Davey Baby

Unlike other fans*, we have a chance to have a say on where we move, that's all we want, a say on it. Why would we throw that away? I don't understand. Are we really going to leave that decision up to suits? * Tottenham, Everton, Wimbledon, Arsenal .. Arsenal? Yes, if Dein had got his way they'd be playing at Wembley, and he's a Gooner, just as Kenwright is an Evertonian, and he was going to move them to Kirkby.

Barn, I believe the club when they say they would rather stay at the Bridge. I believe them when they say they would rather stay close by. I have no reason to disbelieve them. That's what we all want. However, the possibility exists that those ideas are likely to be unviable, and they know that, hence their proposal, which would allow them to move anywhere they want, which isn't on, not for me. The name "Chelsea" has to mean something, for me. Look, Tottenham may well be moving to the Olympic Stadium, against their fans' wishes. That's the reality. The Olympic Stadium has f**k all to do with Totenham. It's an insult to their fans, in my opinion. I'd love it if they moved, yes, even if it meant they won the CL. Why would I love it? Because they wouldn't be "Tottenham" anymore, and we could all laugh at them. Would we be laughing now? Knowing it could happen to us? Remember when Roman purchased, other fans sang, "You're not Chelsea anymore!". This time they'll sing it, and they'll be right.

Really? Question: Why have you said we may move beyond 3 miles after 2020? Answer: Because we believe all available sites will be gone by 2020. Spiller, this is the club being disingenuous. Their proposal doesn't say "We promise to keep looking until 2020". It says "We promise not to move beyond 3 miles until 2020". That's a completely different thing. If the club were to keep looking until 2020, as their answer implies, we wouldn't be moving beyond 3 miles until about 2030. Truth is, they could stop looking within 3 miles on October 28th 2011, find a site elsewhere, and start building. Their answer implies otherwise, which is dishonest, in my opinion. In fact, they haven't answered the question at all.

10/10 for observation.

And, how many of your mates have bought a 100? If Bruce has 10 mates who've bought a 100 (wife, kids, siblings should do it), that means 1,000 ordinary fans with 1 share each would have to vote just to match that. When you put Roman, Tenenbaum and everyone else into the equation, the club could quite easily have ensured all this discussion is irrelevant. As many suspect, the vote might be theirs, and the whole thing's a farce. Let's get it right, Buck and anyone else was quite entitled to buy 100 shares, however the CPO need to convene before the meeting on the 27th and put forward a proposal that it's 1 vote per shareholder. That would be far more fair in my opinion, but then I'm biased, as I don't want the club to win the vote. I'm happy with us moving, but not to Honolulu.

