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

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.)