Chelsea - To CPO Shareholders,
UK time is: 06:51:36
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

To CPO Shareholders,

This is just a short and simple message to all the CPO shareholders who read this site.

Please, please, please, please, please when the time comes, and it will, vote yes on Chelsea's plans to move home. I understand that it is our home, our only home. But sometimes you've got to move on.

When you were young and left home to go to university or make a life of your own, were you looking back and thinking,

'I can't leave, I've lived here most my life'.

No, you went out on a search for an exciting new adventure and found a new home to call your own. The club understands the historic value of Stamford Bridge, after all Roman is more a fan than an owner. And I'm 100% sure if it was financially viable he would help us to hold onto our cherished ground. But it isn't. We currently have the 243rd largest stadium in the world (for football) and if you look at this list, it's rather embarrassing who is ahead of us...

I mean, as stated by someone on a similar article to this, AS Bari, a Serie B team has a bigger ground than us. And they're not even in their countries main league!

With FFP coming into play, and all us fans expecting the team to experience a transition, how in the hell can we pay for all that without a big stadium and a big sponsorship deal. Samsung, or whoever, will pay far more to see their name on a brand new stadium than on SB, because if we're honest, when they change the name it'll still be Stamford Bridge to us.

Also, I hear you all moaning that it would be embarrassing because we wouldn't fill our stadium. Well at the moment our average BPL attendance is only 600 odd off full, as in completely full. And those will simply be the people who bought tickets but couldn't make a match.

So please, if not for us fans and not for Roman, do it for Stamford Bridge, let it leave our hearts in a blaze of glory and it be remembered and cherished forever. If we don't act when the next opportunity arrives, we have no chance of staying within 3 miles, we wouldn't have the time.

Just remember your loyalty is to the club, our club, not your blinking wallets.

PS: Even if your loyalty is in your wallet, the more seats in the stadium, the cheaper the seats are likely to be, think of it like an investment, except you get given money to participate rather than the other way round.

Win, win. No?

Vital Chelsea on: facebook

Vital Chelsea on: twitter

Join Vital Chelsea

It's easy to REGISTER HERE, simply click the link and enjoy getting involved!

Click here to join in the debate on the club forum.

The Journalist

Writer: GhostWriter Mail feedback, articles or suggestions

Date:Friday June 8 2012

Time: 12:07PM

Your Comments (oldest first)

Change to most recent first
How many of the vital chelsea members are also CPO shareholders? More importantly a part of the Say No CPO?
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 12:42:00

@ghostwriter, mate that 600 odd tickets is normally ticket touts buying loads to sell on matchdays at double face value,and when they dont sell they throw them in the bin. so most spare tickets aint people not going its touts ruining it for other people who try to get tickets through the club but cant. the sooner the club sort touts out the better. i had to pay 190 for my ticket to the last game of the season when we won the double against wigan! was worth it though lol
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 13:04:00

I am a CPO shareholder and I agree we cannot stay at SB and be competitive at the top level. I would have one condition, which is that there should be a similar arrangement to ensure that the new ground cannot be sold from under us. Batesy may not have been universally liked but this was one very good thing he did for our saving us in the first place!
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 13:26:00

Ranners,i hope other CPO members are like u with the interest of the club at heart,its annoying when CHELSEA FC cant have a pitch that can house 60k to 70k fans.It makes us play catchup with the reals,barcas,bayerns and man utd of this world
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 13:52:00

@dtr1977, sadly that's not the only way tickets are wasted, it is a main contributer, but there are people, it's happened to my Dad who has had to for example go to a funeral or a meeting on occasion and hasn't had time to offload his tickets.
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 14:05:00

Report Abuse
08/06/2012 14:06:00

My son and I are CPO shareholders and we'll again say no if Buck treats us like idiots and tries to steam roll something through a meeting. Give us a viable alternative within 3 miles and we, like almost everyone else, will vote yes.
Telluride Kiwi
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 14:48:00

I'm not a CPO shareholder..... Just saying
Mr Tommy Chelsea
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 14:57:00

