RobinXe

It is exactly that sir! I'm keen to see that we don't chuck in our hand for a pig in a poke.

The current proposal would require a 75% majority of the votes cast on the day and by proxy in order to pass.

No, it's not like this is the only thing that will get people voting yes, it's one of the concepts being floated, and it doesn't necessarily seem like a bad one, and certainly not "ridiculous". You clearly didn't see my above post about the relative revenues of the big-hitting clubs. Actually, I believe he disingenuously quoted a figure of £20,000, which is what the ground would be worth with the club leasing it for a peppercorn rent into perpetuity. A widely used figure for the value of the land if it could be developed is £750m, which I can only presume includes overage. I can only assume you don't speak as a businessman here. There are plenty of structures owned by people and businesses that do not own the freehold of the land on which they sit. Were the CPO to own the freehold of the land of the new stadium, which would almost certainly be of less value than the current site, with it's excellent location, they could be bound by such covenants as perpetual lease extensions for peppercorn rent, and an inability to sell title to the land to anyone other than the club, among others. It need in no way impinge upon the club's enjoyment of the land to full potential, and would only really become an issue if the club wanted to move again, and where would we be then!? It's a proposal, as is the club's, hopefully just the first of a few, as a middle ground is found, and everyone's a winner.

Well, it wasn't patronising, and it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, it was merely expressing frustration that, despite the point having been made over and over, people still seem to think that a NO vote to the current proposal means we'll never be moving stadia, or even unable to move stadia in the not too distant future.

I guess it all depends just how willing people are to take whatever they read at face value, I would certainly agree that some people really are seeing what they want to see. The club has been doing its passive-aggressive best to emotionally blackmail shareholders into voting yes, and the latest "it's what Harding would have wanted" really takes the biscuit, essentially on the 15th anniversary of his death too, it's pretty disgusting. If you read the article on the site Harding is even recounted as having said "we need to be as close to Stamford Bridge as possible", so apparently in complete agreement with the SayNoCPO campaign. I don't know how much clearer I can make this, I've said it time and time again: Voting no to the current proposal is not voting no to a move, it is not consigning us to poverty, mediocrity, or ruin. I would love to vote yes to a move, and if the club can move towards a middle ground in addressing the concerns of a large number of shareholders then I look forward to doing just that, as I know a lot of shareholders who share my opinion will. Unfortunately the only thing we can do at this juncture is vote on the current proposal however, and so NO it has to be.

These scenarios will not come to pass on the back of my vote, nor those of the significant number of CPOs I know are of the same mindset as I. Give and take is the nature of such business transactions, and I am certain that a middle ground can be found quite easily; I wouldn't be surprised if this was wrapped up by Christmas. Bruce Buck himself said "We appreciate that almost all the fans will support a move elsewhere in circumstances they deem appropriate." I just can't see how the "left in the dust" sentiments are justified, which is what my earlier post was railing against; in the 09/10 financial year Utd turned over £286m, Chelsea £213m. Of that Utd made £81m from sources other than matchday and tv revenue, while Chelsea made just £5m, this disparity would more than close the gap between the two turnovers. Even Fulham outperformed us on this score that year, raking in £9m. In the same year we spent £42m more on player wages than Utd, and £41m more than City, who were second in the wage bill table. In light of this, how can you say that stadium size is preventing us from competing? I'm sure the thought of going to better clubs where they might actually win something was a factor, not just more money.

Ah I see, well, as your questions seem to be predicated on the assumption that the answerer would rather find the money from elsewhere than move from Stamford Bridge you would probably do well to ask someone who is actually of that opinion. The point I was trying to get at, perhaps not clearly enough, was that we are already punching above our weight if you directly relate stadium size to expected success. Yes, some credit for that has to go to RA's financial input, however the club has issued statements proclaiming its ability to stand on its own financially, in the light of FFP. I'm not going to be drawn in to arguing against a move from Stamford Bridge, because that is not my desired outcome. As you've acknowledged yourself, I would love to see us move to somewhere where we can erect a monument to our status as the Pride of London, which you can get in and out of without joining a shuffling zombie-like herd, and enjoy top quality facilities while you're there (though hopefully not just Singha beer!). My only concern is that it is close enough to our current location not to unduly inconvenience loyal regular match-goers, and not in an area that is unpleasant, unwelcoming or even hostile to our support. The key issue here is that we all want to find a solution that suits everyone, that lets us get our extra seats and the revenue they generate, that provides the fans with both the match experience they crave, and the match-day experience surrounding it, and recognises the benefit the CPO has provided the club. If we voted yes then there is a chance we would get that, but if we vote NO to the current proposal then we can improve the odds of it immeasurably. Do you credit solely financial austerity for Arsenal's decline? Nice nick/avatar btw, I'm a Supernatural fan myself.

Oh ok, with an incorrect assumption.

It was meant in good humour, I just couldn't find a sticky-out-tongue smiley!

