True Blue: Can we trust Chelsea or Hammersmith and Fulham council?

Amid the debacle over the sacking of Andre Villas-Boas (damn, I had promised I would not mention him in this week’s blog) last week something else occurred that should be of much more of a concern to Chelsea fans.

I want to ask you to think of what the word ‘trust’ means - don’t worry, you have time, read on and I’ll come back to it a tad later.

As you know, Chelsea FC had just experienced one of its greatest embarrassments in its 107 year history and humiliated its owner Roman Abramovich.

I refer of course to the club’s ill-conceived and haplessly executed attempt in trying to get the freehold of the stadium pitch off the CPO members which failed spectacularly.

Just before the WBA game I was asked by person (who wishes to remain anonymous ) very close to Chelsea what I thought of the announcement the day before about the club’s meeting with the directors of Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) to inform them about the work the club had done in establishing the potential for remaining at Stamford Bridge.

The meeting was several hours of in-depth discussions and numerous PowerPoint presentations containing dozens of slides showing how exhaustive they were in coming to the conclusion that it would be difficult to increase the capacity of Stamford Bridge to 60,000.

Basically they concluded that it would be unlikely that they would get planning permission from the local council - Hammersmith and Fulham.

A Chelsea statement said: “It is clear that a complete new build of a 60,000 seat stadium has little chance of acceptability and after discussions with the council, they have come to the same conclusion.”

Well, that’s that then - the club were right after all - they had lots of pretty slides and everything, so it must be true - we can trust them, eh?

Then lo and behold on Friday, the very same maligned council issue a statement of their own and it’s caused a bit of a rumpus within the corridors of SW6 1HS by all accounts.

The town hall said: “That while it recognises that expanding the club’s historic home to 60,000 would not be easy or cheap, it was feasible to add capacity in a way that would be of benefit to the club and local businesses, and would not unreasonably affect residents.

Well that’s changed things hasn’t it. The council are the experts in these planning application thingies, so they must know what they saying is true - we can trust them, eh?

You could hear the sense of relief from many long-standing Chelsea fans who have always felt that Stamford Bridge was the only place for Chelsea to ply their trade.

Chelsea fans site were full of it. ”Yippee, the club will be able to expand and all will be well.

Keep the Blue flag flying high, etc etc etc.”

But are we to make of two contradictory statements issued within seven days of each other?

Which one can we trust?

Ah, there see, I told you I would get back to it - TRUST.

Now which one would you trust to be telling the truth - and indeed are either of them?

The club are desperate to redeem their credibility among the Chelsea faithful.

The aforementioned CPO buy back scheme was a PR disaster of epic proportions.

Abramovich, was, I reliably informed, told by the board of directors overseeing the plan that it was a done deal - was so watertight, nothing would go wrong - that they had enough people who would vote for their proposal.

He would have the freehold of the stadium for next to nothing.

Well we all know how that ended.

The CPO directors criticised Chelsea for a number of things but the one the club would like to see highlighted and one they are prepared to hold their hands up to is that for not being more open about their plans.

That, so the club would have us believe, is the reason why they had the meeting with them. Partly to acknowledge they made a gaff in their campaign and were now trying to put it right and move forward, but more importantly to shift the blame onto the town hall.

They would like it to be known that despite their best efforts and shed loads of cash to produce, no matter what they tried, the town hall would most likely refuse them planning permission.

Hmmmm, do you trust the club?

Hammersmith and Fulham council, is by and large extremely sensitive to criticism, and what it sees as political pressure being heaped upon it, especially when the next election is never too far away.

Councillor Nick Botterill, deputy leader of the council said in his awe-inspiring way: “Stamford Bridge is Chelsea’s historic home and the council believes it should be their future home.

“We cannot comment on the financial conclusions CFC have drawn but it is very likely that any move away from Fulham would cost far more than the £600million the club claims it would cost to rebuild its current ground or the cost of upgrading and expanding the existing Stamford Bridge structures.”

So if they cannot comment on Chelsea financial conclusions, how DID they come to conclude that it would cost Chelsea FC more than £600million to move out of the borough.

Chelsea would no doubt, like it to be known that the council hasn’t come up with any figures to back up that assertion.

So who do you now trust?

The club say that they have no plans (yet) to propose a new buy back of CPO shares.

The council says its willing to talk to the club - the club says likewise.

Neither seems willing to make the first move towards meaning and binding dialogue.

For my penny’s worth, I think both sides are so disingenuous - their past actions and words are paradigm examples of this, that it is clear that the present incumbents are neither truly willing or capable of finding a solution.

A root and branch reform is needed at Stamford Bridge with old guard replaced by those who have the best interests of the club and fans at heart.

Meaningful dialogue is required between club and town hall, not schoolboy political posturing of the nature seen in the past two weeks by both sides.

Only then will the fans trust the club and town hall.

So what now?

The club say that they have no plans (yet) to propose a new buy back of CPO shares.

The council says it’s willing to talk to the club - the club says likewise.

Neither seems willing to make the first move towards meaning and binding dialogue.

Who will blink first? Who do you think will - who do you trust?