the last week before sales of CPO shares were suspended, more than £200,000 was spent on shares which cost £100 each and are limited to 100 per person. In all, more shares were sold in that period than in the previous seven years, representing more than 10 per cent of all the shares in issue. The fans' groups lobbying for a "No" vote fear that some have been bought by individuals with loyalties to the club. Tomorrow's vote, which follows a CPO meeting at Stamford Bridge, will be defining for Chelsea's future. The club say any potential move to a new stadium on sites such as Battersea Nine Elms or Earls Court will be dependent upon them buying the freehold for Stamford Bridge so they can redevelop the potentially lucrative site to fund the move. The dissenting supporters, chiefly the "Say No CPO" (SNCPO) group, are concerned about the consequences of CPO shareholders losing the freehold. CPO was launched in 1993 as a not-for-profit initiative which encouraged Chelsea supporters to invest as little as £100. It was devised as a block against developers ever being able to buy the prime, 13-acre Stamford Bridge site on the Fulham Road which has been Chelsea's home since their birth in 1905. In the case of the voicemails left by Buck, his specific concern was a Chelsea fan and CPO shareholder Paul Todd, whom the Chelsea chairman had identified as a particularly vocal opponent of the club's bid to buy back the freehold. The voicemails were left with Mick Crossan, a friend of Todd. He played the five voicemails to Todd, who has passed them on to The Independent. In the second voicemail, Buck says to Crossan: "Just to let you know that at about 10.30 last night Paul Todd wrote quite an aggressive email to Chelsea Pitch Owners and he is obviously organising something and really we don't like that and we really want him on the sidelines and we are relying on you to take care of that and I would appreciate it very much if you could." In the third voicemail, Buck says: "I think reports are coming back to me that Paul Todd is totally out of control and we are relying on you to get him under control." In the fifth voicemail left for Crossan, Buck says, "As of last night your friend Mr Todd was still very active, very annoying and very frustrating and we really need your help here and I would appreciate it if we could get it... and I would really like to talk to you about this situation because it's not a good one." Todd claims his "activity" amounts to nothing more than trying to get Chelsea to be more transparent over their plans for Stamford Bridge and to respond to his emails and letters. Crossan is chairman of Powerday, a recycling and waste management company in north-west London which has contracts with Chelsea at Stamford Bridge and the club's training ground in Cobham, Surrey. He is also a season-ticket holder at the club and is understood to hold CPO shares in his family name. A spokesman for Chelsea said that Buck had sought an "amicable" resolution of differences with Todd. The second voicemail from the Chelsea chairman was left on 4 October, just one day after the club went public with their plan to buy out CPO. The Chelsea spokesman said: "Since the proposal to CPO was announced the chairman has had an open dialogue with many of the stakeholders in the process. Bruce and the club have said on many occasions that they encourage dialogue on the proposals, but expect that everyone behaves responsibly and stays away from personal attacks. "In light of such attacks that Mr Todd had purportedly made against CPO directors, Bruce tried several times through a third party, to meet with him to find an amicable resolution and calm the situation, as he felt Mr Todd's behaviour was inappropriate and out of line. His voicemails reflect his frustration with the difficulty in reaching Mr Todd." CPO is a company independent from Chelsea, but the club said that Buck had not been passed emails sent from Todd to Bob Sewell, a director of CPO, and had only learnt about their contents anecdotally. Todd denied that his behaviour had been "inappropriate". He said: "All I have done is dig my heels in and ask for answers. If we are talking about having a dialogue, what does he mean by having me 'sidelined'?" The Independent, which also holds a share in CPO under this correspondent's name, requested an updated shareholders' register from CPO's offices in Surrey yesterday but received no response to its inquiry. A recent shareholders' register revealed that Buck had bought 100 shares himself in April. CPO shareholders with significant holdings have been invited to meetings at the club with Buck and John Terry over the last two weeks. Pitch battle: Key players in Chelsea power play Bruce Buck Brought in by Roman Abramovich when he took over the club in 2003. Buck is a lawyer, originally from New York, who has supported Chelsea since moving to London in 1983. With Roman Abramovich he is a shareholder in Chelsea Limited, the ultimate owner of the club. Paul Todd A Chelsea season-ticket holder and Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) shareholder, he has been critical of the CPO board, including chairman Richard King, at CPO meetings. It was Todd whom Buck identified as a potential annoyance in his voicemail messages to Mick Crossan. Mick Crossan A Chelsea season-ticket holder and also the founder of Powerday, a waste disposal company which has a contract with Chelsea. Buck went to Crossan for help in getting Todd onside because he knew that the two men were friends. But Crossan, who has a long-standing association with Todd, alerted his friend. www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/buck-takes-matters-into-own-hands-in-bridge-war-2375861.html
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 26, 2011 7:02:41 GMT
INDEPENDENT
Q&A: How a group of fans came to hold all the keys to Chelsea's future
