| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 10:01 - Sep 5 with 1864 views | nadera78 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 09:08 - Sep 5 by TheBlob |
Time to take off those rose-tinted glasses.
If you wander through London You'll see areas of affluence cheek by jowl with social housing.That White City estate won't be there forever - trust me.There will eventually be " redevelopment" on the scale of the Elephant and Castle and the old Ferrier Estate at Kidbrooke.The agenda is very much about squeezing the "undesirables" out of London.Areas of Brixton,Brockley,Dulwich,Bermondsey which were no-go areas in my youth are hugely desirable now. |
It would also depend on the orientation of the development on Loftus Rd. Have it facing one way and it's looking at the White City Estate. Turn it around and it's facing onto Ellerslie Rd (average house price £900,000) and Loftus Rd (average house price £1.2million). |  | |  |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 10:48 - Sep 5 with 1802 views | zicoshoops |
As a supporter with shed loads of dough who owned the Club, and had the best interest of the Club at heart, I would.......
Invite the Council to select a site within the borough, and build a state of the art school there, then purchase the school behind the school end at a premium price.
Also offer the residents three of four times their property value to sell to the club, so they can relocate.
Then Stand by Stand, I would redevelop the whole Stadium.
As a businessman who owned the Club, my eye would be on the money.
Old Oak make sense, it's still quite close to H/Q. (Touch.....it keeps the fans onside)
I might even take the piss and call the area New Queens Park Rangers. (no apostrophe
 ) Even though there is nothing new about us, and we're Queen's Park Rangers.
And when it's all done and dusted, I might sell up and count my dough, or.....
I might offer Fulham a ground sharing arrangement.
They could also play their home games there.
But only if the fella at Fulham would let me get involved in the redevelopment of the River Rat Stadium, into luxury riverside apartments.
Any problems with the fans would be answered quite quickly.
I would tell them that they were lucky to have me, and if they didn't like it then they could F**k Off and watch Chelsea.
P.S.
And just inside the main entrance I would put up a Statue of Max Wall. [Post edited 5 Sep 2014 10:50]
| | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:57 - Sep 5 with 1725 views | Ingham |
Great thread. Just amazing posts and discussion, and so much sense. Haven't read it all yet, but I will.
The point about basics - training ground, youth system - points to the fundamental flaw. To fill a 40,000 stadium we would have to be outstandingly brilliant. And the people running the Club have no idea how to do that. Arsenal moved to a new ground that has not one single seat more than the Club's actual ticket buying support at the time they moved. Not on the basis of speculation or wishful thinking. But who was buying season tickets, or was on the waiting list.
When we're playing brilliantly enough to have 20,000 on the waiting list for tickets, that will be the time to move.
By all means let the speculators build the ground. And let QPR stay at LR until we have the support (Arsenal had 15,000 on their waiting list, 15,000 + 18,000 would just about do). And to do that, I would say we'd need to be in the Champions League places for 10-15 years at least, without a break.
If then. Ipswich achieved that in the 1970s-1980s under Robson, but the Club didn't get any bigger at all. They are still a small club.
We can rent Old Oak for games we know we can sell out (which would be extraordinarily rare, as others in this thread have pointed out). And if we have a 1976 golden year again, we might take it for a season, and see whether we can afford the cost. But even in 1976, we could barely manage 30,000, even when were top. And our record attendance at LR was 35,000, set only 2 years before, but that was when Leeds were top.
We pulled in more for someone else's end of season triumph than for our own.
If it is a piece of cake to increase attendances by increasing the number of seats, why don't all the wannabe bigger Clubs do it, the Evertons and Villas? Why don't they outperform the big three Red Clubs by having more seats, more revenue, and therefore more expensive squads? Because their size isn't elastic. If it were, the Premiership in three years might consist of NO big Clubs at all. And be dominated instead by small Clubs with very big grounds. Scunthorpe (115,000 capacity), Brentford (109,000), and Millwall (80,000, but far more unpleasant).
But big Clubs remain big, and QPRs remain small, because that is the market, and a football club is a property, and its value is determined by what TYPE of thing it is, not how successful it is. A successful terraced house is only a terraced house. No-one with £20 million to spend buys a two up two down, even if it works far better as a house than the Duke of Devonshire's place.
