Is the CPO Board Guilty of a Whitewash?

As the Board of Chelsea Pitch Owners declare 'no foul' over the attempts of Abramovich, Buck and their cronies to secure the freehold to Stamford Bridge through concert party votes, Stamford Bridge: The Truth has discovered damning evidence that a concert party was in play with the full knowledge of at least one member of Chelsea Football Club's Board and of the Board of the CPO.

The purchase of several thousand Chelsea Pitch Owners shares between 6th and 20th October 2011 has remained a very sore point among many genuine shareholders who repeatedly demanded that the Board of CPO investigate. Despite promises, the investigation did not happen leading to questions about the CPO Board's own involvement in the matter. Eventually at the last AGM (30th January 2013) under increasing pressure from shareholders the CPO Board finally undertook to investigate properly and thoroughly.

It would appear that what has followed is little more than a whitewash.

The minutes of the CPO board meeting of 2nd May 2013 refer to the investigation (S793 letters to the owners of shares suspected of being part of the concert party) thus:

4 S793 Letters
The responses to the letters sent were discussed. It was noted that we had responses from all but 3 people. CR and RG had each researched these 3 and believe that only one shareholder remains a mystery. CR undertook to contact the other 2 by letter or telephone if possible. It was also noted that the addresses on the register were by and large accurate. The contents of the letters was also as predicted. In the absence of any further information, the Board unanimously agreed that this matter was felt to be concluded and a statement will be drafted to this effect by SJ, which will close the matter.
ACTION
CR to chase remaining shareholders
SJ to draft a short statement

However, a document has been forwarded to Stamford Bridge: The Truth which contradicts the whitewash and which suggests that a concert party was in play, that Chelsea FC  Chairman Bruce Buck had knowledge and that the CPO Board turned a blind eye when accepting the concert party votes.

The document also names alleged members of the concert party including a group who between them purchased 1482 shares in the two week window in question and who all have direct or close links to either Roman Abramovich or Bruce Buck.

The document begs the question; "If the shares were bought by shareholders in October 2011 at £100 per share and the offer price from the club was £100 per share, then what was the incentive for employees of Millhouse Capital (one of Abramovich's companies) or other connected persons to risk their capital and associated costs, if, as was clearly stated by the Club in its Share Offer, there was no profit to be made from the purchase and sale of the shares?"

A very good question. One the Board of CPO appear uninterested in either asking or in finding an answer to.

The document is available for all interested parties to read online here and includes links to articles by respected journalists and to recordings of Bruce Buck trying to exert pressure on one CPO shareholder who dared question what was being allowed to take place.

Was a concert party in play? Did the then Board of the CPO know? Have the current CPO Board investigated properly and thoroughly? Who at Chelsea Football Club was involved? 

There are many unanswered questions to which we leave you to draw your own conclusions. 

A Letter From Ben Kates

Dear Sir,

I was on my computer the other day and stumbled across your site by accident. Please let me explain.

About 20 years ago, I went down to my local golf club with my brother, where we were greeted by the then chairman of the club. He looked a little flustered and he said to us, "enjoy your day lads, this could be the last round of golf that you ever play down here". We were alarmed and asked him what he was talking about, after all, we had been coming down to our club for over 15 years. "property developers are going to knock it all down and build some fancy flats on it for yuppies", he retorted. We were astounded.

On entering the club house a little bewildered, many of the long term members were in tears, some had been coming to the club for up to 50 years or more. They loved the club, we all did, it was part of our lives, in fact after our families, it was the most important thing in our lives. We were so distraught, that my brother and I did not even have a round of golf that day, we just sloped off home in a state of shock.

It was not long before the local press got hold of the story and realised that these property developers owned another 2 golf clubs down the road. The reality was, that they just wanted to amalgamate the two and make them into one, to make lots of money, they even put planning applications into the council to do just that and to build on our club house too, threatening to kick us out, so that we would have nowhere to go. Something had to be done, these money grabbing speculators were going to ruin hundreds and hundreds of people's lives, it just wasn`t on.

Our chairman was a wily old fox, he got the plastic buckets out to collect money to create a fighting fund and called it `Save the Bunker`. the money just poured in. He fought the speculators off and won the day. What a relief. Life was worth living again. Oh how we basked in the glory, the general quality of most of the golfers at the club was pretty poor to say the least in those days, but what the hell, we were saved, our lovely old club was secure for ever.

Life went back to normal and then an eccentric member revealed himself to be rather wealthy, we were astounded, he was absolutely minted, even richer than the chairman. Needless to say the two of them formed a bond and they both invested in developing our old club and all of a sudden, we were the place to be. New members arrived, the press were on our doorstep and some individuals actually won some trophies, which was almost unheard of in those days.

The wily old chairman was not happy though, he could see danger ahead. He was worried that this wonderful piece of land could become attractive to others once again in the future, so he got us all to buy a share of the land, worth £100 each, so that we could all protect the club for years to come.

Time passed and then he suddenly announced one day, that he was selling the club, lock. stock and barrel to a wealthy foreigner, what a shock. But I`ve got to admit, the new owner came in and transformed the place. We even had solid gold golf balls. What a result, we were the envy of every other golf club in the country, maybe even the world. Fancy members arrived, who kept winning trophy after trophy and our club house was packed to the rafters week after week. Where were they when we were shite, my brother and I would often say.

One day though, we were told that we had only 2 weeks to give back our shares to this new owner, (who had incidentally never actually ever spoken to any of us), for the same money that we had bought them for 20 years earlier. It was all a bit strange. We were mystified, as we were given no reason whatsoever why and were all very suspicious, because it all had to be done so quickly.

