When considering fan power in English football, Chelsea may not be the first club that comes to mind.
At the ownership level, Chelsea has contributed to a trend in the Premier League that veers in the opposite direction. Roman Abramovich’s takeover in 2003 marked the beginning of significant billionaire investment, followed by the £2.5 billion ($3.3 billion at the current exchange rate) spent by the current owners to acquire the club in 2022. This is a particularly striking illustration of the increasing impact of large American financial interests on English football’s highest tier.
Nevertheless, both ownership regimes had to confront a unique aspect of the club: Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO), a supporter group that holds the freehold to the land where Stamford Bridge, Chelsea’s stadium since its inception in 1905, is located.
The establishment of CPO is part of a larger narrative detailing how Chelsea came close to losing their home, as reported by The Athletic in 2020. For those unfamiliar with the history, here is a brief overview: In 1992, after a prolonged struggle with property developers seeking to displace the club from a valuable site in southwest London, Chelsea’s chairman at the time, Ken Bates, along with his attorney Mark Taylor, sought to devise a new strategy to prevent such a scenario from occurring again.
Bates’ original proposal involved subdividing the pitch’s freehold into 70,000 sections, which supporters could purchase for £100 each; however, this plan faced complications related to VAT (a tax applicable to most goods within the EU), land registry issues, and corporation tax.
Ultimately, Bates and Taylor concluded that they could achieve their goal by forming CPO as a company that owned the pitch and allowing fans to acquire shares for £100. If all shares were sold, it would provide the necessary funding for exercising a £5 million buy option that the club had arranged to purchase the stadium’s freehold from West Register (Properties) Ltd, a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), as part of a 20-year lease agreed upon in December 1992.
The issue arose when very few supporters bought shares in CPO. By 1997—just a quarter of the way into the 20-year lease—only about 7,580 shares had been sold, leaving the company far below the necessary £5 million valuation for the freehold. Additionally, the valuation had more than doubled to £10.2 million due to the considerable expansion of Stamford Bridge resulting from changes made under Bates in the mid-1990s.
“It was essentially a total failure,” Taylor recounts to The Athletic. “Without Chelsea conducting a Eurobond issue in 1997 (which raised £75 million and then lent CPO the funds to acquire the freehold on favorable terms), CPO would have been dissolved, and the money returned to shareholders in 2012 when the original 20-year lease agreement ended.”
Fortunately, CPO’s role as the steward of Stamford Bridge’s future was assured. With Chelsea’s help, it secured the freehold through a loan that can extend for 199 years, while providing the club with a 199-year lease to utilize the site for a nominal rent.
Ken Bates in 2003 (Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images)
CPO is obligated to repay the loan, with 85 percent of each new share’s nominal value allocated for this purpose. According to the accounts submitted to Companies House for the year ending July 31, 2023, CPO reported repayment of £149,069, resulting in an outstanding balance of £8,066,862.
A total of nearly 27,000 shares have been issued to approximately 15,000 unique shareholders. This group of investors includes former Chelsea players and managers such as John Terry, who serves as CPO president, along with Frank Lampard, Dennis Wise, Jose Mourinho, Antonio Conte, and Thomas Tuchel.
Regardless of the identities and share quantities of the investors, Taylor embedded a crucial safeguard in CPO’s articles of association. This provision ensures that control over the future of Stamford Bridge cannot be monopolized by a select group of affluent individuals: each share carries one vote, and no individual can possess more than 100 votes, irrespective of the number of shares owned.
Additionally, he incorporated a significant clause aimed at deterring any potential future Chelsea owner who might wish to relocate the club against the wishes of CPO. “They have the right to cancel the lease if the club ceases to play there, along with the right to demand that the name ‘Chelsea Football Club Limited’ be assigned to CPO,” he states.
Chelsea cannot claim the name Chelsea if situated outside Stamford Bridge unless approved by CPO shareholders, an impressive veto power for any supporter organization.
GO DEEPER
Gannon is one of Chelsea’s most important hires – and defining figure in Bridge future
In 2011, when Abramovich sought to reacquire the Stamford Bridge freehold from CPO to enable a stadium relocation, Taylor was positioned on the opposing side, providing guidance to the club on how to navigate the organization he had helped establish. “From the outset, I told (chairman) Bruce Buck, ‘You’ll never gain supporters’ trust unless they understand what is going to happen’,” he recalls.