Davey Baby's Baloney Ratings .. 1. Is it true that shareholders who do not attend the meeting nor appoint a proxy vote, including deceased shareholders, will automatically be counted as voting yes to the proposal? This is not the case and has arisen from an incorrect media report. As a public limited company, CPO is governed by normal company law and for a vote to be counted either way, a shareholder has to attend or organise a proxy vote. 10/10 A straight answer to a straight question. Now you know folks. 2. Have the directors of CPO accepted Chelsea FC's proposal to acquire the freehold of the SB site and are the CPO directors recommending that CPO shareholders vote yes to the proposal? This is a matter for CPO directors. However, the CPO directors have not accepted the proposal nor are they making a recommendation. It is Chelsea FC that is recommending that CPO shareholders vote yes to the proposal. The club informed the CPO directors that they had a proposal they would like to put to the shareholders and the CPO directors have stated that the shareholders should decide the future of SB. For this reason they have decided to convene a general meeting of CPO to allow the shareholders to consider the proposed transaction and decide on it. The CPO directors have not indicated to Chelsea FC or publicly how they will vote the shares they may own. 8/10 There's a bit of baloney here, me thinks. "The CPO directors have stated that the shareholders should decide the future of SB"? Excuse me? What the hell are you babbling on about? What difference does it make what the directors have stated? The decision is made by the shareholders, regardless of what they say. Even if they make recommendations, they can't vote for everyone. That's why people bought CPO shares in the first place! Good grief! The directors "have decided to convene a general meeting of CPO to allow the shareholders to consider the proposed transaction and decide on it"? How awfully kind of them! You mean they're actually going to allow the CPO shareholders they represent to meet and decide what to do with the shares they bought? My god ! Does their kindness know no bounds? I'm shocked. 3. Isn't the proposal against everything that CPO was set up for? No. CPO was set up to stop property developers evicting Chelsea FC from SB against its wishes, which had been threatened during the 1980s and early 1990s. CPO was never intended to hinder the club by restricting its ability to maximise its income. 0/10 CPO was set up to stop property developers evicting Chelsea FC from SB against the fans' wishes, not the club's. SB wasn't in the hands of property developers when the CPO was set up. People bought shares on the assumption it would stop anyone selling the site against their wishes, thus ensuring the club would only move if the move met with the approval of the fans, hence the reason it was decreed that the club couldn't just take the name Chelsea anywhere they liked, they would have to get the fans' approval first. 4. Why can't the club wait until a site for a new stadium is known and reveal it before offering to purchase the SB freehold from CPO? Because no owner of a potential site would enter into extensive negotiations or agree a deal with Chelsea FC unless it knew the club could deliver on that deal, and the club couldn't guarantee completion of the deal without certainty over the subsequent redevelopment of SB. 0/10 The question is disingenuous. We're not asking for the site to be known. Of course it can't be known if no deal has been agreed. We know that! We're saying, have you got any specific sites in mind. Tell us ! Then we can make an informed decision. We do not want to end up halfway across the world, which is what this proposal allows. The only thing right now that safeguards against that happening is the CPO. Why would the fans relinquish that without guarantees? That's what they spent their hard-earned money for? For that guarantee! 5. Why is the club not informing shareholders about which site it wishes to build a new stadium on? Because a decision to leave SB has not been taken and no new site has been chosen. 0/10 Now you're getting insulting. We know nothing has been decided, how could it without the fans' approval? Rather than tell us what you've decided, why not tell us what you're considering, there's a good boy. Names. We want names. Milton Keynes is unsatisfactory to us. 6. Why has the club set a year 2020 limit to the guarantee that any new stadium will be within a three-mile radius of SB? Because the club believes that by 2020 all available sites within three miles will have gone. If we are unable to secure one of those sites, and did eventually decide that leaving SB would be in the best interests of the club and its fans, then sites further afield than three miles may be the only option. The club's objective is to remain at SB or move to a new stadium within three miles. 1/10 I believe the last sentence in this answer. However, the answer as a whole is disingenuous. "By 2020 all available sites within three miles will have gone"? All available sites? Of course they'll have gone! What about those that are unavailable? Those might become available in the next eight years, who knows? Things get bought and sold all the time. Nothing stays the same, ever. Also, and very importantly, the proposal doesn't say that the club will keep looking within 3 miles till 2020, it says the club won't move until 2020. Very different. Let's get it right. 7. There are suggestions that the club is considering sites more than three miles to the north of SB, near Wormwood Scrubs or Old Oak Common, with a view to moving there after 2020. Has the club already identified a site beyond the three-mile radius? No such sites have been looked at or discussed. The club's objective is to remain at SB or move to a new stadium within three miles. 10/10 Phew. I have't been able to sleep a wink of late. 8. Has the club received an offer from developers to buy SB? No, we have never received such an offer, nor have we ever had informal discussions with any developer on the subject. 