I'm not quite sure how you think people are pushing their views onto you? In any campaign there will be opposing viewpoints, there is nothing wrong with them being explained and publicised, in an effort to make people see where they are coming from, and hopefully help them make up their minds. If people don't want to hear it then they needn't listen/read. I think it's laudable that you're doing what you think is best for your club, and as I mentioned before, I think everyone is, regardless of whether they are voting yes or no, and that gives me a warm feeling. Until your insult of naivete aimed at NO voters, I have certainly not seen any insults hurled at people for not agreeing with a particular viewpoint. Was your misspelling of intelligence deliberate and ironic?

I'm not the official anything. I am a CPO, I have voted NO, and I am currently stuck in the middle of the desert until well after the vote has taken place. I am merely trying to articulate the clear understanding I have of the issues, and to make people see that the NO vote on this occasion is nothing to do with limiting the club, or never moving from SB, or not allowing the club a new stadium. It is merely a NO to the current, inadequate, offer. How is it inadequate, lets have a look: No move outside of three miles before 2020 - Two issues here; firstly the three miles, it's a long way in London, and encompasses some highly undesirable sites (White City) which CFC have made overtures for with the relevant local authorities. Post 2020 there is no restriction on distance at all, and realistically eight years is not a long time to find a site, negotiate its sale and planning permission, construct a stadium and infrastructure, and prepare for a swift and seamless off-season move. Under this essentially worthless platitude, the club could buy a site outside of 3 miles the day after the vote, build a stadium on it over the next eight years, and legally move us there on 2nd Jan 2020. £100 per share, regardless of how long it has been held - I don't mind getting £100 for my share, I haven't held it all that long, and £100 is what I paid for it. Those who bought shares in 1993, however, also paid £100, and allowing for inflation alone, no interest or appreciation of the assets they share, that's £167 in today's money! Those who have put their hands in their pockets to protect the club they love should not lose out like that. Bribes for yes voters alone - All the CPOs have made a statement of dedication, by financial commitment, to their club. I believe that almost all will vote for what they believe is best for their club. There may be a small minority who care about making money, or wielding power, but I very much doubt they are numerous enough to make a NO vote successful. Sure, the victor writes the history books, but to not recognise ALL those who made this contribution seems disrespectful and distasteful. Let's look at those bribes in detail: Roll of Honour - No specifics on how this would be manifested are forthcoming, it could very well be a notepad in the club secretary's desk drawer. What's more, what if the new stadium is a massive disappointment to the fans, think the Emirates but recreated on an industrial estate just outside of Guildford, who would want their name commemorated in stone, brick or brass on that!? Season tickets - Our season tickets went on sale to ALL members this season, anyone who had pony'd up for the basic membership package could buy one. A new, bigger, stadium would have even more available. Are those CPOs who are not already season ticket holders, yet who want to be, really gaining anything from this? In response to your direct questions, I suggest you read the final paragraph of my post which you quoted again, and strive for better understanding.

Bold statement, any chance of you backing it up with why exactly you think it's absurd? By all accounts the SB site is worth more than this once overage is considered. Do you know what covenants are? You know you can still buy shares and vote however you like, right? Instead of deriding those who are doing their best for the club, why not put your money where your mouth is?

I'm quite shocked by some of the suggestions that we have to get lots of money to be a successful club. That does seem to rather play into the "buying the league" accusations that some detractors, who support clubs without rich owners, level at some of the top-flight. I was always under the impression that success brought reputation, which spurred on current talent and attracted new, along with revenue which paid the bills. It's a sorry state of affairs if a hugely successful team, with excellent training facilities, a first-rate youth program, and burgeoning global appeal, cannot maintain that success for want of a few extra million from some more seats, or a bigger pitch to make things easier on their players. So let's cut the crap, Chelsea are not gonna slip into mid-table mediocrity without a new stadium, nor will all our talent suddenly grow two left feet and an urge to sign for Arsenal, nor the lights go out with five minutes to play in the pivotal PL showdown with Man Utd because we couldn't pay the leccy. A new stadium would be awesome, but that's not what this is about (cheeses, I am getting sick of saying that), it is about dissolving the only real say the fans have in where Chelsea play football tomorrow, in 2019, or thereafter. Even so, this is something that many would be willing to give up, under reassurances from the club that the outcome is not going to be an unpopular one. Those reassurances are not contained in the current offer, and the current offer is the only one we can vote on on 27th Oct 2011!!! (Sick of saying that too) No negotiating before the ballot, no revised offer, that would require a new notice period and a new vote.

Stopped reading at this point, because anything else based off this incorrect premise is bound to be wrong. Very few people are opposed to a move, certainly the SayNoCPO campaign isn't, but this vote isn't for or against a move. Have a read around the subject, and if you have any questions or still need anything explaining then drop me a PM and I'll try to help you out.

I'm interested to see if any site can garner 75% approval from a statistically significant set of respondents. If the results are telling in any way I might have it brought up at the EGM. With all due respect to your thread, this is not the only exposure the poll is getting.

Purely for interest, and to see if anywhere can get 75% of the vote: http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/538641 Vote for where you'd be happy to see Chelsea move to.

