By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Email put out by cargiant to rangers fans who went to the fans meeting, saying that they will never let rangers build a new stadium on their land. Maybe anyone who received said email can post it up here.
AND WHEN I DREAM , I DREAM ABOUT YOU AND WHEN I SCREAM I SCREAM ABOUT YOU!!!!!
cargiant say no way! on 17:58 - Mar 11 by hovehoop
What's surprising is why CG should even bother corresponding with QPR supporters. Ordinarily, I'd expect developers to be indifferent to the views of a fan base. Why is it important to CG for the fan base to hear their views - directly from them? Makes me wonder if it's a ruse to drive up the price of CG's site or, part of a ploy to demonstrate they have sound commercial intentions for the area in the like of mooted compulsory purchase. It also begs the question that if development of OOC was always on CG's agenda, why wait until after the Club's proposals for the site to counter with theirs? Why didn't they have their own commercial plans underway before?
Also, for a development the size of OOC, CG would need massive funding, from a conglomerate most likely. I doubt any single investor would put their whole hat on this one deal as there's too much risk. Planning delays and construction problems alone could cost a small fortune and empty the pockets of even a wealthy individual in a jiff.
Two other points, though no land law or rights of light expert, I understand that despite supposedly owning parcels of land around CG, it's illegal to alter the land we own to effectively 'land lock' them. So, we can't make alterations denying them access to their own land. About the idea of building a new stand on SAR, a right of light 'injury' to existing owners on the White City Estate has to make a marked reduction to the light to register - something like 50% reduction comes to mind though others on here may be more familiar with this. So a new stand may not be totally off the agenda though I suspect the Club owners view the ground as a commercial entity and will want to realise money from it on most days, if practicable, and not just on match days. And I can't see LR fitting this commercial position.
I can see the White City estate disappearing in the same way the Ferrier Estate did in Blackheath and the Elephant and Castle.For those who remember the humdrum,depressing mess they were will be amazed at the transformation.But it took many years in the planning and execution. I very much doubt the Cargiant vision for that area is anything more than another example of the tail wagging the dog.
cargiant say no way! on 17:52 - Mar 11 by nadera78
The really big player on this deal is London and Regional - a genuinely massive property developer who've partnered with the Geoff Warren.
All this stuff about QPR v a car dealership is just plain nonsense. It's actually two groups of incredibly wealthy people up against one another - the difference is that one of them owns the land in question. Of the 200 usable acres Warren owns about 1/4.
And I know I've said this before but if it was genuinely about building us a stadium for a sustainable future then we'd have bought the M&S warehouses behind White City station last year. Twice the size of Loftus Rd, sold for £100million, and perfect transport links. But the truth is TF and Co want Old Oak so they can build a stadium, commercial buildings and - most importantly of the lot - 25,000 flats they can sell to the Chinese. We'll just be another tenant in the stadium.
Have to say I tend to agree with this statement. I think slowing buying the houses and flats along Loftus Road and Ellerslie Road that back on to the ground would be cheaper, easier and completed more quickly than this plan and would allow comfortable expansion of the ground and addition of more hospitality. This play is definitely about more than a stadium for the owners.
-1
cargiant say no way! on 20:06 - Mar 11 with 3789 views
To reiterate Car Giant own a percentage of the land, but this is a major POLITICAL project. That can and only will happen with multiple partners. We will have a change of Mayor this may at the moment its likely to be Sadiq Khan, the last thing he gives a shit about is CG's profit and the last thing that is going to be built here is a load of posh flats for the chinese.
The area covered by the legal body is 650ha the core development area is 135ha and Car Giant own 20ha (less than 10% of core) Public Sector owns 90ha source http://www.egi.co.uk/legal/easy-as-mdc/
The GLA included the stadium in their draft proposals last year
Not sure if anyone has seen this but here are pictures of the land we bought and the proposed development at planning application now providing 600 residential units.
I can't recall Hoos, Donnelly or anyone at the club saying they were going to build on CarGiant land in the consultation meeting, they said they could work side by side so I think CarGiant are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing.
From the QPR website - "The Old Oak regeneration area is in excess of 300 acres in size — QPR’s team control over 100 acres in this area." - that dwarfs CarGiant's 47acres, which may be the real reason behind CarGiant's posturing. CarGiant seem intent on creating a ghetto of housing, a stadium will bring much more to the development and that appears to winning favour with the decision makers, hence CarGiant's sudden announcement about moving in the Science Museum or whoever it was, however a stadium is more flexible than a museum and is more likely to be viewed favourably.
