As CPO shareholders are asking themselves whether to take up Chelsea`s offer to buy back the shares, I am surprised at some of the arguments being advanced against Chelsea`s offer.
Don`t get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons to reject Chelsea`s offer. People might genuinely want to stay at Stamford Bridge for ever, even if they know that this is going to mean that, by standing still, Chelsea are effectively overtaken as a football club. People also might consider, rightly, that the offer that Chelsea has tabled is not sufficient to compensate them. Or shareholders might like to see some concrete plans for the new stadium before they hand over to the club the key to being able to move from Stamford Bridge. All those are fair arguments. Some of them are wrong, but at least they are fair.
But let`s not hear arguments that cast doubt on the good faith of the current owners of the club. I read people who say ‘yes, Roman is quite committed to Chelsea, but who knows where we will be in 5 or 10 years time`. Do they realise how crass that sounds?
Chelsea has the most committed owner in club football. When one considers the mess of other clubs (Portsmouth, Manchester United, Liverpool, Newcastle Birmingham, even Arsenal) they would dream to have owners such as ours. Everything that Roman Abramovich has done has demonstrated that he is in this for the long haul. What he has done for the training ground should be the best example of this.
One thing that does not motivate Roman in his ownership of Chelsea is money. He has sunk sums of money into our club that he will never recover. In fact, had he bought the club in 2011 rather than in 2003, Roman could not do that under UEFA rules.
Will Roman won’t be around for ever? We have no idea. However, Roman has also demonstrated time and time again that he’s in for the very long haul. Even if he does leave (and that could well happen) he clearly wants to leave Chelsea FC in a completely different position from where it was in 2003, everything that he’s done suggests that.
And that means providing Chelsea with a stadium for the future, one from which Chelsea can continue to compete at the very highest level. Our club has outgrown the stadium that is its historical home, if we stay there we will be forsaking sources of revenue that are flowing into other clubs. In this ‘business` (and let`s not get sentimental, it is also a business) to stand still means to move behind. We also have to consider different sources of revenue precisely because the source upon which the club has relied for the past 7 years (and which has transformed Chelsea into the world`s 6th biggest football club) will not be allowed: Roman`s generosity. Under the new UEFA rules, Roman simply won`t be able to write off Chelsea`s losses every year. If anything, Chelsea fans owe it to Roman to help that transition.
The economic arguments for moving stadium are therefore compelling, nay overwhelming. It is therefore galling to hear some of the CPO shareholders advance frankly insulting arguments not to hand back the shares, arguments to the tone of maybe we can`t actually trust Roman. You never know, once he has stitched up the CPO he will simply close down Stamford Bridge and sell the land for executive housing. Since we can’t be 100% sure of his motives, handing back the shares to the club owner might give the club a license to sell up. And for this reason, Chelsea needs the protection of the CPO. Just as the CPO saved the club in the past, the CPO should save the club in the future.
I hope that the people who advance that line of argument realise how crass and ungrateful that is. The threat that the CPO was established to stem was a very real one. The threat that is being mentioned as a reason to hold on to now does not exist. We have no indication at all (unless someone wants to invent some lurid and delusional conspiracy theory) that Roman is interested in anything other than football.
Yes, but we don`t want Chelsea FC to have that kind of control over the land and the pitch, some of the people suggest. Why not? If the owners of the club also owned the land of the stadium, Chelsea would be in exactly the same situation as every other club in England, although with one vital difference: we have an owner who is considerably more committed than any other club’s, and that has been shown in actions and money these last 8 years. I haven`t seen any other club close shop to transform a stadium into executive housing, and many of those clubs have some pretty shonky owners. Why on earth would Chelsea, with a committed football nut as owner, want to do what no other club has done?
CPO shareholders, by all means criticise the offer from Chelsea, or criticise the plans to move from Stamford Bridge (should you genuinely feel that that is not a good idea). Criticise the lack of a project on the table. But do not criticise the motivation of the management to have anything other than the best interests of Chelsea Football Club at heart.
Share this article
