The CPO AGM – thinking aloud

I write this piece as someone who was heavily involved as part of the SaynoCPO campaign team leading up to October’s EGM, and still has an outsider’s interest. It is purely a personal view, not written on behalf of any group or organisation (and certainly not following the party line of any of the main protagonists), and merely offers some thoughts and observations. Unlike many in the CPO debate I am happy to put my name to this article.

Before addressing the various motions/elections being put in front of shareholders, I think there is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed, and which maybe has got lost. What exactly is Chelsea Pitch Owners for? What is its reason for existence? Is it a fundraising group, a pressure group, a club mouthpiece (hopefully not!) or some combination of these?

I know the CPO was set up primarily to stop the ground being bought by developers through raising money (by selling shares and engaging in related fundraising activity) and the articles of association doubtless reflect this, but there are clearly some shareholders who think it should take on more of a campaigning role around trying to keep the club at Stamford Bridge, working (ideally in tandem with the club) in a number of ways – talking to Hammersmith & Fulham Council, reviewing opportunities to expand Stamford Bridge, pressurising the club to publicise the studies already carried out etc..

This ‘active conscience of Stamford Bridge’ role is actually one I see a clear need for. It doesn’t seem to be the role of the Fans Forum to do this, and the CPO seem best placed to do it, but they have to want to do it.

I sit very firmly in the camp that has staying at, and redeveloping, Stamford Bridge as a default position – Stamford Bridge has always been Chelsea’s home and it is clear from the EGM that if at all possible many, many fans want the club to commit their long-term future there. It’s the old debate – what is a football club about? Is it about heritage, tradition, lifelong support and continuity or is it a corporate animal primarily interested in money and unconcerned if it doesn’t take along old school fans on the journey into the brave new world? Obviously, there is no easy answer, and this is a separate debate, but it does have relevance to the CPO issue.

It would be reassuring to see demonstrably close co-operation between the club and the council to identify how best redevelopment to expand the ground could take place, addressing building works, access/exit walkways, impact on local community etc. If it can be shown to shareholders and other fans that the ground really cannot be developed to a c50-55,000 capacity (I don’t personally think 60,000 seats are needed, though everyone seems to have their own ideal figure) then OK, let’s move to Battersea or Earls Court, but let’s see all possible avenues effectively, exhaustively and transparently explored before such a fundamental decision is made.

It seems no secret that Chelsea’s relationship with H&F Council is not as close as which other London clubs have with their councils. cfc_clive and I were talking before the Sunderland game to a friend of mine who is a senior executive at a major London council who see a close, mutually beneficial, relationship with their local club as fundamental. Chelsea need to do exactly the same.

I think, therefore, that whatever individuals constitute the CPO board post-election, they should put out a ‘this is what we see the CPO as being for’ statement to shareholders. I agree with the Chelsea Supporters Group view that it is a shame no manifestos were put out by current directors. It is also a shame that the CPO articles don’t appear to allow for open director elections, rather than just a yes/no on re-election of existing directors. I am aware of 2-3 current SaynoCPO activists who I think could make a real contribution to the CPO board, and I am sure there are other interested parties (from across the range of views) who might have stood if they were able to.

It is clear that club executives made a series of mistakes leading up to October’s EGM, and Ron Gourlay (to his credit) admitted this when he told BBC London News that ‘maybe (the club) had got the tactics wrong’. They probably underestimated the amount of opposition, seemed wrong-footed by the use of Twitter and Facebook to create the SaynoCPO organisation (which included people with high quality PR, commercial, digital media and Chelsea fan networking experience) so quickly, carried on with the tedious ‘here is another ex-player saying yes’ approach, instigated the absurd “It’s what Matthew would have wanted” website piece (at which point it became clear to us they were panicking), tried to paint SaynoCPO as disrespecting Mr Abramovich (whereas almost every interview we gave thanked him for what he had done for the club) etc. etc.

Fundamentally, I still cannot for the life of me understand why they took the issue to an EGM, at 3 weeks notice, where 75% of votes were required, as opposed to an AGM where only 50% of votes would be needed. I can only assume they felt there would be little effective opposition.

As an aside, I cannot understand the rationale of the few SaynoCPO activists who seem to delight in denigrating Roman Abramovich, or questioning his motives. He’s put £800 million into the club, for heavens sake. Compare and contrast with Messrs Glazer, Hicks/Gillett or Venky. I fundamentally disagreed with the club proposal to the EGM but I can’t see why the owner is getting flak for that - club senior executives must have devised and attempted to implement the plan.

So what has happened since the EGM? Frankly, as far as I can see, not a tremendous amount.

Personally, and I am as much to blame as anyone, I think SaynoCPO maybe missed a trick by not really thinking through what the action plan was if the club lost the EGM vote. As Robert Redford said in ‘The Candidate’ after he had won the US presidency “What happens now?”.