Sam WallaceQ. Why was Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) launched? A. In 1993, soon after the club had won a nine-year fight to regain the freehold of Stamford Bridge from developers who wanted to knock the stadium down, the thinking was that if the freehold of the pitch and four stands was in the possession of the supporters it could never be separated and sold. Q. How much did shares cost? A. Shares were sold for £100 each and were limited to 100 per person in order that no one person could ever gain control of CPO. Q. What rights does CPO hold? A. As well as the freehold, the agreement states that if the club move away from Stamford Bridge, the rights to the name "Chelsea Football Club" revert to CPO. Q. How much did the freehold cost? A. It was finally acquired for around £10m in 1997 from the estate of the late Chelsea director Matthew Harding. Share sales at the time only raised approximately £1.5m so the club loaned the rest on very favourable terms. The shares will be bought back by the club for the same price, £100. Q. Who bought shares in CPO? A. Ken Bates, the chairman at the time, rallied friends like the late Labour minister Tony Banks, who was a Chelsea fan and an original director of CPO. Celebrity Chelsea fans such as Suggs from Madness and television presenters Johnny Vaughan and Tim Lovejoy also appear on the shareholders' register. As does the former Tory MP David Mellor. Q. Who runs CPO? A. The chairman is Richard King. Attendance at meetings have dwindled over recent years. Q. Why is it suddenly such a hot topic? A. On 3 October, Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck announced that he would be writing to CPO shareholders to tell them that the club wanted to buy back the freehold. Q. When is the decision made? A. There is a meeting tomorrow at Stamford Bridge where the club need 75 per cent of the CPO shareholders present and proxies to vote "Yes". Q. Why now? A. The club believe they have to keep open the option to move in future. They say that in order to do so they need to own the freehold to the Bridge site which would be redeveloped as part of the funding for a new stadium. Q. What are they offering in return? A. The club have said that supporters who vote "Yes" will have first choice on season tickets at any new ground. "No" campaigners say this is a bribe. Q. How much is Stamford Bridge worth? A. Buck has said that the cost of land acquisition and building a new stadium would be £550-£600m within three miles of the ground and that the funds the club could raise from Stamford Bridge would be around one third of that. Supporters' groups say they want an independent land valuation. Q. Why not just stay at the Bridge? A. The club say they have spent up to £700,000 on architectural studies of the ground and discovered that, even if they realigned the pitch, they could not increase the capacity significantly as the site, at 12-13 acres, is too small. Q. Can Chelsea even fill a 60,000-capacity stadium? A. The club have promised that 10 per cent of tickets at the new stadium will be priced for families and under-21s. The club needs to be self-sufficient with Financial Fair Play rules coming in. Q. Why are some of the supporters against a "Yes" vote? A. The "Say No CPO" campaign is not against moving from Stamford Bridge. They will endorse the club buying the freehold if, in exchange, they give the shareholders the freehold of any potential new stadium. Q. Why would the club not agree to swap one freehold for another? A.Chelsea say that building a new stadium would be sufficient to demonstrate the commitment of Roman Abramovich and are not prepared to negotiate. Q. How important is this to the club? A. Very important. Buck has spoken individually to CPO shareholders with significant holdings. The likes of John Terry have urged a "Yes" vote. Q. What happens if it is a "No" vote tomorrow? A. Chelsea say that ends their interest in building a new stadium and they will have to stay at Stamford Bridge, which only has a capacity of 41,800. Q. What happens if it is a "Yes" vote tomorrow? A. It means Chelsea could, theoretically, start negotiating for a new site straight away. Q. Surely that would be good news? A. For some supporters it is enough that Abramovich is in charge. He has delivered the most successful eight years in their history and they trust him. For the objectors the fear is what lies down the line under a different owner www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/qampa-how-a-group-of-fans-came-to-hold-all-the-keys-to-chelseas-future-2375862.html
|
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Oct 26, 2011 10:45:48 GMT
Hate to say it but I hope the Chelsea fans win this battle. This whole situation is horribly wrong and I don't want them lot moving into W12.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 26, 2011 15:50:04 GMT
MAIL
Opponents of Chelsea plan to buy back Bridge freehold fear defeat on eve of vote Opponents of Chelsea's bid to buy back the freehold of Stamford Bridge are bracing themselves for defeat in the vote to decide its future. An increasingly-bitter campaign between those who support the club's plans to re-acquire the land they sold to fan-led group Chelsea Pitch Owners in the 1990s and those who oppose it will draw to a close on Thursday during an extraordinary general meeting at the Blues' home ground. Both sides have waged a public relations war in a bid to rally support for their cause since Chelsea first announced their proposal on October 3. The plans were immediately seen as a precursor to a move to a new 60,000-seater stadium, something that could help the club better compete in terms of matchday revenue with the likes of Manchester United and Arsenal under the constraints of Financial Fair Play. Chelsea have insisted they have not yet decided whether to relocate but say they need to have the ability to sell the land on which Stamford Bridge sits before negotiating with developers at any new site - with Earls Court, Battersea and White City all possible destinations. While not opposed in principle to a move, those against the buyback proposal - spearheaded by the 'Say No CPO' (SNCPO) campaign - have accused the club of not giving enough notice of the vote, a lack of transparency, and have demanded that the existing CPO agreement be transferred to any new ground. Chelsea have insisted they have been open and transparent throughout and believe the threat which led to CPO's formation - a fear of the club being made homeless by property developers - has disappeared forever because the Blues are now worth more than any land a stadium would occupy. Both sides have spent the past three weeks attempting to woo CPO shareholders as well as encouraging their supporters to buy up as many shares as possible.
