RobinXe

A certain cup from an FA competition may have been toured to Afghanistan, where the lid may have been dropped and bent as it was being lofted. It happens, the trophies themselves are merely chattels to the true subject of respect and reverence, the act of winning itself!

Yeah, unless the council have some concrete proposals for making development feasible, preferably in response to points from the club's report that it is not, then we have to take it for what it seems to be, nothing but political posturing.

Earls Court has to be everyone's preferred option if the Bridge truly ceases to be viable, but I'm guessing most people would accept Battersea at a push? The transparency from the club is very welcome, and long may it continue! I was personally pretty surprised that anyone doubted that the current site would be sufficient to house a much larger stadium, however, and don't see this on its own making a difference to many no voters. The two main sticking points remain, to my mind, the location of any new site (obviously) and the transfer of the freehold. I appreciate that their are potential issues with disclosing the former, though there are ways to deal with these (conditional acceptance of any offer for example), and even without, the safeguards in the initial offer were woefully inadequate. As to the latter, I am aware of no arguments against the transfer that hold any water under scrutiny, and consider that it ought to be a mandatory requirement of any future offer.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's for the use of Chelsea FC to play football, but I'll check the terms and get back to you.

As the freehold owner, we can stop the stadium being knocked down for a start. I'm not sure, but I'd imagine that if the club as a business ceased to be a football-playing entity then the lease would no longer be valid, so there would be no asset to sell. When a lease expires then the freeholder regains posession of the asset.

Didn't think so somehow! It's a bit different than hiding behind the safe anonymity of a keyboard. It's amusingly ironic that someone who takes great umbrage at an imagined slight (I was responding to aspersions cast upon myself with information about myself, so who knows how that was taken as an insult to anyone else) thinks an appropriate response is vulgar ad hominem. There's nothing quite like ceding the moral high-ground eh?

Bad day eh? If you're really so fascinated, I've chosen to spend my limited time since returning from Afghanistan with people who are not openly abusive, and who are sensible enough not to take any comment about me having something as implicit crowing that they do not. Also going to games obviously! Happy to discuss it further if you'll be at the Fan Day, Spurs, Fulham, Villa or Pompey.

You probably are, I'd say. Sadly I have work, and a life, which interfere with my online forum activity. I agreed with what SNCPO espoused at the time of the vote, as what was best for the club as a whole, in my capacity as a fan and a CPO. I articulated my reasons for agreeing and I stand by them. I'm less convinced by their activities since, and have made that known. I'm concerned that the CPO, or the club, might apportion their hierarchy an undue say in any future decisions, based on a misconception that they can mobilise a significant section of the shareholder vote through any means other than the fact that they happen to agree with their message at the time. It is, and should remain, a lobbying organisation, not a stakeholder in any policy-making.

Exactly, NONE of us can see the future, and that is why transferring the CPO to any new ground is the smart thing to do, don't you see? I don't think they'd be castigated if they made it clear they were basing their offer on an adjustment for inflation, but who knows. They were quite happy to offer other bribes (one of which was close to zero cost to them, and the other would have made them money).

It's a minor point, and I'd like to think not a sticking-point, but one that would build the club a lot of goodwill I suspect. It's not about paying people more than they bought them for, it's about not paying them less. The concept of inflation means that £100 today is worth less in real terms than is was in the past. I did the sums a few weeks back and came to the result that, allowing for inflation, the purchasing power of £100 when the CPO was formed is worth over £160 today. It's not enough of a difference to break the bank for the club. The purchase price will be irrelevant if the freeholds are exchanged and the CPO continues anyway.

Not in the slightest, as you've nothing whatsoever to back up your claims, and your unfounded opinions do not stand up to scrutiny. You've still seemingly not read/understood my post where I dealt with these oppositions to a freehold swap. In short: "Unnecessary", only in the present. Prudence dictates that fortunes can change, and owners come and go, as do successes. Holding the freehold on any future site would allow CPO to protect the club in the unpredictable future, as it was founded to. Even if we say it is not relevant today, we cannot say it will not be relevant in 20/50/100 years, but once it is gone it is gone forever. "Create more problems", only in the event that the club wants to move again, or sell the freehold to release capital, otherwise there is absolutely no reason why not owning the freehold themselves should in any way impede the progress of the club. Have you ever heard about people buying property described as "leasehold"? They do not own the freehold, but they own the property on it, it's an extremely common situation. "Delays", I'm not sure how you think it would, as you've really not backed up any of your assertions with reason. There will have to be another CPO vote, that much is now unavoidable. At the next vote the club could obtain a binding undertaking from CPO to transfer ownership of the SB site in exchange for the freehold of a suitable new site. The club then go out and buy the new site just as they would whoever the freehold would end up with, no additional delay there. As for building on it, there is no reason the building couldn't be commenced/completed while the club still owned the freehold and the transfer take place later, though it is fairly short work to draw up a lease that allows the club unfettered enjoyment of the site, especially since the vast majority of the required wording is already embodied in the current lease for SB. As for your insults, if you don't like people pointing out the inadequacies of your standpoint then why not try to gain more understanding of the issues and post from a position of greater knowledge, it is power after all. Resorting to vulgarity does nothing to enhance your credibility.

