CHELSEA PITCH OWNERS – A MESS?
(3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)A few anonymous fans have contacted CFCnet with an article or two about Chelsea Pitch Owners. We felt obliged to publish them because CFCnet is a Chelsea fans website and we don’t exist to censor content but merely to put it forward to fellow fans.
After all, CFCnet is run by fans for fans. That’s our job. If fans need to remain anonymous, so be it.
The Chelsea Pitch Owners saga is a difficult one. Over 12,000 fans have purchased CPO shares since its inception – at £100 per share – and they did so upon the premise that they owned part of the freehold to Stamford Bridge. This meant, of course, that no property developer could ever buy the freehold to Stamford Bridge and that the Club would remain in its spiritual home.
CPO was essentially a product of its time. It was a defensive manoeuvre by both the Club and its fans to ensure that whatever the future held, no property developer could kick the Club out. It was a worthy cause but since then, things have changed and this change of circumstance was never foreseen by the original draftees of the CPO Constitution.
With a Russian billionaire owning the Club, do we now need a ‘defensive CPO’ strategy? Or do we instead need to give the Club flexibility to move and build a bigger ground within the SW6 surrounds such as Earl’s Court? Even Chelsea Pitch Owners Chairman, Richard King, is on record saying that CPO is ‘no longer valid’ and has served its purpose.
But ‘no longer valid’ to whom?
Every fan who bought those shares did so to protect our Club during good times and bad. Whilst these are good times who can see what’s round the corner? Wouldn’t CPO shares always be valid? For this reason, some fans are actively lobbying for the removal of the CPO chairman Richard King. After all, his remit is to represent the CPO constitution and shareholders, not to be seen to (allegedly) undermine them.
Other fans, and we hear from them on our Forums too, agree with King that CPO is outdated and would prefer CPO shareholders to allow the Club the right to move from Stamford Bridge if required – perhaps by transferring their CPO freehold share to a new ground.
CFCnet’s view? CPO was created by Chelsea FC and its fans so that the Club and its name remained at Stamford Bridge. If the Club ever wanted to change this it would need the approval of all 12,000 shareholders of CPO.
We can never see this happening simply because some old hermit living in a crofter’s hut in Scotland would probably want £1 million for his share. Other fans, more keen to line their pockets than protect the club, would also lobby for a grand payment.
If someone then instigated legal action to claim that the shares were not valid in law, then the Club could be sued for misrepresentation in its original prospectus.
It’s a mess.
The only solution is for all discussions, debate and opinions to be ‘above board’ and transparent. Machiavellian moves to invalidate or influence CPO by whatever means need to be stopped and true intentions revealed.
More importantly, those brave 12,000 fans who invested money to protect their Club need to be consulted. If even one of those fans says ‘no’, that’s it. End of story. The Club remains at Stamford Bridge. Unless, of course, there is a majority ‘voting’ clause in CPO’s remit that allows the ‘majority’ to hold sway. We’re unsure on that aspect.
The only bright light on the horizon is that it is highly unlikely we will ever move. One of CFCnet’s colleagues is a petro-geologist and he says the current world oil situation is ‘horrifying’ and that peak oil has arrived. With travel costs set to soar and with most fans living well outside SW6, a 42,000 seater stadium will probably be enough for the foreseeable future. Peak oil is one (non-disclosed) reason why Juventus are trading down from a 69,000 seater stadium to a 41,000 seater. They can see what’s coming.
Maybe we won’t be looking to move anyway.
Comments
By Brett Cox on January 29th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
The summary of your argument is that we don’t need to worry because peak oil will render a stadium move moot?
Is this a conspiracy / new world order website?
Let me repeat your argument – you summarise that a stadium move will be unsustainable due to rising transport costs, i.e. 20000 extra people will not be able to afford transport costs due to peak oil.
Therefore one should not worry that the primacy of a single CPO shareholder overrides any remaining 11,999, and each single shareholder wields a unique right of veto?
Are you suggesting that Old Trafford and the Emirates are going to see difficulties filling their grounds due to peak-oil induced transport costs, and that the Emirates has thusly been a folly?
This is just a bizarre construction, really.
It is unreasonable to expect that for 100 quid you can buy veto control over an asset of the value of Chelsea FC.
Due to the value of the CPO contract, it is highly likely to be subverted or attacked on a legal basis should the owner decide it is in the club’s best interests to move. I dare say they have some plans about how they will execute this exactly.
I don’t know the Richard King issue, but this sounds like a real kitchen cabinet of reactionaries, as per usual. I am sure they are a good bunch of working class lads who are certain the man is trying to steal their rights.
Or maybe it’s just a collection of agents acting on behalf of Ken Bates for reason of spiting Abramovich?
By Brian on February 4th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
I was one of the original CPO and bought the share in good faith to protect the club after having lived through all the bad times mid 70s to mid 90s that so badly affected the club. When RA goes – unless there are solid plans in place the SB site will always be a target for property developers due to its location. To simply trust that this won’t happen again in the future is a folly of the worst kind.
I would not want to hold the club back and would happily be consulted on any plans with a view to securing my agreement. The reality is though that SB could easily be re-developed on the North, East and South sides by building over the rail lines, agreeing access through the graveyard and resedential area behind the North Stand and knocking down the hotel and sports centre so there should be no need to move to achieve a 52-55,000 capacity ground that has some style.
By Jez Walters on February 10th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Conspiracy theory?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/oilprices/7203172/Britain-faces-oil-crunch-within-five-years-Richard-Branson-warns.html
Hmmmm.
By Jez Walters on February 23rd, 2010 at 10:07 am
Or what about this?
http://www.countercurrents.org/pritchard210210.htm
Hmmm.