As for TF & co only buying QPR for OOC, that doesn't stack up for me. They tried to buy Norwich City and then West Ham before buying us, neither of which have any land development potential like OOC. Plus, if they wanted to become property developers wouldn't the £250m that they've ploughed into QPR have been better spent on buying land at OOC, and if they wanted brand awareness using some of that £250m to sponser a prem league club. I think OOC is a happy coincidence for them, if it had been on the cards at the time TF & co bought the club do you really think Ecclestone & Briatore would've missed the opportunity to get involved with it.
cargiant say no way! on 16:08 - Mar 11 by Northernr
Yeh pretty small time in the grand scheme of things, but he's not just "some used care salesman".
It's also £100m more property development than QPR have managed - we can't even get this bloody training ground up and running on a piece of land we've been given for free. And he owns the land, and we don't.
Anyway I don't want it to come across as if I'm supportive of car giant. I don't want us to move as I've said, but they're getting my back up a bit with this outright refusal to even speak to us while at the same time talking about opening a mini science museum in fcking willesden junction
but he's not just "some used care salesman". er yes he is just on a bigger scale than Honest Jon'a in Catford. It's exactly what he is..obviously a very astute businessman and with snide tactics in his locker (eg. mailing to Qpr supporters), but he knows what he's doing and he'll spin sh*t lines like 'social housing' to tug the heart strings of the local community to make his fat buck to buy another gold roller and a permanent suite at the Sandy Lane.
2 dogs fighting over a bone. But the bone is very big and very juicy.
I have to say that the initial pronouncements from the QPR side did little to help our cause. And it's a long way back from that.
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
0
cargiant say no way! on 11:19 - Mar 12 with 3369 views
"The Old Oak regeneration area is in excess of 300 acres in size — QPR’s team control over 100 acres in this area." Good mobility from the midfield there. JFH's fitness regime is really paying off.
In all seriousness though, in what sense do we 'control' this land? Especially when we don't actually own any of it?
'What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!'
-1
cargiant say no way! on 11:25 - Mar 12 with 3361 views
"The Old Oak regeneration area is in excess of 300 acres in size — QPR’s team control over 100 acres in this area." Good mobility from the midfield there. JFH's fitness regime is really paying off.
In all seriousness though, in what sense do we 'control' this land? Especially when we don't actually own any of it?
I believe we own some of the land and have agreements in place with other land owners.
"The Old Oak regeneration area is in excess of 300 acres in size — QPR’s team control over 100 acres in this area." Good mobility from the midfield there. JFH's fitness regime is really paying off.
In all seriousness though, in what sense do we 'control' this land? Especially when we don't actually own any of it?
We do - See links above
0
cargiant say no way! on 13:45 - Mar 13 with 3156 views
cargiant say no way! on 19:57 - Mar 11 by barbicanranger
Have to say I tend to agree with this statement. I think slowing buying the houses and flats along Loftus Road and Ellerslie Road that back on to the ground would be cheaper, easier and completed more quickly than this plan and would allow comfortable expansion of the ground and addition of more hospitality. This play is definitely about more than a stadium for the owners.
This too has been covered many times and it too is completely unfeasible. There're not houses, they're flats and you've got to be looking at 150 odd properties. 150 lots of people to deal with, 150 solicitors, 150 of everything. Even if one property was acquired a month, it would take 13 years. That indeed is slowly.
Then there's the cost. Let's say each flat costs £550,000 (i did a quick check on zoopla to get this figure) that's £83 million without legal costs etc. Not really cheap I'm afraid.
This doesn't even allow for demolition costs.
The Madjeski stadium cost £50million to build.
[Post edited 13 Mar 2016 13:54]
1
cargiant say no way! on 13:58 - Mar 13 with 3128 views
Even if all the flats were bought, you'd then have to deal with acquiring the freeholds.
It's all complete nonsense anyway. Extending LR is a complete non-starter for so many reasons. We might as well talk about what rich and famous celebrities we'd like to date, no less likely but more fun.
The point of buying additional land for retail/commercial/housing is that it helps fund the building of the new stadium and once built the stadium then helps the club become self-sustainable in terms of the additional revenue it will produce. Income is everything in business. Buying up houses around Loftus Road and Ellerslie Road is not only very expensive but will mean that only a stadium is built on the acquired land which in itself becomes more expensive and will take a very long time to recoup the costs.
Isn't it about time we put to bed all considerations of expanding Loftus Road. It's never going to happen on the current site footprint and the costs and time to buy up the necessary properties on Loftus or Ellerslie Roads makes that option equally unfeasible.
If we have any ambition at all, we are going to have to move grounds again. It's not as if this is something we haven't done before. I saw us play at White City in 1963. OOC, if it can be done, is far and away the best chance in the next 25 years.