Chelsea and City have borrowed to win the title because they represent much bigger properties to borrow against. They are the Clubs with the biggest league attendances ever (82,000 and 84,000). Even when they were struggling, they were rarely getting the kind of attendances we got when WE were struggling (anything from 2,000 in the thirties to 4,000 or 5,000 or less in the sixties).
And that is significant because the money the moneylenders advance is not their own money, as some imagine. As the accounts show, it is QPR's. If it was Fernandes's money, it would Fernandes's loss. He gets his money back from his buyer, just as Ecclestone got his (together with a vast profit) from Fernandes. If you borrow from a lender and put the money on a horse, and it goes down, you've lost your money, not his.
He is no different to any mortgage lender. What he advances is what the property is worth. And, as an investor, he doesn't hope that QPR will mysteriously become Manchester United, because he knows nothing about what is required to do that. What he knows is that Clubs, like homes, are in demand, and the number of buyers exceeds (in some cases) the number of properties available to buy.
Once they lent the money against the ground, so that wasn't their money either. Now, they lend it, more speculatively arguably, against the vast sums pouring into the Premier League. But the Premier League money doesn't favour QPR over other Premier League Clubs.
It just makes mediocrity ever more expensive.
So let's stay put, and see how just brillantly our managers, squads and directors perform. That way, we'll know exactly how good we are, how much money we're making, whether the new ground at Old Oak is worth considering or a nightmare, like White City, and what it will all cost.
Fernandes said 'world class talent'. The Board have the money. Let's see it. Or, if Fernandes has the genius, like a supercharged Jim Gregory, no-one's stopping him.
Redknapp is realistic. Every Club outside the top seven is fighting relegation he said (quoting someone else). THAT won't fill a vast ground, will it?
It is nothing to do with lacking ambition. Every bunch of losers has ambition. Winners have achievements. Not just the big achievements which are noticed, but all the little ones over the years that no-one is aware of, that go to make them up. We're like a pianist who wants only to play at a BIG venue, to be booked as 'world class talent' (as Fernandes puts it), and to charge top dollar for his performances.
But who has never actually learned to play. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:14 - Sep 5 with 1693 views | TacticalR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 09:08 - Sep 5 by TheBlob |
Time to take off those rose-tinted glasses.
If you wander through London You'll see areas of affluence cheek by jowl with social housing.That White City estate won't be there forever - trust me.There will eventually be " redevelopment" on the scale of the Elephant and Castle and the old Ferrier Estate at Kidbrooke.The agenda is very much about squeezing the "undesirables" out of London.Areas of Brixton,Brockley,Dulwich,Bermondsey which were no-go areas in my youth are hugely desirable now. |
SoG with rose-tinted glasses? I find it difficult to picture that. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:18 - Sep 5 with 1683 views | QPR_John |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:57 - Sep 5 by Ingham |
Great thread. Just amazing posts and discussion, and so much sense. Haven't read it all yet, but I will.
The point about basics - training ground, youth system - points to the fundamental flaw. To fill a 40,000 stadium we would have to be outstandingly brilliant. And the people running the Club have no idea how to do that. Arsenal moved to a new ground that has not one single seat more than the Club's actual ticket buying support at the time they moved. Not on the basis of speculation or wishful thinking. But who was buying season tickets, or was on the waiting list.
When we're playing brilliantly enough to have 20,000 on the waiting list for tickets, that will be the time to move.
By all means let the speculators build the ground. And let QPR stay at LR until we have the support (Arsenal had 15,000 on their waiting list, 15,000 + 18,000 would just about do). And to do that, I would say we'd need to be in the Champions League places for 10-15 years at least, without a break.
If then. Ipswich achieved that in the 1970s-1980s under Robson, but the Club didn't get any bigger at all. They are still a small club.
We can rent Old Oak for games we know we can sell out (which would be extraordinarily rare, as others in this thread have pointed out). And if we have a 1976 golden year again, we might take it for a season, and see whether we can afford the cost. But even in 1976, we could barely manage 30,000, even when were top. And our record attendance at LR was 35,000, set only 2 years before, but that was when Leeds were top.
We pulled in more for someone else's end of season triumph than for our own.
