Chelsea owners and board

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, east lower said:

🤣

Takes me back. We used to end up in the Lyceum Ballroom on a Friday night and get the last train out of Waterloo or if we had distractions, what used to known as the Milk Train (first one out). But generally the worse for wear.

I ended up in Portsmouth, Haslemere, got to Basingstoke one night which meant I'd changed trains somewhere. Only trying to get back to Guildford!

 

My best being inebriated again "Bishopsgate's pubs and wine bars" and jumping on a fast train to Southampton with the intent of getting off at Wimbledon to stay a my parents so i did not get another ear full from the wife. I woke up on the train as it was pulling out of Surbition. Usual plenty of expletives to myself knowing the next stop would have be Basingstoke and catching a train back,  only to then realise the train was actually heading back to waterloo 😀

Edited April 11 by ROTG

[RDCW]

2 hours ago, east lower said:

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what they legally could do, but the principle is that very rich people 'find a way'.

I'd not be investing much on the CPO's being able to stop them doing what they want if it became a battle. 

 

I think it's all about legal clarity. If the CPO board did their job right and drew up an iron clad deed then no amount of financial clout, or corporate determination will make any difference. The most we can hope for is that Clearlake will find a suitable new site and are prepared to carry forward the CPO agreement. My preference would be to stay at Stamford Bridge because the identity and heritage of the club is heavily bound up with the location, prestige, uniqueness and historical significance of Stamford Bridge. I can't, however, see how Clearlake can make a return for its investors without leveraging the value of the Stamford Bridge site, so.........

Edited April 11 by RDCW

[east lower]

2 minutes ago, RDCW said:

I think it's all about legal clarity. If the CPO board did their job right and drew up an iron clad deed then no amount of financial clout, or corporate determination will make any difference. The most we can hope for is that Clearlake will find a suitable new site and are prepared to carry forward the CPO agreement. My preference would be to stay at Stamford Bridge because the identity and heritage of the club is heavily bound up with the location, prestige, uniqueness and historical significance of Stamford Bridge. I can't, however, see how Clearlake can make a return for its investors without leveraging the value of the Stamford Bridge site, so.........

I’d also want to stay at our historical home. 

But a complete redevelopment would cost billion/s, unless they find a way to extend and if I’m remembering correctly - there is also an issue with emergency egress. They can’t get more in until they satisfy the authorities that people can exit fast and safely enough with said increase in numbers.

Extending the existing capacity would seem one way and probably less costly.

As I said elsewhere, Everton (cheap dockland) thought it would cost them £500m to build the new stadium, costs will be close to £1b. No cheap land in SW London. 

Groundshare/rental another way to deal with it? 

[east lower]

17 minutes ago, ROTG said:

 

My best being inebriated again "Bishopsgate's pubs and wine bars" and jumping on a fast train to Southampton with the intent of getting off at Wimbledon to stay a my parents so i did not get another ear full from the wife. I woke up on the train as it was pulling out of Surbition. Usual plenty of expletives to myself knowing the next stop would have be Basingstoke and catching a train back,  only to then realise the train was actually heading back to waterloo 😀

I was on a football tour with Surrey schools to Belgium and in the U16’s. We went out with the 18’s and 19’s. 

One of the non-football excursions was to Blankenberg (spelling) for an evening event. Mate and me got in with the 19’s and ended up in some beer hall, got stitched up by the older lads and was legless. We ended up catching the wrong coach and ended up in Ostend, search parties the lot.

Needless to say, wasn’t selected again 🤣

Morale of these stories? Travel with a sober security guard!

 

[Max Fowler]

3 hours ago, Ham said:

I've said it before but nobody had any issues with Roman never ever communicating to us because the team was winning trophies.

Thing is Ham, these owners made a big song and dance about being completely different to the old model (collaborative, long-term etc.) so why shouldn’t we have hopes that they can communicate differently too?

[Sciatika]

I think the club would have real problems forcibly wresting the pitch from CPO.

Here's a quick summary for those who don't know. I have simplified some of the details because a lot has happened in the last thirty years. Apologies if anything is misremembered. Much of this was a long time ago.

1) CPO wholly owns a subsidiary called Chelsea Stadium Limited, which owns the freehold of the stadium's footprint. It's not just the centre circle or the pitch. We own the whole pitch, including where Ossie's ashes are buried, and the land where the stands are. The club is responsible for maintaining the buildings on the land and the equipment used (flags, goalposts, the pitch surface, and so on).  The club owns the area around the stadium. CPO cannot profit from the sale of the pitch because we have no right of access to the site.