@Telluride Kiwi, I understand that the way it was presented wasn't as nice as one might have hoped. And I understand the desire to stay within 3 miles. But it is very hard to find, especially in west London, a place with enough space to build a decent size ground. And the fact that Chelsea fans even have the possibility to try and talk to the board is a privilege, not a right, as fans of the club you should just trust that the club has the club's interest at heart. Out of interest, and this is a genuine question, what are you afraid would happen if you say yes???
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 16:18:00

Also an addendum to my actual article, here's a map of the possibilities (as well as with the nearby already existing grounds on it).
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 16:24:00

@Telluride Kiwi, i have a question for you then and other CPO's who've voted NO is, is it because of the idea of CFC moving Stadiums and thus releasing your stake in decision making process in regards to the pitch or because of the treatment that you've received from Buck and other board members in the process without due process??? When the idea of buying back the shares from CPO first happened, i had a feeling that Buck among others tried to rush it through and did not anticipate this much difficulty with the process. Thus rumors where out that some members did not want to sell for the same value the shares where purchased for initially and wanted the club to consider the time value of money.... Since you and other CPO's have direct effect on the future of the clubs home in the future, what are your thoughts about the club trying to expand its home/fan base and move to a more viable location? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this and other CPO's ..... Thanks in advance!
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 16:31:00

So many people, the author included who clearly don't understand the issues at all. It is not and never was about leaving SB, most of the CPO shareholders know that it must happen one day. It's about the proposal on offer and until they can be sure that the proposal is in the best interests of Chelsea FC (not to mention honest), then they should and will continue to block it. To suggest that it is a privilege and not a right for Chelsea fans to be able to talk to the Board is plain wrong. Every fan who purchased a CPO share absolutely has the right to talk to the Board about it! "Trust that the club has the club's interest at heart."?! Sweet but very, very naive. You clearly weren't there in the 70's and 80's, were you?!
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 18:11:00

guys i have got an interesting question for cpo share holders. if club is getting a really good and developable sight on cheap and club can really dwvwlope an iconic stadium there. BUT the sight is out of the proposed 3 mile radius clause. what would cpo's do? would they say yes to proposal for the better future of the club? or wpuld they show the same greedyness?
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 19:17:00

@SpanishBlue, I should clear up the privilege not a right comment, what I meant was it is something that most fans don't have the opportunity to do. This is a completely unique situation, most clubs wouldn't have to ask their fans permission (Arsenal moving from Highbury to Emirates comes to mind as a recent example). And I think that it isn't naive to say the club wants the club to succeed. I doubt the board, in fact, more importantly, I doubt Roman, who is probably one of our biggest fan, sits in his office wondering how he can ruin this club. No, he sits in his office wondering how he can improve our club. With all due respect, get over yourself, you evidently haven't tried to understand the intentions of the article, I couldn't care less about your opinions on the last proposal, I was saying that next time the opportunity comes around, understand that the club are investing money to make a new ground and wouldn't pay 350 million odd quid to build a stadium if they didn't think it was the best route.
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 19:33:00

im not a cpo man but i do understand that they bought the shares to save our club from the developers so lets not have a go they did the best for the club when it needed it,why dont the club exchage the shares for new cpo shares at a new ground so ensuring the new ground couldnt be sold to a developer
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 19:37:00

Not only that, the article is intended to raise the issues so that fans can discuss the ones that exist, if they haven't been mentioned in the article then bring them up. Hell that's the point, but show a little respect because the reason I've mentioned the points I have is because those are the ones most people say are the problem, if I haven't heard someone mention one before then it doesn't make me naive, just means I haven't heard it before. You are genuinely one of the first people I've talked to who has said that they thought the proposal itself was completely incorrect: most people I've talked to just say that they didn't like the idea of leaving SB or didn't trust the plans to be followed through on!
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 19:39:00

@herefordchelsea, yeah that's the idea most people want. And I understand that back then they did the right thing and saved our club. I fully expect that the CPO top dogs will suggest to the board the idea of a similar CPO deal for any new ground. The slight problem in that is the idea that CPO shareholders may want to make money off the shares again if the time comes when we need a new stadium again. Maybe they could create a similar situation to the original one, so people lose their shares, but are able to buy new ones at the same price as they can now.
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 19:44:00