You're not a coward mate, but given that three weeks is a blink of an eye in a scale of three years there is plenty of time for them to put a proposal to us that offers more concrete assurances that we will neither find ourselves in Shepherds Bush, nor further afield come 02 Jan 2020. Plenty of people have found themselves caught up in emotional assertions like "Roman is a true fan, he would never let that happen", but if this is true, and I sincerely hope it is, then there is absolutely no reason why, in the wake of a potential NO vote, the club's next offer shouldn't solidify this in contractual terms. As for being too powerful to say no to, fortunately this is not post-Soviet Russia, and the CPOs are not all on the brink of exile; the law is the law, and in order to buy out CPO the club needs 75% of the vote. Furthermore, the CPO was inaugurated with the threat of wealthy pressure, hence the 100 vote maximum limit, and the ability to discount any votes in excess of 100 deemed to be acting in concert, which is exactly what delegates of the club all buying 100 shares would constitute.

Sure, they can offer assurances, but under the offer that has been made, should 75% of the vote go in their favour then they are under absolutely no obligation to honour them. This discussion has gone the way of so many others, and everyone has ended up arguing over something that is not actually at stake. This vote is not about moving, or where to, it is not about what a new stadium will look like, or what colour the grass will be. It is solely about whether the pitch-owners would like to give up any say they have in where future Chelsea football is played, notwithstanding a virtually meaningless 3m/2020 clause, in return for their initial investment back not adjusted for inflation. Oh, and a brick with their name on it, or not, as this is not actually guaranteed, a roll of honour could be a book in the director's desk drawer. Buck is getting out there and meeting the fans, much to his credit. What I hope he will learn is that we are not fundamentally opposed to a move from Stamford Bridge (for the most part), and that room for discourse absolutely exists. He will also see, however, that many of us will be voting NO to the proposal as it stands, as it does nothing to assuage our concerns regarding future location. This is the only proposal we can vote on, so anything said between the proposal and the meeting in no way constitutes a part of that offer, however persuasive it may be. If we hear anything we like and we want it to be part of the proposal we must still vote NO, and encourage the club it offer that, so we can vote in favour. When the 23 days is mentioned, and dismissed with "it's normal in business", lets also remember another business adage: "Get it in writing!"

I don't think anyone in the NO camp is motivated by money, if they are then they are indeed a small minority, and if/when the club put a reasonable offer on the table there will be such overwhelming support for a move that they will be swept aside. Everyone seems fixated by the word "protesting". I have no idea where it came from, but I would use the word "demonstrate", insofar as the objective has to be to demonstrate to those in the decision-making echelons of the club the level of opposition to their current proposal.

Notice I said RA and the board, and I have no doubt that RA is committed to success, and then of course the success/profit loop, but do you really think that what we perceive as the quality of fans matters more in their grand plan than number of fans? They don't have to agree to it, the CPO has to agree to the terms they bring. I would suggest that the 2020 clause is something we as CPOs simply won't agree to, and we certainly shouldn't. They might have more success with a 4 in 2030, 5 in 2040 type iteration, but I still think it unlikely that will be persuasive unless additional details of sites under consideration are shared. We're not talking about how much a new stadium would cost, we're talking about the value of the freehold, and I can't see how certainly the riverside sites could compete with a site right on the Fulham Road, with excellent transport links. Earls Court possibly, but even a portion of the site, incorporating pitch and part of the stands, of a similar value, could be acceptable. There is overage to consider of course, but that equally applies to our current location! Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome! I'll definitely be voting no to this proposal, but I am not opposed to a move in principal, it just needs to be to the right site. It's worth remembering that Roman, JT et al won't be suffering any problems getting to the ground wherever it may be, nor any of the players' die-hard-Chelsea-fan kids. I think one thing that has come of this debate, raging across all the blue bits of the net, is that the club can quite clearly see now that Earls Court, Imperial Wharf, and at a stretch Nine Elms, would be acceptable to the majority of fans. That's enough sites that an explicit endorsement of them by the CPO will not be enough to inflate the prices prior to a deal being struck. They're also unlikely to be worth as much as the SB site, and as such serious consideration should be given by the club to 'swapping' the freehold with the CPO.

I've no doubt RA and the board will do what's best for the club, unfortunately they define the club somewhat differently to the rest of us I suspect. When they talk about the club they're talking about the financial entity, with profit as the main goal, and success and happy fans merely steps to achieve this. When we talk about the club we mean everyone from the fans all the way up to the owner, with success and fan satisfaction as the main goals. If, as JT says, RA is dedicated to keeping Chelsea close to SB then why not do away with the 2020 clause altogether, or use this as a back stop, so the CPO commit to sell their shares if an acceptable site is found by this time. Proposed resolutions have to be circulated to shareholders 21 days before a general meeting, so there is no chance for a revised offer before the 27th, thus voting no this time is the only option for shareholders who want to ensure the continuation of Chelsea as a SW London club beyond 2020. If anyone naively believes the "this is my one offer then I'm walking away" gambit the club is playing then they have clearly never haggled.