Apparently he wanted to knock down our club house, build yuppie flats on it and build a new club house for us somewhere else within a 3 mile radius, but that would only be up until 2020, after that it could be anywhere. There was uproar. All the shareholders then found out, that allegedly 250k worth of shares had been purchased by their associates to ensure the `share grab` went through. Fortunately it did not hoodwink all the long serving members, as they had smelt a rat and the plans were defeated massively.

It has to be said that the new owner, has brought our club dreams that we could not have imagined and we are forever indebted to him for that. But he is a business man first and foremost. Should we trust him, who knows. Of course, all the newbies that have suddenly arrived for the good times say yes, after all, most of them are only here for the glory.

A couple of months went by and then the local council suddenly announced, that our existing club house could be redeveloped after all, and they were a little mystified that no planning applications whatsoever had been submitted to them for over 10 years regarding the clubs expansion. But still the owner does not seem to be interested in making our existing club house larger, which is a bit strange. Is it the land that we sit on is worth more if developed we ask. Is it for financial gain, who knows. Maybe only time will tell.

The only 2 possible places that we could be relocated to, were no longer available anyway and in closer inspection, both were always non starters. What a mess. We understand, that with all these extra people now coming to our club, we definitely need to have a bigger home. But why not expand the existing one we ask, why are they so intent on just moving us to somewhere that we don`t want to be. The local council say that our club can be expanded, so surely both parties, should be in dialogue to ascertain once and for all, whether that is possible or not. We have asked our club to do this since October 2011, but still they refuse to respond.

The reason I write this letter, is that 20 years after buying shares to protect our old club house from being knocked down and being transformed into a housing estate, we find ourselves back in exactly the same position once more. Obviously the wily old fox was right, this lovely piece of land that we simply use for entertainment, is worth a lot more to some people, as a block of flats. When I saw your website and read your situation, that you also find yourselves in, I thought wow, what a coincidence, what are the chances of that. So I just had to write.

My brother and I, still go to the club all the time and we, like thousands of others, don`t want to move if we don't have to. All we ask for, is confirmation that redevelopment is not possible and we will accept that relocation is inevitable. Nobody wants to hold our lovely club back. But with everything that has happened, no planning applications, the illegal shares and the lack of dialogue, we the members need to understand the real motives. After all, that is why old wily fox got us to buy the shares in the 1st place, TO PROTECT OUR CLUB FROM A LAND GRAB.

I hope that our owners come to understand and can find a solution that does not destroy the identity of something that has been around for 108 years, just purely to make a bob or two.

Regards
 
BEN KATES 

Chelsea Supporters Trust Launch!

A voice for us supporters! Let's all get behind this.

Chelsea Pitch Owners AGM Report

Many thanks to our friends at TheChels.net and to BlueBaby for giving us permission to reproduce their excellent report on the 2013 Chelsea Pitch Owners AGM.

The 2013 Chelsea Pitch Owners AGM was held in the Harris Suite, Stamford Bridge at 11am on 30th January 2013.

Chairman Steve Frankham declared the meeting open as a quorum of Directors were present and made an unfortunate early Freudian slip, telling the assembled shareholders (around 100) that he planned to ‘induce’ the new Directors, Charles Rose and Sean Jones QC.

Mr Frankham also created early controversy when he requested that all mobile phones be turned off and that no-one would be allowed to cover the meeting via Twitter. Dan Levene of the Fulham Chronicle raised an objection to this, stating that this had not been the rule at previous meetings. Mr Frankham replied that the Board had received legal advice that they could enforce this rule.

Clint Steele raised a point of order regarding the availability of a transcript of the meeting. Mr Frankham advised that minutes would be available, but not a full transcript, and that the Board were legally obliged to ‘provide what we have to provide’, but no more.

Gray Smith commented that the Companies Act required only minutes of resolutions and voting be recorded.

Mr Frankham advised that he intended to talk through and update shareholders on matters that had arisen over the last six months, and there would be an opportunity for questions from the floor. He then went on to advise the meeting that since shares had gone back on sale, 403 shares had been sold, 24 shares were in the process of being issued, and a further 19 applications had been received but not processed. Of the 403 shares issued, the breakdown of number of shares sold was as follows:-

292 people had bought one share
11 people had bought two shares
1 person had bought four shares
3 people had bought five shares
2 people had bought ten shares
1 person had bought fifty shares

Mr Frankham described this as a good but not outstanding start to broadening sales, and all shares had been sold under the new vetting procedure. However, the figure still fell short of the 1000 share limit allowed for sale in 2012. Mr Frankham went on to say that Chelsea Football Club had helped advertise shares through the matchday programme, and also at the Annual Lunch. The club were also to include information on CPO shares with next season’s season ticket renewals. With regard to the proposed ‘Pay As You Can’ scheme to enable applicants to pay for CPO shares in instalments, Gray Smith and Sean Jones were still working on this and would provide an update.

Mr Frankham told the meeting that prior to 2011, share sales were the biggest revenue generator for CPO. He then asked Gray Smith to give an overview of where CPO currently were.

Mr Smith advised that CPO made a loss last year, all of which was attributable to legal costs and other fall out from the CPO EGM of October 2011. For instance, in years 2010/2011, meeting costs were £11,423. However, in 2011/2012, these rose to £39,237. Legal costs had also risen hugely, from £2,214 in 2010/2011 to £71,674 in 2011/2012.

With regard to the renewal of the lease with Chelsea FC, this was a straightforward negotiaton and was completed on 23rd November under the same terms. However, in accordance with usual procedure, the new lease was not signed until the day prior to expiry of the old one.

The CPO Board met with Bruce Buck and Alan Shaw of Chelsea FC on 21st January in an ‘open’ and ‘informative’ meeting. Bruce Buck had no significant updates with regard to expansion of Stamford Bridge or possible relocation, and he advised that no new proposal to CPO would be made anytime soon.