Indeed, the last week before trading was suspended saw more than £200,000 spent on the £100 shares - around 10 per cent of the entire shares in issue - with more sold during that period than during the previous seven years. SNCPO fear most of those have been bought by those with loyalties to the club and they are not optimistic about the outcome of the vote.
A spokesperson said: 'Around £250,000 worth of shares were sold in the last week before they went off sale. 'My assumption would be that most of them are yes votes.' Chelsea were taking nothing for granted, insisting they had no idea how the vote would go. The outcome will be determined by the number of owners of the near 18,000 shares who turn up or vote by proxy, with SNCPO confident of a guaranteed 1,000-1,500 supporters worth around 3,000 votes. Their spokesperson added: 'The individual shareholders are with us, most of them, the people with one, two, three shares.' Figures from both sides of the campaign are also understood to have bought the maximum 100 shares allowed per person, with Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck having done so earlier this year and leading SNCPO figure James Greenbury recently following suit. Buck, meanwhile, was left red faced after messages left by him on the voicemail of a waste-disposal contractor at the club were leaked. The messages on Mick Crossan's phone are from an increasingly-frustrated Buck as he sought to set up a meeting with influential CPO shareholder Paul Todd, who has been an active opponent of the club's freehold buyback bid. Chelsea said the messages were left by Buck in an attempt to seek a resolution with Todd. A spokesman added: 'Bruce and the club have said on many occasions that they encourage dialogue on the proposals, but expect that everyone behaves responsibly and stays away from personal attacks. 'In light of such attacks that Mr Todd had purportedly made against CPO directors, Bruce tried several times through a third party to meet with him to find an amicable resolution and calm the situation, as he felt Mr Todd's behaviour was inappropriate and out of line. 'His voicemails reflect his frustration with the difficulty in reaching Mr Todd.' SNCPO said Todd was a highly-respected and long-standing Chelsea fan who was previously offered a directorship with CPO Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2053795/Chelsea-Stamford-Bridge-buyback-opponents-fear-defeat-vote.html#ixzz1bu4lUEKH
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 27, 2011 7:01:26 GMT
Hate to say it but...Good luck Chelsea Fans. INDEPENDENT/Sam Wallace
Battle over future of Bridge goes to tense vote
CPO shareholders opposed to move need just 25 per cent of vote to scupper club's plansThe increasingly bitter battle for the ownership of the freehold for Chelsea's Stamford Bridge stadium will reach its conclusion today with neither side able to say last night with any certainty that they have carried the day. The club, who are bidding to buy back the freehold from Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), have said that they need the freehold in order to be able to redevelop Stamford Bridge and move to a new stadium. The extra publicity around the vote today has meant that the club will now hold the meeting on a concourse in the West Stand to accommodate the estimated 400 shareholders who have expressed an interest in coming. There is still mystery surrounding the sale of more than £200,000 worth of shares in the last two weeks, more shares than have been sold in the last seven years and 10 per cent of the entire issue. The "Say No CPO" (SNCPO) campaign has claimed that those shares have been bought by "Yes" voters loyal to the club. The club maintain there is no evidence of that, and argue certain individuals in the "No" campaign have also increased their holding. The "No" campaign require just 25 per cent of the vote to defeat the club's attempt to buy the freehold for around £1.5m to £2m. It was originally acquired in 1997 for £10m, around £8.5m of which was loaned to CPO by the club at the time. Shares cost £100 each and are limited to 100 per person and they were still on sale up until Thursday, 17 days after the club announced their intention to buy back CPO. The SNCPO group, who have said that they would endorse a "Yes" vote in exchange for the freehold on any potential new stadium, believe they have around 1,000 proxy votes given to them by fans sympathetic to their cause and will muster around 3,000 in all. However, neither side has a clear idea of how many people will come to the vote today with only a fraction of voters contacted directly by campaigners on both sides. When the Chelsea chairman, Bruce Buck, first announced the club's intention to buy out CPO on 3 October it was estimated that there were around 12,000 CPO shareholders who held a total of 15,000 shares. Since then the number of shares has risen to more than 18,000 before sales were suspended. The SNCPO campaign has encountered problems contacting shareholders because of the outdated shareholders' register they were initially