Why It Would Be Lunacy To Sell Your CPO Shares

Three recent news stories have highlighted why it would be utter and complete lunacy for anyone who owns a CPO share to consider selling that share to Chelsea Football Club.

First, last month, the club announced an annual loss of £70.9 million. That £70.9 million is the depth of shit Chelsea Football Club would currently be in for a single year’s trading were Roman Abramovich suddenly removed from the equation.

Second, earlier today, Glasgow Rangers went into administration for an estimated tax bill of £75 million. For those not watching closely, Rangers are a club who had a wealthy owner who bank rolled them and then moved on. The salaries and other running costs did not move on with him.

Third, a little over a week ago, Nottingham Forest owner Nigel Doughty died suddenly and unexpectedly aged 54. Doughty has been bankrolling Forest to in the region of £10 million a year. That £10 million per annum deficit has not died with him.

For the hard of thinking, let me explain why these three pieces of news are relevant to the CPO issue…

Should Roman Abramovich suddenly be removed from Chelsea FC in the same way as Nigel Doughty from Forest the club’s running costs would not be removed with him. In short, on current ‘form’ a £70 million black hole would appear in the club’s balance sheet. In less than 13 months that would become the same figure Rangers problem is estimated at but whereas their debt was built up over a number of years Chelsea’s deficit is an annual figure!

I am sure I am not alone in seeing the potential not only for trouble but for the demise of Chelsea FC.

Preventing such a demise was the very reason CPO was started. The above is why it still has a vital role in Chelsea’s future.

Remember, during the ‘debate’ over the club’s desire to purchase CPO shares before Christmas, not one club representative was able to offer evidence of any continuity planning from the current apology for a Board. Note, that is ANY continuity planning – standard (good) business practice – not just continuity planning should Roman no longer be involved.

Think about £70.9 million loss in a year. Think about a big club going into administration for want of £75 million. Think about Nigel Doughty.

Now, think about those CPO shares. Who do you think should control them? The fans who care that our club has a future or a Board incapable of planning beyond next week?

We are uniquely positioned as Chelsea fans in that we own our club’s ground. Other fans are jealous of that in that it makes us the club with the most secure future in the country. Why would anyone trade that for £100? It would be lunacy!

KTBFFH

Mindless Racist Morons Do Chelsea Football Club No Favours

“I’ve half a mind to join the BNP – apparently that’s all I need.”

So said the graffiti I saw on a Hammersmith wall a couple of years ago, sharing a sentiment I share albeit with reservations that they overestimate the mental capacity required!

So when I hear that some morons have been singing racist chants in the name of Chelsea FC on a train back from Norwich I scratch my head and wonder.

Our club captain John Terry is due in court next month charged with racism. He denies the charge and vehemently protests that he is not a racist. Do the morons think they are somehow doing JT a favour?

Lots of our players are black, both the club and the fans have moved on a long way since the days when Paul Canoville was disgracefully abused by his own supporters on his debut*. Do the morons really think they are supporting the players of such a multi-racial club in their actions?

One of my best mates has a black wife. Both of them are Chelsea supporters but only he goes to games. She went twice but was put off by idiots making racist comments. Do the morons behind these chants thing this helps the club develop?

I just don’t get it. If you are really so racist that you have to sing about it on a train, why the fuck do you support Chelsea in the first place?  That’s the same Chelsea who are proudly a multi-cultural team from the planet’s most cosmopolitan city.

And if any of these morons are of the Hitler worship variety, perhaps they could take note that these days we are owned by a Russian Billionaire, the Russians being among the many peoples Hitler referred to as ‘untermensch’. I’ll leave you to figure out the translation (if you need it) and the contradiction in a Nazi supporting a team owned by such a man.

I just don’t get it. Half a mind? The graffiti flattered you.

Do us all a favour, fuck off and support another team. Or better still, go and play on a busy road.