Steve Frankham next turned to the appointment of the new Directors. He had asked for applicants to put their names forward at the July EGM. Eight applications were received, and Mr Frankham described the selection process as ‘not easy’. They were looking for individuals with specific skills as the club wanted to see CPO as serious about reducing the amounts currently owed to them. A shortlist of three was drawn up, and eventually Sean Jones and Charles Rose were appointed on a split vote.

Mr Frankham then briefly addressed fundraising issues, advising that prospective events had been discussed with the football club.

At this point, Mr Frankham called for questions from the floor, but advised that in view of the evening’s away game at Reading, he was only prepared to allow an hour for this, after which time the voting would take place. Before this, however, he invited Gray Smith to update shareholders on the issues surrounding the ‘disputed’ shares. Mr Smith advised that whilst the law was not helpful on this, the shares were validly issued.

A speaker from the floor pointed out that the Board of CPO were wrong in addressing Section 993 of the Companies Act to remedy this issue and drew their attention to Article 41 of the Chelsea Pitch Owners Articles of Association, which allowed the Board to remove the voting rights of anyone who failed to respond to a letter asking them to state whether or not they had any connection to the club. The shareholder advised the Board that if they failed to agree to undertake this action, then they would be failing in their duties under Sections 171 and 172 of the Companies Act 2006, and may well find themselves open to a vote of no confidence.

All five board members regarded this as a sensible idea and undertook to send letters to the 25 shareholders.

Shareholder Clint Steele advised that he was alarmed about the legal costs being incurred to the detriment of  CPO’s income and whether the CPO Board were liable for these costs. Indeed, he went on to ask if the previous Chairman, Richard King, was liable.

Gray Smith replied that under the loan agreement, reasonable endeavours had to be made to repay the loan, and any shortfall of income impacted this, and unfortunately CPO had to make up the shortfall. Clint Steele argued that it seemed unfair that CPO were going one step forward and one step back in respect of income issues.

Steve Frankham advised that the Board had in fact turned down costs submitted by the previous legal advisors to CPO.

Dave Sadler asked the Board why steps had not been previously taken in respect of ‘carpetbaggers’. Steve Frankham replied that CPO react as a Board, and that they would make the appropriate enquiries.

Julian Eastbrook asked whether  given that Chelsea FC had no plans to relocate, were the disputed shares an issue? Mr Frankham reiterated that one way to dilute the influence of these shares was by getting more people to buy shares. Sean Jones added that share sales were important and that he wanted there to be a sufficient level of trust between the Board and shareholders.

Martin Knight stated that he was angry about the illegal shares and surely if the shares were illegal, then the Police should be involved. Sean Jones responded that if either a director or individual person had committed an unlawful act then it might well be a civil offence.

Dave Sadler stated that although he was pleased the Board intended to look into the disputed shares, why they had sat on this issue for 15 months? Steve Frankham responded that it hadn’t been 15 months, as  Gray Smith’s report had been submitted in June. Dave Sadler again maintained that the report had been sat on. Steve Frankham responded that there were implications regarding the whole issue. The dogged Mr Sadler persisted, asking why did the Board concentrate on the possibility of buying back the shares, given that what a number of shareholders wanted was the voting rights revoked. Mr Frankham maintained that the Board were attempting to dilute the disputed shares by selling more. He added that what had happened had happened [BB67 -  i.e. that events could not be changed].

Mary Phelps asked about checking the address of the owners of the disputed share. Gray Smith acknowledged that the Board could not ‘leave’ the matter of the letters to those holding the disputed shares.

Jim Cowan asked the Board about their strategy for moving forward, commenting that they needed a global strategy. Steve Frankham responded that it was to sell shares. Mr Cowan countered that this was not a strategy. One of the new directors, Charles Rose said that the strategy should concentrate on the accountancy and corporate side of problems. CPO needed to put the issues of the past behind them and get on to paying off the loan. Jim Cowan responded to Mr Rose that this got CPO no further forward as these were structural not strategy issues and it was an error to focus on structure too much without first identifying the strategy that structure should be implementing and/or delivering. Charles Rose accused him of being disingenuous. Mr Cowan went on to say that if the High Street moved as slowly as CPO did, many more businesses would go bust.

Another shareholder, Peter Fordham, asked if there was any possibility of fanzines carrying advertisements for CPO shares, and Steve Frankham confirmed that this would happen.

Robin Crosse asked if all the members of the Board had read the Articles of Association, and why they had appeared to miss the implications of Article 41. Gray Smith responded that Article 41 had not been missed.

Mr Smith went on to say that CPO was not like a High Street company. With regards to which strategy the Board should pursue, their aim should be to pay the loan, sell shares, keep the pitch and keep the asset.

Jim Cowan responded that this was not a strategy, this was an aim. Gray Smith countered that the objective of the company was own and keep the freehold and that they were charged with looking after the asset.

Respected shareholder James Greenbury then addressed the meeting, saying that whilst he was sympathetic to having the 25 shareholders on record denying any connection with the club, he was sceptical as to whether much progress could be made. From his analysis, it looked as if the shares issued recently had been bought by genuine supporters, and he urged the Board to maximise sales but to get as many current shareholders as possible to encourage others to buy shares. In terms of sales, he wasn’t sure whether CPO had had a lucky year or a skilful year. He went on to enquire if many applications had been turned down, and whaat processes had been put in place to prevent block purchases.

Steve Frankham replied that over 100 shares had been sold at the Annual Lunch, which he had attended, and he had asked the individual who had bought 50 shares why he had done this. Charles Rose commented that he had been charged with looking into the share register, with a view to improving maintenance. Sean Jones stated that agreed with Gray Smith’s comments that the objective was principally to sell shares.