given. It is not yet clear whether CPO chairman Richard King will allow questions from the floor today or move straight to a vote, which will be conducted by the Electoral Reform Society. The SNCPO have said they will circulate a series of questions for the CPO board, with whom there has been friction since the vote was announced. Among the questions that SNCPO want answered is why the club left so little time between announcing their intention to buy back the freehold and today's vote – 24 days, three more than the legal minimum. They also want to know why the new shares were sold after that announcement, especially as the money raised has no direct benefit to CPO and simply goes to pay off the 14-year-old debt to the club. Many Chelsea fans who attended last night's fourth-round Carling Cup game at Goodison Park are expected to have got back from Liverpool overnight in order to attend the meeting. The club's desperation to get the "Yes" vote was revealed yesterday by The Independent, which was given transcripts of Buck asking a contractor at the club to help put one "No" vote agitator "on the sidelines". www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/battle-over-future-of-bridge-goes-to-tense-vote-2376308.html |
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Oct 27, 2011 15:18:52 GMT
A fail then !! Chelsea lose stadium battle . Roman Abramovich has been given a bloody nose by Chelsea diehards who rejected his bid to buy the freehold of Stamford Bridge. At a fractious meeting under the 106-year-old ground's West Stand, around 700 shareholders from the Chelsea Pitch Owners - who took over the freehold on a 199-year lease in 1993 - emphatically kicked Abramovich's offer into touch. The Russian oligarch's front men, chairman Bruce Buck and chief executive Ron Gourlay, were given a rough ride by fans who refused to give up their £100 shares. Abramovich, needing 75 per cent of the vote, managed only 61 per cent while the jubilant rebels carried 38 per cent. Buck sighed: "I'm disappointed, but we are all Chelsea fans so let's get together on Saturday and beat the crap out of Arsenal." Abramovich is looking to Stamford Bridge because the current 41,800 capacity is restrictive - and Buck admitted the club have been eyeing up alternative sites within a three-mile radius. Read more: www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Chelsea-lose-Stamford-Bridge-stadium-battle-article821976.html#ixzz1bznLghGh Sign up for MirrorFootball's Morning Spy newsletter Register here |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 27, 2011 15:24:03 GMT
LOOOOSERRRS! (Bet they get around it anyway!) West London Sport Bridge buy-back proposal defeated 27/10/2011 by James Ross Chelsea have been defeated in their bid to buy back the freehold of Stamford Bridge. At Thursday’s all-important extraordinary general meeting of Chelsea Pitch Owners’ shareholders, it was announced that 61.6% of the 5,796 votes cast were in favour of the proposal – significantly less than the 75% required for it to be approved. The mooted buy-back by owner Roman Abramovich was seen as a precursor to the club selling its current SW6 home and building a new 60,000-capacity stadium. A number of possible sites are believed to have been considered, including Earl’s Court and Battersea Nine Elms. There is also a potentially viable piece of land in White City, close to the Loftus Road home of QPR, who are also interested in the site. QPR’s sudden serious interest in building a new ground in the west London area, where available land is at a premium, appears to have been a major factor in Chelsea’s determination to buy back the Bridge. CPO bought the freehold in 1993 after being set up to safeguard the club’s financial security and avoid ownership of the ground falling into the hands of property developers Despite Blues captain John Terry and manager Andre Villas-Boas publicly backing the controversial proposal, many fans remained sceptical and several supporters groups united to try to convince shareholders of CPO to vote against it. Following the outcome of the vote, the club released a statement saying it was “naturally disappointed with the result.” The statement added: “A large number of fans supported our proposals but it was always going to be difficult when we had to have a 75% majority of voting shareholders accepting them. “We approached this process with transparency and the will to do what is best for Chelsea Football Club and while we will remain as ambitious as ever, this decision could slow down our progress.” Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said: “Obviously we are disappointed but we recognise and we respect totally that the shareholders of Chelsea Pitch Owners have spoken. “We will meet with Mr Abramovich and the rest of the board and we will decide what action, if any, we will take going forward.” www.westlondonsport.com/chelsea/bridge-buy-back-proposal-is-defeated/ |
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Oct 27, 2011 15:26:21 GMT
Money talks ,Abrams lost round one but will get heavier with round two .
