Sleeping Dave

Members_2012
  • Content count

    11,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Everything posted by Sleeping Dave

  1. 1) CPO 2) Fans Forum 3) Various supporter groups
  2. I second that. However, for that to work the club needs to be ready to talk to us.
  3. Michael Essien

    I love your optimism. Really needed that after the last two weeks.
  4. I'm not so sure it would be true for South-East Asia either. I've lived in Bangkok and I didn't see many Chelsea fans at all. I got a distinct feeling that most South-East Asians who cared about football were either Liverpool or Man U fans. This was in 2005 though mind so it could obviously have changed now, but I'd be surprised if it was true.
  5. Michael Essien

    Unfortunately I think you are correct.
  6. Ok makes sense but then I must have misunderstood that legal council Buckley (or whatever his name was). I swear he said there was 1,700 votes including proxies among the 700 people that was in there. Sounds like w probably meant that including proxies, they needed an additional 1,400 votes among the 1,700 votes excluding proxies...
  7. One thing that I still have not understood is how they knew they needed 1,400 out of the 1,700 votes present either as CPO holders or proxies at the EGM. When had thos othwer 4,000 odd votes been cast and how? When had they counted them? Does anyone know the answer to that? If there was ways to vote other than sending a proxy, why send a proxy at all?
  8. How can you say that? If the club wanted to move, a 'no' vote should change nothing. The grounds for moving should still be there (if you accept they were there in the first place). A 'no' should not have changed that one bit. As for you understanding that the club might not come back, well I do not understand that at all because that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
  9. Ok you still think the club MUST move grounds (even though Buck ADMITTED last night they might even have stayed would there have been a yes and that they are not sure we can fill even 55,000)? Why the sudden rush? Why the gun to our heads? Why the arrogant attitude? Why the threats? Read my post a few pages back. Buck all of a sudden changed tune after they lost the vote. Why? Why was it so important to do this now when they don't even seem to know whether have to move or not. Something is not right here.
  10. How on earth are we supposed to trust these people? The trust for the board isn't really helped by shady statements like this by Buck: "We can't do much with the ground but we still have to make a decision on whether it is essential to move, in terms of if we move to a 55,000 or 60,000 stadium whether we really could fill it," said Buck. "There is always a strong possibility that we would stay here, yes." That is not the picture he described at the meeting yesterday. Not at all. Look at the statement form the club after the meeting. "This can hinder our progress". How on earth can it hinder our progress when we don't even know for sure we need a new ground? WTF is going on here? How can we trust them when they are releasing so many conflicting statements? Very disappoited by the clubs behaviour on this one. Rush through a vote, put a gun to everyones head, paint doomsday scenarios if we don't accept and then when they lose the vote our Chairman comes out with something like this? Shocking. No class whatsoever. Well put (even though I really think the 'Yes' votes had been tainted by those 2,000 newly bought shares). The board must now come back with an improved offer. If they don't, I think there can be no doubt they had some alterior motive behind this proposal in the first place. Also, just to make this clear as well (in case someone was in doubt), the Club is much bigger than Mr Roman Abramovich as well. Yes we have neglected it for ages. I do know quite a few U-21s who travel away just as much as I do and it's really really great. However, they are not enough. We need more U-21s and more U-16s at Chelsea games. They are the ones who are to form our core support when the dinosaurs are not here anymore.
  11. Well put. I've been trying to say something similar as well. It can't be right that we spend that much more on salaries than our main competitors, while dishing out stupid money on transfer fees. That we have been able to stay on top with the big ones in Europe when it comes to match day revenue is spectacular, but I do think we are reaching our limits very soon. One thing a bigger ground could do for us (after we have become more responsible with costs and don't spend silly money on high profile transfers and wages) is to be able to bring in more kids/families and U-21s. That effect should not be underestimated on the long term success of the club, and I'd like to see more than 10% of the new ground being allocated for this purpose.
  12. Yes, something along those lines was suggested on several occasions. They weren't too keen to discuss them. I understand why, but still think they could have given a more open approach. Hopefully that will come now instead. I think many made it quite crystal clear what they would accept. Now I guess it all depends on how badly the club wants to move and how much they are willing to compromise.
  13. Josh Mc Eachran