Jim Cowan rose again to cite HMV as an example. If they needed to sell 1000 CDs, they couldn’t just go stacking them on the shelves. They needed a strategy. So how could CPO get a strategy that guaranteed a 1000 shares a year would be sold?

Sean Jones commented that they needed to make share ownership an attractive proposition, and that a Pay-As-You-Can option would make it easier to acquire shares, subject to legal checks. Steve Frankham commented that one of the reasons that so many shares were sold at the Annual Lunch was due to a charm offensive by Rick Glanvill, who went around the room and persuaded as many people as possible to buy shares. However, shares couldn’t solely be sold through this method.

Charles Rose told the meeting that they were fire-fighting on a number of fronts and the Directors were trying to sell CPO and provide the right image to put in front of shareholders. He also wanted to improve communication.

Dave Spring commented that if he were a prospective new shareholder, he wouldn’t want to invest in a company which he thought was being run by a concert party. He re-stated a widely held opinion that the 25 shareholders of the disputed shares had simply walked in and bought the shares without proper checks being put in place. Steve Frankham reiterated that the Board were addressing the issues relating to these shares.

Mr Spring went on to suggest that the former Company Secretary, Bob Sewell, should have his remuneration from last year as referred to in the financial accounts for CPO taken back from him and Mr Frankham responded ‘Perhaps that’s going to happen’.

Rick Glanvill stated that he thought the answer regarding the Concert Party impediment was that it would prove an incentive to buy shares. One purchaser of shares at the Annual Lunch stated that he was buying as ‘he didn’t want the club to get away with it’. He also thought that genuine supporters would have an impulse to buy shares in spite of the concert party.

Shareholder Mirek Malevski told the meeting that there had been an unacceptable degree of obfuscation on the part of the board. He added that it was noticeable that none of those named in the concert party were at the meeting, and criticised the quality of the minutes from meetings. Gray Smith reiterated that the minutes were what the Board were legally obliged to supply, and a multi-national, such as BP, would act exactly the same.

Mr Malevski reiterated that the minutes were unacceptable as no-one would remember what had been said at the meeting, there was too much obfuscation and not enough goodwill. Mr Smith responded that the Directors were charged with doing their duty and it was part of their obligation to comply with the demands of the Companies Act.

Clint Steele welcomed the two new Directors and expressed the hope that they would be working in the interests of the shareholders. He then went on to ask Steve Frankham if he had any connection with the CFCTruth blog, as a number of conversations they had previously had, had subsequently been repeated verbatim in that blog. Also, he expressed his concern that Sean Jones and Charles Rose had decided to publicly comment via the CFCTruth blog rather than via the Chelsea Pitch Owners website.

Mr Frankham, with some annoyance, expressed the opinion that this question was not relevant. Clint Steele responded that surely it was better to have information relating to issues such as fundraising and new Directors on CPO’s own website.

At this point, Steve Frankham declared that the hour allotted for questions had elapsed and invited the ERS to set out the voting procedure. There was an interval of an hour whilst votes were cast and counted, and a number of shareholders departed after casting their votes. Around 30 remained until the results were declared at approximately 1.15, which were as follows:-

Resolution 1 proposed to receive and adopt the Company’s annual accounts for the financial year ended 31 July 2012 (ordinary resolution).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2991   123             10                         Passed      95.6%

Resolution 2 proposed the re-election of Steve Frankham as a director of CPO (ordinary resolution).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2417  696              12                          Passed     77.64%

Resolution 3 proposed the re-election of Rick Glanvill as a director (ordinary resolution).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2456   650            17                         Passed      79.07%

Resolution 4 proposed the re-election of Gray Smith as a director (ordinary resolution).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2975   128             22                          Passed    95.87%

Resolution 5 proposed the re-election of Charles Rose as a director (ordinary resolution).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2484  624             15                          Passed     79.92%

Resolution 6 proposed the re-election of Sean Jones as a director.

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2626   473           26                          Passed     84.74%

Resolution 7 was to reappoint Hannaways as auditors until the next AGM (ordinary resolution).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2698   413            14                           Passed    86.72%

Resolution 8 was to allow the Board to fix Hannaways’ remuneration (ordinary resolution).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2686   416            20                          Passed    86.59%

Resolution 9 proposed to authorise the Directors to issue further CPO Shares (ordinary resolution).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2443   623            59                          Passed    79.68%

Resolution 10 proposed that the Directors be authorised to issue new shares for cash without having to offer them first to existing shareholders (special resolution requiring 75% of the vote).

For      Against     Abstentions      Result     Percentage

2405  657            63                          Passed    78.54%

Following the announcement of the results, Steve Frankham declared the meeting closed at 1.25pm, wished the team well for the evening’s game at Reading and hoped that they would come back with three points.

Meeting Opinion

The obvious headline from this year’s AGM is the agreement by the Board to write to the 25 shareholders in possession of the 1831 shares purchased in a period of 9 days between 12th and 20th October 2011, also referred to as the ‘disputed shares’ or the ‘concert party shares’. The Board of CPO have always had this option available to them and it is disappointing that it took pressure from the floor during this year’s AGM for them to agree to undertake this this action.

Sean Jones and Charles Rose made impressive first appearances, and in spite of concerns raised by a number of shareholders over their appointments it is hoped that they will indeed bring the necessary skills to what could be a watershed period in the history of CPO.