2) CPO borrowed money from the club to buy the freehold. The club cannot foreclose on that. It was originally going to cost £5m but was raised to £10.2m because Glen Hoddle wanted a bigger pitch. Anyway, CPO sells shares mostly to repay the loan. CPO breaks even by selling the shares, including specials, such as framed and signed ones, and there are things like the annual dinner. Several former players and managers own shares. John Terry is the company's President.

3) CPO leased the ground to the club for a peppercorn rent beginning in 1997 for 199 years. This came about because when Bates was trying to get the £75m Eurobond loan, the accountants (Warburgs) wanted guarantees over tenure which CPO granted. CPO also owns the name "Chelsea Football Club", which we have granted the club the right to use. TBH, I have never really regarded this as all that important, but YMMV.

4) CPO is just a normal company with a board and accountants that we vote for every year. At the AGM, the shareholders decide how many shares to make available for sale for that year. Shares are transferable but have no value and do not pay dividends. You get to vote, but only up to a maximum of 5 shares, irrespective of how many shares you buy. The shareholders control the sale of shares. No one person (legal person) can get control because we will not issue enough to make it possible. So, if someone wants to sell the land, they must persuade the shareholders to sell. Roman tried to take ownership of CPO in 2012 but could only get 60% (from memory) of the votes and he would need 75%. Actually, he made a mistake in his strategy, but that is a different story that probably should be written down. It was a very fractious meeting.

[chara]

2 hours ago, east lower said:

I was on a football tour with Surrey schools to Belgium and in the U16’s. We went out with the 18’s and 19’s. 

One of the non-football excursions was to Blankenberg (spelling) for an evening event. Mate and me got in with the 19’s and ended up in some beer hall, got stitched up by the older lads and was legless. We ended up catching the wrong coach and ended up in Ostend, search parties the lot.

Needless to say, wasn’t selected again 🤣

Morale of these stories? Travel with a sober security guard!

 

Ahh a nice side smile  in the midst of a serious deep discussion...easing the pressure..I woke one early morning to the sound of fish splashing...sitting on the sea wall my feet in the water of Palma harbour...absolutely no idea how I got there or where my mate was... now I always travel with the sober security guard...Mrs C.

[RDCW]

2 hours ago, Sciatika said:

I think the club would have real problems forcibly wresting the pitch from CPO.

Here's a quick summary for those who don't know. I have simplified some of the details because a lot has happened in the last thirty years. Apologies if anything is misremembered. Much of this was a long time ago.

1) CPO wholly owns a subsidiary called Chelsea Stadium Limited, which owns the freehold of the stadium's footprint. It's not just the centre circle or the pitch. We own the whole pitch, including where Ossie's ashes are buried, and the land where the stands are. The club is responsible for maintaining the buildings on the land and the equipment used (flags, goalposts, the pitch surface, and so on).  The club owns the area around the stadium. CPO cannot profit from the sale of the pitch because we have no right of access to the site.

2) CPO borrowed money from the club to buy the freehold. The club cannot foreclose on that. It was originally going to cost £5m but was raised to £10.2m because Glen Hoddle wanted a bigger pitch. Anyway, CPO sells shares mostly to repay the loan. CPO breaks even by selling the shares, including specials, such as framed and signed ones, and there are things like the annual dinner. Several former players and managers own shares. John Terry is the company's President.

3) CPO leased the ground to the club for a peppercorn rent beginning in 1997 for 199 years. This came about because when Bates was trying to get the £75m Eurobond loan, the accountants (Warburgs) wanted guarantees over tenure which CPO granted. CPO also owns the name "Chelsea Football Club", which we have granted the club the right to use. TBH, I have never really regarded this as all that important, but YMMV.

4) CPO is just a normal company with a board and accountants that we vote for every year. At the AGM, the shareholders decide how many shares to make available for sale for that year. Shares are transferable but have no value and do not pay dividends. You get to vote, but only up to a maximum of 5 shares, irrespective of how many shares you buy. The shareholders control the sale of shares. No one person (legal person) can get control because we will not issue enough to make it possible. So, if someone wants to sell the land, they must persuade the shareholders to sell. Roman tried to take ownership of CPO in 2012 but could only get 60% (from memory) of the votes and he would need 75%. Actually, he made a mistake in his strategy, but that is a different story that probably should be written down. It was a very fractious meeting.

