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 ?

Nick Stevens