Stamford Bridge Thread

[Fulham Broadway 16,860]

Most of those who want away are telly clappers.

How can you understand about giving your heart to something that has no soul.

Chelsea FC is about more than stadium sizes and league tables.

[dave30 728]

http://www.chelseafc...2497606,00.html Richard King steps down as chairman of the CPO

[Fulham Broadway 16,860]

http://www.chelseafc...2497606,00.html Richard King steps down as chairman of the CPO

As predicted in the Guardian today. The Russian way of doing things would be to fire Gourlay n Buck as well, but I dont think that will happen. Yet.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

'My decision was made some time ago but I felt obliged to remain in office until the process that led to yesterday's general meeting of the company was concluded.'

Hmm.. I wonder if he's had a little pay off since

[strong centreback 157]

How can the club give that assurance? From interviews (like the one with Gourlay) they've said that they most definitely won't move away from south west london. What type of assurance other than their word they want/need?

How about putting it in the next offer like the 2020 move promise?

[strong centreback 157]

You are talking about scenarios after 40 years? What if Roman's Son has taken over the reins of the club? We can play the "What if" game till the cows come home....

You need to understand that our owners are not in it for financial gain like Glazers, Hicks and Gillete. He invested 800m and has even written off thaqt 800m of debt from the club's account.

Like you said you can play the what if card all night, fact of the matter is nobody knows what will happen in 10, 20, 30 years time for the club, im sure leeds would have liked a cpo structure in place when peter risdale was chairman, bottom line is why take away a line of defence when you dont have to? if the cpo stick to their guns on a transfer of rights to a new ground the club will have to give in if they are 100% behind a move, id imagine alot of our current fans had never heard about the cpo up until nearly a month ago.

No need to be patronising with your last sentence Im right behind and appreciate everything roman has done for us, and very much want and expect him to stay for a long long time yet, my want for the cpo to continue is born out of the fact that the grandson of the original owner, who founded us, instigated the need for the cpo in the first place, its not that I dont trust roman, I do, its that I dont know what will happen with future owners and so see no need to get rid of said organisation, and frankly nor should the club.

[termninja 5,290]

I know a lot of fans hold Stamford Bridge in a very special place in their heart and that a lot of them would be broken if we moved, but if the club wants to continue growing and most important to remain what it is today, we do need a move to a bigger stadium. I've never been to the Bridge as I live in the foreign country so it is not hard for me to be objective and I have to say I am disappointed that the 75% weren't met.

[strong centreback 157]

I know a lot of fans hold Stamford Bridge in a very special place in their heart and that a lot of them would be broken if we moved, but if the club wants to continue growing and most important to remain what it is today, we do need a move to a bigger stadium. I've never been to the Bridge as I live in the foreign country so it is not hard for me to be objective and I have to say I am disappointed that the 75% weren't met.

If they transferred the cpo shares onto the freehold of the new site and had in a contract that they would remain in a sw postcode as close to the current bridges location as possible, then they would have got more than the 75% needed.

The transparency the cpo are asking for is not a great leap from what is already on the table, if they moved the cpo over as well then that would be a cool 10m saved as well, even if circa 8m of it is little more than debt on paper.

It really isnt hard for the club to comeback with a counter offer of the counter offer put to them from the sncpo campaign, make the deadline 2025, promise a huge one tier home stand behind the goal and to transfer the cpo onto the new freehold, that would get the extra 15% odd needed yes votes.

[termninja 5,290]

If they transferred the cpo shares onto the freehold of the new site and had in a contract that they would remain in a sw postcode as close to the current bridges location as possible, then they would have got more than the 75% needed.

The transparency the cpo are asking for is not a great leap from what is already on the table, if they moved the cpo over as well then that would be a cool 10m saved as well, even if circa 8m of it is little more than debt on paper.

It really isnt hard for the club to comeback with a counter offer of the counter offer put to them from the sncpo campaign, make the deadline 2025, promise a huge one tier home stand behind the goal and to transfer the cpo onto the new freehold, that would get the extra 15% odd needed yes votes.

I really don't understand a lot of the CPO and the club situation, but I do hope it ends well for both the club and the fans. It's a tough choice we are gonna have to make in the near future regarding the stadium.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

If they transferred the cpo shares onto the freehold of the new site and had in a contract that they would remain in a sw postcode as close to the current bridges location as possible, then they would have got more than the 75% needed.

The transparency the cpo are asking for is not a great leap from what is already on the table, if they moved the cpo over as well then that would be a cool 10m saved as well, even if circa 8m of it is little more than debt on paper.

