| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't 22:15 - Mar 28 with 22969 views | W5R |
There was a meeting a few days ago I learnt this evening. OOC is looking highly unlikely so the club have requested to look at the land opposite Diageo..pizza hut, cinema, where Zenith was etc and also in Greenford (Glaxo etc)
Warren Farm looks shaky but the council is still hopeful of something.
"Sauce" Ealing councillors, Ealing MPs, Ealing prospective MPs and the Labour candidate for Mayor of London.
Personally be fine with the Park Royal site..less of sh*t hole than OOC and well, we did use to play there. |  | | |  |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 19:38 - Mar 31 with 2875 views | QPR_Jim |
I thought it was 30min quicker to Birmingham and an hour to Manchester. Where's the 15min figure from? |  | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 01:15 - Apr 1 with 2728 views | Ingham |
Surely Spencer's role delivering the Arsenal stadium points up where, exactly, the flaw in this project lies, Boston.
Not sure whether Arsenal WILL actually own their stadium, but QPR won't own the Old Oak one, not if the original proposals are anything to go by. Arsenal's debt suggests that Arsenal will pay for theirs, so, presumably, QPR will pay for this one if it went ahead, and any Fernandes or Mittal inspired alternative if it doesn't.
Pay for it without owning it. A wonderful deal for the beneficiaries of whatever vast sums the Club has to lay out to fund the project. The pals or business associates of Mittal and Fernandes, I assume, if it is not Mittal and Fernandes themselves.
Lovely. But not for QPR. Interesting that the people who are supposed to REPRESENT QPR - to be acting on the Club's behalf - are actually proposing to use the Club's money to set someone else up for life.
And that is only the half. If Arsenal is a suitable model, where is the QPR equivalent of Arsenal's 60,000 supporters? They knew they had that many before the stadium was built (45,000 season tickets, 15,000 on the waiting list).
Do we have 12-17,000 on the waiting list? Even if we could believe what these people tell us - the Champions League from Bhatia, 'world class talent' from Fernandes, 45,000 and then 40,000 from Beard and now 30-35,000 from Fernandes, where is the 30,000 guaranteed support even at the lowest of their ever decreasing capacities?
Arsenal didn't just move in on the basis that some people thought they might get that many in one of their better years. The supporter was already there, lining up to buy tickets already.
Fernandes and Mittal guarantee someone else the Club's money, but guarantee the Club nothing. Except another colossal debt on top of what we have. Beard estimated that stadium would cost £200 million. Fernandes said something about 'the debt' being stadium related, but quite apart from the sheer untrustworthiness of this regime on the matter - I'm thinking of 'debt-free' from Bhatia - the existing £178 million of losses represents money which is already gone - and lost - on players who weren't worth the money in the first place, not a debt which can be secured against a stadium that hasn't even been built, let alone paid for.
So he can't mean that our present debt is secured against the NEW stadium, surely? Because another £200 million will be required to build the damn thing, whether it is at Old Oak or elsewhere.
And unlike Arsenal, the Club will have no reasonable expectation of ANY income over and above what it gets now on a regular basis. Arsenal had the track record to attract more than they were getting, as well as the waiting list applications, with league successes in almost every decade since 1930, and several under their present manager, and a constant presence in the Champions League.
No wonder they're keen to have QPR around. If they can shove us out of Loftus Road, to run up another £200 million debt on top of the Club's already massive losses under a regime that has set all time Premiership records for failure, without increasing our support, without offering QPR ANYTHING AT ALL except someone else's pitch to play on ...
... they're laughing, alongside all those who are laughing at QPR because we're lumbered with them, and with paying for every costly error of judgement Fernandes & Co make.
It certainly looks like a smooth and profitable deal for someone, perhaps for everyone else, Boston, don't you think?
But what is there in the deal for QPR except an endless nightmare? |  | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 09:43 - Apr 1 with 2636 views | ranger08 |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 01:15 - Apr 1 by Ingham |
Surely Spencer's role delivering the Arsenal stadium points up where, exactly, the flaw in this project lies, Boston.
Not sure whether Arsenal WILL actually own their stadium, but QPR won't own the Old Oak one, not if the original proposals are anything to go by. Arsenal's debt suggests that Arsenal will pay for theirs, so, presumably, QPR will pay for this one if it went ahead, and any Fernandes or Mittal inspired alternative if it doesn't.