Well I was going to discuss the issue GW but you don't seem to be treating me with very much respect, so I don't think I'll bother thanks. Go back and read the articles from last year when this came up but don't expect me to try and have a discussion and explain the situation to you if you are going to react like a toddler and have a strop.
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 21:01:00

I'm sorry mate, I was a bit disrespectful, but it's very hard not to be when someone critiques you in the manner you did to me (not to mention when they have clearly misunderstood your words). But nonetheless, if you were offended then I'm not one to hold a grudge, so I apologise. And would actually love to know your answer to ChampionBlue's question (also, were we to move outside of the 3 miles, anywhere you'd aim for?)
Report Abuse
08/06/2012 22:20:00

this might be a stupid question but can roman not go ahead and build a new chelsea stadium anyway and just keep stamford bridge? with no chelsea playing there i doubt the share holders will want to keep their shares much longer
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 00:18:00

Fair enough, I apologise too GW, my tone was fractious - been a short but ****ty week at work but that's not your fault! I do stand by my comments, however, in that I don't believe I have misunderstood you and I'm afraid that I don't believe you fully understand the situation. This will sound like a criticism but I really don't mean it to be: Currently we are living in the Chelsea equivalent of the Garden of Eden. Since Roman came in, it has been wonderful, rosy in the garden so to speak! Unless you were there in the bad old days then, it is very hard to imagine a time when the Club's future could be in so much danger but just because things are so good right now, does not mean that we should drop our guard and suppose that nothing bad can or will ever happen again. It could. The way the Board approached the CPO last year was suspicious as Hell! The key point was the promise not to move anywhere outside of this magical 3 mile radius before 2020. Ok, let's say the Battersea bid had been successful (not that I think the Board were ever very serious about it). We would now be in the 'period of exclusivity' for some months, maybe taking us into 2013. If that went well, we could then finalise plans for development and put everything in place and building could start maybe 2014 and could take 2, 3 or even more years. In fact, if the Club dragged their feet, it could all take longer, so it would be, oo, nearly 2020 before we moved and that was with a bid that was submitted straight away - find a site next year and the 2020 date is already immaterial! So, that 2020 date offered no protection to the Club staying in the area whatsoever and was so thinly veiled that it showed the Club to think the CPO members were stupid and would be easily cajoled and bullied. They were not! The point here is not that Roman wants to destroy Chelsea, of course he doesn't, he loves it as much as we do now I think. BUT but that is not to say that he doesn't have an eye on the finances and moving out of London makes so much financial sense it is hard to overlook it. Roman is a 'new' fan too, so Stamford Bridge doesn't necessarily have the 'spiritual' meaning for him that it does for some, nor does the area itself. That said, I do believe that the first choice would have been to stay at SB and enlarge but they made a financial decision some time ago that this was not viable and to be honest, they are probably right. They then made the decision to move and whilst most people accept that this is necessary, where to is the bone of contention.
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 01:28:00

