[情報] CPO購買案和球場擴建案問與答

看板Chelsea作者JamesCaesar (首席百人隊長)時間14年前 (2011/10/18 22:00)推噓12(12推 0噓 14→)

留言26則, 12人參與討論串1/1

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2477823,00.html CHELSEA FC PROPOSAL TO CHELSEA PITCH OWNERS – QUESTIONS ANSWERED Posted on: Wed 12 Oct 2011 In the week since Chelsea Football Club's proposal to Chelsea Pitch Owners (CPO) was announced, there has naturally been a lot of discussion and the club believes there has been some incorrect information circulating on various social media platforms discussing the subject. 自從上禮拜丟出CPO購買案後，大量討論和錯誤訊息充斥著。 Below is a clarification of some of these points and also answers to some of the questions that have been put to the club in the past week. 以下就是正確的Q&A。 Is it true that shareholders who do not attend the meeting nor appoint a proxy vote, including deceased shareholders, will automatically be counted as voting yes to the proposal? Q: 無法出席或無法取得代理投票的股東，是否會被自動歸入贊成票？ This is not the case and has arisen from an incorrect media report. As a public limited company, CPO is governed by normal company law and for a vote to be counted either way, a shareholder has to attend or organise a proxy vote. A: 完全錯誤。 Have the directors of CPO accepted Chelsea FC's proposal to acquire the freehold of the Stamford Bridge site and are the CPO directors recommending that CPO shareholders vote yes to the proposal? Q: CPO的董事們是否已接受購買提案？他們是否建議股東投贊成票？ This is a matter for CPO directors. However, the CPO directors have not accepted the proposal nor are they making a recommendation. It is Chelsea FC that is recommending that CPO shareholders vote yes to the proposal. The club informed the CPO directors that they had a proposal they would like to put to the shareholders and the CPO directors have stated that the shareholders should decide the future of Stamford Bridge. For this reason they have decided to convene a general meeting of CPO to allow the shareholders to consider the proposed transaction and decide on it. The CPO directors have not indicated to Chelsea FC or publicly how they will vote the shares they may own. A: 這是CPO董事們的事。事實上是卻爾西足球俱樂部建議CPO股東們投贊成票，還有告知董事們購買提案。本賽季他們已決定舉辦會員大會討論購買案。 Isn't the proposal against everything that CPO was set up for? Q: 這提案是否完全違背CPO的初衷？ No. CPO was set up to stop property developers evicting Chelsea FC from Stamford Bridge against its wishes, which had been threatened during the 1980s and early 1990s. CPO was never intended to hinder the club by restricting its ability to maximise its income. A: 不，CPO生來是反房地產商的，它不反對俱樂部的利益最大化。 Why can't the club wait until a site for a new stadium is known and reveal it before offering to purchase the Stamford Bridge freehold from CPO? Q: 為什麼不等到新球場位置確定了才向CPO買回斯坦福橋？ Because no owner of a potential site would enter into extensive negotiations or agree a deal with Chelsea FC unless it knew the club could deliver on that deal, and the club couldn't guarantee completion of the deal without certainty over the subsequent redevelopment of Stamford Bridge. A: 因為沒有一個潛在地主會跟俱樂部談判，除非他知道俱樂部能運做這筆交易，而且俱樂部在沒有完全確定斯坦福橋無法擴建之下也不能保證交易能順利進行。 Why is the club not informing shareholders about which site it wishes to build a new stadium on? Q: 為何俱樂部不告知股東新球場的位置？ Because a decision to leave Stamford Bridge has not been taken and no new site has been chosen. A: 因為俱樂部還沒決定搬家，更別說新球場位置了。 Why has the club set a year 2020 limit to the guarantee that any new stadium will be within a three-mile radius of Stamford Bridge? Q: 為何俱樂部設定2020年為搬家三英里的時間點？ Because the club believes that by 2020 all available sites within three miles will have gone. If we are unable to secure one of those sites, and did eventually decide that leaving Stamford Bridge would be in the best interests of the club and its fans, then sites further afield than three miles may be the only option. The club's objective is to remain at Stamford Bridge or move to a new stadium within three miles. A: 因為俱樂部相信2020年後大橋三英里內找不到任何新球場的位置，俱樂部的目標是留在大橋，或是搬到大橋三英里內的新球場。 There are suggestions that the club is considering sites more than three miles to the north of Stamford Bridge, near Wormwood Scrubs or Old Oak Common, with a view to moving there after 2020. Has the club already identified a site beyond the three-mile radius? Q: 有可能在2020年後搬到三英里之外，像是 Wormwood Scrubs 或 Old Oak Common 嗎？ (皆在西倫敦) No such sites have been looked at or discussed. The club's objective is to remain at Stamford Bridge or move to a new stadium within three miles. A: 完全沒有討論過。重申一次，俱樂部的目標是留在大橋，或是搬到大橋三英里內的新球場。 Has the club received an offer from developers to buy Stamford Bridge? Q: 房地產商的魔爪已經伸進大橋了嗎？ No, we have never received such an offer, nor have we ever had informal discussions with any developer on the subject. A: 沒有。 Can the club provide proof that possible expansion of capacity at Stamford Bridge has been properly investigated? Q: 是否能提供一些擴建的訊息？ The club has reports and studies from as early as 2003/04 on various aspects of a redevelopment of the stadium and has spent a considerable amount of time and money in looking at various aspects of a redevelopment. The bottom line is a redevelopment adding a significant number of seats needs a site of 16 to 18 acres or more, and at Stamford Bridge there are less than 12 acres. A: 從 03-04 賽季開始，我們就展開多方面的擴建調查。擴建至少需要16到18英畝來增加一定的坐位，而目前大橋連12英畝都不到。 The club has worked with several architects firms looking for ways to redevelop each of the four stands at Stamford Bridge to increase capacity. 俱樂部已和一些建築公司討論過大橋四個看台的擴建案。 If the East Stand, which was built in the early 1970s, were to be knocked down and redeveloped then there are two significant obstacles. A new stand would have to cantilever over the railway track. Standards regarding safety have changed since the early 1970s. The angle of the current stand is very steep but if it were rebuilt then the angle would have to be shallower to meet today's standards, with many seats significantly further from the pitch than they are now. 70年代建造的東看台，擴建有兩個困難點。 1. 必須用懸臂樑橫跨鐵軌 2. 目前的安全規定已和70年代不同，重建的話後排觀眾會離球場非~~~~~常遠。 The Shed End stand at the south of the stadium cannot be expanded because of the hotel and the flats behind it. Rights to light and shadowing issues also preclude such a development. 南看台無法擴建，因為被卻爾西旅館和房子擋住。光照權法規也不允許擴建。 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_light For the Matthew Harding Stand at the north of the stadium, health and safety rules requires that in an emergency the whole site is cleared in eight minutes and we are restricted with Fulham Road being our only exit. Any additional people at the north end would have to go the furthest to reach the Fulham Road exits, so it is very unlikely planning permission would be granted, as we are virtually at our capacity limit for emergency egress. Rights of light and overshadowing issues for Brompton Park residents also cause planning difficulties. 北看台，基於八分鐘必須能疏散所有觀眾的安全法規，以及富勒姆路是唯一出口的因素，幾乎不可能增加觀眾數量，布隆普頓公園居民的光照權也是一個問題。 Over the years it has been suggested a walkway should be built along the railway lines from the north end of the stadium towards West Brompton. That has been looked into, and was rejected at a public inquiry as the long narrow route is considered unsafe in the event of an emergency. We have not applied for planning permission for a walkway to Fulham Broadway station as the council has already said they would reject it for safety reasons. 