Pay for it without owning it. A wonderful deal for the beneficiaries of whatever vast sums the Club has to lay out to fund the project. The pals or business associates of Mittal and Fernandes, I assume, if it is not Mittal and Fernandes themselves.
Lovely. But not for QPR. Interesting that the people who are supposed to REPRESENT QPR - to be acting on the Club's behalf - are actually proposing to use the Club's money to set someone else up for life.
And that is only the half. If Arsenal is a suitable model, where is the QPR equivalent of Arsenal's 60,000 supporters? They knew they had that many before the stadium was built (45,000 season tickets, 15,000 on the waiting list).
Do we have 12-17,000 on the waiting list? Even if we could believe what these people tell us - the Champions League from Bhatia, 'world class talent' from Fernandes, 45,000 and then 40,000 from Beard and now 30-35,000 from Fernandes, where is the 30,000 guaranteed support even at the lowest of their ever decreasing capacities?
Arsenal didn't just move in on the basis that some people thought they might get that many in one of their better years. The supporter was already there, lining up to buy tickets already.
Fernandes and Mittal guarantee someone else the Club's money, but guarantee the Club nothing. Except another colossal debt on top of what we have. Beard estimated that stadium would cost £200 million. Fernandes said something about 'the debt' being stadium related, but quite apart from the sheer untrustworthiness of this regime on the matter - I'm thinking of 'debt-free' from Bhatia - the existing £178 million of losses represents money which is already gone - and lost - on players who weren't worth the money in the first place, not a debt which can be secured against a stadium that hasn't even been built, let alone paid for.
So he can't mean that our present debt is secured against the NEW stadium, surely? Because another £200 million will be required to build the damn thing, whether it is at Old Oak or elsewhere.
And unlike Arsenal, the Club will have no reasonable expectation of ANY income over and above what it gets now on a regular basis. Arsenal had the track record to attract more than they were getting, as well as the waiting list applications, with league successes in almost every decade since 1930, and several under their present manager, and a constant presence in the Champions League.
No wonder they're keen to have QPR around. If they can shove us out of Loftus Road, to run up another £200 million debt on top of the Club's already massive losses under a regime that has set all time Premiership records for failure, without increasing our support, without offering QPR ANYTHING AT ALL except someone else's pitch to play on ...
... they're laughing, alongside all those who are laughing at QPR because we're lumbered with them, and with paying for every costly error of judgement Fernandes & Co make.
It certainly looks like a smooth and profitable deal for someone, perhaps for everyone else, Boston, don't you think?
But what is there in the deal for QPR except an endless nightmare? |
Good post and I agree with a LOT of it re the ownership of the stadium/endless nightmare etc…
Only thing I would question is Mittal's commitment/involvement as:
The ownership of QPR is 67% Tune Group (Fernandes & Co) & 33% Sea Dream Ltd (Amit/Mittal).
The £60m write off on the accounts clearly showed us that Tune wrote of £53.4m & Sea Dream wrote off £6.6m. So the Mittal's only agreed to swallow 11% of the total write off… That shows their (Mittals) commitment as you'd think they'd write off 33% (£18m).
£7m for the Mittals is nothing, they're worth BILLIONS!
ALSO (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY)
Looking back at the accounts released, the club (QPR) loaned a company called "Rangers Developments Ltd" £4.02m. You'd THINK this company was set up for the OOC development and the club were using it to possibly buy up land around OOC (At least some of the £4m should have bought land?).
I've looked through the "Rangers Developments Ltd" accounts (Which were released last week) and heres some info on them.
Rangers Developments Limited was formed in June 2013
The Directors are:
K Bin Meranun
A Fernandes (Tony)
&
R Gnanalingham
NO Mittals!
ALSO… the accounts only shows debts and assets of £2 (Yes TWO POUNDS) and closing shareholders funds of £9 (Yes NINE POUNDS)
SO WHERE IS THE £4.02m QPR (The club) loaned them???
MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP, but I honestly think the Fernandes "Mr Nice Guy" PR has blinded a lot of fan | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:21 - Apr 1 with 2586 views | wombat |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 09:43 - Apr 1 by ranger08 |
Good post and I agree with a LOT of it re the ownership of the stadium/endless nightmare etc…
Only thing I would question is Mittal's commitment/involvement as:
The ownership of QPR is 67% Tune Group (Fernandes & Co) & 33% Sea Dream Ltd (Amit/Mittal).
The £60m write off on the accounts clearly showed us that Tune wrote of £53.4m & Sea Dream wrote off £6.6m. So the Mittal's only agreed to swallow 11% of the total write off… That shows their (Mittals) commitment as you'd think they'd write off 33% (£18m).
£7m for the Mittals is nothing, they're worth BILLIONS!
ALSO (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY)
Looking back at the accounts released, the club (QPR) loaned a company called "Rangers Developments Ltd" £4.02m. You'd THINK this company was set up for the OOC development and the club were using it to possibly buy up land around OOC (At least some of the £4m should have bought land?).
I've looked through the "Rangers Developments Ltd" accounts (Which were released last week) and heres some info on them.
Rangers Developments Limited was formed in June 2013
The Directors are:
K Bin Meranun
A Fernandes (Tony)
&
R Gnanalingham
NO Mittals!
ALSO… the accounts only shows debts and assets of £2 (Yes TWO POUNDS) and closing shareholders funds of £9 (Yes NINE POUNDS)
SO WHERE IS THE £4.02m QPR (The club) loaned them???
MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP, but I honestly think the Fernandes "Mr Nice Guy" PR has blinded a lot of fan |
maybe u should send TF a tweet and ask him about the new company ? |  |
| |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:38 - Apr 1 with 2568 views | fLaMeBoY |
Folks, can't go into great details but Mittals have opted out of being involved in QPR's plans for OOC/Rangers Developments Company. Their shareholding is now just over 10% and have no interest in increasing this or buying out TF....who himself is no longer the majority shareholder of QPR. | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:44 - Apr 1 with 2582 views | TGRRRSSS |
The sun is shining... the sky is blue. |  | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:48 - Apr 1 with 2579 views | whittocksRs |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:38 - Apr 1 by fLaMeBoY |
Folks, can't go into great details but Mittals have opted out of being involved in QPR's plans for OOC/Rangers Developments Company. Their shareholding is now just over 10% and have no interest in increasing this or buying out TF....who himself is no longer the majority shareholder of QPR. |
You're saying the Mittals now only own 10% of the club? | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:50 - Apr 1 with 2575 views | fLaMeBoY |
Thereabouts. :-( | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:52 - Apr 1 with 2569 views | whittocksRs |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:50 - Apr 1 by fLaMeBoY |
Thereabouts. :-( |
I know it's a private company, but would they not make some kind of spun announcement about Fernandes et al increasing their stake if this is happening? | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:56 - Apr 1 with 2559 views | PinnerPaul |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:50 - Apr 1 by fLaMeBoY |
Thereabouts. :-( |
Source? | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 13:11 - Apr 1 with 2498 views | francisbowles |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:52 - Apr 1 by whittocksRs |
I know it's a private company, but would they not make some kind of spun announcement about Fernandes et al increasing their stake if this is happening? |
Wouldn't they have a duty to inform shareholders, however minor, like me and several others on this board?
Ahem! Is this an April Fool? | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 13:35 - Apr 1 with 2465 views | kensalriser |
Are there still minor shareholders? |  |
| |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 13:43 - Apr 1 with 2457 views | BasingstokeR |
My Dad kept his shares and gets a letter every so often. |  | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 17:19 - Apr 1 with 2354 views | MedwayR |
The official site still has Tune Group at 66% and Sea Dream at 33% so obviously they forgot to tell the club that they'd sold a large chunk of their stake, also doesn't the accounts also show the shareholding split? |  |
| |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 03:27 - Apr 2 with 2224 views | fLaMeBoY |
Trust me, Mittals now 10% and could force TF to buy their remaining shares. RG highest shareholder who is in control of the club and vetoed signings in January not TF. [Post edited 2 Apr 2015 3:50]
| | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 08:36 - Apr 2 with 2144 views | JonDoeman |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 03:27 - Apr 2 by fLaMeBoY |
Trust me, Mittals now 10% and could force TF to buy their remaining shares. RG highest shareholder who is in control of the club and vetoed signings in January not TF. [Post edited 2 Apr 2015 3:50]
|
Sorry to hear that, & think we're all going to end up regretting & wondering what might have been if Flav & Bern had just sold it to Amit, rather than holding off for a better offer & not preparing for a prem season, it seems like we've chasing our tail since then! |  |
| |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 09:04 - Apr 2 with 2109 views | PinnerPaul |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 03:27 - Apr 2 by fLaMeBoY |
Trust me, Mittals now 10% and could force TF to buy their remaining shares. RG highest shareholder who is in control of the club and vetoed signings in January not TF. [Post edited 2 Apr 2015 3:50]
|
I'm sorry but minority shareholders (if true) can't force majority shareholders to do anything - the other way round yes, but since when does a major shareholder HAVE to acquire ALL the shares in any company?