If it is a piece of cake to increase attendances by increasing the number of seats, why don't all the wannabe bigger Clubs do it, the Evertons and Villas? Why don't they outperform the big three Red Clubs by having more seats, more revenue, and therefore more expensive squads? Because their size isn't elastic. If it were, the Premiership in three years might consist of NO big Clubs at all. And be dominated instead by small Clubs with very big grounds. Scunthorpe (115,000 capacity), Brentford (109,000), and Millwall (80,000, but far more unpleasant).
But big Clubs remain big, and QPRs remain small, because that is the market, and a football club is a property, and its value is determined by what TYPE of thing it is, not how successful it is. A successful terraced house is only a terraced house. No-one with £20 million to spend buys a two up two down, even if it works far better as a house than the Duke of Devonshire's place.
Chelsea and City have borrowed to win the title because they represent much bigger properties to borrow against. They are the Clubs with the biggest league attendances ever (82,000 and 84,000). Even when they were struggling, they were rarely getting the kind of attendances we got when WE were struggling (anything from 2,000 in the thirties to 4,000 or 5,000 or less in the sixties).
And that is significant because the money the moneylenders advance is not their own money, as some imagine. As the accounts show, it is QPR's. If it was Fernandes's money, it would Fernandes's loss. He gets his money back from his buyer, just as Ecclestone got his (together with a vast profit) from Fernandes. If you borrow from a lender and put the money on a horse, and it goes down, you've lost your money, not his.
He is no different to any mortgage lender. What he advances is what the property is worth. And, as an investor, he doesn't hope that QPR will mysteriously become Manchester United, because he knows nothing about what is required to do that. What he knows is that Clubs, like homes, are in demand, and the number of buyers exceeds (in some cases) the number of properties available to buy.
Once they lent the money against the ground, so that wasn't their money either. Now, they lend it, more speculatively arguably, against the vast sums pouring into the Premier League. But the Premier League money doesn't favour QPR over other Premier League Clubs.
It just makes mediocrity ever more expensive.
So let's stay put, and see how just brillantly our managers, squads and directors perform. That way, we'll know exactly how good we are, how much money we're making, whether the new ground at Old Oak is worth considering or a nightmare, like White City, and what it will all cost.
Fernandes said 'world class talent'. The Board have the money. Let's see it. Or, if Fernandes has the genius, like a supercharged Jim Gregory, no-one's stopping him.
Redknapp is realistic. Every Club outside the top seven is fighting relegation he said (quoting someone else). THAT won't fill a vast ground, will it?
It is nothing to do with lacking ambition. Every bunch of losers has ambition. Winners have achievements. Not just the big achievements which are noticed, but all the little ones over the years that no-one is aware of, that go to make them up. We're like a pianist who wants only to play at a BIG venue, to be booked as 'world class talent' (as Fernandes puts it), and to charge top dollar for his performances.
But who has never actually learned to play. |
"When we're playing brilliantly enough to have 20,000 on the waiting list for tickets, that will be the time to move. "
Then we will never move. I would imagine there is a certain reflective glory for some in being on the waiting list for or owning a season ticket to one of top four, however big or small a ground we might have doubt that would ever be the case for us [Post edited 5 Sep 2014 12:19]
| | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:28 - Sep 5 with 1661 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:06 - Sep 4 by EastR |
It's not just about the football club, that's the point.
£millions
Sale of current site (housing etc) 200
Buy/develop new entertainment/sport/housing new site -700
Capital income from selling housing etc 200
10 yr increased revenue streams from entertainment/sporting venue 250
PL income (if we do a stay up for at least 5 of those) 300
Thal'll do nicely for starters thank you very much in the bank 250 |
and the cost of running the football club???????
Salary costs alone must be close to £50M per year, without the buying of players!
If we ever publish accounts showing a £250M profit, I'll be amazed! | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:29 - Sep 5 with 1660 views | simmo |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:18 - Sep 5 by QPR_John |
"When we're playing brilliantly enough to have 20,000 on the waiting list for tickets, that will be the time to move. "
Then we will never move. I would imagine there is a certain reflective glory for some in being on the waiting list for or owning a season ticket to one of top four, however big or small a ground we might have doubt that would ever be the case for us [Post edited 5 Sep 2014 12:19]
|
Hence why we in no way need a much larger capacity than we have currently. The only reason an increase for large numbers is so sought after is so the club, not the team, can make money from corporations and live events.