10/10 No-one has suggested you have, but that's by the by. 9. Can the club provide proof that possible expansion of capacity at SB has been properly investigated? The club has reports and studies from as early as 2003/04 on various aspects of a redevelopment of the stadium and has spent a considerable amount of time and money in looking at various aspects of a redevelopment. The bottom line is a redevelopment adding a significant number of seats needs a site of 16 to 18 acres or more, and at SB there are less than 12 acres. The club has worked with several architects firms looking for ways to redevelop each of the four stands at SB to increase capacity. If the East Stand, which was built in the early 1970s, were to be knocked down and redeveloped then there are two significant obstacles. A new stand would have to cantilever over the railway track. Standards regarding safety have changed since the early 1970s. The angle of the current stand is very steep but if it were rebuilt then the angle would have to be shallower to meet today's standards, with many seats significantly further from the pitch than they are now. The Shed End stand at the south of the stadium cannot be expanded because of the hotel and the flats behind it. Rights to light and shadowing issues also preclude such a development. For the Matthew Harding Stand at the north of the stadium, health and safety rules requires that in an emergency the whole site is cleared in eight minutes and we are restricted with Fulham Road being our only exit. Any additional people at the north end would have to go the furthest to reach the Fulham Road exits, so it is very unlikely planning permission would be granted, as we are virtually at our capacity limit for emergency egress. Rights of light and overshadowing issues for Brompton Park residents also cause planning difficulties. Over the years it has been suggested a walkway should be built along the railway lines from the north end of the stadium towards West Brompton. That has been looked into, and was rejected at a public inquiry as the long narrow route is considered unsafe in the event of an emergency. We have not applied for planning permission for a walkway to Fulham Broadway station as the council has already said they would reject it for safety reasons. The West Stand is of a height that is already the maximum allowed by planning regulations, in terms of rights of light overlooking the Stoll Foundation housing. The club has looked at tearing down all four stands and at turning the direction of the pitch by 90 degrees but neither plan makes sense because again it should be emphasised that the site is less than12 acres and it is generally considered that to build a stadium from scratch with a capacity of 55,000 then approaching 20 acres is needed. A major reconstruction at SB also raises issues as to where the club would play during the two or three seasons that SB would not be available. 5/10 Thanks for the information. Your answer makes no mention of "proof", the very word you employed in your question, but never mind, we'll gloss over that. Let's start with the East Stand, you're saying it can be re-built, bigger? Got that. The Shed End is restricted by the hotel and flats? Thanks a lot, Ken, I bet you're glad with that. We are "virtually at our capacity" for the Matthew Harding? That means, unless I'm mistaken, we're not quite at capacity, right? A public inquiry rejected our suggestion of a walkway towards West Brompton? Have you ever heard of appeals? If our team on the pitch showed the same fighting spirit, we'd be done for. The West Stand can't go any higher? That wasn't the question. The question was, can it get any bigger? Oh, and if we were to stay at SB, I don't think any of us would care where we played in the intervening years. We could play in Piccadilly Circus. Could be fun. By my estimation, there are three sides of the ground which could be expanded, possibly, going on your answer. Can we have some more information please? 10. As well as buying back the freehold, is the club also proposing to buy back the name Chelsea Football Club from CPO? As the original agreement makes clear, CPO has never owned the name Chelsea Football Club. The name would only ever move across into CPO ownership should the club leave SB without the consent of CPO. -100/10 Don't. Insult. Our. Intelligence. Your answer, while technically correct, is the biggest load of baloney I've ever read. If the club win the vote, the name Chelsea is theirs forever to do with as they see fit. That's the facts right there, so, in essence, yes, they will be buying back the name Chelsea, if not technically. The fans know they can't just run off with the name Chelsea, nor would they want to. They know the name isn't theirs! They also know that should the club win the vote, they no longer have any say over where the name Chelsea goes, the club do, and that's the facts. Please stop with the stupid questions. 11. What are the details of the season tickets being offered to shareholders in a new stadium should one be built? The club is not simply offering season tickets. It is offering shareholders voting yes the chance to have a priority choice on where their season ticket seat would be located. 10/10 Nobody can argue with your answer. Nobody was asking the question. We got it the first time. You're just putting in a reminder. In case it can sway votes. 12. Why are only three weeks being allowed between the notice of the meeting and the vote, and why has the meeting and vote been set for the day after an evening away game at Everton which shareholders may be attending? Company law provides for 21 clear days' notice but 23 days have been provided to be sure there is sufficient time. The club believes, as does the Companies Act, that three weeks is sufficient time to hear both sides of any argument and for a shareholder to come to a decision and this is normal for all corporate general meetings. The date was set well before the Carling Cup draw and the date of the game was arranged. It was not known at the time whether the tie would be home or away or on the Tuesday or the Wednesday. 5/10 Nicely dodged. You've acted legally, we know that, you could hardly have acted illegally. It just feels very rushed, particularly when many fans have moved, and wont be getting notified through the post, meaning they won't be able to vote by proxy, unless they manage to make contact with the relevant persons, which is proving very difficult. Regarding Everton, you always knew it was a possibility we were playing the night before. Why choose the date? You haven't explained. Was it just a crap decision? In which case, say so. At least apologise. 13. What is the percentage vote needed for the proposed transaction to be accepted? 75 per cent or more of shareholders attending the meeting or sending a proxy vote must vote yes for the transaction to go ahead. 10/10 Fair enough. 14. What will happen to Peter Osgood's ashes which are currently under the penalty spot at the Shed End of SB? Peter's widow Lynn would of course be consulted over this matter and the club has not agreed to move but if it did it would consider transferring the urn and a small part of the old stadium pitch to the new one as a commemoration. 11/10 Even more fair enough.