I’d like to thank Rick Glanvill for taking the time to explain to me the reason why the AGM came to be held on 30th January. The meeting legally needed to be held prior to 31st January 2013, and there were scheduling difficulties due to a various commitments involving the Directors – it’s worth remembering that with two legal eagles on the Board, they will often have Court commitments that can’t be changed. It’s a real shame that the meeting ended up being held on a matchday, but following ESPN’s decision to show Chelsea’s 4th Round FA Cup game against Brentford on Sunday 27th January, it was inevitable that the League game against Reading would be shifted to the Wednesday, and this undoubtedly had an effect on attendance at the AGM. It would be good if the 2014 AGM could revert to its traditional Friday slot.

Reading the vote results, it’s obvious that Gray Smith continues to enjoy the highest level of confidence amongst shareholders (most votes for, fewest against). Chairman Steve Frankham polled the fewest number of votes among the directors, and whilst there was also heavy votes against Charles Rose and Sean Jones, this could simply be a result of their having recently joined the board and it will be interesting to see how they perform at the next AGM, having had a year to bed in.

Out on the floor, as well as the usual suspects making their presence felt, it was good to see a number of younger shareholders not only attending the meeting but also putting questions, as well as other new faces, and it’s very much to be hoped that the Pay-As-You-Can scheme can be implemented as soon as possible in order to boost share ownership amongst younger supporters.

With regard to the issue of insufficient minutes, I hope that anyone wishing to read a fuller account of proceedings will find a useful resource in these reports; however as they are recorded by pencil and paper in Pitmanscript, rather than shorthand, my apologies in advance for any omissions/errors which are purely unintentional on my part.

Whilst Ben Rumsby of the Daily Telegraph referred to the meeting as ‘fractious’, I know from experience that although voices were occasionally raised, it was far less firey then other recent meetings.

It’s to be fervently hoped that issue of letters to those in possession of the disputed shares will help put Chelsea Pitch Owners on the road to becoming a more democratic, transparent, entity.

It’s a busy time at Chelsea just now. No sooner than the CPO AGM is behind us, then the next big event on the horizon looms, which is the launch of the Chelsea Supporters Trust, and TheChels.Net will be carrying a preview as well as report back from the launch over the coming days. Look out too for our first venture into the world of literature in the near future, with a review of Walter Otton’s briliant debut novel, ‘The Red Hand Gang’ coming soon.

You can follow me on Twitter @BlueBaby67 – meanwhile you can debate the ongoing Benitez lunacy 24/7 atahfcchat.com.

Why Would Any CPO Chairman?

We recently came across this alarming article on cfcnet.co.uk and reproduce it here with the author's consent. While we keep an open view as to the content of the article we feel the points made are important enough to share so that our readers can form their own opinions.

Why Would Any CPO Chairman?

Originally posted on cfcnet.co.uk on 21st January 2013. By Nick Stevens.

WHY WOULD ANY CPO CHAIRMAN willfully fail to enquire properly into a reported concert party potentially committing an on-going company fraud ? It’s not as if he’s not aware around 2,000 shares were bought over 9 days in Oct 11 prior to the EGM by 25 mystery individuals – some of whom gave false names/addresses and with suggested links to CFC or it’s management.

It’s not as if he doesn’t know they potentially sway all votes at CPO meetings by 40%, or that the usual checks on ID were strangely not taken by company secretary Robert Sewell, due we are informed to an ‘administrative error’ ! He has been told and read all this many times and yet quips in reply that it’s not worth looking into this possible company fraud due to unlikely results and the expense ! This also despite a resolution passed by the membership on 23-7-11 to deal with carpetbagging/gerrymandering issues – surely 25 letters could be sent to the addresses supplied by these individuals, requesting a few basic proofs that were not taken originally, and basic declarations of truth for the record – would this really break the bank ?

If there is no reply to these enquiries after a specified time – suspend the shares until they do ! If any of them wish to amend details – ask a few sensible questions as to why this is necessary ! If everything is as recorded and above board with no declared connections to the potential purchasers at the EGM (CFC or it’s management) then thank them for clearing it up ! Where’s the problem ? Where’s the expense ? Why would a chairman who had promised to clear up the mess left by the previous incumbent who lost the confidence of the members as not being independent of CFC and had to resign, not take this course of action ?

WHY WOULD ANY CPO CHAIRMAN fail to ensure renewal the £10m loan from CFC in good time, before the Dec 12th deadline – the loan that facilitates CPO’s very existence ? Why despite repeated assurances would the company secretary fail to respond to enquiries, and the required notice renewing the loan have to be drafted and sent by another concerned director with just days to spare ? If this action had not been taken it would potentially have allowed the loan company (CFC) to wind up CPO by calling in the loan with all assets (the pitch and name) reverting to them by default.

WHY WOULD ANY CPO CHAIRMAN invite only a select few members to discuss future fundraising since the previous chairman had given away all our major income streams to CFC ? Why would he not advertise such a meeting on the CPO webpage on CFC’s website for instance ? Can we now expect him to decry the lack of interest from members given only 4 people turned up to the follow up meeting, including him and his son ? This from the chairman who regularly raised £100k + for CPO prior to 2003 !

WHY WOULD ANY CPO CHAIRMAN not make freely available the company loan and lease agreements (we are now told are not the original agreements) as repeatedly requested, so members can ascertain who changed them, when, and by what authority ?

WHY WOULD ANY CPO CHAIRMAN not allow free and open democratic elections for the two vacant directors places, instead of once again just seconding placemen of his choice – particularly knowing the concert party votes may well make any rejection of his placemen by the membership unviable ?

WHY WOULD ANY CPO CHAIRMAN appoint a QC with rumoured links to CFC via his chambers (our potential purchaser) – do neither of them understand the potential professional conflict of interests ?

Strange too that the self declared purveyor of all things CFCTruthful blog – an unashamedly vociferous although supposedly independent [SIC] brown nosed propaganda mouthpiece for CFC (emanating from an elitist troll’s dungeon somewhere in Holland Park it is understood), would chose to give platform to, and defend the QC and his new colleague SUPERFABGUY !