Also, as much as Arsenal is used as a good example of moving with the right fan base numbers already in place, they never have a full stadium (bar derby matches) and after pricing out most of the local or old school fans they have a terrible atmosphere for match days. It's more like going to the theatre TBH. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:25 - Sep 5 with 1619 views | Rangersw12 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:29 - Sep 5 by simmo |
Hence why we in no way need a much larger capacity than we have currently. The only reason an increase for large numbers is so sought after is so the club, not the team, can make money from corporations and live events.
Also, as much as Arsenal is used as a good example of moving with the right fan base numbers already in place, they never have a full stadium (bar derby matches) and after pricing out most of the local or old school fans they have a terrible atmosphere for match days. It's more like going to the theatre TBH. |
Southampton would be a better club to judge than Arsenal seeing as we're similar sized clubs
I don't want to leave Loftus Road but unfortunately it look inevitable , I would say that we could easily average 25 k in the top division and 20 k in the Championship if priced right | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:44 - Sep 5 with 1597 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 23:34 - Sep 4 by SpiritofGregory |
Prime real estate Loftus Rd? Do you honestly think that rich people are going to want to live opposite the White City Estate? Craven Cottage and Stamford Bridge yes, not Loftus Rd. Have you seen the state of the immediate area around Loftus Rd, it's perfect for Council/HA tenancies. Hammersmith and Fulham have to find a way of emptying their B&Bs and Hostels.. We need the Council onside, we don't have a divine right to build a stadium on that site therefore Loftus Rd may have to be used as bait.
They'll probably build council flats on Loftus Rd and luxury flats/shared ownership in New Queens Park. |
Not true
Look at the prices of the flats just put up in Bloemfontein Rd - "The Bloom"
1 Bed = +£300K
2 Bed = +£450K
3 Bed = c£600K
All sold with only shared ownership for "local people" available now
I would call that prime and in demand! | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:12 - Sep 5 with 1560 views | TheBlob |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:44 - Sep 5 by PinnerPaul |
Not true
Look at the prices of the flats just put up in Bloemfontein Rd - "The Bloom"
1 Bed = +£300K
2 Bed = +£450K
3 Bed = c£600K
All sold with only shared ownership for "local people" available now
I would call that prime and in demand! |
This would be the wrong time to buy off Car Giant anyway,peak of the market.Let them stew in their own juices for a bit for as sure as God made little green apples there's an almighty crash a-comin'.Some say Christmas,some say the new year,it'll hit the ridiculously priced upper echelons first and then the knock-on for everything else.I wouldn't buy a garage in London at the moment. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:13 - Sep 5 with 1558 views | Northernr |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:25 - Sep 5 by Rangersw12 |
Southampton would be a better club to judge than Arsenal seeing as we're similar sized clubs
I don't want to leave Loftus Road but unfortunately it look inevitable , I would say that we could easily average 25 k in the top division and 20 k in the Championship if priced right |
A good way to about it is the way Sunderland, Swansea, Hull and others built their new grounds with the capbility olifting the roof on one side and slotting another tier in at a later date - bit more complicated than that but basically that's it. So you move from 18,000 into 25,000 then when you're filling that regularly you sling another tier in and go up to 30,000 and so on.
Again, the One Directioners won't like that, so it won't be for us. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:29 - Sep 5 with 1534 views | Rangersw12 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:13 - Sep 5 by Northernr |
A good way to about it is the way Sunderland, Swansea, Hull and others built their new grounds with the capbility olifting the roof on one side and slotting another tier in at a later date - bit more complicated than that but basically that's it. So you move from 18,000 into 25,000 then when you're filling that regularly you sling another tier in and go up to 30,000 and so on.
Again, the One Directioners won't like that, so it won't be for us. |
It's the sort of thing the fan groups should be suggesting to the club and see what they say about it.
If you look at Southampton their crowds have improved greatly since left the Dell so it can be done but I think we all know 40k would be far to much for us unless we want to give away fans 10 k.
