Showing posts with label Matthew Harding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew Harding. Show all posts

Friday, 28 October 2011

An Open Letter To Bruce Buck


Dear Bruce,

You have let yourself and our club down. You have deliberately ignored the genuine concerns of a number of Chelsea supporters. You have been shown to be manipulative in your dealings with the club’s support. You have failed in your responsibility to the club (and fans) as a member of the board. You have lost the confidence of the fans. It is time to do the honourable thing and resign.

By portraying the key issue of yesterday’s CPO shares vote as an issue of moving from Stamford Bridge to a new ground you missed the point completely and ignored the many voices very publicly trying to tell you that was not the case. Many of those who voted ‘no’ (including me) believe that a move from Stamford Bridge is inevitable, we just didn’t hear any evidence from you and your board as to why we should entrust you with the freehold of Stamford Bridge (and thereby the club’s future safety) to do so.

You tried to manipulate fans by painting the matter as that one issue; for or against moving. You even sank so low as to use Matthew Harding’s name in your campaign, apparently in full knowledge of his continued popularity among the Blue faithful thereby hoping to manipulate votes. Shame on you; it is to the credit of our fans that so many saw through you.

The main concern all along has been safeguarding the future security of Chelsea Football Club, something you are naive enough to believe that the presence of Roman Abramovich somehow secures. How little you know of the club’s history and how a previous owner, known to have the club’s best interests at heart passed away and the club fell into the hands of less interested parties. Or perhaps, since you like using Matthew Harding’s name, you will recall how suddenly and unexpectedly fate can strike? That during all of your campaign of spin and misinformation you have not once been able to point to the board’s plans for continuity to safeguard against future events or to demonstrate any meaningful succession planning shows you to be an incompetent Chairman leading an incompetent board. This is basic business planning and given the club’s history, anyone with any knowledge of the club would recognise the need for such plans.

As a result of your manoeuvrings of the past three weeks, what credibility you had among Chelsea fans has gone. You have shown yourself to lack basic business skills, to be manipulative and to be uninterested in the views of Chelsea supporters.

Please, show a little integrity, do the right thing and resign.

Yours,


PS. I personally find your comments in yesterday’s television interviews in which you painted yourself as a long-time fan particularly distasteful. We were not born yesterday and many of us have been following the Blues since the days you thought football was a game played by people in padding with an egg shaped ball. We will be here long after you depart too. Please make that soon.

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

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.

Friday, 21 October 2011

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