| Erm............... on 13:56 - Dec 13 with 2170 views | Juzzie |
I think it's just by Hythe Road.
As for JCL's, I think there is still a large element of our genuine fanbase that don't go regularly for whatever reason but have turned out for the big games such as the Milk Cup Final, the play off final, Hillsborough in 2004 etc etc. Yes, most clubs have fans that do this too but if they can be persuaded to come to the new ground regularly (good facilities, reasonable prices etc) then we can still keep our core support and have less, rather than more, "JCL's/torists" etc.
As also said, there will be tens of thousands on new people moving into the area. Key workers with families etc. They're not JCL's or tourists, they can become proper fans
Yes, there's a lot to be scared about but there's a bloody lot to be excited about too. let's try and embrace the latter. |  | |  |
| Erm............... on 13:57 - Dec 13 with 2167 views | JonDoeman |
Queens Park Rangers supporter Thom Gibbs' open letter to chairman Tony Fernandes over his stadium plans - Telegraph
Middlesbrough, Derby, Southampton, Cardiff, Leicester, Reading and Coventry built grounds which are flawed, interchangeable, and only identifiable as their own by the colour of the seats. Coventry's was such a failure that they're now playing at the equally grim Sixfields (built 1994), 33 miles away in Northampton.
The anonymous bowls that defined this new era suffer from a uniformly pallid atmosphere, a direct consequence of the distance between the front row of spectators and the pitch. Loftus Road is an unsustainable long-term home for QPR, but it is wonderfully enclosed, intimate and one of the few remaining stadiums in the country where a raucous atmosphere can be generated with as few as 13,000 spectators......cont
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/queens-park-rangers/10515725/Que |  |
| |
| Erm............... on 14:07 - Dec 13 with 2130 views | jonno |
Yes, but who currently "owns" Loftus Road? And why wouldn't whoever "owns" LR "own" the new stadium? I suspect it's LR Holdings that own the current stadium so why would they not own the new one? |  | | |
| Erm............... on 14:10 - Dec 13 with 2116 views | Monahoop |
I'm still kind of torn by all this. Part of me says I love Loftus Road, a reasonably unique, tidy kind of stadium, but has 1970's written all over it. Being a 70's tramp myself is why I could become a bit sentimental from moving from this stadium and I have some good memories of the place, though I rarely get to go there now. The other half of me says great, a new stadium, I suppose let's move on. The picture looks OK, but that is what it is, only a picture. I think 40,000 capacity is a bit much. 30,000 sounds a bit more sensible, but that's only my vision.
Also when a new stadium is agreed and finalised, I hope it is of an imaginative design and not some bland, simplistic Ricoh Arena or Stadium Franchise style ground.
Guess we shall all have to wait and see what unfolds in the near future. |  |
| There aint half been some clever bastards. |
| |
| Erm............... on 14:19 - Dec 13 with 2095 views | jonno |
Surely the current stadium will be sold and the new one will be owned by whoever owns it now, ie the Club's parent company. I think you are looking for a problem where there isn't one! | | | |
| Erm............... on 14:28 - Dec 13 with 2059 views | derbyhoop |
Although the 18,000 capacity at Loftus Road is a barrier to longevity in the PL, the majority of revenue, if you are playing in the PL, comes from TV revenues, which have just gone up again. The capacity is a problem because you cannot fully exploit the potential audience.
So, move to a new ground and, provided you're a PL club, you don't need to fill the ground. If you want it filled, for aesthetic reasons, then keep the prices low.
That's how Tony F managed to grow Air Asia into a massive business. Why not the same at Old Oak? |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| Erm............... on 14:33 - Dec 13 with 2048 views | jonno |
| Erm............... on 14:28 - Dec 13 by derbyhoop |
Although the 18,000 capacity at Loftus Road is a barrier to longevity in the PL, the majority of revenue, if you are playing in the PL, comes from TV revenues, which have just gone up again. The capacity is a problem because you cannot fully exploit the potential audience.
So, move to a new ground and, provided you're a PL club, you don't need to fill the ground. If you want it filled, for aesthetic reasons, then keep the prices low.
That's how Tony F managed to grow Air Asia into a massive business. Why not the same at Old Oak? |
Exactly. I suspect that will be the plan. Undercut other PL teams in the capital and you will attract a fairly large audience, some of of which may eventually turn into support. | | | |
| Erm............... on 14:38 - Dec 13 with 2026 views | Rangersw12 |
| Erm............... on 13:57 - Dec 13 by JonDoeman |
Queens Park Rangers supporter Thom Gibbs' open letter to chairman Tony Fernandes over his stadium plans - Telegraph
Middlesbrough, Derby, Southampton, Cardiff, Leicester, Reading and Coventry built grounds which are flawed, interchangeable, and only identifiable as their own by the colour of the seats. Coventry's was such a failure that they're now playing at the equally grim Sixfields (built 1994), 33 miles away in Northampton.