KTBFFH

*If you haven’t already read it, I can thoroughly recommend Paul Canoville’s biography ‘Black and Blue’ which gives a startling insight into the hurt and damage caused by these racist morons.


(See side bar and click to purchase a copy from Amazon).

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,

Carefree_Blue@Yahoo.Co.UK

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.

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.

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.)

Clubs Rejection of SNCPO Offer Makes No Sense

The Guardian yesterday reported that Chelsea FC had rejected a counter offer to their offer to buy shares from the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO).

The Say No CPO (SNCPO) campaign had tabled the following counter-proposal to the club:

1 The club to have total freedom to move to a larger new stadium anywhere within three miles of Stamford Bridge at any time before 2030 so long as Roman Abramovich is still in control of Chelsea.
2. Chelsea to save £1.5m by leaving Chelsea Pitch Owners in place. The CPO will sell the freehold at SB to the club in exchange for the freehold at the new ground on the same terms as currently in place.
3. The club to agree to ongoing consultation, and transparency of information, with the fans regarding any new stadium.

Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck rejected the offer on the grounds that the club is now worth more than the freehold value of the site at Stamford Bridge. Without providing explanation to his thinking, he added that the club therefore argue there would be no long-term risk to the club's future, and that CPO's existence is therefore no longer required.

This is the single biggest flaw in the club’s offer, that they assume the current position is forever, to the point where (it appears) they have no plans at all in place should (for example) Roman Abramovich no longer be a factor, should market conditions change.

There is no guarantee of the club’s future financial well-being, only the hope that things will remain the same. And hope is no basis for sound planning.

Change is the only constant in life and neither Bruce Buck nor the rest of the board seem capable of grasping this. Sky TV money may not be forever; UEFA may change the rules again; new technological developments might come along; anything could happen, only a fool plans on solely hope.

If you don’t believe me ask someone who manufactures horse drawn carriages – they said the car would never take their place. Ask someone who makes a living selling VHS or Betamax if you can find one. You get the idea but do Buck and his board.

The nearest thing to a constant in football is the supporters and it is we who offer the best safeguard to the future. At Chelsea we are lucky to have the CPO, other clubs envy us. Are we really going to throw that away?

Buck Is Right But More Detail Needed For Yes Vote

Today's Daily Mail features a short story in which Bruce Buck talks of the importance of preparing for life without Roman, especially in light of the new UEFA Financial Fair Play Rules.

In the article Buck talks of the need to balance the books and includes the need to increase revenues through sponsorship, transfer fees and ticket sales.

Given that ticket prices are already a touchy subject, with some Blues threatening to boycott the Genk game in protest, the answer to increasing ticket revenues would appear to be increased capacity. As this is not possible at the Bridge inevitably it will mean a new stadium.

Which brings me to the hot topic among Blues fans at the moment, the club's offer to Cheslsea Pitch Owner shareholder to buy them out.

I make no secret of being in the vote No camp for now. Don't get me wrong I agree with Buck's statement in The Mail but it just doesn't give me the confidence to believe the future is safeguarded.

I posted Cowan Global's excellent blog on the subject yesterday and I see nothing to change my view that they are right. What is more, as a corporate strategy consultancy, I trust their judgement and I have yet to see any forward planning expertise from the Chelsea board which engenders the same trust. We, the CPO shareholders don't need statements from the Chelsea board we need guarantees. We don't need promises, we need evidence of continuity planning.

For many Chelsea fans words like 'Cabra' are still painful ones, words which bring back the fear we had of losing our club forever. The CPO saved us and the CPO still has a vital role to fulfill.

I've seen a view posted on a few sites asking why Chelsea can't work in partnership with the CPO to find a site for a new stadium? Why can't the deal be that we swap one freehold for another? This offers the same safeguards which were needed to save us before should the same or similar occur in the future. It provides for increased revenue from higher ticket sales and the ground rent could be just as 'peppercorn' as now.

My position is still therefore; Vote No.