WHY MR FRANKHAM, WHY ?

Visit cfcnet.co.uk

Hosting a Meeting - the Frankham Way

by Stamford Bridge

Before Christmas Chelsea Pitch Owners' Chairman Steve Frankham hosted a meeting to discuss possible fundraising methods for CPO. To do this he hired a room from Chelsea FC. Now, on the face of it, that all seems sensible.

However here at Stamford Bridge: The Truth we are hearing tale of some of the figures behind that meeting. 

Number of attendees at the meeting: Four (yes, 4).
Cost of room hire: £500

Look at that another way: it is £125 per person attending.

Or another way: £500 represents 500 years worth of rent on Stamford Bridge which CPO rent to CFC at the peppercorn rate of £1 per year.

Given the meeting was intended to look at fundraising for CPO perhaps the Chairman might want to look more closely at the colossal waste of funds his holding of such meetings costs?

You do have to wonder whether Mr Frankham would be so generous were it his own money he was spending and not that of his members?

SAVE THE BRIDGE

by John King

(This article was first published in the weeks following the CPO EGM of October 2011)

Everything about the build-up to the Chelsea Pitch Owners’ meeting felt rotten – the rushed response to the club’s attempt to buy the shares and remove the influence of the CPO; the out-of-date list of shareholders; the sales of block-votes in the lead up to the meeting (people with money were buying 100 votes each in one hit); a national newspaper’s article that club chairman Bruce Buck had allegedly phoned a long-term Chelsea supporter several times, asking that an opponent of the buy-up be ‘sidelined’; and then there was the time of the meeting set by the CPO board – 11.30 on a Thursday morning, when most people would be at work. It wasn’t looking good. I thought back to the Save The Bridge days in the late 1970s, when we used to drop our coppers into buckets at the bottom of The Shed stairs, the early 1990s when the ground was saved for a second time. Now this was happening. It all seemed very sad.

The block-votes issue was the biggest worry. Twenty individuals had apparently bought 2,000 votes in the previous two weeks. Most would be Yes voters. It meant that one person was buying the voting power of 100. It didn’t matter if they had never been to a game in their lives – they would be worth 100 people who had followed the club across the country for twenty years. Those No voters who managed to get to the meeting – or put in a proxy – clearly stood little chance. With the end of the CPO would come the demolition of Stamford Bridge and the end of Chelsea FC. Whatever happened to democracy? That was the way we were thinking as we approached the ground.

Turning into the forecourt, a long line of people stretched towards the ground, faces from The Shed, North Stand, Gate 13, West Stand, the Benches, T-Bar, Matthew Harding and all the other corners and sections of the stadium. Everyone knew the score, that the odds were stacked against them, but this was a good turn-out, those present eager to have their say. Many had travelled for hours, some even flying in from abroad. This was the most important day in the club’s history.

The first time I went to Stamford Bridge was in 1970, when the greatest team of them all was playing the beautiful football that only really returned with Ruud, Zola and Vialli in the 1990s, a style that we are still looking to recapture today. Chelsea have had some fine sides since the era of Osgood, Cooke and Hudson – Eddie McCreadie’s Blue And White Army; the John Neal team of Kerry Dixon and Pat Nevin; the first year of Jose’s rule when he was using Arjen Robben – but none have matched the magic of that side, who were roared on by a crowd famed for its passion. Before them there were Docherty’s Diamonds, Ted Drake’s league-winners – there’s always a link. The ground connects all these memories, carries the history on. Without it we would probably end up as one more shirt-selling franchise stuck in a sterile stadium named after a multinational. History is important. It can’t be bought and sold, only erased.

As one 70-years-plus supporter said later in the day, the difference between those representing the club and the supporters at the meeting was one of emotion. We had it, they didn’t. Bruce Buck and Ron Gourlay were cold and professional, the rank-and-file hot and very bothered. Bruce loves a one-liner, knows how to play a home crowd, but today the smile quickly faded and he came across as patronising, defensive, finally irritated. He said everyone wanted Chelsea to stay at Stamford Bridge, but... And was soon challenged. It has long been said the council won’t allow the expansion of the ground, but when asked how many planning applications had been submitted in the last year he had to admit that, apart from one for a minor alteration, there had been none. The supporters showed their anger and frustration. He didn’t look comfortable at all.

Ron grinned. You could imagine him thinking ‘what am I doing sitting here with all these scruffy herberts when I could be in Malaysia sipping a nice mango milkshake, surrounded by some proper new fans in fresh club shirts.’ Later Bruce called the club ‘the firm’, in one of those slips where someone shows off the language they use away from the public, but knew enough to try and correct himself, while Ron mentioned the ‘brand’. The crowd jeered and his grin widened.

The best thing about the meeting was how the Chelsea supporters did themselves proud. A large number spoke and put their points across with passion, self-control and an eloquence those representing the club lacked. They demolished the arguments put forward, which were often lazy and contradictory. One of the weakest was the Trust Roman approach, which was meant to play on the supporters’ loyalty, but few were falling for this and it was pointed out that this had nothing to do with the Russian – what would happen if his priorities changed, if he lost his fortune, or – god-forbid – if he died like poor Matthew Harding?

The work of those who came together in the short period before the meeting had clearly done a brilliant job in mobilising opposition, and in the end the CPO shareholders stood tall and pulled off a remarkable result against a much wealthier and stronger opponent. It made me proud to be a Chelsea fan. And yet the battle to save Stamford Bridge has probably only just started.