2014 8 1 8 30.212
2013 12 1 12 30.874
2012 2 2 22 26.420
2011 2 3 46 22.161
2010 7 3 51 20.982
2009 23 2 43 17.849
2008 20 2 40 21.254
2007 6 2 26 23.556
2006 12 2 32 23.614
2005 20 1 20 30.610
2004 12 1 12 31.699
2003 8 1 8 30.680
2002 11 1 11 30.633
2001 10 1 10 15.115
2000 15 1 15 15.132
1999 17 1 17 15.140
1998 12 1 12 15.159
1997 16 1 16 15.099
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:56 - Sep 5 with 1503 views | paulparker |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:29 - Sep 5 by Rangersw12 |
It's the sort of thing the fan groups should be suggesting to the club and see what they say about it.
If you look at Southampton their crowds have improved greatly since left the Dell so it can be done but I think we all know 40k would be far to much for us unless we want to give away fans 10 k.
2014 8 1 8 30.212
2013 12 1 12 30.874
2012 2 2 22 26.420
2011 2 3 46 22.161
2010 7 3 51 20.982
2009 23 2 43 17.849
2008 20 2 40 21.254
2007 6 2 26 23.556
2006 12 2 32 23.614
2005 20 1 20 30.610
2004 12 1 12 31.699
2003 8 1 8 30.680
2002 11 1 11 30.633
2001 10 1 10 15.115
2000 15 1 15 15.132
1999 17 1 17 15.140
1998 12 1 12 15.159
1997 16 1 16 15.099
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm |
Blimey Rangers w12 I think I need to call the Bletchley code breakers to crack whatever you put up there
getting back to increasing the capacity as we grow, im pretty sure Uncle tone said that he wouldn't do that due to cost ? and it would be a 40k capacity |  |
| And Bowles is onside, Swinburne has come rushing out of his goal , what can Bowles do here , onto the left foot no, on to the right foot
That’s there that’s two, and that’s Bowles
Brian Moore
|
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:25 - Sep 5 with 1452 views | ranger08 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:56 - Sep 5 by paulparker |
Blimey Rangers w12 I think I need to call the Bletchley code breakers to crack whatever you put up there
getting back to increasing the capacity as we grow, im pretty sure Uncle tone said that he wouldn't do that due to cost ? and it would be a 40k capacity |
Really like this post...
Cargiant: I've bought 5/6 cars from there, my family and friends have & I never had a problem with them. Would highly recommend to be honest. Since I bought my first car when it was called the Trade Centre, they've expanded massively and even when the economy was in bad recession they we're still busy selling cars (I bought a car end 2008/early 2009). They're obviously very successful, shrewd and market leaders in cars sales.
Cargiant MD: I like the honesty/reality, something Tony Fernandes lacks (IMO he’s a dreamer)… The fact the Cargiant MD is a QPR fan is quite interesting as I’m guessing had he been a Chelsea fan, I don’t think the statement/interview would have been as “nice”… BUT it was very honest/straight forward and to the point, he’s absolutely right to say the stadium will be built in just over 3yrs is a joke! Fair play to him, they’re only standing up for their rights/own interests.
If Sainsbury’s put a letter through your letter box saying they’re knocking you house down to build flats would you be happy? The staff must be worried, not something which QPR have respected and VERY unprofessional.
Stadium capacity: If they build a 40k seating stadium, they better price the tickets sensibly or be playing champions league once built because there is not a hope in hell they will fill it if we’re not in the Premiership. Everyone keeps mentioning 1 direction, spice girls, Julio inglesias & whoever else will sell out concerts… you’ll have to hope Wembley/Emirates is double booked first!
QPR’s owners: Their plan is and always has been to develop the club/ground, hence why Philip Beard/Mark Donnelly/Anthony Spencer have come on board (With their backgrounds). The Royal Oak (Aka New Queens Park) is their only chance of making massive amounts of money/paying for a stadium. Looking at the property values now around West London the development on New-Queens-Park would be HUGE. In 10yrs time a penthouse will probably £5m+!