You know what mate, you've said this a couple of times now, and you're yet to substantiate your wild claim that it would be ridiculous/ludicrous, nor even addressed my post where I pointed out why it would not be so. How about you go ahead and back up your hyperbole, demonstrate to us your sharp business acumen.

Check your geography: Hounslow and Richmond are both on the tube, as are many places further out than Twickenham. Yes really, if the current proposals are passed then the club could freely move to Twickenham in 2020. "Oh no, but they wouldn't" comes the cry. Wouldn't you rather have that in writing than rely on blind faith?

Yet again the point is missed by a country mile. It is not about whether I believe what the club says, nor is it about whether I believe any rumours (seems some people lack the basic reading comprehension skills required to grasp what I do or do not believe). In truth I am an eternal sceptic, and as such am unlikely to believe anything without compelling evidence. I'd turn those accusations around and say that some people seem willing to believe everything the club says, despite their reticence to put their platitudes in writing. The point is that anything anyone says under these circumstances is ultimately meaningless if it's not in writing, and it's not. The point is that the current proposal does allow the club the latitude to move us to Twickenham in 2020. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, but one would have thought that people would share a sense of prudence in making sure that they won't, and are willing to put it in writing, before ditching the protection of the CPO so readily. So what is my agenda? Some hard-of-thinking people seem to think it's to hamstring the club, or pour ungracious scorn on our benevolent owner, but then what else could you expect from those who display such infantile credulity. No, my agenda is to make sure that future Chelsea football is played somewhere that is not totally alien to those current and long-time fans who regularly go to matches, and to ensure that our continued existence is guaranteed in perpetuity, even in unthinkable circumstances like the lack of a wealthy owner or less success on the pitch. So who am I and why did I register shortly after the announcement? Well I hadn't even heard of this forum until I did a search for places to discuss the proposal. I'm not really much of an internet warrior, I would have preferred to be out on the streets leafleting with SNCPO and discussing this in Fulham pubs, but unfortunately I shipped out to Afghanistan shortly after the announcement, so short periods of internet have been my only way to stay in touch with proceedings. I am a CPO and I have voted NO because I believe that the current proposals are not in the best interests of the fans, or the long-term interests of the club, and much better proposals can be hashed out if the current one's are dismissed. I am a season ticket holder, I go to every home game that I am able whilst I am in the country. Anyone who doubts my sincerity is welcome to come along to the White Horse in Parsons Green before any home game from Liverpool onwards, or the bar behind Gate 12 MHU at halftime, say hello and have a chat. You can't miss me, I'm the 6'5 one with the sticky-out ears and the home shirt, though my friends inform me that I'll probably have a jumper on when I get home, despite the mild October. Now I'm quite clear on who I am and my stake and interest, let me ask if any of those who back a yes vote are willing to do the same, or even answer me one question: How often do you attend live home Chelsea matches?

I agree, but the veracity of the story is utterly irrelevant. The message to take from this is that it is an entirely possible potential outcome, should a vote on the current proposal return a 75% majority in favour. This is one of the reasons we need a NO to the current proposal, to elicit more reassurances and transparency from the club. I can just see it now, all the yes proponents shaking their heads and saying "Twickenham makes no sense", and "the fans'll never stand for this" as they tune in to watch Chelsea - Swansea, live from a 3/4 empty Twickenham Samsung Megadrome, wondering in the back of their mind which train station they'll get off at if they ever go to that live Chelsea game they've been telling themselves they'll make for years.

http://www.cfcnet.co.uk/2011/10/26/cpo-twickenham-it-is/ I wonder what those in favour of a yes vote, espousing the concept of "just trust Roman" make of this. The point isn't whether or not it is true, I don't know and it really doesn't matter, the point is that it is a possibility, should a yes vote pass later on today. I'm really baffled by anyone who doesn't think a better option is to vote NO now, and let the club present a proposal that does more to allay the fears of outcomes such as the one reported above.

