Trev Crosse

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Trev Crosse

  • Rank
  • Birthday 09/09/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Fulham, London

Previous Fields

  • Team
  1. A note to those who have had their faith in Roman knocked by recent events, and to those who still trust his good intentions but may have reservations about his ability to understand what is important to the fans - BUY CPO SHARES! For what it's worth, I'm more in the second of the above two camps. I'm sure Roman wants the best for Chelsea in terms of what the outside world sees - trophies won, and won in style. However, I do not think he necessarily has a good appreciation for (or interest in) the other things that are important to the fans and that make up the spirit of the club. If it meant the difference between building a new 'status symbol' stadium in some hellhole or staying as we are in SW6, I have my doubts as to whether Roman would find the extra 5 minutes it takes to get to Slough in a helicopter a major problem. That view has only been reinforced by Roman's failure to understand that firing Robbie for Benitez would be seen as treason by the fans. Either way, representative fan ownership of CPO can only be a good thing - a stadium proposal that satisfies the fans who were here before him and will be here after would get CPO approval, one that doesn't, wouldn't. Buy a share and have a say rather than risk being disappointed down the line.
  2. New Kits

    Can't imagine anything as bad as United's tea-towel for next season.
  3. Given that the second one is clearly scrawled on a menu, I'm fairly confident these aren't official sketches!
  4. Not that we've ever been told.
  5. They won't. It's a big site, we'd be next door.
  6. As a CPO shareholder who previously voted no, I'm very encouraged by this announcement. All they need to do now is transfer CPO to the new ground and I'll be all for it.
  7. It might well be enough to convince enough to vote 'Yes' to get the move through though. It was relatively close before and, even assuming that share sales do not re-open (or do so only on a rights issue basis) it wouldn't take a massive swing of indpendents to 'Yes' to get the move through - those 10,000 blocks (or should it be Bucks?) aren't going anywhere.
  8. It was certainly a major sticking point amongst the shareholders I spoke with. I think by the time the EGM rolled around the furore over the block share sales and crass behavior by the club (re Matthew Harding etc) rather overtook much of the discussion, but this was still a live issue for many in their decision to vote no. As I recall, the three major limbs of the SNCPO position at that time were that we needed better information about redevlopment and the (lack of) possibilities at Stamford Bridge, better information about locations for any move (although I don't think that made it into the counter-proposal), and transfer of CPO ownership to the new site. I share your concerns about the current state of SNCPO. I'm concerned that as an organisation they have been rather derailed by the block share sale issue. I'll wait to see how they respond to the next offer, but it may be that another voting bloc will need to be set up. Hopefully the club will also realise that some movement is required from them and that whilst this latest information is welcome it doesn't mean that the correct answer to the previous offer is now 'yes'.
  9. I'm glad of this disclosure as it should go some way to dispelling some of the fanciful assertions that we could redevlop. However, in addition to where, when and the design, there is still the further issue of transfer of the CPO protection to the new site. This was the main sticking point for many no voters at the EGM, myself included. I am entirely open to a move (and always have been) but will not vote 'Yes' until the offer includes adequate safeguards over the new ground.
  10. This was my understanding.
  11. I entirely agree. I sincerely hope that some of the hardline elements which appear to be emerging since the EGM do not derail the dialogue.
  12. It's not failing to agree with the argument that's the problem, it's failing to comprehend it.
  13. If you think that,why do you give a toss what CPO do? Interestingly, the club don't share your views.
  14. Ugh. They can't realistically move the club unless they get CPO approval. Hopefully, that will require a transfer of the freehold or, at the very, very least long leasehold of the new ground to CPO. Oh and I believe I'm right in thinking that if they move without CPO consent they lose the name Chelsea FC. I really fail to see how its shocking to suggest that Roman's son might not have the interest in Chelsea his dad does. To be honest, he's just an example - any future owner may be willing to sell to someone who is not committed to keeping Chelsea in the area. Unless we maintain the control that we now have we're in the lap of the gods. To point that out is not disrespectful to Roman. The value of the club is immaterial (although I would point out that there's every possibility that we won't be nearly as 'valuable' in twenty years time) - what do we care what Roman's son (or whoever) sells it for?
  15. No. If they get a very long lease and assign that to CPO, I could potentially live with it. But if what is on offer is a lease that could leave us homeless within a generation then I vote no.