A Long Ramble But Still No Sign The Club Are Listening

Chelsea FC today placed a long rambling article on their website which covered plenty of old ground in the CPO shares sale debate but offered absolutely nothing new.


The club repeated their original offer of 3rd October before repeating their 'questions asked' piece of 12th October.


As for adding anything new? Nothing!


As for answering the very pertinent questions raised in this blog and elsewhere? Nada!


As for showing any signs at all of having listened to the fans' concerns? Zip!


For example, they have stated; "Roman Abramovich's ownership and long-term commitment to the club removes the once  real danger that the team could find itself homeless or at a substandard ground, therefore we (the club) believe the CPO safeguard is no longer necessary."

Here is what I, and many others, have stated on numerous occasions; "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 (the club) 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."


Draw your own conclusions as to whether the club have (a) listened to; (b) answered or (c) shown they give a rat's arse about the questions being asked. The issue of continuity planning is especially relevant as it goes to the very competence of the board we are supposed to be trusting to do the right thing!


For the record, at the foot of this blog I repeat what have been and remain the three key issues for me. None of them have been acknowledged or answered by the club. My vote will therefore be 'No' and I believe anyone who genuinely has the safeguarding of the club's future at heart must vote the same way.


It isn't about a new stadium (I'm for that). It isn't about trusting Roman (I believe he does have the club's best interests at heart). It is about the club's future and making sure it is properly safeguarded. The board still don't get that. 


The three key issues:

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.