Not true - sorry. | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 09:06 - Apr 2 with 2106 views | ranger08 |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 03:27 - Apr 2 by fLaMeBoY |
Trust me, Mittals now 10% and could force TF to buy their remaining shares. RG highest shareholder who is in control of the club and vetoed signings in January not TF. [Post edited 2 Apr 2015 3:50]
|
April fools… Give us a reason to believe otherwise!
Source?? | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 10:01 - Apr 2 with 2078 views | Jamie |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 09:04 - Apr 2 by PinnerPaul |
I'm sorry but minority shareholders (if true) can't force majority shareholders to do anything - the other way round yes, but since when does a major shareholder HAVE to acquire ALL the shares in any company?
Not true - sorry. |
Whilst a minority shareholder can't force a sale, they can certainly induce one, simply by looking to dispose of their shares.
If shares in your business are going on the market, you'll almost certainly want them. | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 10:21 - Apr 2 with 2052 views | TheBlob |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 10:01 - Apr 2 by Jamie |
Whilst a minority shareholder can't force a sale, they can certainly induce one, simply by looking to dispose of their shares.
If shares in your business are going on the market, you'll almost certainly want them. |
I've heard of minority shareholders souring a deal by refusing to sell,but never have I encountered the triggering of a sale by a minority holding.Depending specific agreements,minority shares can be forced into sale to the company/majority holding if necessary.All a minority holding entitles you to do power-wise is the facility to mouth off at the shareholder's meeting.I know - I've been there. |  |
| |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:26 - Apr 2 with 1983 views | kensalriser |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 10:01 - Apr 2 by Jamie |
Whilst a minority shareholder can't force a sale, they can certainly induce one, simply by looking to dispose of their shares.
If shares in your business are going on the market, you'll almost certainly want them. |
Not taking issue with the assertion that TF is not the major shareholder then? Seem to remember you were quite vocal about that the other week. | |
| |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:28 - Apr 2 with 1980 views | TGRRRSSS |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 10:01 - Apr 2 by Jamie |
Whilst a minority shareholder can't force a sale, they can certainly induce one, simply by looking to dispose of their shares.
If shares in your business are going on the market, you'll almost certainly want them. |
They can induce a sale in the same way anybody can ie put something for sale wait for offers etc.
This isnt what Flameboys say he says Mittals can induce a sale which isnt the same.
Somehow though given how chaotic ly TF and co seem to have run things it wouldnt just for once be that incredible | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:37 - Apr 2 with 1967 views | francisbowles |
Be a bit difficult to induce a sale when there isn't a market. The shares were withdrawn from the AIM and to the best of my knowledge are not quoted on any exchange and can only change hands through private transactions. Therefore you need to find an interested party if you want to sell any shares | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 11:41 - Apr 2 with 1961 views | TGRRRSSS |
No but I meant you can put youre shares up for sale can't you, ok induce a sale wasnt correct phrase, in that context but I meant you can simply put up any item you own (provided it's yours alone) up for sale however you like pretty much. | | | |
| OOC is OFF but a new stadium isn't on 12:17 - Apr 2 with 1926 views | whittocksRs |
Any major change in ownership — 33% to 10% is definitely that — would need to be followed by notification to any other shareholders, even at a private company. Any shareholders on here able to confirm what's going on? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