So then, to ChampionBlue's question (at last, sorry this is so long but it matters!)! My personal opinion is that if we move, then I'm not that bothered about this 3 mile thing. We leave SB and we have left our spiritual home, gone, so we may as well then head for the best site. For me, Battersea or Earls Court are not Chelsea's home so are no more valid as a proposed new site than Surrey. 3 miles in London is actually a long way. When Southampton moved for example, they moved to a new, bigger site. St. Mary's is not The Dell but it is still Southampton, the Club's home town. In London, it's different. 3 miles from SB as the crow flies could take you to a different world in London context. South of the river, to Wimbledon maybe. So if Wimbledon's ok, then why not go another 3 miles, to Kingston say? It's not much further and both places have a completely different cultural identity to the Fulham Road. If Kingston's ok then, why not another 25 miles to Cobham or another site in the Surrey countryside? I really don't see why not and if you then consider how much cheaper it would be to buy the land (obviously the South East is hugely expensive but nothing like London). We'd have much more space, access would be much better as the whole communications infrastructure would be better or could be improved much more easily than in London, most of the fans who attend probably live nearer there than SB anyway; there are so many good and sensible reasons for looking outside of London that I can't believe Roman doesn't favour them! Chelsea FC won't die because of it! There are 40,000 of us who go regularly and even if moving annoys every single one of them (which it won't) then in this day and age, that doesn't matter. There are plenty of families ready to take their kids when it's easier to get there and a nice, shiny new stadium with a less intimidating atmosphere. Besides, it's not actually the people who go who generate the revenue. Of course gate receipts help but we are a 'global brand' now, if we alienate 30,000 old school Londoner fans and replace them with 300,000 others all over the world who are buying replica shirts, paying to watch Chelsea on TV and 'spreading the gospel', then who cares? No one in Singapore or the US or wherever will care if we play at Stamford Bridge, SW6 or the Pepsi Arena in leafy Surrey! I care but that doesn't really matter! I'll get over it and can see the commercial and financial sense, I'd understand why Roman wanted to go down that route, if indeed he does! I'd still go to games too and it might even be a bit easier for me to get there! I'd always go misty eyed at the thought of Stamford Bridge but in time, I might also come to love a new, state of the art stadium with all mods cons and facilities that I could get to without getting home god knows when because the Tube's up the spout!
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 01:54:00

That was very long and it's very late, I hope it makes some kind of sense even so!
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 01:56:00

Very enlightening post that last one was SB! I was pretty much aware of the first, thought the Say NO CPO chairman explained pretty well why they were organized and petitioned against selling their shares. They attributed to a "lack of transparency" on the club's part in terms of the planning, they didn't want to be "duped", nor did they want SB to be gone. Of course they understand the need to move, but that will only begin with the board being more "transparent" with their proposals. Sorry about going off tangent there, I'm really starting to like the sound of moving outside the three mile radius thing. I believe an apt question would be why not? The availability of sites would definitely increase and we'd certainly not be held to ransom nor would we be beaten by those Malaysians! (No disrespect intended)
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 09:00:00

Interesting thoughts there SpanishBlue, although I think you must be careful of it because if you remember back when Wimbledon F.C. moved they alienated their fans, so much so that they have formed their own team. But I accept your point, although, in an ideal world we could gain new fans and not anger the old, but that is probably a hard task. The Earls Court and Battersea Nine Elms locations are ideal, but both appear lost causes. This is quite a cool Google Maps feature, it shows all the locations we've looked at or considered along with the locations of all the existing stadiums:
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 11:22:00

Good link GW. blue_thru&thru, I looked back to my posts on articles last October when it all kicked off again and it's interesting to see that I was saying the same things (though somewhat more eloquently, probably as I wasn't writing them at 2am!) but the idea of moving right away, out of town all together was only in its infancy in my mind. So the interesting thing is that in the intervening months, that seed has taken and blossomed subconsciously in my mind to the point now where I am all for it! I just don't see why Nine Elms is any more Chelsea than Surrey, yet the out of town sites have so many other advantages that I don't see it being a contest any more! I take GW's points about what happened to Wimbledon but I don't see that happening to Chelsea. Wimbledon had a tiny fan base by comparison and nothing in Milton Keynes to where they moved. If Chelsea moved to Surrey, they'd be moving into their fans' heartland and when I'm talking of 'fans' in this context, I mean the ones who go to games. As I said before, in a global context, these 'fans' (myself included) are but a mere and inconsequential drop in the ocean! So whilst before I had a problem with the Board's lack of transparency, I wasn't comfortable with the veiled plans to move right away from SB either. Now I am absolutely comfortable with that but still have a BIG problem with the deceitful and sneaky way in which the Board are trying to get their own way. They should have the b*llox to come out and lay their cards on the table to the CPO shareholders, the CPO are not idiots or luddites and would respect the Club for their honesty.
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 12:05:00

Im not sure how large a stadium we can support now but there should be room to have the stadium expanded. If we build a 55000 satdium then we should make it easy to make expand it to a 70000-80000 seater in the future so that we don't have this problem about relocating again.
Blues 4 life
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 14:33:00