In my opinion, either Tony Fernandes talks rubbish or he’s been fed rubbish, the fact they’re struggling to develop the training ground due to a few dog walkers is a prime example. Warren Farm is wasted, everyone know this, it’s had the same run down changing rooms since I played there with my high school in the 80’s. I hope they’ve put the training ground on hold to push forward with the new-queens-park deal through, because the training ground is massively important to what WE QPR fans care about, the performance on the pitch.
To sum up and in MY opinion reading the statements made, personal knowledge, etc…
QPR are trying to bully Cargiant by publically stating their intent in developing the land (The land they don’t even own!). I do think this is very unprofessional, like Cargiant Mr Mendez said “The deal should be done around a table” and offers “submitted in writing”. I’ve also heard QPR have un-officially told supports to sing songs to oppose Cargiant, which IF TRUE is shocking.
In terms of the Re-Generation, this will definitely go ahead… with OR without a new stadium. I don’t see why the government will want a football stadium ahead of a new school, church, community centre, shopping centre, etc… so I do think QPR should respect Cargiant more, without a doubt they will have to sit around the table and submit offer in writing at some point as I’m guessing a CPO will never happen (It would cost 000’s of millions).
This isn’t about football, political power & ultimately this is about ££££££££££££££’s.
To treat Cargiant as a car dealer would be wrong, they own 45 acres in West London!!! Think about that…
Keep posting, enjoying peoples views! | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:37 - Sep 5 with 1421 views | daveB |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:13 - Sep 5 by Northernr |
A good way to about it is the way Sunderland, Swansea, Hull and others built their new grounds with the capbility olifting the roof on one side and slotting another tier in at a later date - bit more complicated than that but basically that's it. So you move from 18,000 into 25,000 then when you're filling that regularly you sling another tier in and go up to 30,000 and so on.
Again, the One Directioners won't like that, so it won't be for us. |
lets be honest how many concerts are we going to get with Wembley round the corner and the O2 a tube journey away |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:39 - Sep 5 with 1411 views | Northernr |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:37 - Sep 5 by daveB |
lets be honest how many concerts are we going to get with Wembley round the corner and the O2 a tube journey away |
Not many you wouldn't have thought, but they keep mentioning it as a reason for the ground needing to be so big. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:47 - Sep 5 with 1398 views | yankranger |
The new stadium plans have pretty much zero to do with football. I think people are missing this point.
Beard was brought in because of how he turned the O2 into the venue it is today. The O2 is currently the most profitable concert/event venue in the world. Just think about that. Anyone that has been there knows how painful it is to get to and out of. It had pretty much zero competition in this city.
This stadium is being built as to compete as a more central london entertainment venue. If this strategy is implemented correctly than it doesn't matter if QPR sells 5k seats or 40k seats. It won't matter if we are in the premier league or league 2. It will make more than enough from non-football events to be profitable.
Sorry to say, but QPR are an afterthought in their real plans. And from a straight business perspective it is a brilliant plan. This city is crying out for a more central and modern multi-purpose venue. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:59 - Sep 5 with 1380 views | baz_qpr |
I think the point is that cross rail and HS2 will stop there. Wembley is a pain in the bum to get to, and the 02 is notorious for the dash to get on the one tube line that is there.
The emirates is an interesting one because it is a key conferencing venue and there is a lot of money to be made in daily usage there.
However the reality has always been the development opportunity and the comment about not needing a destination of some kind in order to redevelop the area I dont think rings true certainly for something of this scale.
The plans for the redevelopment of the Car Giant area dont come from the club they come from the London Plan and the borough. You can see here from their object in 2011
http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/Issue%2010%20-%20482557%20Cargiant%20Ltd_tcm21-158
Its clear that the thinking of the relative bodies is that 35 acres in central london which provides jobs for 550 is not a good use of the land, as much as Car Giant objects they clearly dont want them there. So I dont think its fair for the club to be criticised for not considering Car Giant the area that the agencies are seeking development plans for as part of the regen project do not cask them to. Nor can the club / consortium negotiate or buy the land until they have an approved way forward. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:00 - Sep 5 with 1378 views | WeaverQPR |
If i'm honest none of this sits right with me.Lets just build a massive new ground and to fill it we will just build a new town and can call it New Queens Park. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:18 - Sep 5 with 1357 views | nadera78 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:39 - Sep 5 by Northernr |
Not many you wouldn't have thought, but they keep mentioning it as a reason for the ground needing to be so big. |
Did they mention ownership in the meeting the other night?
