Other Blues will undoubtedly have seen on the official website and possibly received the same email as me from the club which, it claims, answers the questions being asked re the CPO shareholder offer.For those who haven't seen it, here is what the club say along with some of my own comments and observations:
________________________________________________________________________
In the week since Chelsea Football
Club’s proposal to Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) was announced, there has
naturally been a lot of discussion and the club believes there has been some
incorrect information circulating on various social media platforms discussing
the subject.
Below is a clarification of some of
these points and also answers to some of the questions that have been put to
the club in the past week.
Is it true that shareholders who do not attend the meeting nor appoint a
proxy vote, including deceased shareholders, will automatically be counted as
voting yes to the proposal?
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 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.
Have the directors of CPO accepted
Chelsea FC’s proposal to acquire the freehold of the Stamford Bridge
site and are the CPO directors recommending that CPO shareholders vote yes to
the proposal?
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.
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.
Isn’t the proposal against everything that CPO was set up for?
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.
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.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: This is only partially true. CPO was also set up to safeguard the club's future. A no vote does not hinder the club by restricting its ability to maximise its income provided the club will work with CPO on the need to find a new ground instead of making offers which give no evidence of safeguarding the clubs future, for example by explaining what plans are in place should a tragedy occur which removes the current ownership and places it in the hands of someone who does not have CFC's best interests at heart? A yes vote offers no such guarantees and forever removes the fans from having a guaranteed say in the club's future.
Why can’t the club wait until a site
for a new stadium is known and reveal it before offering to purchase the Stamford Bridge
freehold from CPO?
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 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.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: This barrier would be removed if the club and CPO worked in partnership on the process. With CPO around the table the owner of the potential site could receive the guarantees they receive. Property development is frequently conducted using partnerships in this way. A no vote keeps the fans at the table with a say in the suitability of potential sites. A yes vote removes any rights from the fans and while a 3 mile radius is talked of, Wimbledon fans will remember similar talk in the days leading up to 'Franchise FC's' move to Milton Keynes.
Why is the club not informing
shareholders about which site it wishes to build a new stadium on?
Because a decision to leave Stamford Bridge has not been taken and no new site has been chosen.
Because a decision to leave Stamford Bridge has not been taken and no new site has been chosen.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: In what line of business would shareholders agree to sell shares on the promise of nothing. A no vote keeps us at the table and, if the club understand business, should involve us in the process. A yes vote is a vote with the fingers crossed and no guarantees, see Milton Keynes comment above,
Why has the club set a year 2020
limit to the guarantee that any new stadium will be within a three-mile radius
of Stamford Bridge?
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.
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.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: Again, no guarantees. It is "the club's objective". If 2020 is a ket date (of which the club offer no evidence) then let's work together to make it happen. Vote no and keep the fans involved in safeguarding the club. Vote yes for anything could happen next and we will have given away our right to a say.
There are suggestions that the club
is considering sites more than three miles to the north of Stamford Bridge,
near Wormwood Scrubs or Old Oak Common, with a view to moving there after 2020.
Has the club already identified a site beyond the three-mile radius?
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 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.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: See previous comment.
Has the club received an offer from
developers to buy Stamford Bridge?
No, we have never received such an offer, nor have we ever had informal discussions with any developer on the subject.
No, we have never received such an offer, nor have we ever had informal discussions with any developer on the subject.
Can the club provide proof that
possible expansion of capacity at Stamford Bridge
has been properly investigated?
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.
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.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: Oh? That's a new one. The reason always previously stated as to why Stamford Bridge couldn't be re/further developed was because of a lack of access/egress points due to the geography of the site. In an emergency the only exit is to Fulham Road. This new line doesn't hold water - Newcastle's St James' Park has a smaller footprint than Stamford Bridge but a larger stadium capacity. Vote no until the uncertainty is cleared. Vote yes for a future full of such uncertainty. This notwithstanding, the case for a new stadium is a strong one and the club make fair points below. They just don't need to buy out CPO to achieve this!
The club has worked with several
architects firms looking for ways to redevelop each of the four stands at Stamford Bridge
to increase capacity.
If the East Stand, which was built
in the early 1970s, were to be knocked down and redeveloped then there are two
significant obstacles. A new stand would have to cantilever over the railway
track. Standards regarding safety have changed since the early 1970s. The angle
of the current stand is very steep but if it were rebuilt then the angle would
have to be shallower to meet today’s standards, with many seats significantly
further from the pitch than they are now.
The
Shed End stand at the south of the stadium cannot be expanded because of the
hotel and the flats behind it. Rights to light and shadowing issues also
preclude such a development.
For the Matthew Harding Stand at the
north of the stadium, health and safety rules requires that in an emergency the
whole site is cleared in eight minutes and we are restricted with Fulham Road
being our only exit. Any additional people at the north end would have to go
the furthest to reach the Fulham Road exits, so it is very unlikely planning
permission would be granted, as we are virtually at our capacity limit for
emergency egress. Rights of light and overshadowing issues for Brompton Park
residents also cause planning difficulties.
Over the years it has been suggested
a walkway should be built along the railway lines from the north end of the
stadium towards West Brompton. That has been looked into, and was rejected at a
public inquiry as the long narrow route is considered unsafe in the event of an
emergency. We have not applied for planning permission for a walkway to Fulham
Broadway station as the council has already said they would reject it for
safety reasons.
The West Stand is of a height that
is already the maximum allowed by planning regulations, in terms of rights of
light overlooking the Stoll Foundation housing.
The club has looked at tearing down
all four stands and at turning the direction of the pitch by 90 degrees but
neither plan makes sense because again it should be emphasised that the site is
less than12 acres and it is generally considered that to build a stadium from
scratch with a capacity of 55,000 then approaching 20 acres is needed. A major
reconstruction at Stamford Bridge
also raises issues as to where the club would play during the two or three
seasons that Stamford Bridge
would not be available.
As well as buying back the freehold, is the club also proposing to buy
back the name Chelsea Football Club from CPO?
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.
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.
What are the details of the season tickets being offered to shareholders in a new stadium should
one be built?
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.
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.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: CPO should take legal advice on this offer. It might break the Bribery Act (2010) in the way it seeks to gain an advantage. If so, the Directors of CPO might also be break the law by facilitating its happening.
Why are only three weeks being
allowed between the notice of the meeting and the vote, and why has the meeting
and vote been set for the day after an evening away game at Everton which
shareholders may be attending?
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.
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.
BLUE IS THE COLOUR COMMENT: While true it would be common courtesy for the club to recognise that CPO shareholders hold down jobs and will need to take time off work in order to attend, some without pay. It would be considerate to think about the fans, many of whom are not the usual shareholders and corporate types this law was designed to service. Such lack of consideration does not bode well for a post CPO world where the fans say and safeguard has been removed. Vote no and if you can't make it, make sure you cast your vote by proxy.
The date was set well before the
Carling Cup draw and the date of the game was arranged. It was not known at the
time whether the tie would be home or away or on the Tuesday or the Wednesday.
What is the percentage vote needed for the proposed transaction to be
accepted?
75 per cent or more of shareholders attending the meeting or sending a proxy vote must vote yes for the transaction to go ahead.
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!
VOTE NO!
No comments:
Post a Comment