They're definitely reading mate. They'd be mad not to. Altogether now ... Hello Bruce !

Thanks for the info mate. However my mate won't be able to attend. Only a small proportion of shareholders will attend. Most votes will be submitted by post. A huge number of shareholders won't be voting, because they haven't received anything through the post, for various reasons, in my mate's case because he has moved. He will do all in his power to vote, but will others do the same? A cynic might say this informed the club's decision to set the minimum legal requirement in terms of time-frame .. If you don't mind, give us a full report of what happens at the meeting. If true, not good. The shares don't provide a dividend. There could only be one reason why he purchased. Lol.

Agreed. Here's an interesting thing Shedhead .. A mate of mine is a CPO shareholder. Since he purchased back in the day he has moved several times, and of course, he didn't inform the club/CPO/CSL of those moves, hence he hasn't received anything through the post regarding the vote, the meeting, the proposal etc, just like thousands of other CPO shareholders I would imagine. He has tried calling the chairman of the CPO (Richard King?) on the number advertised but no reply, despite several attempts. This is the chairman who, if you defer your vote, will vote on your behalf. He has his name alongside Buck's on the official website. He does some work on behalf of the club. Like Buck, he is involved in the Past Players' Trust, which has nothing to do with the CPO. He is known to favour a move. He will be voting on behalf of every CPO shareholder that defers their vote, an option which is given to them. I don't think there's any doubt which way he'll be voting. Many CPO shareholders want him to resign, as it is his specific role to act on their behalf, not on behalf of the club. The club and CPO are separate entities. He has a conflict of interest, some would say. Also, let's not forget that the club have given the minimum legal time requirement for calling this meeting: 3 weeks or so, meaning thousands of CPO shareholders who would either vote or attend the meeting won't. It's just way too quick to get everyone in the loop and in possession of a proxy vote. Why the rush? Why the rush? The fans have owned those shares for decades, the club have been at the Bridge for a century, and now they're given 3 weeks? "Stitch up" may be the operative term. Let's not forget the meeting falls the morning after Everton away. What time will those fans be getting home the night before? What's that about? Those are our most loyal fans, some of whom will definitely be in possession of shares. One vote per share, the way I understand it. You only need one vote for that, not a hundred. Not sure it's true about Buck though. If it is, that's pretty indefensible, in my opinion. We become a franchise, in my opinion. The name "Chelsea" has to mean something, otherwise we might as well move to Milton Keynes. Oh yeah, I forgot, they already have a team .. Wimbledon ! It would happen for the Prem and CL if that meant it would boost revenues, and as Katon has stated, lower prices can potentially improve gate receipts.