It really isnt hard for the club to comeback with a counter offer of the counter offer put to them from the sncpo campaign, make the deadline 2025, promise a huge one tier home stand behind the goal and to transfer the cpo onto the new freehold, that would get the extra 15% odd needed yes votes.

But why should they have another CPO?

There's simply no need, from Chelsea's point of view. That's very understandable imo.

[strong centreback 157]

But why should they have another CPO?

There's simply no need, from Chelsea's point of view. That's very understandable imo.

There maybe no need according to the club in the current or future but that is under the current regime, but there maybe a need in the distant future if we were to have a new owner that is less roman and more risdale, thats the point the cpo are making, and ultimately why is it that the cpo cant be transferred, it just keeps the status quo as it is, club gets what it wants in a new stadia with increased revenues and the cpo/fans (likely to be the ones who kept turning up when we got relegated in 83) get to keep being the clubs guardian if it ever got to that marler estates scenario again.

No one can predict the future so why get rid of something designed to protect the club and which has the best intentions for the club at heart when there is no need, having the cpo hold any new freehold at a new stadium is not a problem for anyone, unless we are either in the current position of wanting a move and needing a 75% yes vote or that the stadium is trying to be sold from under us.

[Bosnian Blue 2,471]

I find it the club hasn't been transparent enough to convince the CPO.

[tomelk31 2]

Yesterday the CPO members met with the club officials to discuss the clubs offer to buy back the freehold of Stamford Bridge. The clubs future depended on what happened. Everyone had their own opinion on whether the CPO should vote yes or no even if your not a member and it has been on every Chelsea fans mind since it was announced by the club.

I am not a CPO member but my dad is and due to work he was only able to vote using the proxy form. I know that he voted yes but he was very undecided. After showing him the proposal from the SayNoCPO he aggreed that their proposal was the best way forward but it was to late to change his vote by then.

Their proposal is the following:

1 The club to have total freedom to move to a larger new stadium anywhere within three miles of Stamford Bridge at any time before 2030 so long as Roman Abramovich is still in control of Chelsea.

2. Chelsea to save £1.5m by leaving Chelsea Pitch Owners in place. The CPO will sell the freehold at SB to the club in exchange for the freehold at the new ground on the same terms as currently in place.

3. The club to agree to ongoing consultation, and transparency of information, with the fans regarding any new stadium.*

We await with interest your response and we are happy to meet at any time to discuss this further.

*The consultation with the club regarding any new stadium mentioned in point 3 would include, inter alia, issues around location, design, facilities and pricing structure. It would also cover discussing evidence regarding the unsuitability of Stamford Bridge for redevelopment.

As the vote went in favour of SayNoCPO I think this would be good for the club and for the fans. It means the board can’t just move us anyway and means the fans still get a say in what happens at the club.

Taken from chelseatalk.co.uk

[warnie_666 1,081]

1. Don't think there will be any sites left within three miles in next 10 years let alone next 18.

2. Having CPO for the new pitch in an ideal world is not a problem but it again gives rise to this convoluted structure in the the club where not one person or entity owns the clubs primary asset. It is just too complicated. Doubt the club will take that into consideration.

3. Buck already mentioned about taking fans suggestion in designing the stadium. For example having a single tier stand and also to discuss the ticketing structure with fans.

Bar first two points I think club will be ok

[strong centreback 157]

http://www.telegraph...rd-Bridge.html?

A grassroots rebellion at Stamford Bridge

Even Roman Abramovich and his millions can’t sway the diehard Chelsea football supporters.

A heartwarming and rather unexpected thing happened this week in English football. And no, delicious as the news was, it had nothing to do with the disgraced misogynists Richard Keys and Andy Gray being obliged to cancel a nationwide tour after a profound lack of activity at the box office.

Rather, it happened in that cradle of democracy, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. And it featured a bunch of football fans reminding those who think they are in control of the game who it is that actually counts. The Chelsea Pitch Owners are a group of Blues fans who, back in 1992, came together to stop the institution they love falling into the hands of asset-strippers. No one has heard of them since, largely because they are a non-profit group and football these days is entirely preoccupied with money. But on Thursday, they decided that they weren’t going to flog the freehold of their Stamford Bridge pitch to Chelsea’s owner, Roman Abramovich.

Now, you may have thought that Abramovich already owned everything to do with Chelsea, from the hospitality lounges to the Vegas-style hotels flanking the stadium to the bloke who paints the centre circle. The Russian has, over the past eight years, siphoned the best part of £800 million from the gas fields of Siberia to this particular west London playing field.

