CHELSEA PITCH OWNERS – COUP D’ETAT PLANNED!
(6 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)This article first appeared on the cfcuk website a few days ago. We think that this is important information to some of our visitors.
Following the story that was published on this website several weeks ago concerning Chelsea Pitch Owners, we at cfcuk.net have today received information pertaining to the fact that a coup d’etat is planned with the aim of removing the current chairman Richard King. This, after several CPO shareholders voiced dissatisfaction at the job he is doing.
We understand that following King’s claim that the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) has ‘served its purpose’ and is no longer valid, several die-hard and extremely loyal Chelsea supporters have begun a campaign to remove King from his position and replace him with somebody who will be more representative of their ideals.
Many people who purchased Chelsea Pitch Owner shares did so on the understanding that they would not only be helping Chelsea FC to remain at Stamford Bridge but also that the CPO owns the name Chelsea Football Club. King however, rejects that claim and insists that was never the case.
Although several shareholders in Chelsea Pitch Owners pointed out that in the original prospectus, it stated that Chelsea FC hold the name (Chelsea Football Club) in trust on behalf of CPO but, according to our sources, this is something that King has moved to deny.
The situation is further compounded by the fact that a page on the official Chelsea website explaining the above position has – somewhat mysteriously – been deleted after eagle-eyed CPO shareholders pointed out the Club website stated that it was in fact the case that the CPO did own the name.
Fortunately for those fighting for the removal of King and for and on behalf of those who purchased shares, the ‘original’ information that appeared on the website has been saved by way of a screenshot.
As well as that, the original prospectus for the issue of Chelsea Pitch Owner shares also confirms that it is indeed the case that CPO DOES own the name Chelsea Football Club, a fact endorsed by former owner and the then chairman Ken Bates under who the Chelsea Pitch Owners company was originally set up.
Many who hold Chelsea dear to their hearts are of the opinion that King is trying to manoeuvre CPO into a position whereby it accepts that the Club does own the name Chelsea Football Club, a situation that would allow it to abandon Stamford Bridge to locate to a new stadium and take the name Chelsea Football Club with it.
We here at cfcuk.net are also led to believe that, such is the concern at the outcome of the last CPO Annual General Meeting that was held on 11 December 2009, some extremely unlikely alliances are being formed. What is it that the well Arab proverb states? The enemy of my enemy is my friend…
Those shareholders concerned that those in charge of Chelsea FC are trying to claim ownership of the name Chelsea Football Club from CPO in order to ultimately engineer a move away from Stamford Bridge should, in the first instance, contact the group currently organising to lobby for the removal of Richard D King as chairman of the said company by sending an email to; vote_king_out@live.co.uk.
Comments
By ALEX on January 24th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Whilst I understand the position that is being held by CPO surely not being able to move location would only hinder us. We can’t get planning permission at Stamford Bridge but if we’re to compete with the man u’s and real madrids of this world then a new and much bigger stadium (if it can be found) should be taken.
Particularly with FIFA’s new stance on clubs not being run in debt. One way of creating larger revenue is by having more tickets to sell. If we keep the ground without being able to expand the stadium and fifa’s rule does come in, the only way we can create more money from ticket sales would be to increase the cost of the tickets, thus effecting us the fans. Surely if you own the pitch and the club moves, you could sell it to a developer for a lot of cash, chelsea gets a bigger stadium. we all win.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Who is the enemy here? the guys who want to take us further on. I personally believe this could be a hinderence to our club now whereas when this agreement was made it was relevent and I wouldn’t trust Bates’ word, as he was the reason the agreement was needed in the first place. He couldn’t give less of a s&&* about us. I t would only serve in his favour to hinder us.