    On paper I think that could be a great move. Rodgers obviously knows him from his time at Chelsea, likes to play football and generally I think Swansea would be a place that could fit McEachran well.
  14. I'm obvoisly not sure others will agree with my assessment of Buck's behaviour but that was my take on it. Would be interesting to hear if someone else has another viewpoint on it.
  15. To be honest, what did he not struggle with? The only decent answer he gave all day was when he explained that he personally would like to stay at the Bridge, but that due to various reasons we can't. He then went on to state that of course Chelsea don't want to move to an area where the fans won't come and attend. After that, most of what he said was a load of bs. I understand that the he can't come up with an alternative proposal on the spot, but he was completely unwilling to discuss any other options and gave the same, very inadequate, answers to several questions. He was also at times quite rude and patronising, several times referring to "we won't move the club to Newcastle". Well thanks for that clarification Bruce. His only answer to anythin (once you sorted out all the bollocks) was give us your only bargaining chip for peanuts and just trust us. People brought up fears of what would happen if something happened to Roman and his only answer was basically that he trusted that Roman would have had some sort of protection in place. I understand that many of the questions he faced we're ridiculous, and some he couldn't answer due to their nature. But overall I was not convinced at all. Gourlay tried in vain, several times even having to tell Bruce to answer a question or let a person ask a question. Not behaviour fit for our chairman. At one stage he even blanked a question about conditional agreement by just pointing at the next person to ask a question. When the original person who ha the word protested Bruce simply said that it hadn't been a question but a statement. Petty behaviour like that did not help their cause and several people around me just said they were shocked over the perceived lack of class. I've actually changed my perception of Gourlay to the better after today while my lack of confidence for Buck could hardly get any worse. Maybe I'm just babbling but the big picture of Bucks behaviour was not pretty. My opinion mind.
  16. There were 'Yes' voters at the meeting today who changed their mind and voted 'no' after having heard what Buck and Gourlay had to say. Talk about a disastrous performance by Bruce Buck in particular today. You know you done a horrendous job when you have convinced the ones on your side to turn against you.
  17. James. Seriously. Do yourself a favour and keep out of something you clearly don't have a first clue about. The statement above is so wrong, arrogant, patronising and out right idiotic on so many accounts I do not even know where to begin. You should be better than that.
  18. I believe the 'no' voters were 2,271 but could be wrong. Didn't listen too carefully to the exact numbers as I was celebrating the 'no'! It's clear as day that something fishy has been going on.
  19. What a shambles that meeting was. Accusations flying all over the place, some CPO holders acted like right twats and Buck was not at his best behaviour either. Gourlay did well, showed a lot of sympathy and had some very interesting points to make on naming rights, which he expects to be announced within 6-12 months. He also confirmed one of the reasons such a deal had not been struck yet was because he had promised to keep the name Stamford Bridge in the new name with the sponsor, I.e. "The Samsung Stamford Bridge" instead of simply "Samsung Arena" (just an example). Otherwise the rights would have been sold long time ago according to Ron. I don't think Buck et al were under any sort of uncertainty what the vast majority of participants at the meeting thought about the 'proposal'. At certain stages the meeting was very hostile and people were at times shouting uncontrollably at each other and even Buck showed a lot of annoyance and at times arrogance/petulance towards people asking questions. It will be very interesting to see how this develops going forward. One thing is for sure, there needs to be a proper investigation into those 2,000 shares bought during the last three weeks. There's no doubt in my mind that the club have used underhand tactics to sway the vote, and if this is the case it is absolutely unacceptable behaviour. I do not expect Mr King to be long-lived either as the CPO director. If he doesn't resign by tomorrow, which he (at the end of the meeting) said he'd contemplate over night, he sure will have a lot of unhappy calls for his head in December during the AGM. Again, this just goes to show that the club are not looking to what fans actually think. "This may slow our progress"? Well then come out with a bloody proposal that it makes sense voting 'yes' on. Christ almighty, should we blindly vote yes just because you use the success of the club as a reason? How about showing some decency and actually care what the common man thinks? This was a blatant attempt to hijack the vote and take the decision from the true CPO holders and put it in the hands of Bucks cronies. You should be ashamed of yourself Bruce. It was brought up on the meeting by a chap named Clint something. He brought up very strong accusations towards the club and the CPO board. He called for a 'vote of no confidence' towards the board of CPO which the legal advisor (Buckley I believe) flat out rejected as it wasn't legally possible at the EGM. Clint then moved on to call for the meeting to be adjourned so the 20 