The Kingbreaker

More questions are raised by concerned Chelsea Pitch Owner shareholders about the legitimacy of current chairman Richard King’s tenure.

More questions are now being asked about the legitimacy of Richard King’s tenure as chairman of Chelsea Pitch Owners, the company set up to ensure that developers can never take over Stamford Bridge and also to protect the name Chelsea Football Club ever being used should the club decide to move away from their present location.

Several concerned fans are asking whether, as a supposedly independent organisation, it is right that Chelsea FC provides hosting for the Chelsea Pitch Owners website. With the same sentiment in mind, shareholders are now asking who exactly has editorial control of the Chelsea Pitch Owner web pages that can be found within the club’s official website.

With the events of the past weeks in mind, it would be interesting to see whether those responsible for the Chelsea Pitch Owner web pages would allow some independent comments to be made by those who do hold shares.

After Richard King was challenged by shareholders on the point he made that the Chelsea Pitch Owners did not own the name Chelsea Football Club, there is clear and irrefutable evidence that the web page containing the proof that the Chelsea Pitch Owners DID own the name was subsequently changed. This, after a shareholder pointed out to King that the evidence was on the official Chelsea website.

If it is the case that King arranged for the webpage to be changed in order that there was ‘no evidence’ that contradict what he claimed at the Chelsea Pitch Owner AGM, that, state some shareholders, is enough to warrant a resignation from him.

Shareholders insist that King is duty bound in his role to protect the interests of the shareholders and not to bend to the wishes of those at the club who may, for their own purposes, want as ‘easy a ride’ as possible as far as taking the name Chelsea FC with them, should a new stadium other than in its present location become a viable alternative.

As well as the above, several shareholders who attended the last AGM of the Chelsea Pitch Owners company last December were angry and upset when informed by King that the company had ‘served its purpose’.

When Ken Bates’ Chelsea lent the Chelsea Pitch Owners company £10m to buy the freehold of the pitch, the purpose of the Chelsea Pitch Owners was to sell enough shares to repay the loan.

If you are a concerned Chelsea Pitch Owner shareholder, please contact the ‘Provisional Committee’ of the ‘Vote King Out Campaign’ via the following email address; Vote_King_Out@live.co.uk