In the aftermath, the club were quick to point out that they had gained 61% of the vote – they needed 75% to have their offer accepted. While that is technically true, the more important figures show that, once the block-votes are discounted, 60% VOTED NO. In terms of individuals, the percentage is, I believe, higher – OVER 60% OF INDIVIDUALS VOTED NO. It was a walkover for the Boys In Blue. A clear victory. And that was just the CPO members able to vote, as many weren’t registered, while some proxy forms were said to have not arrived. It should also be remembered that the No figure across the wider Chelsea support generally is likely to be at least as high, and probably more so, once the realities are understood. Most people don’t have shares, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t as loyal as those who do.

CPO chairman Richard King resigned soon after and there are apparently legal challenges being considered in light of what occurred in the build-up to the meeting, but the problem hasn’t gone away. The unfairness of the last-minute block-shares/votes has to be addressed. Morally certainly, and probably legally as well. The CPO now finds itself in an interesting position.

It is clear the CPO’s relationship with the club has to change and that it needs to operate in a more professional manner. Nobody paid by the club or benefiting from a close link should be involved in such important decisions – whether that is a wealthy member knocking about with the stars, or current or ex-players who will suffer from unfair pressures. It should be run by people who stood in the rain as we were hammered 6-0 in the 1970s, or were on the end of a kicking in the 1980s, or watched Glenn Hoddle’s sweeper system emerging on an iced-up empty terrace in the 1990s, or a teenager who has to listen to all that ‘You’ve got no history’ rubbish today. The CPO has a real chance to grow and expand and connect everyone together. That’s not anti-club, just independent. If anything it is pro-Chelsea. The CPO membership are flying the flag for the bulk of the Chelsea fans who want to stay at Stamford Bridge.

The much-quoted Fair Play rules said to have lead to this mess are meant to encourage clubs to think differently, to make them realise that football isn’t just be about the depth of their pockets, that a team can be developed in other ways. To respond to this by destroying your biggest asset – the ground, which represents the club’s history – is surely missing the point. Chelsea have always been at Stamford Bridge. Unlike most other clubs, we have stayed true to our roots. Our success and history didn’t start with the arrival of Roman, much as he is loved by the masses. There is no Year Zero, Blue Revolution, New Chelsea. The club needs to take a look at itself and show a bit more respect, forge a real connection with its traditions. The supporters don’t want that destroyed. We don’t want Stamford Bridge demolished and replaced with more yuppie flats.

The club said at the meeting that they were looking to add 10,000 new seats – maybe 15,000. At £50 each that is £500,000 (or £750,000) a match – which is a modest sum in today’s game. To fit the Fair Play rules why not start by addressing our transfer policy? Since Claudio Ranieri, the big money paid out has had ‘mixed’ results. Put Andriy Shevchenko and Fernando Torres’ fees and wages together and you are probably talking over £100 million. That is nearly ten years’ worth of extra seats. Why not buy more wisely? Why not introduce a youth system that brings in local players? This doesn’t have to cost a fortune, and the talent is out there in the suburbs, in areas where so many kids are Chelsea mad. We are always hearing about how great Barcelona are, their local talent, so why not learn a lesson? That is what the club should be doing to deal with the Fair Play rules. That is why they were introduced, surely?

The reality of the CPO is that – unique to the rest of the Premiership – it has the chance to move into the modern age and develop itself, really help shape the future of the club, maybe even English football itself. The fans of Liverpool, Man United, Newcastle and all those other clubs who have been under the cosh would kill to own their pitch and – in effect – the name of the club itself. Those with power need to realise that the promotion of money above history and culture is outdated. Look at German football – ultra-cheap tickets, packed stadiums, fans running clubs. We could have that here. Make no mistake, the supporters are what matter most. Without the passion of the fans a professional football club is nothing. Twenty-two grown men kicking a ball around a patch of grass in silence – who would pay to watch that? The TV money the Premiership craves isn’t going to go to a league of sparkling-new, no-atmosphere stadiums.

Despite our success, profile and location, Chelsea aren’t filling a 42,000-seater stadium for every game as things stand. That is what the club should be addressing – the lack of atmosphere and the real reasons why they have missed out on generations of young supporters. One of the oddest notions at the CPO meeting was the club chairman pointing out that Chelsea have some of the oldest fans in the Premiership. First, so what? Second, whose fault is that? It’s not like there are never any empty seats available. Supporters have been saying for years that the club needs to decrease prices for younger fans, encourage locals rather than tourists. Instead of talking this way about their most loyal followers, the club should be thanking the ‘old’ fans (we are mainly talking 40 and 50 year olds here I think) for keeping the atmosphere alive – not causing more resentment.

The CPO meeting reminded me of the People’s Pledge conference a couple of weeks earlier, when a cross-section of ordinary, seemingly powerless people attended a series of talks on Britain’s membership of the EU and the need for a referendum. The biggest cheer of the day came when a woman spoke into one of the microphones offered to the audience. She said to forget all the endless arguments about money, that really what it boiled down to was a question of identity – that she would rather be poor and living in a free England than rich and stuck in a United States Of Europe. Maybe that’s what a lot of people feel about staying at Stamford Bridge. Not that we would be poor, but that our identity is essential. What is the point of endless trophies if the club is playing in another location, with none of its core support left? Yet all of this is unnecessary – as most of us are sure Stamford Bridge could be expanded and, since the meeting, the council have responded to the idea that they won’t allow development by stating they want the club to stay in the borough.

We are constantly hearing that Roman is so rich he is running Chelsea for the love of the club alone, that he is a loyal supporter with the best interests of CFC at heart, that it isn’t about the loans he has made being turned into a long-term profit. Bruce Buck, meanwhile, said everyone wants Chelsea to stay at Stamford Bridge. Fair enough. So instead of the CPO giving its influence away for no real reason, the club needs to back off and let the CPO sort itself out and, once that has happened, they both need to work together, on an equal footing, to make sure Chelsea stay at Stamford Bridge.