At a SaynoCPO meeting on 7^th November they passed a motion (16-1-1) agreeing to pursue legal action regarding the 2,000 disputed shares sold after 3/10, and decided they wanted to replace the whole CPO board as opposed to taking up the offer of a single board place. They lost a number of the original core team (including me, though I was always planning to step back post-EGM), thought again about what they had decided, got Gray Smith on the CPO board and seem generally to have adopted a pretty low profile – no tweets this year, little new information on their website until very recently etc. I think they have some committed and dedicated people on the team, who I enjoy debating issues with, but I think that, as with the CPO itself, SaynoCPO need to decide what their long-term role is.

It is not clear to me whether SaynoCPO are still interested in taking action around the c2,000 disputed shares sold after the EGM was called or not. Personally, I don’t think tying up CPO time and money fighting legal actions is in the shareholders interest, but I know some others have a very different view. The same applies to the issue that Rick Glanvill was a CPO director while not holding any shares. I would argue, anyway, that surely he would only have taken up the role without holding a share on the advice of lawyers or accountants anyway.

The CPO website doesn’t seem to reflect much activity either (and is clearly out of date in places). I guess given the arrival of a new chairman and two new directors, and the EGM fallout, that this lack of post-EGM activity may not be a surprise. I would have that, post-AGM, a series of initiatives would be announced.

In terms of the re-election of directors, I think it important that the range of shareholder/fan views are represented on the board and I’d make the following observations :-

I met Steve Frankham in November when he first returned as CPO chairman and he spoke passionately about the need to expend real energies selling CPO shares and raising money through other activities (getting back the CPO lunch from the club etc.). He is clearly an excellently connected Chelsea networker and an experienced, passionate fundraiser. It depends what shareholders think what CPO is for. If they want a campaigning focal point to challenge the club to ensure all options regarding remaining at Stamford Bridge are addressed, then they may feel a different type of figurehead is required. If a fundraiser and networker is primarily needed, then Steve definitely seems to fit that bill and even if he were not chairman, those skills would undoubtedly be put to good use going forward.

With regards to Rick Glanvill I must declare a personal interest in that he is a good friend of mine. I would say, though, that anyone who knows him knows he has Chelsea’s interests at heart and I would say again that any historic mistakes made must surely lie with lawyers or accountants and not with him. He is popular with fans, I think he is a man of integrity and commitment, and I personally am very keen to see him remain on the CPO board.

Bob Sewell is CPO Company Accountant / Company Secretary. It is apparently a matter of record that he got paid £14k last year, but I can’t really see the problem with this per se. His role is definitely needed, and the person fulfilling it definitely needs to be paid. There were some apparent proxy vote issues at the EGM (maybe up to 60 submitted proxies were not registered) but the assumption has to be that that was cock-up not conspiracy. Again, historic mistakes around share sales were presumably on the advice of lawyers.

Dennis Wise is the obligatory folk hero common on such boards and is also a friend of Steve Frankham. I would imagine that if the focus is on fundraising then he’d be excellent in that role. I assume he will be a figurehead as opposed to taking on much day-to-day workload or getting involved in any campaigning.

Gray Smith, the SaynoCPO representative on the board and a lawyer, voted on 7/11 that SaynoCPO should not take up the offer of a single board place and on 17/11 (ten days later), joined that very same board, a change of position which I found somewhat surprising. Against that, it is important that SaynoCPO have representation on the board, having a lawyer on there is obviously useful, and if he was voted off there may be no SaynoCPO representation at all.

In terms of the key motions, the wording is hard for a layman such as me to comprehend, but I would offer the following thoughts :-

I would support Motion 9, authorising the sale of 1,000 shares, but can understand the wariness that a group of individuals could promptly buy 100 each. I would therefore like to see a limit of maybe 10 per person on all new share sales imposed, to allow a widening of shareholding, trying to attract fans too young to have bought a share 18 years ago and other, relatively new, supporters.

I would support Motion 11, increasing directors to seven in number, to broaden the range of views on the board. There is a, however, a big issue for me in terms of who chooses the two new directors. I would certainly hope that if two vacancies were created then one would be offered to SaynoCPO so that one of their activists could join the board. I guess having greater SaynoCPO representation could possibly cause a certain amount of tension round the boardroom table at times, but maybe that is not a bad thing. From the CPO’s perspective, there is also LBJ’s statement about tents and pi**ing to bear in mind.

The AGM will have less attendees, and generate less passion and emotion, than the EGM. That is inevitable but it doesn’t mean it isn’t important and I, for one, am looking forward to it. I would hope as many shareholders as possible will attend. If they can’t then they should give their proxies to someone they trust – there certainly seem to be plenty of people offering to do it.

I don’t expect many people to agree with all of the above, but writing it has helped me crystallise my views in a few areas, and hopefully it may help one or two readers do the same.

I am on Twitter as @tim_rolls – any feedback welcome, either there, or on this site.