The anonymous bowls that defined this new era suffer from a uniformly pallid atmosphere, a direct consequence of the distance between the front row of spectators and the pitch. Loftus Road is an unsustainable long-term home for QPR, but it is wonderfully enclosed, intimate and one of the few remaining stadiums in the country where a raucous atmosphere can be generated with as few as 13,000 spectators......cont
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/queens-park-rangers/10515725/Que |
An excellent article that I agree with 100% |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Erm............... on 14:42 - Dec 13 with 2015 views | Jamie |
You may be right, but personally I'd be gobsmacked if QPR were not tenants when the football itself would be only one part of the stadiums income stream. | | | |
| Erm............... on 14:46 - Dec 13 with 2001 views | TheBlob |
| Erm............... on 14:38 - Dec 13 by Rangersw12 |
An excellent article that I agree with 100% |
All very well,but those who carp very rarely come up with alternative ideas.
Anticipating the future and longevity of design is so difficult you almost have to make it formulaic.It's no good making it pseudo - Tudor when the trend may be towards Nouveau Deco.A futuristic shining edifice of chrome and glass without making it look too much like an Ikea chair?Good luck. |  |
| |
| Erm............... on 14:47 - Dec 13 with 1999 views | SonofNorfolt |
I intend to be (unusually for me) very outspoken on this.
To clear up a couple of speculative points, Tony said to me when discussing this in the C & S that they want the new ground to be as similar to LR as possible, and have a roof.
So to Loftus Rd, currently only larger, capacity wise, in the top two divisions, than Blackpool, Doncaster and Yeovil.
Legroom aside, and I'm 6'3'', it is in danger of becoming a museum piece.
Ahead of the times in the early '80's, behind them now.
Do any of us care about the Springbok or the White City flats anymore? Certainly they have no allure for anybody not originally from there.
There will all be things we'll miss, but it is not as if we're moving to Wycombe.
Think small, stay small.
I LOVE the ambition. |  | | |
| Erm............... on 14:51 - Dec 13 with 1989 views | jonno |
| Erm............... on 14:42 - Dec 13 by Jamie |
You may be right, but personally I'd be gobsmacked if QPR were not tenants when the football itself would be only one part of the stadiums income stream. |
What makes you think that? | | | |
| Erm............... on 14:52 - Dec 13 with 1983 views | jonno |
| Erm............... on 14:38 - Dec 13 by Rangersw12 |
An excellent article that I agree with 100% |
Does the journalist not think that TF etc. know all that? And have communicated as much? | | | |
| Erm............... on 14:58 - Dec 13 with 1961 views | Rangersw12 |
| Erm............... on 14:46 - Dec 13 by TheBlob |
All very well,but those who carp very rarely come up with alternative ideas.
Anticipating the future and longevity of design is so difficult you almost have to make it formulaic.It's no good making it pseudo - Tudor when the trend may be towards Nouveau Deco.A futuristic shining edifice of chrome and glass without making it look too much like an Ikea chair?Good luck. |
Can you translate that please ?
How about just having a 30k stadium instead of 40k stadium not rocket science is it | | | |
| Erm............... on 14:59 - Dec 13 with 1955 views | loftboy |
| Erm............... on 14:47 - Dec 13 by SonofNorfolt |
I intend to be (unusually for me) very outspoken on this.
To clear up a couple of speculative points, Tony said to me when discussing this in the C & S that they want the new ground to be as similar to LR as possible, and have a roof.
So to Loftus Rd, currently only larger, capacity wise, in the top two divisions, than Blackpool, Doncaster and Yeovil.
Legroom aside, and I'm 6'3'', it is in danger of becoming a museum piece.
Ahead of the times in the early '80's, behind them now.
Do any of us care about the Springbok or the White City flats anymore? Certainly they have no allure for anybody not originally from there.
There will all be things we'll miss, but it is not as if we're moving to Wycombe.
Think small, stay small.