Beard was always talking about us being "anchor tenants" until people had a moan, then it went quiet for a bit, then we started getting "the shareholders" will own it. Frankly, if it's not owned by QPR then I don't want a piece of it. It's an important question. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:24 - Sep 5 with 1354 views | TheBlob |
Well I suppose you could argue Wembley is too big and the O2(and other indoor arenas)is too small for some events. | |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:33 - Sep 5 with 1341 views | Juzzie |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 09:08 - Sep 5 by TheBlob |
Time to take off those rose-tinted glasses.
If you wander through London You'll see areas of affluence cheek by jowl with social housing.That White City estate won't be there forever - trust me.There will eventually be " redevelopment" on the scale of the Elephant and Castle and the old Ferrier Estate at Kidbrooke.The agenda is very much about squeezing the "undesirables" out of London.Areas of Brixton,Brockley,Dulwich,Bermondsey which were no-go areas in my youth are hugely desirable now. |
About 12 years ago I went to a planning meeting at the Camden Town Hall as they, along with developers, were going to build a block of flats behind my block of flats (both small-medium sized, not sprawling estate types).
At first the number of AH that had to be 'given' over was a percentage of the number of flats. For example.... say there were 100 flats to be built and the percentage was 5%, that's 5 flats (yes, I passed maths O level!).
You could tell at the meeting neither Camden or the developers were particularly happy about this as it lessened the lots of lovely wonga they can get in from the private sales (Labour council > socialists my arse). It turned out there were even less flats handed over in the end as they bent the rules and did it on a percentage of floor space instead.
I'm sure AH was done not because they wanted to but because they were told (by central governemnt?) that they had to. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:41 - Sep 5 with 1328 views | Match82 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:47 - Sep 5 by yankranger |
The new stadium plans have pretty much zero to do with football. I think people are missing this point.
Beard was brought in because of how he turned the O2 into the venue it is today. The O2 is currently the most profitable concert/event venue in the world. Just think about that. Anyone that has been there knows how painful it is to get to and out of. It had pretty much zero competition in this city.
This stadium is being built as to compete as a more central london entertainment venue. If this strategy is implemented correctly than it doesn't matter if QPR sells 5k seats or 40k seats. It won't matter if we are in the premier league or league 2. It will make more than enough from non-football events to be profitable.
Sorry to say, but QPR are an afterthought in their real plans. And from a straight business perspective it is a brilliant plan. This city is crying out for a more central and modern multi-purpose venue. |
Which lends itself to a perfect compromise.
Build a 40,000 stadium where the main goal is to profit for other purposes of "other" ventures - including good acoustics which will be needed for concerts.
Reduce ticket prices to a tenner. Everyone wins: full stadium, great atmosphere, cheap tickets for fans, board gets to profit off concert tickets. In fact, you could easily attract a whole new generation of QPR fans through this. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 18:04 - Sep 5 with 1307 views | WeaverQPR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:41 - Sep 5 by Match82 |
Which lends itself to a perfect compromise.
Build a 40,000 stadium where the main goal is to profit for other purposes of "other" ventures - including good acoustics which will be needed for concerts.
Reduce ticket prices to a tenner. Everyone wins: full stadium, great atmosphere, cheap tickets for fans, board gets to profit off concert tickets. In fact, you could easily attract a whole new generation of QPR fans through this. |
This reduced tickets idea is a myth. | |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 18:41 - Sep 5 with 1268 views | QPR_John |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:29 - Sep 5 by simmo |
Hence why we in no way need a much larger capacity than we have currently. The only reason an increase for large numbers is so sought after is so the club, not the team, can make money from corporations and live events.
Also, as much as Arsenal is used as a good example of moving with the right fan base numbers already in place, they never have a full stadium (bar derby matches) and after pricing out most of the local or old school fans they have a terrible atmosphere for match days. It's more like going to the theatre TBH. |
"Hence why we in no way need a much larger capacity than we have currently. "
Do you really think an 18000 capacity ground can support a Premier League team.
My point is the size of the waiting list is not necessarily and indication of the potential market [Post edited 5 Sep 2014 18:46]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