多年來，興建橫跨北看台和西布隆普頓步道的議題一直被提起，但因為安全問題而被公眾否決，而通到富勒姆百老匯站步道的提議根本沒申請過，因為議會早說了因為安全問題會被否決。 The West Stand is of a height that is already the maximum allowed by planning regulations, in terms of rights of light overlooking the Stoll Foundation housing. 西看台，高度已經到達法規最上限，Stoll Foundation housing 的光照權是個問題。 The club has looked at tearing down all four stands and at turning the direction of the pitch by 90 degrees but neither plan makes sense because again it should be emphasised that the site is less than 12 acres and it is generally considered that to build a stadium from scratch with a capacity of 55,000 then approaching 20 acres is needed. A major reconstruction at Stamford Bridge also raises issues as to where the club would play during the two or three seasons that Stamford Bridge would not be available. 拆除四個看台和整個球場旋轉90度都考慮過，完全沒用，因為要蓋55000人的球場需要20英畝的面積，而且把球場全拆了，兩三年內的比賽場地也是個大問題。 As well as buying back the freehold, is the club also proposing to buy back the name Chelsea Football Club from CPO? Q: 除了想買回球場所有權，俱樂部也想從CPO手上買回 Chelsea Football Club 的名權嗎？ As the original agreement makes clear, CPO has never owned the name Chelsea Football Club. The name would only ever move across into CPO ownership should the club leave Stamford Bridge without the consent of CPO. A: 根據原始協議，CPO並不擁有 Chelsea Football Club 的名權，除非俱樂部未經 CPO的同意就搬家。 What are the details of the season tickets being offered to shareholders in a new stadium should one be built? Q: 俱樂部會提供新球場的季票給股東一事怎麼說？ The club is not simply offering season tickets. It is offering shareholders voting yes the chance to have a priority choice on where their season ticket seat would be located. A: 沒這回事，俱樂部只提供投贊成票的股東季票'座位'優先購買權。 Why are only three weeks being allowed between the notice of the meeting and the vote, and why has the meeting and vote been set for the day after an evening away game at Everton which shareholders may be attending? Q: 為什麼收到通知距離投票只有三個禮拜的時間？為什麼投票日選在對埃佛頓比賽的隔天 (夜間比賽+客場作戰)？ Company law provides for 21 clear days' notice but 23 days have been provided to be sure there is sufficient time. The club believes, as does the Companies Act, that three weeks is sufficient time to hear both sides of any argument and for a shareholder to come to a decision and this is normal for all corporate general meetings. A: 法律規定至少要21天，23天夠了。 The date was set well before the Carling Cup draw and the date of the game was arranged. It was not known at the time whether the tie would be home or away or on the Tuesday or the Wednesday. 而且日期在卡林盃抽籤和時間決定前就已經訂好了。 What is the percentage vote needed for the proposed transaction to be accepted? Q: 提案要多少讚成票才會通過？ 75 per cent or more of shareholders attending the meeting or sending a proxy vote must vote yes for the transaction to go ahead. A: 75%以上。 What will happen to Peter Osgood's ashes which are currently under the penalty spot at the Shed End of Stamford Bridge? Q: 奧斯古的骨灰怎麼辦？ Peter's widow Lynn would of course be consulted over this matter and the club has not agreed to move but if it did it would consider transferring the urn and a small part of the old stadium pitch to the new one as a commemoration. A: 會先問過他的遺孀，而且俱樂部還沒決定搬家，如果要搬，可能會把骨灰罈和一部分大橋的場地一起移到新球場。 -- http://fanchants.com/football-songs/chelsea-chants/we-all-follow-the-chelsea/ We All Follow The Chelsea, Over land and sea (and Leicester) We All Follow The Chelsea, Onnnntooo vi-ic-toreee... -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.38.245.214

→

Highflying

10/18 22:04, , 1^F

10/18 22:04, 1^F

推

tsou

10/18 22:06, , 2^F

10/18 22:06, 2^F

→

tsou

10/18 22:07, , 3^F

10/18 22:07, 3^F