Yeah, we don't want to keep moving, like Sunderland.
Report Abuse
09/06/2012 17:35:00

this article is a big evidence and proof that support the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"....m talking about the way ghostwriter replied Spanish blue in a mild manner and still got his point across which in turn made spanishblue more willing to talk in a proper way and even took us to school.....m sure we all love the CPO, some fans just dont understand why they'll oppose a better future for the club & things can get a little hot when we talk about things we care about, so m calling on all fans to share their knowledge behind their stance on this issue that we can all reason together and maybe learn something
Report Abuse
10/06/2012 04:38:00

i use to hate the CPO cos they're saying NO but spanishblue has got me warming up
Report Abuse
10/06/2012 04:42:00

just a little
Report Abuse
10/06/2012 04:43:00

Glad to hear it bluedeal! That's what this site used to be like all the time before it got invaded by idiots! That is why I am so****ly these days, I'd much rather discuss things properly but most of the pillocks on here just get your heckles up and it's not worth trying to discuss anything sensibly! Nice when it works though!
Report Abuse
10/06/2012 12:27:00

Tell this to the mercenaries disguising their greed with "love for Chelsea" mantra. Everyone knows and see's what Roman has done yet they act like Roman's trying to fleece us. Talk about being devious, these are the worst Chelsea fans (even worse than the plastic fans because they don't hinder our progress but instead PUSH for success whatever it takes)
Report Abuse
11/06/2012 07:54:00

Incorporate each other and walk the same journey and chelsea will be one and moving forward.
Report Abuse
11/06/2012 08:49:00

Just get rid of the dead woods no matter their names.
Report Abuse
12/06/2012 07:47:00


Have Your Say

Log in...
with your social network     OR     with your Vital account

Recent Chelsea Articles

Hazard Makes UEFA Team of Year Shortlist (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Chelsea In Van Persie Link! (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Bench Costa Now! (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Mourinho and Costa in Bust Up? (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Two Wins on the Bounce? (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Mourinho Lambastes Maccabi Pitch! (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Terry Extremely Doubtful for Spurs Game (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Saberspeak1 (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Stats: Maccabii Tel Aviv v Chelsea (Wednesday November 25 2015)

Archived Chelsea Articles

List All Vital Chelsea Articles
Have your say
Click here to suggest an article
Click here to suggest a poll
ScoopDragon Premier League Network Sites

Vital Members League (view all)

1. Kazuya Mishima 105
2. StamfordDLion 93
3. Michael Reid 89
4. CobhamBlue 79
5. foreign_viewer 64
6. stanwenners 48
7. OCBlues 42
8. ZeeNut 40
9. Blu_run 36
10. kolagold25 32

League Table (view table)

Team P W D L GD Pts
12. WBA 13 5 2 6 -5 17
13. Watford 13 4 4 5 -2 16
14. Swansea 13 3 5 5 -4 14
15. Chelsea 13 4 2 7 -6 14
16. Norwich 13 3 3 7 -8 12
17. Newcastle 13 2 4 7 -12 10
18. Sunderland 13 2 3 8 -12 9

Chelsea Fixtures (view all)

Breaking League News

The Toffees Visit Dean Court For First League Game
AFC Bournemouth : 26/11/2015 05:00:00
Is McClaren Ready For Judgment Day?
Newcastle : 25/11/2015 22:45:01
Man City : 25/11/2015 21:33:01
BFG - We Can Qualify If We Play Without Fear
Arsenal : 25/11/2015 19:51:01
Kos Delighted With 'Important' Win Over Zargeb
Arsenal : 25/11/2015 19:42:00

Current Site Poll (view all polls)

MOTM v Maccabi?
Suggested By:  merlin
Begovic 4%
Azpilicueta 2%
Terry 0%
Cahill 0%
Rahman 8%
Matic 2%
Fabregas 6%
Oscar 0%
Willian 55%
Hazard 17%
Diego Costa 4%
Pedro 0%
Zouma 2%
Remy 0%