I couldn't care tuppence if Buck or Gourley left, to be frank. Regarding Roman, I doubt very much he'll leave as a consequence of a "no" vote, but if he did, he's not the right man for us, simple. I'm sure he would look at the vote, understand our concerns, and come back with another proposal. "No" does not mean no to a move, far from it, it means no to "Give us back all your shares and let us do what we want." Understand your concerns Gem, but if Roman goes as a consequence of this, Chelsea still exist and they exist at the Bridge, possibly at the top or possibly at the bottom. Far rather Chelsea at the bottom at Stamford Bridge than Chelsea at the top at Old Oak Common. I don't really care if we're in the Rymans League, so long as we don't move out of Chelsea territory.

I'm fairly sure they are. If you purchase a share today, you can still vote, you just aren't entitled to first refusal on season tickets in any new stadium should the club win, and you won't get your name on a wall, i.e. no "perks". Interestingly, the club have taken down the link to purchase shares on the official site. This is my information, but I've been wrong before, as my missus will gladly testify.

When we have reduced prices for cup games, we have been one of the few clubs to sell out, even when playing League 2 opposition. In recent years Liverpool, for instance, have had paltry attendances for Cup games and European games. It's all about prices. We can't sell out 60,000 at Arsenal's prices, except for big games, but we can sell out 60,000, at cheaper prices, easy. Personally, if we are to move, I would make it as big as possible. Yes, even 70,000. Chelsea has a huge potential fanbase, and even more room for growth, but as Snedger says, our hardcore isn't the biggest, i.e. those who will attend in the bad times, against sh*t opposition. Our support can fluctuate more dramatically than other clubs', depending on our fortunes. And as Snedger says, our support traditionally comes from further afield, Surrey and the like. Chelsea, the area, is not a hotbed of football passion. Remember, when all-seaters became compulsory, the Bridge was developed into a 42,000 capacity, the biggest in London at the time. No-one suggested that was too big, quite the contrary, Matthew Harding wanted 50-55,000, as did a lot of us, but Bates won out and got to build his (ill-conceived) Village. So, the suggestion that we can't fill a bigger ground is ludicrous. We were selling out before Roman came along, much as people would have you believe we weren't. As tickets have got dearer, the Bridge has become gentrified, but get the prices right and there's a lot of people who want to attend, especially as we're now a top side with top players. There are far more Chelsea shirts in the street than there used to be. Far more. Welcome to our world mate. It may not have been an option for you, but it was option for the club, and that was my point. They were very serious about it, despite the fact it wasn't their preferred choice. Luckily for you it fell through. We may not be so lucky ..

