Buck, Tenenbaum, Gourlay – Missing The Point

When I decided to write my own Chelsea blog I had visions of stories about football, stories of current successes, great players, loved managers, the dark days, tales of 70s and 80s away days and more. I really didn’t think that my blogs would be ‘political’.

But, I chose to start blogging at about the same time Chelsea FC made their offer to the shareholders of CPO (of which I am one) and I got sucked in. Not because I enjoy the politics but because I care.

So, following on from last night’s ridiculous open letter to CPO shareholders which did everything but address concerns, I thought it might be useful for Messrs Buck, Tenenbaum and Gourlay if I spelt my objections out for them in very simple terms:

1.       The club might be secure and profitable now but that is no guarantee it will remain so, especially if Roman Abramovich is no longer involved and/or if Sky TV revenues are reduced in the face of less competition from rival bids by the cash strapped BBC (and others). Do you have any continuity plans in place should Roman (God forbid) meet a similar fate to Matthew Harding? If so, I’d like evidence before parting with my shares.

2.       Most shareholders did not purchase shares for purposes of profit. That does not mean offering a price which means they make an effective loss is a fair offer. In addition, as your reasons for wanting my shares are purely profit driven, I believe it is reasonable to ask that your offer reflects this.

3.       I have yet to see a valid reason why the CPO ownership of the freehold cannot be transferred to any new stadium and the move be conducted in partnership. The reasons stated so far by the club do not bear close examination. Such a partnership protects the future, facilitates the move (Buck’s stated prime reason for wanting the shares) and in no way negatively impacts on the club’s profitability.

If Buck, Tenenbaum and Gourlay would like to directly address these three points in their next open letter, I’m all ears. If they choose to continue to (apparently deliberately) avoid genuine concerns my vote remains one of No.

KTBFFH

(I should add that I have very little confidence in a board which cannot offer evidence of continuity planning. It is a basic principle of good business governance.)