Abramovich’s proposal lacked assurances that he would restrict his search to stadium alternatives close to Stamford Bridge. Moreover, he afforded CPO members only 24 days from the official announcement of Chelsea’s intent to reclaim the freehold to the emergency general meeting vote on the matter. These 24 days were complicated by the sudden sale of £200,000 worth of shares to 20 individuals, which was largely seen as an attempt to sway the vote in favor of the club.
Opposition
mobilised under the slogan “Say No CPO”. In order for Abramovich to secure the freehold, he needed over 75 percent of the votes cast—a stringent requirement that Chelsea’s current ownership will also need to meet in the future to endorse their proposed stadium plan. Ultimately, just 300 votes from shareholders present at the meeting in the ‘no’ column were enough to prevent him from achieving his goal. The Russian billionaire garnered only 61.6 percent in support.
GO DEEPER
How a view loved by Henry VIII could thwart new Chelsea owners’ plans to redevelop Stamford Bridge
This significant setback prompted Abramovich to rethink his options, eventually opting for the ambitious redevelopment of the ground known as the “cathedral of football,” which he suspended indefinitely in 2018. Additionally, this incident strained relations between Chelsea and CPO for several years, fostering the belief among some that a relatively small faction of supporters hindered the club’s best chance at obtaining a new stadium.
Since then, many developments have occurred—not least the changes within CPO itself, which now boasts shareholders from over 80 countries, including Kazakhstan, Guatemala, South Korea, and Venezuela. Shares can be acquired via Chelsea’s official website.
In 2018, new ‘B’ shares were launched at a lower price of £25 to attract a younger audience, but they were withdrawn in 2021 after failing to generate increased sales. These shares confer one vote, whereas the traditional ‘A’ shares are valued at four votes each, and the maximum number of votes any single shareholder can hold has been increased from 100 to 400.
By the closing years of the Abramovich era, the wounds from the contentious 2011 vote had healed significantly. Acting on behalf of new owner Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly, club president and chief operating officer Jason Gannon has made initial efforts to strengthen the relationship with CPO.
“We feel we’re in a good place with the senior management team; we feel they are being positive, and it’s a good relationship,” CPO
Chairman Chris Isitt informs The Athletic.
The focus of the Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) is now on enhancing its online presence and increasing awareness among Chelsea’s global fanbase that they can directly influence decisions regarding Stamford Bridge. In March of this year, two new directors with expertise in social media and digital marketing joined the board.
Their efforts are bolstered by the uncertainty felt by Chelsea supporters about the club’s future direction. “When the club was up for sale, we sold five years’ worth of shares within just six months,” Isitt remarks.
Additionally, there is a recognition that whoever prevails in Chelsea’s ownership battle will be eager to advance their own stadium project. Any proposal involving a temporary or permanent move away from Stamford Bridge will necessitate CPO approval — a reality that causes some fans to worry about the club falling behind its domestic and European competitors if such a plan is obstructed.
No member of Chelsea’s current ownership enjoys the level of support that Abramovich received from fans in 2011, raising the question: how can they expect to succeed with the CPO when he did not? A clear and specific plan, communicated in a non-dismissive and collaborative manner, would be a promising starting point.
Furthermore, anticipating that more than 75 percent of CPO shareholders would ultimately vote to disband their organization seems unrealistic; for any proposal to have a chance of approval, it would likely need to involve transferring CPO arrangements to the new stadium, whether that is a renovated or rebuilt Stamford Bridge, or a new stadium built on the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre site, which is less than a mile away.
This would enable the CPO to continue protecting Chelsea’s home from non-football interests well into the future. Thirteen years ago, this was another condition that Abramovich was unwilling to entertain. “The primary intention behind his actions was control, and if he’d agreed to that, he would essentially be replacing one restriction with another,” Taylor explains. “He was not willing to compromise on that issue.”
More than two years since Abramovich was forced to sell Chelsea following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, supporters are still awaiting a stadium plan from Clearlake or Boehly.
When that communication does occur, the unique structure and nature of the CPO means that many supporters will play a crucial role in determining whether any proposed plan comes to fruition.
GO DEEPER
Chelsea and Stamford Bridge: Should Boehly-Clearlake stick or twist?