I was at that meeting! Bruce Buck was a bit shell-shocked! There was no requirement to vote because the mailed votes had already prevented the possibility of his attaining the required 75% . I'm not sure where you get the 60% from, therefore; I suspect it would have been more likely to have been about 35% even after frantic attempts to buy shares in the run up to the meeting which is why he didn't try it again. The CPO articles did their work, as I hope they will continue to do.

[Sciatika]

Maybe I am wrong about the 60%. It was a while ago.  There was a whole bunch of issues with the board at that time, as well. 

[Blue Moon]

2 hours ago, chara said:

Ahh a nice side smile  in the midst of a serious deep discussion...easing the pressure..I woke one early morning to the sound of fish splashing...sitting on the sea wall my feet in the water of Palma harbour...absolutely no idea how I got there or where my mate was... now I always travel with the sober security guard...Mrs C.

Lived in Ringwood as a youth - we used to visit Bournemouth for concerts etc, bus there and try to hitch home, usually falling back on walking - only 12 miles, so usually back before the bus to school. Police car stopped us one night and wouldn't offer us a lift - just a wigging for being out late. Asked us where the nearest filling station was, he being new in the area, so we sent him "5 miles up the Horton Road" and off he went. No petrol stations up the Horton Road, and not many off it neither. Hope he enjoyed the walk. Karma.

[chara]

As ever,,smiles and shared memories in the midst of adult debate,,,the added bit to my earlier post is the guys back at the hotel were sat out front when an empty taxi pulled up...the driver got out and opened the back door...out rolled, literally, my missing mate Pete,,,,forever Chelsea going companion....he staggered past the lads..:"Where's chara?:..

"Dunno"............

Edited April 11 by chara

[Ham]

8 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I would imagine all they have to do is change the name to London Chelsea FC get written agreement that the history of the club transfers to the new club as a new entity from the FA and Premier League and they can move the club where they like and build some lovely high end flats around a beatiful square of grass and Robert is indeed your father's brother. 

Not without being able to sell the SB site. 

7 hours ago, east lower said:

I’d also want to stay at our historical home. 

But a complete redevelopment would cost billion/s, unless they find a way to extend and if I’m remembering correctly - there is also an issue with emergency egress. They can’t get more in until they satisfy the authorities that people can exit fast and safely enough with said increase in numbers.

Extending the existing capacity would seem one way and probably less costly.

As I said elsewhere, Everton (cheap dockland) thought it would cost them £500m to build the new stadium, costs will be close to £1b. No cheap land in SW London. 

Groundshare/rental another way to deal with it? 

No issues with egress now thanks to Stoll and the plans for platforms over the tracks and towards FB.  

2 hours ago, Sciatika said:

Maybe I am wrong about the 60%. It was a while ago.  There was a whole bunch of issues with the board at that time, as well. 

I'm certain I read that it was around 60% or even more. Short of the 75% but enough to convince everyone that with the right proposal, they'd get the 75% they needed. 

[Sciatika]

I checked. It was 61.6% in favour. I remember asking everyone on CFCNet how I should vote. I genuinely didn't know for certain. There were many different opinions so it did not help. I decided, selfishly perhaps, that I wanted to continue my role as a pitch owner. I had always felt that fan ownership, in whatever guise, is a good thing. I still do. Given that the new plan would not give me that, I would vote against. I have often wondered how many others thought as I did. 

[Ham]

5 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

I checked. It was 61.6% in favour. I remember asking everyone on CFCNet how I should vote. I genuinely didn't know for certain. There were many different opinions so it did not help. I decided, selfishly perhaps, that I wanted to continue my role as a pitch owner. I had always felt that fan ownership, in whatever guise, is a good thing. I still do. Given that the new plan would not give me that, I would vote against. I have often wondered how many others thought as I did. 

I would be 100% in favour of the right proposal at EC.  Nowhere else. 

Assuming, of course, that there was a cast iron legal agreement that nobody could ever move the club away from that new location, whether that be in the form of another CPO or just a freehold condition.

[RDCW]

1 hour ago, Sciatika said:

I checked. It was 61.6% in favour. I remember asking everyone on CFCNet how I should vote. I genuinely didn't know for certain. There were many different opinions so it did not help. I decided, selfishly perhaps, that I wanted to continue my role as a pitch owner. I had always felt that fan ownership, in whatever guise, is a good thing. I still do. Given that the new plan would not give me that, I would vote against. I have often wondered how many others thought as I did. 