|
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 27, 2011 15:28:18 GMT
I'm pleased that the whole purpose of selling the plots has won round one. As I'm sure this will begin again soonest. Actually quite disappointing that 61% were in favour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 27, 2011 16:29:52 GMT
The mighty Chelsea Official Site 61.6 PER CENT VOTE FOR PROPOSAL TO CPO Posted on: Thu 27 Oct 2011 At today's (Thursday's) general meeting of Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), 61.6 per cent of votes cast on Chelsea Football Club's proposals to buy the freehold land on which the Stamford Bridge stadium sits were for the proposal. However as 75 per cent of votes were needed, the proposals fail to pass. Chelsea FC is naturally disappointed with the result. A large number of fans supported our proposals but it was always going to be difficult when we had to have a 75 per cent majority of voting shareholders accepting them. We approached this process with transparency and the will to do what is best for Chelsea Football Club and while we will remain as ambitious as ever, this decision could slow down our progress. Chelsea FC chairman Bruce Buck said: 'Obviously we are disappointed but we recognise and we respect totally that the shareholders of Chelsea Pitch Owners have spoken. We will meet with Mr Abramovich and the rest of the board and we will decide what action, if any, we will take going forward. 'I don't view this as an us and against you, we against they situation. We are all Chelsea fans and I can only hope that on Saturday we can get together and support this club and beat Arsenal.' www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2495932,00.html |
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Oct 27, 2011 17:43:27 GMT
Their press office are very busy this week with this and trying to bully journos over the Terry incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 27, 2011 21:30:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by fraserinbc on Oct 27, 2011 21:59:27 GMT
I reckon QPR fans should start buying some of the CPO shares to prevent Chelsea ever leaving Stamford Bridge. I think that will be in everyone's best interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 28, 2011 6:50:06 GMT
GUARDIAN Chelsea Pitch Owners reject club's attempt to leave Stamford Bridge • Shareholders block club bid to buy back land • Board members endure stormy EGM * Dominic Fifield The Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich, suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the club's fans after shareholders in the Chelsea Pitch Owners company rejected a proposal to buy back the land upon which Stamford Bridge is built at a fractious extraordinary general meeting. Chelsea secured 61.6% of the shares held by those present in the club's Great Hall or voting by proxy, falling well short of the 75% required if they were to force through proposals to secure the pitch and land upon which Stamford Bridge is built. Success would have represented the first step towards leaving Chelsea's home of 106 years for a new, 60,000-seat stadium. Instead the club chairman, Bruce Buck, was left in the awkward position of having to report back to Abramovich that his offer had been rejected. "Roman's disappointed, but he respects that Chelsea Pitch Owners have spoken," said Buck, who had relayed the news to the owner. "Obviously, we had asked them to support our proposal and only 62% have supported it, so we're disappointed and we have to accept that it's a setback. But we always knew that getting 75% of the vote was going to be very difficult. That's just the nature of the vote." Buck and the club's chief executive, Ron Gourlay, had sat at the top table and endured two hours of questions from the floor at a meeting that was attended by around 700 shareholders. Those opposed to the club's proposals had expressed grave concerns at the prospect of surrendering the safety net provided by CPO – a company which was formed in 1993 to prevent the stadium falling into the hands of property developers – and expressed outrage that around £200,000 worth of shares, at £100 each, had been sold to only 20 individuals since the club's plans were detailed on 3 October. There were suggestions that those shares, which represented more than 10% of the shares in issue and more than had been sold in the previous seven years, had been purchased by people who would back the club's plans. That theory has been rejected by the club, but the issue was raised by Clint Steele of the Say No CPO (SNCPO) campaign, who asked if the sales had not "made this meeting into a total farce?" A response from the CPO chairman, Richard King, was drowned out by cries of "corrupt", "sham" and "stitch up" from the floor. Indeed, there was the real prospect that the meeting would be adjourned to a later date, after Steele challenged the validity of the vote and the handling of the issue by King. That was only averted by King announcing that, with some 4,000 proxy votes counted, it would effectively take only 300 of the 1,700 shares present in the room to reject the proposals for the no vote to be passed. The CPO chairman is expected to tender his resignation on Friday, and a new board is likely to be in place by the end of the year. "In the end, maybe the lack of transparency over the extra shares sold in the buildup to the EGM helped turn the vote in our favour," said Tim Rolls, of SNCPO. "This was never an issue of trust in Roman Abramovich. But there were a few issues where we had real concerns: that the club could potentially move further away than three miles from Stamford Bridge after 2020; that they had adequately proved that Stamford Bridge cannot be redeveloped. "We were frustrated that they only gave a three-week notice period ahead of the EGM for such a key issue in the long-term future of the club, and that there was apparently no way of keeping a form of CPO going forward. Hopefully there will be more transparency moving forward but, between now and CPO's annual general meeting in December, I would expect Mr Abramovich to come back with another offer to put to the shareholders." The defeat represents a blow to Chelsea's immediate plans, and they are still to determine their next move. "It's really a matter of discussing with the rest of the [Chelsea] board and with Mr Abramovich what, if any, the next steps should be, can be, will be," Buck said. "We need to get our own ducks in a line and have meetings with the owner and the board and decide how to proceed. We can come back with our proposals tweaked. Whether we will or not is something we will have to discuss." www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/27/chelsea-pitch-owners-stamford-bridge |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 28, 2011 6:50:56 GMT
GUARDIAN/Dominic Fifield
Chelsea Pitch Owners reject club's attempt to leave Stamford Bridge
• Shareholders block club bid to buy back land