Yeah, with all the non-contractual assurances they have been so eager to give us since the vote was announced you wonder why they didn't put them in the proposal, if they are so adamant we should trust them. He's saying that the two sites that require this action to move quickly are Battersea and Earls Court, so why not make a condition of the freehold sale that we move to one of those? I'd almost certainly vote yes to that!

The only reason anyone should read the Waily is to find out what's supposed to give us cancer this week.

The club gave a fairly comprehensive list of options they had investigated, and while there was no "proof" per se that they had done as they said and received the responses they claim, it all sounded fairly reasonable. As for the safety aspect, the club doesn't dictate those numbers, and so if 7000 more is all they'll allow us then that's all we can have. It does seem that adding 7000 more seats to the stadium would be disproportionately expensive (though I do wonder sometimes how much of the hospitality seating sits empty, because those numbers are surely added to the total occupancy). I did wonder whether buying and demolishing one or more of the properties on the Fulham Road might increase the maximum permitted occupancy, but then I don't even know if that would be allowed, let alone how much it would cost for any benefit.

I think perhaps we are speaking at cross-purposes. My suggestion was that, rather than try to solidify terms that compelled the club to do their best to move to one of the "more desirable" sites before falling back on a contingency, a vote be held (and hopefully passed) for those sites alone, with the possibility of a further vote should they fail to acquire one of them. Since the success of any subsequent vote is by no means a foregone conclusion, one would imagine that they would do everything in their power to secure one of the sites for which they do have approval, rather than risk having approval for none, even without being contractually compelled to. It's funny, even a few weeks ago I would have wanted Nine Elms considered as nothing more than a last resort, should staying at the Bridge or moving to Earls Court prove untenable, but when you throw WC and OOC into the frame is suddenly starts looking a lot more desirable!

My point exactly. We cannot assume that the two figures for the different ends of Battersea are different voters and add them together however. My issue was not with the wording, but the fact that the concept is pretty much impossible to define, or to demonstrably assure, hence my subsequent suggestion. Nor was I talking about anything to do with a business report, I was referring to contracts, and enforceable contractual obligations. This may not be a business or legal forum, that much is quite obvious, but what the shareholders are being asked to vote on is a legal issue, so are you really suggesting that to discuss it for what it is should be taboo?

I don't disagree mate. Remember, this is not CFC and CPO hashing it out, it's not even CFC and SayNoCPO; despite being a mouthpiece for the shareholders it does not replace the fact that they are a diverse group of individuals, who are all bound to have slightly differing opinions, and as such any proposal must appease the majority. It's not like SNCPO or CPO can go to the club and say "if you offer this we can guarantee a 75% majority vote". However, a guarantee of "pulling out all the stops" is hard to crystallise in contract; it would be far more productive to acquiesce to a move to Earls Court or Battersea at this point, and then take another vote in the future should those sites prove untenable. Edit: Incidentally, this poll indicates that only Earls Court would earn over 75% approval, Nine Elms is under 50%.

Where did you see a list of demands? I'm only aware of a proposal and counter-proposals, such is the nature of negotiation, and a middle-ground can be found. Anyway, what's so wrong with exchanging the freehold, you seem to have overlooked the rest of my post which dealt with that.

Preferably consultation over where any new ground would be, but at the very least concrete assurances about where it won't be. Let's bear in mind that whatever Bruce Buck might say about no plans for a move, and not here, there, or wherever, it's a matter of record that the club have made overtures to the council over White City, and other such sites. The 3miles/2020 clause is a mere puff, it offers no real safety, in contractual terms, whatsoever against a move to anywhere. Quibbling about relative values of the various sites apart, I really don't see any good reason why the pitchowners arrangement shouldn't be transferred to any new site. Land-law issues like leases, covenants, peppercorns and overage aside, the very real fact is that the only times the ownership of the freehold would come into play under such an arrangement would be either if we found ourselves in a situation like the early 90's, the very reason for the formation of CPO, or if the club wanted to move, again. I can see a need for the CPO in both these circumstances, to protect the club and, if not the interests of all fans, at least those who actually go to see their club play football live. Niceties I would consider desirable would be an acknowledgement of all CPO shareholders, not just those who voted yes, either to this proposal or to whichever iteration we're on when a 75% majority is obtained, for their part in preserving the essence of our club, rather than for facilitating a move. Also a small increase in the financial remuneration in order to allow those who have held their shares for more than a short period of time to be paid their original investment, adjusted for inflation since their share purchase (should a purchase take place rather than a freehold exchange). This is not just for the CPO and shareholders, but for the wider community of Chelsea fans, who I hope care about at the very least the first point.