Buck Is Right But More Detail Needed For Yes Vote

Today's Daily Mail features a short story in which Bruce Buck talks of the importance of preparing for life without Roman, especially in light of the new UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules.

In the article Buck talks of the need to balance the books and includes the need to increase revenues through sponsorship, transfer fees and ticket sales.

Given that ticket prices are already a touchy subject, with some Blues threatening to boycott the Genk game in protest, the answer to increasing ticket revenues would appear to be increased capacity. As this is not possible at the Bridge inevitably it will mean a new stadium.

Which brings me to the hot topic among Blues fans at the moment, the club's offer to Cheslsea Pitch Owner shareholder to buy them out.

I make no secret of being in the vote No camp for now. Don't get me wrong I agree with Buck's statement in The Mail but it just doesn't give me the confidence to believe the future is safeguarded.

I posted Cowan Global's excellent blog on the subject yesterday and I see nothing to change my view that they are right. What is more, as a corporate strategy consultancy, I trust their judgement and I have yet to see any forward planning expertise from the Chelsea board which engenders the same trust. We, the CPO shareholders don't need statements from the Chelsea board we need guarantees. We don't need promises, we need evidence of continuity planning.

For many Chelsea fans words like 'Cabra' are still painful ones, words which bring back the fear we had of losing our club forever. The CPO saved us and the CPO still has a vital role to fulfill.

I've seen a view posted on a few sites asking why Chelsea can't work in partnership with the CPO to find a site for a new stadium? Why can't the deal be that we swap one freehold for another? This offers the same safeguards which were needed to save us before should the same or similar occur in the future. It provides for increased revenue from higher ticket sales and the ground rent could be just as 'peppercorn' as now.

My position is still therefore; Vote No.