individuals who all bought 100 shares each could be investigated and make sure whether they had any ties to the club or not. The panel (CPO board, Buck and Gourlay) then convened and had a brief discussion with legal representation. Their response was that for the proposal to go through (I.e. 75% votes yes), of the remaining votes that had not been counted (the 1,700 votes present in the room, either as a CPO holder or by proxy) they needed 1,400 to vote yes. It was crystal clear that would never happen so more or less everyone in there wanted the vote to go through instead of having the meeting adjourned. I have no doubt whatsoever that those 20 individuals are all (or more or less all) having strong ties to the club or to persons running the club. Nobody at the meeting denied the accusations (and given their severity one would have thought they would if they were unfounded) so my take on it is that just as many of us believed, the club had done it's outmost to sway the vote in their favour. Buck did not cover himself in glory today. My confidence for him is at an all-time low. Well if you were at the meeting and would have seen the CPO boards and Buck/Gourlay's reactions to the accusations I have no doubt in my mind that those 2,000 shares accounted for a very big part of the 'yes' voters.
  20. I refuse to believe that. If that's what they are trying to achieve they have no clue what they are getting themselves into. Not even Buck and that maggot Gourlay are that stupid. Twickenham? A rugby stadium with GREEN seats? Surely not?
  21. Yes, it is indeed my neck of the woods! I live right at the southeast corner of Battersea Park. The railway maintenance yards off Silverthorne Road is probably a good shout, as is New Covent Gardens (at least in terms of size). Whether they are up for grabs or not is a different matter though. I haven't heard anything. Looking at the actual sites the Silverthorne Road site would probably be best suited, although I'd definitely still prefer Battersea Power Station of all options mentioned so far (incl. Earl's Court). Whether it is viable to build a football stadium in either New Covent Garden or Silverthorne I can't really comment on, as even if I live locally I'm not really strolling around in those two areas much as it's a bit industrial (and quite frankly pointless). How silly of me. Been a long week! The industrial estates east of the power station is probably not a very good site to build on alone, but could probably be used to build up the surrounding area if Chelsea decided on Battersea power station. Can't imagine Roman wanting industrial estate surrounding his new ground, so the club could potentially buy the areas surrounding as well to make sure shops/restaurants etc could be built adjacent to the stadium. My proposal was of course for a re-vote, after a proper dialogue has been conducted by all parties (subject to the current vote being a 'no' of course). The mechanics behind it interests me little. I'm only interested in the actual outcome. If a suggestion could be worked up for a re-vote suggesting the following: - Chelsea are allowed to negotiate regarding sites in Earl's Court, Battersea Nine/Elms area and Imperial Wharf. If a deal is agreed, Chelsea are free to move there on condition that: 1) The CPO ownership of the freehold of Stamford Bridge is swapped for the freehold of the new ground. 2) The ground will have a minimum 50,000 capacity (I actually think they might as well build 60,000). 3) 10% of the tickets will go to families & U-21s. 4) Club will listen to what fans are saying regarding design/features of the new ground. If such a suggestion would be presented I'm sure they'd have a pretty decent chance of getting 75% of the votes. I would certainly have no qualms of doing so.
  22. So again, what's wrong with the club offering a new vote stating that if they can secure Battersea, Earl's Court or any of those couple of sites east of Battersea*, transfer the CPO to any of those sites, combined with the minimum 50,000 capacity and 10% to family and U-21s, the CPO would give it's approval to a move? If they did that, I'm almost 100% sure we could get 75% of the votes and it would give the club the leeway to negotiate for those 3-4 sites without the CPO giving up too much in the meantime? *whatever he means by that, anyone have a clue? I've got no idea what locations those would be unless he's talking about Imperial Wharf and..?
  23. Didier Drogba

    The criticism of Drogba is just. I'm a big fan of his and when everyone else was on his back in 2004 I couldn't understand why. He's been massive player for us but his form over the last 12-14 months has been dire. Yes he had that bout of malaria last season but (as has been mentioned here before) with Torres out for 3 games he had a chance to show he could be number one. He showed nothing to suggest that. He had a good game against Everton during this period. That's it. He really need to shape up. If he doesn't, why should he get a new contract extension at even close his current wage? That's not good management by our board of that happens, and would be to continue our irresponsible management of money.
  24. Didier Drogba

    Yep, it was definitely up there with that slap on Vidic in Moscow 2008.
  25. Didier Drogba

    Not to have a go but that (long) post made no sense. At all. If we are down to ten men and then one of our most exprienced players make such a silly challenge two minutes before half time, I think Mikel has every right to ask Didier what the eff he is on about. Can't believe that you actually think otherwise? What is all this bs in your post about turncoats? What does that have to do with anything?