• Board members endure stormy EGMThe Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich, suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the club's fans after shareholders in the Chelsea Pitch Owners company rejected a proposal to buy back the land upon which Stamford Bridge is built at a fractious extraordinary general meeting. Chelsea secured 61.6% of the shares held by those present in the club's Great Hall or voting by proxy, falling well short of the 75% required if they were to force through proposals to secure the pitch and land upon which Stamford Bridge is built. Success would have represented the first step towards leaving Chelsea's home of 106 years for a new, 60,000-seat stadium. Instead the club chairman, Bruce Buck, was left in the awkward position of having to report back to Abramovich that his offer had been rejected. "Roman's disappointed, but he respects that Chelsea Pitch Owners have spoken," said Buck, who had relayed the news to the owner. "Obviously, we had asked them to support our proposal and only 62% have supported it, so we're disappointed and we have to accept that it's a setback. But we always knew that getting 75% of the vote was going to be very difficult. That's just the nature of the vote." Buck and the club's chief executive, Ron Gourlay, had sat at the top table and endured two hours of questions from the floor at a meeting that was attended by around 700 shareholders. Those opposed to the club's proposals had expressed grave concerns at the prospect of surrendering the safety net provided by CPO – a company which was formed in 1993 to prevent the stadium falling into the hands of property developers – and expressed outrage that around £200,000 worth of shares, at £100 each, had been sold to only 20 individuals since the club's plans were detailed on 3 October. There were suggestions that those shares, which represented more than 10% of the shares in issue and more than had been sold in the previous seven years, had been purchased by people who would back the club's plans. That theory has been rejected by the club, but the issue was raised by Clint Steele of the Say No CPO (SNCPO) campaign, who asked if the sales had not "made this meeting into a total farce?" A response from the CPO chairman, Richard King, was drowned out by cries of "corrupt", "sham" and "stitch up" from the floor. Indeed, there was the real prospect that the meeting would be adjourned to a later date, after Steele challenged the validity of the vote and the handling of the issue by King. That was only averted by King announcing that, with some 4,000 proxy votes counted, it would effectively take only 300 of the 1,700 shares present in the room to reject the proposals for the no vote to be passed. The CPO chairman is expected to tender his resignation on Friday, and a new board is likely to be in place by the end of the year. "In the end, maybe the lack of transparency over the extra shares sold in the buildup to the EGM helped turn the vote in our favour," said Tim Rolls, of SNCPO. "This was never an issue of trust in Roman Abramovich. But there were a few issues where we had real concerns: that the club could potentially move further away than three miles from Stamford Bridge after 2020; that they had adequately proved that Stamford Bridge cannot be redeveloped. "We were frustrated that they only gave a three-week notice period ahead of the EGM for such a key issue in the long-term future of the club, and that there was apparently no way of keeping a form of CPO going forward. Hopefully there will be more transparency moving forward but, between now and CPO's annual general meeting in December, I would expect Mr Abramovich to come back with another offer to put to the shareholders." The defeat represents a blow to Chelsea's immediate plans, and they are still to determine their next move. "It's really a matter of discussing with the rest of the [Chelsea] board and with Mr Abramovich what, if any, the next steps should be, can be, will be," Buck said. "We need to get our own ducks in a line and have meetings with the owner and the board and decide how to proceed. We can come back with our proposals tweaked. Whether we will or not is something we will have to discuss." www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/27/chelsea-pitch-owners-stamford-bridge
GUARDIAN/Dominic Fifield
Chelsea feel the ground shift as furious fans block freehold move
The hierarchy have been left reeling by supporters' angry response to the Stamford Bridge buy-back proposalBruce Buck and Ron Gourlay cut isolated figures as the abuse flew from the floor. There were accusations that the club's approach to the Chelsea Pitch Owners had been "patronising" and "shabby". Any mention of "the brand" this team have become drew howls of derision from the audience. Mark Wyeth QC approached the microphone and denounced the whole meeting as "a farrago" and, once dictionaries had been thumbed, few could disagree. Roman Abramovich's Chelsea are not used to suffering home defeats but this felt like the most critical of the oligarch's eight-year ownership. To lose the vote – Chelsea secured 3,569 shares but, with 2,227 going against them, fell well short of the 75% they needed for their proposals to be accepted – did not come as a complete surprise. This was always likely to be tight given the uncertainty of just how many shareholders would seek to attend or supply proxies. Yet what must have shaken the Chelsea hierarchy was the animosity to which they were subjected. There was a ferocity on show in the Great Hall, tucked away on the concourse of the west stand, that took the breath away. Even after an exhausting round of "meet and greets" conducted by the chairman, Buck, Gourlay, the chief executive, and John Terry the impression that lingered was that Abramovich and the board had misread the mood of the masses. "The club simply do not understand the fans," said Tim Rolls of Say No CPO (SNCPO). "That has been totally demonstrated by the emotions that surfaced. I was disappointed with the general manner in which they conducted their campaign: it was a PR disaster from start to finish, and their use of Matthew Harding – implying this is what Matthew would have wanted – was ridiculous. All this shows to me is that they need to have a proper dialogue with supporters in the future; not just with the old-school fans but also the disenfranchised supporters who are under 30 but who don't feel engaged with their club at all."
That much will be key as Chelsea gauge how best to proceed. Lessons need to be learned from this defeat. There is an acceptance among many, even in SNCPO, that this club may need to move from Stamford Bridge to compete with rivals who can get 60,000 fans through the turnstiles. But the board will need to engage more properly with the shareholders who successfully deflected the proposal to buy back the freehold to Chelsea's home of 106 years if they are ever to secure the land and, therefore, the option to move to an alternative site, whether that is Battersea Nine Elms, Earl's Court or White City.
Perhaps CPO retaining some portion of the freehold in any new arena would have to be offered. Maybe the option of a "conditional sale agreement", as proposed by one shareholder at the meeting, whereby CPO would relinquish the freehold once a move to a site within three miles of Stamford Bridge had been agreed, may be explored. Some kind of concession will have to be made, particularly with a new board of directors at CPO likely to be in place before the end of the year, after December's annual general meeting. The club have to understand the concerns of the voters better next time.