I LOVE the ambition. |
Well said Mel, also it will be nice not to get wet every time it rains! Had my season ticket in the west Paddock since 2004 when i started bringing my eldest son, previously when i was childless i sat up in F block and in the 80's R block before being moved due it becoming the family area, 4 of my 6 children now have season tickets and one of whom is now living with another qpr season ticket holder, it will be a big wrench to leave loftus rd but seriously putting a neutral head on, the legroom is non existent, the catering is crap, and as said previously it is no longer fit for purpose, i sat at the mad stad the other week and actually felt resentful on how comfortable it was, not to mention the easy to access and minimal queuing for a bite to eat. Look forward not back, take the memories with you and enjoy the ride. |  |
| |
| Erm............... on 15:02 - Dec 13 with 1946 views | Jamie |
From a business perspective it makes no sense for qpr or an affiliated holding company to own the stadium and thus the repayments, especially in times of FFP whether it holds up or not. An agreeable rental rate would also suit both parties.
With regards the Multi-use, Beard is on record not too long ago saying it would need to be Multi-use to be viable. Be it hotels, casinos, cinemas, restaurants, concerts, even whisper it, a rugby tenant. With all that going on, QPR matchdays is only going to be a portion of the total revene stream. | | | |
| Erm............... on 15:05 - Dec 13 with 1938 views | PinnerPaul |
| Erm............... on 14:38 - Dec 13 by Rangersw12 |
An excellent article that I agree with 100% |
Really?
Full of lots of holes, assumptions and generalisations that simply aren't true IMHO. | | | |
| Erm............... on 15:09 - Dec 13 with 1925 views | TheBlob |
| Erm............... on 14:58 - Dec 13 by Rangersw12 |
Can you translate that please ?
How about just having a 30k stadium instead of 40k stadium not rocket science is it |
Rocket science is quite easy really.
Putting together a flat pack wardrobe,that's a different matter.[  | |
| |
| Erm............... on 15:21 - Dec 13 with 1900 views | Konk |
| Erm............... on 15:05 - Dec 13 by PinnerPaul |
Really?
Full of lots of holes, assumptions and generalisations that simply aren't true IMHO. |
Arsenal being a loud crowdbefore their move, made me chuckle. It wasn't known as the Highbury library for nothing. |  |
| Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts |
| |
| Erm............... on 15:54 - Dec 13 with 2304 views | wombat |
| Erm............... on 15:21 - Dec 13 by Konk |
Arsenal being a loud crowdbefore their move, made me chuckle. It wasn't known as the Highbury library for nothing. |
lucky some of our owners own there very own hotel chain dont you think !!
im looking forward to it mostly , not looking forward to the treck there until the new stations are built ten years later though or trapsing across the scrubbs to east acton get onto a central line train after a game |  |
| |
| Erm............... on 15:56 - Dec 13 with 2294 views | stevec |
| Erm............... on 14:58 - Dec 13 by Rangersw12 |
Can you translate that please ?
How about just having a 30k stadium instead of 40k stadium not rocket science is it |
I doubt the cost of building a 30k stadium would be much less than a 40k stadium.
Fulham playing in front of 2500 fans was a regular friday night for them in the late 70's, Chelsea playing to less than 10,000. No shame in thinking big. |  | | |
| Erm............... on 15:57 - Dec 13 with 2294 views | PinnerPaul |
| Erm............... on 15:21 - Dec 13 by Konk |
Arsenal being a loud crowdbefore their move, made me chuckle. It wasn't known as the Highbury library for nothing. |
and you wouldn't say that the new Cardiff and Southampton stadiums have been disasters | | | |
| Erm............... on 16:25 - Dec 13 with 2246 views | izlingtonhoop |
| Erm............... on 15:21 - Dec 13 by Konk |
Arsenal being a loud crowdbefore their move, made me chuckle. It wasn't known as the Highbury library for nothing. |
It was.
The absolute nothing you got there in terms of atmosphere.
Just like the Effeminates now, only now you get more nothing. |  | | |
| Erm............... on 16:25 - Dec 13 with 2245 views | hoof_hearted |
There's plenty of atmosphere at the new grounds when they build them properly and the team do well. Emirates was rocking last weekend by the sound coming out of my telly. On the other hand the atmosphere at LR last Saturday was damp squib like, to say the least. |  | | |
| Erm............... on 16:28 - Dec 13 with 2226 views | Rangersw12 |
| Erm............... on 15:56 - Dec 13 by stevec |
I doubt the cost of building a 30k stadium would be much less than a 40k stadium.
Fulham playing in front of 2500 fans was a regular friday night for them in the late 70's, Chelsea playing to less than 10,000. No shame in thinking big. |
Chelsea were always fickle and would have 8-10 k one week and 40k the next
Fulham crowds went down because they were terrible for years and it has taken them 20 years to get gates like they have today | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
