A New Low

Following on from my blog of yesterday in which I considered the Board’s deliberate ignoring of the key points in their spin on their bid to buy CPO shareholders out, today saw a new low in their campaign of spin and issue avoidance.

An article on the official Chelsea website (so we assume it has been sanctioned by the club) quotes Graham Bell, a friend of Matthew Harding’s and long-time Blues supporter as well as CPO shareholder.

The article goes on (at length) about how Matthew Harding recognised that one day we would need to leave Stamford Bridge. While a minority of fans (including CPO shareholders) would resist this, the vast majority of those opposed to the clubs offer to buy shares recognise it is an inevitability.

The club know this so the question has to be asked as to the purpose of the article? I can only come to one conclusion; the Board know how loved Matthew Harding remains among the Chelsea faithful and therefore thought that somehow painting him as a someone who would have supported their proposal will win votes.

It is a new low and further undermines my confidence in the Board.

For the hard of understanding (i.e. the Chelsea Board), the three key points continually avoided by the club in their world of spin and issue avoidance are (and I make no apologies for repeating what I posted here yesterday):

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.

Consulting with fans means listening to fans; the Board continue to fail to do this.

I’m still voting NO and following this latest low see even less reason to trust the club’s future to these jokers. They insult all of our intelligence.

KTBFFH