But the one thing he doesn’t own, it turns out, is the very grass on which his team plays. Instead, since 1992, it has been owned by those supporters who were prepared to stump up £100 a share. They then leased the grass to the club for a nominal rent.

It seemed a purely formal arrangement. To all intents and purposes, Chelsea is Abramovich’s. He does the hiring, and more often the firing. He is the boss. And a benevolent one, too: his association with Chelsea has been entirely to its advantage.

Recently, however, Abramovich has sought to move his possession to bigger premises, ones that could generate a higher income. In order to do so, he must first sell Stamford Bridge. And to do that, he needs the freehold. Which is where the fans so gloriously demonstrated their bloody-mindedness. The rules of the Chelsea Pitch Owners require a 70 per cent majority in favour of handing over the freehold. Abramovich thought that would be easily arranged, and had his allies buy up the shares. But the fans weren’t having it: though the vote went Abramovich’s way, the required majority was not forthcoming.

As of this week, then, the fans still own the pitch. And that’s important. In part, it secures the future. Abramovich is a magnificent benefactor, but he won’t be around for ever. What if the owner who follows him is an asset-stripper, keen to realise the immense value of a huge development site on the Fulham Road? Besides, Stamford Bridge is a place the fans love. It is a place where they spend huge swaths of their lives, where they buried the ashes of the club’s biggest hero, Peter Osgood, in an urn beneath the penalty spot.

Luckily, the situation is not intractable. Instead of trying to rig the vote, all Abramovich needs to do is to offer the fans the freehold of any new stadium, in exchange for the one at Stamford Bridge. Because that, after all, is what they want to ensure: that the football remains long after any owner has moved his pile elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The chelsea barracks site sold for a shade under 1billion to the candy brothers and a qatar investment vehicle, that is 3 miles up the road, makes you wonder about the bridges true value? the club if ever in an akward position in the future, would be circled by potential investers whether they be football fans or property speculators who could turn a profit by sticking us in a new cheaper stadia on a brownfield site on the m25 and turning the bridge into flats, its a remote possibility though obviously, but it did happen to us before.

[hunaz10 21]

My 1st response to the stadium move was a strong YES as I am not from UK (I am sick of us still playing in such a small stadium, & I envy the support the fans provide teams like madrid, Barca, Bayern & United)

However after reading more about the Say NO campaign, i have changed my mind & I am glad the result was in favour of the fans. And I f***king hate Gourlay & Buck - the buggers don't know to behave, better learn from a kindergarten child...!

I really appreciate the efforts taken by the CPO fans to voice their displeasure, which shows how much we love the club - magnificent.!!!

I strongly support the idea of transferring the current CPO agreement to the new stadium freehold so that we have a home for ourselves even after the Roman days..!

@tom pls ask some CPO guy to open a facebook page to get global support in their quest to convince or force the club to agree to (may I say) our terms.....!

[hunaz10 21]

But why should they have another CPO?

There's simply no need, from Chelsea's point of view. That's very understandable imo.

I am very disappointed that many Chelsea fans do not understand this complex situation, even people from London....!

I may look young for you people, but feel confident & matured since halfway on my way to become pro marketer and I understand some of these corporate bullshit...!

IMO key reason why the Club is trying to get rid of CPO is that the business wud be more valuable without CPO which wud enable Roman to sell it to a higher price if he intends to make money by selling the club.

i.e.

1. The club could move to a bigger place regardless of the 3 mile radius - with proven high revenue opportunity the value of the business becomes higher

or

2. Current board get rid of the CPO making the new owner/board with less efforts to move away - making the business more valuable without making any significant investment as in option 1

[strong centreback 157]

FRANKHAM TO CHAIR CPO

Following the resignation of Richard King as chairman and a director of Chelsea Pitch Owners Plc, the remaining directors of the Company have invited Steve Frankham to rejoin the board of directors and to act as chairman. He has accepted that invitation.

Steve Frankham is a long-time Chelsea supporter, who was an original director when CPO was founded in 1993. He became its chairman in 1997 - when Tony Banks resigned as chairman upon entering government - and led CPO during its most successful period of fundraising.

Upon his appointment, Mr Frankham said he relished the opportunity to lead CPO in this vital period and to help it achieve its historic objectives.

Mr Frankham, together with the other directors of CPO, will be up for re-election at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting.

The Board would like to express its sincere thanks to Richard King for the huge contribution he has made to CPO over the last eight years.

The Board of CPO 31 October 2011.