One complication that has been aired by Buck is an uncertainty as to who the majority of the shareholders in CPO are. "They booed me over this but at the meeting I indicated there was only a 10-12 per cent overlap between season-ticket holders and club members with CPO shareholders," he said. "That means there are only about 1,500 or so season-ticket holders and members who are Chelsea Pitch Owners. So who are all these other 12,500 shareholders?
"[Ken] Bates did a number of things to encourage purchases of shares in the 1990s. There was one FA Cup final in the mid-90s where, if you bought a CPO share, you had the right to buy tickets. So some people were legitimate about it but there were also a bunch of scalpers [touts] that bought tickets, I believe. So we've always had difficulty understanding what the make-up of that shareholder base is."
In the end this became a matter of making the best of the defeat. "We are convinced that the large body of shareholders, of CPO and fans, recognise it may be necessary to move. And it's not 'stay at any cost'," Buck said. "That's one major threshold we got over. The other is that Earl's Court would not be the only site that is satisfactory to them. Honestly and truly, we don't view the result as somehow catastrophic in any sense."
These positives should serve as the starting point for the negotiations that will inevitably resume when this issue flares up once again. But the reality, depressing as Buck may consider it, was that the only time he had the whole room with him on Thursday was in his closing statement once the rejection had been confirmed. "We are all Chelsea fans," he said. "I can only hope that, on Saturday, we all get together, support this club and beat the crap out of Arsenal."
Causes for concern
1 . The 2020 issue Fans have concerns about the reference to the year 2020 being the cut-off point for when Chelsea believe it possible to relocate to an area within three miles of Stamford Bridge. If no new location could be found, the CPO shareholders worry about where the club may move to
2 . The three-week period The CPO shareholders have been frustrated that the minimum three-week period was enforced for the vote on the proposals after the EGM. The three-week period is a rule of business, but the fans were of the opinion that this should not be treated as purely a business decision
3 . Post-Abramovich Supporters trust that Roman Abramovich and the current board aim to do the right thing by the club and the stadium. Concern lies with what would happen to Stamford Bridge if the Russian was forced to sell the club for whatever reason
4 . Recent share purchases There has been much scepticism regarding the identity of those who purchased shares in the last week before sales were suspended, a period in which more than £200,000 was spent on a stock that costs £100 a unit and purchase of which is limited to 100 per person
www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/27/chelsea-defeated-stamford-bridge-freehold
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 28, 2011 7:00:24 GMT
INDEPENDENT
CPO rebels win pitch battle to give club pause for thought
Supporters' 'No' campaign prevails after tense vote at Stamford Bridge
Sam Wallace
Friday, 28 October 2011The bid by Chelsea to buy back the freehold of Stamford Bridge was defeated at a stormy meeting yesterday in which the club's supporters angrily rejected the proposal endorsed by owner Roman Abramovich with a large enough threshold of "No" votes. In a fractious meeting of Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) at the stadium, chairman, Bruce Buck, and the board of CPO came under sustained attack from shareholders who claimed that the sale of a tranche of more than £200,000-worth of shares in recent weeks was allegedly to tip the balance in favour of a "Yes" vote. As emotions ran high, one shareholder, Mark Wyeth QC, described the terms of the vote as a "farrago". Another shareholder, who gave her name as Kim but did not wish to be identified, said that the club's alleged promise to give "Yes" voters a place on a roll of honour at a new stadium was "shabby". Clint Steele, who initiated a move to get the meeting adjourned, alleged it was "corrupt". Related articles * Chelsea fans from all walks of life... but united in anger * Search the news archive for more stories After the vote, Buck claimed that defeat was "not a catastrophe" for the club, which won 61.6 per cent of the vote to the "Yes" side, short of the 75 per cent required under the CPO protocols to buy the freehold. The Chelsea chairman said that the board would now discuss with Abramovich their next move and did not rule out coming back to CPO shareholders with a different offer. The mood among the 700 shareholders was adversarial from the very start with the chairman of the CPO, Richard King, a particular target. However, the temperature rose when Steele alleged that there had been "manipulation" of the vote by the sale of a relatively large volume of more than 2,000 shares since the club's proposal to buy out CPO was announced on 3 October. Chelsea deny any wrongdoing. The meeting was moving towards an adjournment on those grounds when King unexpectedly told the shareholders that, with the 4,000 proxy votes counted, the "Yes" lobby required 1,400 of the 1,700 votes controlled by shareholders at the meeting to win. Recognising that the mood in the Great Hall at Stamford Bridge was clearly in favour of a "No" vote, the shareholders present shelved the adjournment and went to a vote. Less than an hour later it was announced to the meeting that the "No" vote had won 38.4 per cent, 2,227 votes, comfortably higher than the 25 per cent threshold required to defeat the "Yes" vote. King, who had to face calls from the floor to resign, said that he would consider his position and announce a decision today. The club had previously announced on 3 October that they needed to buy the CPO freehold on the four stands and pitch at Stamford Bridge in order to facilitate any future move to a new stadium. CPO was established in 1993 as a block against a developer ever being able to acquire the potentially lucrative freehold of Stamford Bridge and close down the club – as had been