Martin Wickham provides a considered argument as to why the Chelsea Pitch Owners retaining their current position is integral to the long-term future of Stamford Bridge…
Over the last couple of years, the number of press stories about activism from football fans has increased manifold. A few days prior to writing this, a £30 cap on away ticket prices agreed by the Premier League was the end result of a coordinated campaign by supporters groups from various clubs. Weeks before that a mass walkout by Liverpool fans in the 77th minute of a game at Anfield gained headlines, and caused a subsequent change of tack by the clubs owners in relation to ticket prices in home areas of the ground. There have also been protests against various ownership regimes that have gained traction in our media, from fans railing against incompetence at Aston Villa, Charlton and Newcastle, to demonstrating anger against repugnant custodians at Leeds and Blackpool.
Yet for all the worthy work described above, the most effective form of ‘fan power’ can be found in SW6, in a form rarely seen anywhere else in professional football, if at all. Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), quite literally, own the grass the players walk on every other weekend. Yet outside of this parish, very few in the wider world know a thing about it. On the one occasion I tried to explain the concept behind CPO to a work colleague who supported another team, he looked at me like I’d sprouted a second head in front of his very eyes. Many would understandably assume that Roman Abramovich owns Chelsea Football Club ‘lock stock and barrel’. Some of those may even be Chelsea fans. As the plans for the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge continue to emerge over the next 18 months, understanding of the power some Chelsea fans already have over the future of the club will rise sharply, because CPO could, in theory, prevent any redevelopment of the ground from taking place. Hopefully it won’t come to this, but everything depends on whether the Chelsea board have learnt lessons from the bruising experiences of 2011.
Before I go any further, a personal declaration of interest. I am a CPO shareholder, and have been since 2012. I was looking in from the outside with rising 
horror in October 2011 as it became increasingly apparent that the Chelsea board were (allegedly) attempting to influence an EGM vote on handing the freehold over. Thanks to the tireless work of so many people in such a short amount of time, the vote didn’t carry and CPO is still going to this day. Relief that the SayNoCPO argument won out in the end was replaced by a vow that if any question of that nature were to be asked in future, I wanted a say in the outcome. Once shares became available for purchase again I bought one.
Nearly 5 years later and we are approaching a point where the question may come up again. I am convinced that an attempt to take control of the freehold of Stamford Bridge will be bundled in with the proposals as a pre-requisite before any ground redevelopment can proceed, and am equally convinced that it must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to happen.
CPO was set up with the intention of being a safeguard, and with an estimated 4 years away from Stamford Bridge (at the very least) to allow for the demolition and rebuild, it is needed as much as it ever was. A lot can happen in four years and if unforeseen events cropped up (the clichéd “what if Roman gets hit by a bus?” scenario), the CPO would provide a form of continuity, perhaps even stability, that would not be there if the freehold were handed over before the work started.
Handing over the freehold will also allow one person to gain control of a prime piece of land in one of the most expensive parts of London. It is not for me to try and interpret the thought process of Roman Abramovich, plenty of his staff do that on a daily basis to the extent that it may have led to our current on-pitch predicament! Mr Abramovich may have no intention of selling the land for a tidy profit and moving Chelsea Football Club elsewhere, but one or two generations down the line, who knows? There cannot be an assumption that the love Roman has for Chelsea and football as a whole in 2016 is going to be inherited by his grandchildren or great-grandchildren in 2066. The freehold staying with CPO in perpetuity removes the risk, however minimal, of our club being treated like a barely remembered and poorly treated family heirloom.
It is primarily for the two reasons above that I believe the CPO should remain an integral part of any rebuilt Stamford Bridge, and that the club ownership should leave well alone from trying to prise it out of the hands of the shareholders and risk causing unnecessary discontent in a process that has thus far been generally given a positive reception by Chelsea fans. The heavy-handedness and borderline approach from the powers that be in 2011 hasn’t been forgotten, and it would be foolish in the extreme of them to try it again. At the very least, any approach to buy the Stamford Bridge freehold from CPO should not be considered until after the ground has been completely rebuilt, and the Chelsea team of 2021-22 (or whatever season it reopens) emerge from the tunnel to finally return home.
As for the argument that the club somehow need the freehold as part of selling commercial rights for the new ground, I’d take it seriously if they hadn’t been 
claiming previously that a rebuild of Stamford Bridge to a 55,000 capacity wasn’t feasible in the first place! Clearly the impossible becomes possible if enough people dig their heels in and force re-thinks on the matter.
Finally, I should emphasise that I am writing this solely in a personal capacity. You may agree with the point I am trying to make, or totally disagree with every word. Either way, if you have a view of any kind on this matter I urge you to ensure your voice can be heard where it counts by purchasing a CPO share if you haven’t already done so. Information on how to do this is available here.
Don’t be on the outside looking in.