I checked too and the 61.6 % figure reported in the press is, in my opinion, spurious, as was the quoted attendance of 700 shareholders (there were many more than that). I dont think, from what I have seen of your considered and measured contributions on this forum, that your motivation was selfish. I too would have voted against (the whole point of attending) and viewed it as giving away the family silver. The CPO was always simply a safeguard and to give up that safeguard would have been foolhardy, as has been proved in the subsequent ousting of our benevolent dictator in favour of a potentially hostile investment company. How perilous would the future of the club be if Roman had succeeded in his coup?

[Ham]

21 minutes ago, RDCW said:

I checked too and the 61.6 % figure reported in the press is, in my opinion, spurious, as was the quoted attendance of 700 shareholders (there were many more than that). I dont think, from what I have seen of your considered and measured contributions on this forum, that your motivation was selfish. I too would have voted against (the whole point of attending) and viewed it as giving away the family silver. The CPO was always simply a safeguard and to give up that safeguard would have been foolhardy, as has been proved in the subsequent ousting of our benevolent dictator in favour of a potentially hostile investment company. How perilous would the future of the club be if Roman had succeeded in his coup?

In fairness to Roman, the sale process satisfied me that he would have done the right thing to ensure that protections were put in place for the future of the club at the Bridge/EC. 

 

[MickyDroy]

Bonkers isn't it? £75 million on agent fees since February 1st of last year...

In light of this the price hikes and removal of the £300k coach subsidy is even more egregious. Perfectly happy to rinse their working class supporters to their last dime while doing this at the same time...

[xceleryx]

8 hours ago, MickyDroy said:

Bonkers isn't it? £75 million on agent fees since February 1st of last year...

In light of this the price hikes and removal of the £300k coach subsidy is even more egregious. Perfectly happy to rinse their working class supporters to their last dime while doing this at the same time...

Lacks a lot of context as per usual.

How many players have we purchased in that time in comparison to other clubs? 

We've brokered some pretty big deals, big deals generally include tall agent fees. 

There's more to the overall story than just looking at baseline figures. 

[chara]

I may be simple minded but why do clubs pay agents?....The agents job is to get the best deal for the client...surely any club payment is tantamount to bribery?

[xceleryx]

5 minutes ago, chara said:

I may be simple minded but why do clubs pay agents?....The agents job is to get the best deal for the client...surely any club payment is tantamount to bribery?

https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/liverpool/feature/premier-league-agents-fees-who-spent-the-most-why-do-they-cost-so-much_403900.html

Gives a little info on why. TLDR is that trying to work out the alternative approach is tricky. 

[chara]

3 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/liverpool/feature/premier-league-agents-fees-who-spent-the-most-why-do-they-cost-so-much_403900.html

Gives a little info on why. TLDR is that trying to work out the alternative approach is tricky. 

Thanks ..still begs the argument....paying the agent anything to "sweeten" the deal is still bribery surely

[xceleryx]

32 minutes ago, chara said:

Thanks ..still begs the argument....paying the agent anything to "sweeten" the deal is still bribery surely

Don't think it's seen as sweetening deals as much as commission for the "work" that's done to get a deal agreed upon. Granted, the fees are outrageous and I believe have since been capped since January 2023. 

[chara]

2 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Don't think it's seen as sweetening deals as much as commission for the "work" that's done to get a deal agreed upon. Granted, the fees are outrageous and I believe have since been capped since January 2023. 

Of course I can see your point but,,if it waddles like a duck?..or stinks like a pig it's still "to insure prompt Service""?

AKA Bribery?

Added.."I've done ALL this work and Liverpool think I deserve more for my efforts"

OK I'll leave it be....but I still think it's obscene and double dipping.

Edited April 13 by chara

[Max Fowler]

People heard about us selling a hotel to BlueCo for 76 million to balance the books regarding making a loss / having to sell players this summer?
If so fair play and i was wrong to question them (assuming no unforeseen consequences)

[east lower]

8 hours ago, chara said:

Thanks ..still begs the argument....paying the agent anything to "sweeten" the deal is still bribery surely

Intermediaries you see. 

Said elsewhere that the Intermediary on the Lavia transfer was paid £2m! 

Now you can speculate what that money is used for or goes to???? 

Know what I'm saying Fam/Bro!! 🤔