(John King, a life long Chelsea fan, is the author of a number of best selling novels including The Football Factory, Headhunters and England Away).

TALL TALES FROM THOSE IN THE KNOW

by Damocles

Copious amounts of bullshit continue to swirl round SW6, courtesy of tall tales by those who claim to have had meetings with Roman Abramovich or his representatives. One such In The Knowall boasted recently on an internet forum "As some of you know, I had a meeting at SB on Thursday afternoon with Roman’s ear (say no more)".

The laughably misnamed 'CFCTruth' account claims ‘Things are certainly happening with the Earl’s Court development’ in an attempt to shore up their reputation as knowing what’s going on.  In reality, like everyone else, they’re farting in the dark.

Meanwhile, there was also the matter of seven Chelsea fans and their personal meeting with Roman Abramovich in the aftermath of the Robbie Di Matteo sacking.  This meeting was so secret that it ended up being reported on the Chelsea In America blog.

The question is this – why do some supporters get audiences with the club hierarchy, particularly the top man, when some of the most fiercely loyal Chelsea fans wouldn’t even get the time of day?

Would it be too much to ask our local oligarch for a little perestroika?

WHY WRITE THIS BLOG?

This site has been set up by genuine CHELSEA fans to keep all true supporters aware of what is happening regarding our home STAMFORD BRIDGE. It’s purpose is for an open discussion, without any vested interest or propaganda as other sites purvey. The future of our club and where we play, is very important and we the fans have a very big part to play in that decision, particularly being the only club in the EPL whose fans own the club name and pitch. Vital questions now need to be addressed by the club. Worrying developments have occurred over the last 15 months and we as fans need to know exactly what is happening.

Most CHELSEA fans are aware over 25 years ago STAMFORD BRIDGE was almost lost to the club, through property speculators wanting to bulldoze the stadium and build a housing estate on the present site. The site at that time, once developed was valued at £40m, which would have created a massive potential return for the developers. Ken Bates the then chairman, saved the day, saw off the speculators and set up the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), where all supporters were encouraged to buy a share for £100 to protect the club from ever falling into similar danger in the future. Over the last 20 years, approximately 15000 people have bought shares and they are still available to purchase at the same price today – which we would encourage all fans to do, to ensure that the future of our club is upheld.

In October 2011, CPO share holders were informed that Roman Abramovich wished to buy back all the shares at £100 each, Bruce Buck the present chairman stated that all CPO shareholders had a "fair chance" to vote on whether they wished to sell their shares or not. The club gave NO further information to supporters why this was suddenly so important to them. The club stated that owing to Financial Fair Play regulations being introduced shortly, the club had to be able to compete against other top European sides in the future, citing that the small capacity at Stamford Bridge as disadvantaging us in comparison to other leading clubs.

It was also stated by Bruce Buck that ALL possible avenues had been explored by the club, in the possibility of expanding Stamford Bridge. This was later found to be untrue when questioned openly in front of 700 people in October 2011 during the CPO voting. He conceded that Chelsea Football Club HAD NOT submitted any plans whatsoever in the previous 10 years in regards to the expansion of the ground. Hammersmith & Fulham Council have since confirmed this.

Suspicion by the majority of CPO shareholders was compounded, when it was suggested at the meeting, that £250k worth of shares had been purchased by Bruce Buck and Roman Abramovich`s associates purely to corrupt the vote. Buck refused to comment, but the National press confirmed all the names and exposed the underhand tactics that the club had adopted in their pursuit to seize all the shares from CPO shareholders.

Richard King the CPO chairman immediately resigned, as it was obvious that he had not been working in the interests of CPO, which was set up to be totally independent of the club. Steve Frankham replaced him, but once again his actions so far have not been in the interests of the CPO shareholders and he continually refuses to `ring fence` the £250k illegally purchased shares, as they continue to affect all voting patterns, which is unfair on all original CPO shareholders.

The present valuation of the combined land at Stamford Bridge is £900m. If developed by the club, the return could be as high as £1.6b. If the club were to relocate, this would cost approximately £500m if a site were to be found, which would create a massive financial return of £1.1b. Some CPO shareholders cite this as the possible motive. We must state that we have an open mind on this, but the clubs next move, will prove where the truth lies.      

 

We are at a critical time in the future of our club, most fans want Stamford Bridge redeveloped if possible, if and when it is proved NOT to be possible, then everyone will accept that a move is inevitable. But to where? No available sites big enough within a 3 mile radius of Stamford Bridge exist. Unless the club are looking even further afield. We as fans demand answers from our club, the fans are the only constant, the present owner and board are only passing through. Questions need to be answered:

A: Why were £250k of shares purchased by the clubs associates to corrupt the vote of CPO shares in October 2011?

B :Why are the £250k of shares illegally purchased still included in any future voting?

C: Why have fans been told that Stamford Bridge can not be redeveloped, when the local council say that it is possible and why do the club refuse to meet with the council to confirm if redevelopment is possible or not?

D: CFC recently announced the 5th biggest financial turnover in World football. Next year TV income will increase by 70% reducing yet further the significance of stadium income, so why do the club still feel that it is imperative to move from Stamford Bridge?

E: Battersea and Earls Court are now not viable sites for relocation, so do the club now feel that even further away from the present site is now acceptable?

F: If the existing combined site at Stamford Bridge is estimated to be worth £900m, why has the pitch and club's name only been valued at £20k?

This is an outline view of where we are at the present time. All Chelsea fans and CPO shareholders understand, that the club need to be able to compete in the future, without relying on Roman Abramovich`s money. No one wishes to hold the club back, but we as fans have then right to know, what the true motives are.