1339 replies to this topic

[thevelourfog]

grantdesmidt11, on 03 October 2011 - 09:53 PM, said:

We really need an in-depth article explaining what this all means. In layman's terms.

Buck's open letter to the CPO (as well as the other attachments) says it all in a much detail as you could need.

http://www.chelseafc...,,10268,00.html

Just reading through the comments here, I won't be drawn into arguments with people who are vehemently against selling the shares back or a ground move because that would ultimately be pointless- I think this is one of those issues were hearts and minds are unlikely to be won away from wherever they initially fell. But one question occurs to me that someone with a more robust understanding of the CPO's loan from the club might be able to answer. What is to stop the club from simply calling in the loan if the CPO vote no?

[QueSera]

The eventual result is unfortunately inevitable. The Chelsea Pitch Owners plc as set up by Ken Bates required the supporters and friends of Chelsea Football Club to buy a CPO share or more. As only 15,000 shares have been sold to approximately 12,000 people, Chelsea do not have the loyal fan base or faith that agreed or understood what protection might possibly be gained through the organisation.

All those that bemoan the passing of "The Bridge", where were you when "Save the Bridge", "Bridgebuilder" and the "Chelsea Pitch Owners" needed you?

[CFCwehatetottenham]

retrofooze, on 04 October 2011 - 12:12 AM, said:

Not having a proper stadium is a major hindrance, do people really want to go the way of Liverpool ?

We have a proper stadium in Stamford Bridge, not a soulless bowl like The Emirates, DW Stadium, Reebok Stadium, Madjeski Stadium etc the list is endless.

SAVE THE BRIDGE

[thevelourfog]

QueSera, on 04 October 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

All those that bemoan the passing of "The Bridge", where were you when "Save the Bridge", "Bridgebuilder" and the "Chelsea Pitch Owners" needed you?

Not sure exactly where, but I was about 7 years old. Can this discussion not turn into one of those arguments, please.

[thevelourfog]

Also, why was the poll changed? It's a bit simplistic now.

[Kneel for 1]

http://www.freemapto...&lw=1&fc=0000FF


Hopefully the above will be a map of a three mile radius around the bridge to show the limits of the proposed move.

Edited by Kneel for 1, 04 October 2011 - 09:15 AM.

[Sciatika]

thevelourfog, on 04 October 2011 - 07:25 AM, said:

What is to stop the club from simply calling in the loan if the CPO vote no?

My understanding is that part of the terms and conditions of the loan is that the club is not allowed to simply call it in.

A couple of points immediately occur to me:

- I bought my CPO shares to guarantee that CFC would continue in existence. At the time, I equated that with Stamford Bridge (and maybe I still do since its our "home"), but I can't really argue with the points made about the contribution of matchday revenue and the problems with extending the capacity of the Bridge. I would be living in "cloud cuckoo land" if I did. I would reluctantly accept a move elsewhere because I believe that to be the best way of protecting the club and, to me, club is more important than stadium.

- The key to this, for me, is the section of the open letter that states:

Quote

The need for this protection, however, disappeared following the acquisition of the Club by
Mr. Abramovich in 2003. Ironically, the CPO structure could now actually hinder rather than
enhance the future of the Club as restrictions in the Lease inhibit relocation to a larger
stadium. One day, we may need to move quickly to secure a suitable site if it becomes
available and, with the CPO structure in place, we cannot plan with certainty.

The question for me is not about trusting the current regime, but rather whether I would trust all potential regimes. It's like giving powers to government. You don't do it if you can't be sure that some other government (in the future) won't abuse it. So, it needs to be considered carefully. Having said that, I have no doubt that RA is going to act in the best interests of the club. People suggesting that the plan is simply a means to shaft us should have a bit more respect, IMO.

- I hate the idea of a simply yea/nea vote over an issue like this. I would prefer it if we could collectively come up with a counter-proposal that could be agreed by both parties. For instance, I would like to see CPO continue as part of the fabric of the club and be given some important rights in a new stadium should it be built. However, given the widely divergent views in CPO (some expressed here), I suspect such a thing is not possible.

- The inducements to vote in favour are pretty irrelevant in the scheme of things.

[CFCwehatetottenham]

QueSera, on 04 October 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

All those that bemoan the passing of "The Bridge", where were you when "Save the Bridge", "Bridgebuilder" and the "Chelsea Pitch Owners" needed you?

I was 2/3 years old.

[QueSera]

CFCwehatetottenham, on 04 October 2011 - 09:16 AM, said:

I was 2/3 years old.

Good typing for a 2-3 year old as CPO has been trading and selling shares up to yesterday! (On the CFCOWS they still are offering shares at £100, £125, £150 ea)

[QueSera]

DDA Drogbar., on 04 October 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

Buy-outs of minority shares are there for a reason. He didn't steal your shares.

Please re-read. I didn't say my shares were stolen. I said/implied they were, through legal process taken from me against my wishes, hence the "stole". I dare say that this will be the inevitable result with my CPO shares as well.