a threat in the 1980s and early 1990s. While the defeat in yesterday's vote by their own supporters was something of an embarrassment for the club, Buck said that he believed that the club had at least established to the majority of its support that Chelsea would have to move at some point. Nevertheless it was clear that they will have to mend relations with many long-term supporters who feel that they were railroaded into the vote. Later Buck categorically denied allegations that the club had encouraged people sympathetic to their cause to invest the maximum £10,000 in 100 shares blocks to win the vote in recent weeks. He said: "If we wanted some kind of a conspiracy on this particular issue, we would've bought them some months ago. "There's a lot of suspicion about the purchase I have of 100 shares [bought in April]. If I wanted some kind of subterfuge or to hide that, I could've bought those shares through my mother or grandmother or whatever and hidden the fact that I own them. But I'm proud to own the 100 shares and have them in my name." Shares have always cost £100, with a limit of 100 per person, but suspicions had been raised at the volume of shares sold in the last few weeks up until the suspension of sales eight days ago. Given that there are believed to be more than 18,000 CPO shares in existence, in many cases the owners of which have proved impossible to trace, yesterday's vote recorded just 5,796 shares – less than one third of the franchise. The "Say No CPO" (SNCPO) fans' group, which campaigned for a "No" vote, said the club had misjudged the mood. Tim Rolls, of SNCPO, said: "The club simply do not understand the fans. That has been demonstrated by the emotions that surfaced at this meeting www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/cpo-rebels-win-pitch-battle-to-give-club-pause-for-thought-2376789.html
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 28, 2011 7:02:00 GMT
The irony of course is that at QPR, if the owners wanted to sell, QPR fans could protest; maybe try legal or appeals to local authorities, etc. But ultimately QPR fans don't have the same power as Chelsea fans. (And I'm actually surprised that the Chelsea owners/people in charge werent able to manipulate the vote to win)
|
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 31, 2011 16:17:15 GMT
Chelsea Official Site FRANKHAM TO CHAIR CPO Mon 31 Oct 2011 Steve Frankham, who was one of the original directors of Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), has accepted an invitation to act as the company's chairman, a position he has held previously. A statement released on the CPO website today (Monday) said: 'Following the resignation of Richard King as chairman and a director of Chelsea Pitch Owners Plc, the remaining directors of the Company have invited Steve Frankham to rejoin the board of directors and to act as chairman. He has accepted that invitation. 'Steve Frankham is a long-time Chelsea supporter, who was an original director when CPO was founded in 1993. He became its chairman in 1997 - when Tony Banks resigned as chairman upon entering government - and led CPO during its most successful period of fundraising. 'Upon his appointment, Mr Frankham said he relished the opportunity to lead CPO in this vital period and to help it achieve its historic objectives. 'Mr Frankham, together with the other directors of CPO, will be up for re-election at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting. 'The Board would like to express its sincere thanks to Richard King for the huge contribution he has made to CPO over the last eight years.' www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2500465,00.html |
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Nov 7, 2011 10:09:35 GMT
Truly independent?!
Chelsea Official Site
STATEMENT FROM NEW CPO CHAIRMAN STEVE FRANKHAMFollowing the first meeting of the CPO Board since I was appointed director and chairman, I would like to address a few issues that have come to our attention and to set out how we intend to take CPO forward. If the last few weeks have told us anything it is that people still feel very passionate about CPO and its ethos. Our previous chairman, Richard King, did a great job over eight years, and we thank him. The remaining directors asked me to rejoin the Board as Chairman as they felt my previous experience at the helm and my fresh ideas about the way forward would be helpful. I aim to prove them right in the eyes of you, the shareholders. The new Board - Bob, Rick and myself - are keen to re-establish the identity of CPO and to bring in new ideas and new blood. We will be doing our best to make changes that reflect the range of opinion arising in the debate about Chelsea FC's recent proposal. That means other new directors will be appointed. We have been talking with various people and will make an announcement on this as soon as possible. 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. We are planning to have the CPO AGM in mid-December - pending availability of facilities and staff. At that AGM shareholders will be able to re-elect or vote off any member of the Board, old or new. The newly elected Board will then decide the strategy of CPO for the next 12 months. I should also like to address a few issues that I have been picking up. We have heard complaints that a number of shareholders' proxy votes were not allowed at the recent General Meeting. Should you be one of those shareholders, we would ask you to email cpoinfo@btconnect.com so that we can ask for clarification from the Electoral Reform Services, who independently managed the proxy and voting process on our behalf. We are also keen to improve the accuracy of the CPO database. If any shareholder feels we may not have their most up-to-date contact details, they should write to us at the same email address - cpoinfo@btconnect.com - with their name, previous address, share number(s) and present contact details. Rest assured I and my fellow Directors will do our best to keep you informed going forward. Steve Frankham. www.chelseafc.com/page/ChelseaPitchOwnersNews/0,,10268~2507522,00.html |
|
|
|
Post by canadaranger on Nov 7, 2011 10:47:44 GMT
Is John Terry still CPO President?
|
|
)
