For those who haven't seen it, here is what the club say along with some of my own comments and observations:
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.
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 Stamford Bridge. 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.
No. CPO was set up to stop property developers evicting Chelsea FC from Stamford Bridge 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.
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 Stamford Bridge.
Because a decision to leave Stamford Bridge has not been taken and no new site has been chosen.
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 Stamford Bridge 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 Stamford Bridge or move to a new stadium within three miles.
No such sites have been looked at or discussed. The club’s objective is to remain at Stamford Bridge or move to a new stadium within three miles.
No, we have never received such an offer, nor have we ever had informal discussions with any developer on the subject.
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 Stamford Bridge there are less than 12 acres.
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 Stamford Bridge without the consent of CPO.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: Am I repeating myself? If we worked in partnership we could leave Stamford Bridge with the blessing/goodwill of the fans, the CPO still having a safeguard on the club's future and the club having a new stadium. Why the need to remove the future proofing provided by the CPO? Where is the club's continuity planning?
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.
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.
75 per cent or more of shareholders attending the meeting or sending a proxy vote must vote yes for the transaction to go ahead.
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.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: "the club has not agreed to move" - come on, this whole thing is about moving and now, in the club's own words they admit that Ossies ashes had not been considered, no plan exists for what to do with them and Lynn Osgood has yet to even be consulted! Do these sound like the sort of people whoplan beyond the end of their noses let alone for ALL possible eventualities? To me neither. Vote no, safeguard the future.
The club should be thanked for attempting to clarify the situation but it should be remembered that there are rarely only two routes to progrees (or stand still) as appears. The club should remember that the fans were here long before any of the current board and will be long after they depart. In spirit if not in law, we are the club. The boards hould stop being so arrogant and look to work in partnership with CPO. A move and the existence of the CPO are not mutually exclusive.
One last thought - the Directors of CPO have a legal responsibility to act in their shareholders bst interests. Let us hope they remember that responsibility!