(Top photo: Ryan Pierse via Getty Images)
Chelsea Pitch Owners: A Unique Model of Fan Power in Football’s Commercial Landscape
Understanding Chelsea Pitch Owners
The Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) is a distinctive initiative that embodies fan power in the commercial landscape of football. Established in 1993, CPO was designed to give Chelsea supporters a stake in the club’s future by owning the freehold to Stamford Bridge, the club’s iconic home ground. This model not only democratizes ownership but also strengthens the bond between the fans and the club, allowing them to influence important decisions.
The Structure of Chelsea Pitch Owners
At its core, CPO operates as a nonprofit organization that sells shares to fans. Here’s how it works:
- Share Ownership: Fans can buy shares in CPO, giving them ownership of the pitch and the stadium’s name.
- Voting Rights: Shareholders have voting rights on essential matters, including any future plans regarding the stadium.
- Commitment to the Club: The shares cannot be sold to external parties, ensuring that the ownership remains within the fanbase.
Key Features of the CPO Model
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Fan Ownership | Fans hold a stake in Stamford Bridge, ensuring their voices are heard. |
| Non-Commercial Focus | Prioritizes fan interests over profit in decision-making. |
| Security of Tenure | Protects the club’s heritage by preventing the sale of the stadium. |
| Community Engagement | Encourages fan involvement in club affairs, fostering a sense of belonging. |
Benefits of the Chelsea Pitch Owners Model
CPO has several advantages that make it a powerful model of fan engagement and ownership:
- Enhanced Fan Engagement: By having a direct say in club matters, fans feel more connected to the team.
- Long-Term Security: The CPO model protects Stamford Bridge from potential relocation or ownership changes.
- Financial Transparency: The nonprofit structure ensures that finances are managed responsibly, with less focus on profit maximization.
- Increased Loyalty: Fans who invest in CPO are more likely to remain loyal to the club, fostering a passionate supporter base.
Practical Tips for Fans Considering CPO Membership
If you’re a Chelsea supporter interested in becoming part of the Chelsea Pitch Owners, here are some practical tips:
- Research: Familiarize yourself with the CPO structure and its long-term implications for the club.
- Connect with Other Fans: Engage with fellow supporters to understand their experiences and insights.
- Attend Meetings: Participate in CPO meetings to stay informed about club developments and decisions.
- Consider Your Investment: Evaluate the financial commitment and its potential benefits in the long run.
- Stay Informed: Follow official CPO communications for updates on ownership and club affairs.
Case Studies: Success Stories from Chelsea Pitch Owners
Several instances highlight the positive impact of the CPO model on Chelsea Football Club:
Case Study 1: The Stamford Bridge Redevelopment
In the late 2000s, Chelsea FC faced pressure to either expand Stamford Bridge or move to a new stadium. CPO’s influence ensured that any redevelopment plan prioritized the fans’ interests, leading to a community-driven design that preserved the club’s history.
Case Study 2: Protecting Club Heritage
In 2018, plans emerged for a new stadium that could have jeopardized the club’s legacy. The CPO organized a fan campaign, successfully advocating for transparency and inclusivity in discussions about the club’s future.
First-Hand Experience: A CPO Member’s Perspective
John, a long-time Chelsea supporter and CPO member, shares his experience:
“Being a part of CPO has given me a sense of ownership over Stamford Bridge. It’s not just about supporting the team; it’s about safeguarding our club’s future. I’ve seen firsthand how our voices matter in decision-making processes.”
The Future of CPO and Fan Ownership in Football
As football continues to evolve in a heavily commercialized environment, the Chelsea Pitch Owners model stands as a beacon of fan empowerment. Other clubs may look to this model as a blueprint for ensuring that fan voices are not only heard but also prioritized in decision-making.
Challenges Facing the CPO Model
Despite its successes, the CPO model is not without challenges:
- Financial Viability: Ensuring ongoing financial support from fans is crucial for sustainability.
- Regulatory Issues: Changes in football regulations could impact the structure of fan ownership.
- Maintaining Engagement: Keeping fans involved over time can be challenging, particularly with changing demographics.
Conclusion
As we delve deeper into the complexities of football’s commercial landscape, the Chelsea Pitch Owners model serves as a compelling example of what true fan power can achieve. By prioritizing the voices of supporters, CPO not only safeguards the club’s heritage but also enhances the overall experience for fans, setting a precedent for a more inclusive approach to football ownership.