I suspect OOC isn't the club's preferred site, I suspect they would rather expand the Bridge if that were viable (1st choice), stay in Chelsea (Earl's Court/Imperial Wharf) if that were viable (2nd choice), move somewhere like Nine Elms if that were viable (3rd choice), move to OOC (4th choice). Now, if my suspicions are correct, we would all agree with their preferred choices and the order in which they come. However, where the fans differ from the club is probably around their 4th choice. The club would move there, whereas the fans would rather stay put, yes, even if that meant falling behind. Success can't come at any price, as I've said before, otherwise we could move to Singapore. As I see it, the reality is this .. 1. We are going to move. 2. We will not be able to stay in Chelsea. 3. Nine Elms is fraught with difficulty. 4. OOC is easily the most viable, in terms of cost, planning, local authority consent, neighbours, transport links, access etc. It's an area in need of regeneration, that would welcome Chelsea, that would give us subsidy, that would present very few obstacles in comparison to the other sites. That's not to say the club have made a decision, I still believe they would explore their preferred choices, but I believe (quite firmly) that they have decided they will move to OOC if those preferred choices aren't viable. Think about it .. "3 miles until 2020" .. that has OOC written all over it. There is no way Chelsea could move into OOC before 2020 even if they bought the site today, as it is badly in need of excavating. In fact the 2020 deadline is meaningless, as it would take 8 years for the club to move round the corner, let alone further afield. OOC is 4 miles from SB. It's in NW10. There has to be a reason why the club say "3 miles till 2020" .. and for my money, they're not coming clean about what that reason is. The reason is that OOC is a very real possibility, and they have looked into it, in fact, according to some seemingly in the know, they have reached agreement with all the relevant parties. Agreement in principle. That's not to say they are committed, but that they know it's viable and they have made a decision they will do it if they can't move elsewhere. I understand the club's problem, and the reasons OOC appeals to them. However, if my suspicions are correct (and they are the suspicions of many), then the club are acting appallingly by keeping this under wraps when calling for a vote, and wording the proposal in such a way that enables them to do it without coming clean about why they've worded it that way. The reason they wouldn't come clean? Simple. They would lose the vote. A vote is a straight choice between yes and no, the way it stands. The reality (in my opinion) is that people don't really know what yes means, and that's unforgivable of the club, as people should be informed before they vote. If the club win the vote and they decide to move to OOC, that's it, there's no point protesting afterwards. The club will quite rightly point to the fact the vote made it clear such a move might happen. From what I understand, the Olympic Stadium is 4 miles from Tottenham, or more. The club are fighting their case in the High Court, despite the fact such a move has their fans up in arms. Luckily for Tottenham fans, it looks like the club will lose. This is the reality of the current climate. Clubs will force through their moves if they can, just like Everton were going to move to Kirby until their planning application was rejected. This despite the fact it made most of their fans sick. Those of you who think OOC is pie in the sky might want to contemplate that. There is a huge amount at stake with this vote. We might not be as lucky as Tottenham and Everton fans ..

Scouring the net in recent months over this topic, Old Oak Common has always been the word on the street, from those seemingly in the know. Apparently the rumours have gathered pace today on Twitter. Here's an article on the subject, and I agree with every word. If the club wins the vote, they'll take the name Chelsea with them, maybe all the way to NW10. Maybe worth thinking about before you vote, because that will be the heart ripped out of our club. In my opinion. http://www.bluetinte...x?articleid=165

Fulham will expand .. http://www.guardian....-craven-cottage

I agree that it's an interesting and thought-provoking piece that is well-argued. I tend to agree with it in regard to Ken Bates. However .. I don't agree that everything Roman's done has been in our best interest, even if his intentions were good. For one thing, he sacrificed our image, for which we are still paying the price. The things we did in those early years, with Kenyon as chief exec, beggar belief. Remember, Jose wasn't his first choice, Sven was. That's right, the England manager of the time, and we were caught with our trousers down, as we were over Ashley Cole and countless other things. Roman doesn't get everything right. Sven is a doughnut. The important thing to remember here is this, in my opinion .. The vast majority of us would feel sick were we to move to Scrubs Lane, Old Oak Common, White City. Similarly if we move further afield than 3 miles. The vast majority would rather put in the extra 6,000 seats and stay at SB, if that were the case. Or just stay at SB as it is, yes, even if that means falling behind. Success can't come at any price. It still has to be our club. You can't change the name and play in red. Similarly, you can't just move anywhere. While the club are asking for permission to do this, the answer is no, from my point of view. If we are to trust that they wouldn't move to a location that is unacceptable to us, well, then they can jolly well say so. The fact that they aren't saying so is telling, in my opinion. The club may feel a move is the be-all-and-end-all. It isn't, to the fans at least, and they shouldn't be allowed to trample over our feelings, and if you vote yes, that's what you are giving them a mandate to do, even if you trust that they won't. If you trust that they won't, ask them to say it, in the wording. Remember, the club need the CPO's approval to leave our current site. That's all well and good, the CPO will give them that approval, for the CPO do not want to hold the club back, after all, it is the club they love, the club they invested their hard-earned money to save. Those fans were here before Roman was here, so if he is to ask for permission to sell the site and move the club, they have the right to say, "Hold on, where are you moving us to?". That's a pretty fundamental question. It really is that simple. certain locations are unpalatable, and the club could acknowledge the fans by respecting that. Tottenham nearly moved to the Olympic site. In fact, they are still fighting their case to do so, even though such a move disgusts their fans. We have a mechanism whereby such a thing is impossible. Why would we relinquish that without guarantees? We would have to be incredibly stupid, or incredibly naive. Or both. I'm sure we would be a lot more successful and rake in a lot more cash if we moved to Singapore. I'm not saying Roman would do that. I'm saying location is everything when discussing a move. Just because a move is deemed necessary, doesn't mean you can just move anywhere, or we lose our club. It's a damn cheek of the club to say give us back your shares and let us do what the hell we want, for that is what they're doing. Believe it or not the fans have a huge investment in the club and the least the club can do is respect their feelings. The feeling, very strongly, is we'd countenance a move but only to the right location, and in that regard, those fans that vote no are being responsible, not irresponsible, as some would have you believe.

Chelsea fans get the lawyers in ..? http://www.thisislon...-back-shares.do Here's an interesting take on things, not one I necessarily agree with .. http://www.bluetinte...x?articleid=164

Came across this .. http://www.bluetinte...x?articleid=160 Scouring the net, my suspicion that the club are in an advanced stage in regard Old Oak Common may have some substance, sadly, and may explain why they've worded the proposal the way they have. I'm not a member of the forum on the official site, but there's a fella there, who appears to have a lot of credibility and some inside knowledge. He's not saying OOC is the preferred site, but he's saying that it's the most viable one, and has been explored in great depth, with all the relevant bodies being consulted (council and so forth) and giving the thumbs up. Perrillo is his moniker. It may just be bluster. Note to Mod: I hope it's OK to post this.

I think we should hire Westway, and quick. It would be magnificent, and would soften the blow of leaving the Bridge.

QPR move in the pipeline .. ? http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/qpr-chief-keen-on-stadium-move-2366615.html

One of the positives that may arise from this situation is that it may bring some of the old skool fans into the discussion about the direction the new Chelsea takes. Seeing as a lot of the old fans have been disenfranchised, that may be a plus. Maybe a new stadium could bring em back. Sorry about all the posts. I'm just catching up with this thread.

Not only would I be behind them, I'd feel far more comfortable. It's just possible the club have worded this proposal knowing it would meet disapproval, and are using it as the first stage in a negotiation, i.e. in order to find a middle ground with the CPO.

At risk of repeating myself, the trouble is, if this proposal is approved, the club would have a mandate to pass their decisions from on high. Why does it say 2020? Why doesn't it just say, "If we find a site outside 3 miles, we'll come back to you and ask you to vote?". The wording is very fishy. The club are asking for permission to move us where they want, no matter if it's not what we want. There has to be something wrong with that, surely?

I agree with your sentiment Barn, however .. Roman doesn't have to say "f**k it" and if he does, quite frankly, he's not the right guy for us. He can quite easily understand our concerns and re-word the proposal. I do not (under any circumstances) want to move to a site such as White City, whereby Fulham and QPR will be closer to Chelsea than us.

Zola, they are seeing the bigger picture, for they are safeguarding our future. They're saying, show us the site and we'll vote, but we won't give you a mandate to move anywhere you like. Remember, once the club has a mandate, you can't protest at any decision they make, because they can quite rightly claim it was a democratic process. Given the way the proposal stands, there can only be one answer for me, and that's no. And I'm someone who is in favour of a move in principle.