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
2
cargiant say no way! on 17:25 - Mar 13 with 2915 views
cargiant say no way! on 16:13 - Mar 13 by derbyhoop
Isn't it about time we put to bed all considerations of expanding Loftus Road. It's never going to happen on the current site footprint and the costs and time to buy up the necessary properties on Loftus or Ellerslie Roads makes that option equally unfeasible.
If we have any ambition at all, we are going to have to move grounds again. It's not as if this is something we haven't done before. I saw us play at White City in 1963. OOC, if it can be done, is far and away the best chance in the next 25 years.
Until a architect or planning officer tells QPR otherwise it's what I'm holding onto I'm afraid.
If you can spunk £163m million on players and yet be one division lower than you started then you can spunk £163m on a stadium upgrade.
With all due respect, how did the White City Stadium project turn out for QPR?
-2
cargiant say no way! on 18:35 - Mar 13 with 2840 views
To reiterate Car Giant own a percentage of the land, but this is a major POLITICAL project. That can and only will happen with multiple partners. We will have a change of Mayor this may at the moment its likely to be Sadiq Khan, the last thing he gives a shit about is CG's profit and the last thing that is going to be built here is a load of posh flats for the chinese.
The area covered by the legal body is 650ha the core development area is 135ha and Car Giant own 20ha (less than 10% of core) Public Sector owns 90ha source http://www.egi.co.uk/legal/easy-as-mdc/
The GLA included the stadium in their draft proposals last year
Not sure if anyone has seen this but here are pictures of the land we bought and the proposed development at planning application now providing 600 residential units.
So what's the deal here? Qpr proposing building new flats on the land they own as a make weight for a stadium being built elsewhere on the wider development site?
0
cargiant say no way! on 23:50 - Mar 17 with 2520 views
Take the seats out the paddocks, rebuild the steps, extra 2000 through the door straight away
How's that going to help with the fact that the corporate facility's would still be small and hardly used unless we're playing. To be self sufficient the stadium needs to be able to have space to rent out when we're not using it, at the moment they're saying it's too small for our own POTY evening.
1
cargiant say no way! on 09:06 - Mar 18 with 2313 views
I can't recall Hoos, Donnelly or anyone at the club saying they were going to build on CarGiant land in the consultation meeting, they said they could work side by side so I think CarGiant are getting their knickers in a twist over nothing.
From the QPR website - "The Old Oak regeneration area is in excess of 300 acres in size — QPR’s team control over 100 acres in this area." - that dwarfs CarGiant's 47acres, which may be the real reason behind CarGiant's posturing. CarGiant seem intent on creating a ghetto of housing, a stadium will bring much more to the development and that appears to winning favour with the decision makers, hence CarGiant's sudden announcement about moving in the Science Museum or whoever it was, however a stadium is more flexible than a museum and is more likely to be viewed favourably.
As for TF & co only buying QPR for OOC, that doesn't stack up for me. They tried to buy Norwich City and then West Ham before buying us, neither of which have any land development potential like OOC. Plus, if they wanted to become property developers wouldn't the £250m that they've ploughed into QPR have been better spent on buying land at OOC, and if they wanted brand awareness using some of that £250m to sponser a prem league club. I think OOC is a happy coincidence for them, if it had been on the cards at the time TF & co bought the club do you really think Ecclestone & Briatore would've missed the opportunity to get involved with it.
"As for TF & co only buying QPR for OOC, that doesn't stack up for me. They tried to buy Norwich City and then West Ham before buying us, neither of which have any land development potential like OOC...."
I think this is a fair point. What I would say, though, is that it was Fernandes who tried to buy West Ham. He wasn't attached to the Mittals at that stage and they are the majority shareholders at Rangers.
Either way, you may well be right that OOC was a happy coincidence for the owners.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
How's that going to help with the fact that the corporate facility's would still be small and hardly used unless we're playing. To be self sufficient the stadium needs to be able to have space to rent out when we're not using it, at the moment they're saying it's too small for our own POTY evening.
Not getting at you, Jim but your post touches on a subject that picks at me.
The line that 'the stadium needs to be self-sufficient' is a line that the owners are peddling and it's dubious logic at best.
In the long history of football when were stadiums self-sufficient? Never. The stadium was always a cost. Somebody's got to cut the grass and somebody's got to pay the leccy bill, but there's no mortgage on Loftus Road. Loftus Road won't break us. Supporters always made the club self-sufficient through gate receipts, then merchandise, then sponsorship, then TV. These have always been the massive income streams for any club.
The problem here is that the owners have failed to come close to breaking even in the most lavish, cash-rich, can't-miss business since the Borgias. They simply can't control their spending. Now, faced with FFP, they no longer have a choice. They have good people like Ferdinand and Hoos showing them how (though I could do without the sanctimonious claptrap from Fernandes about lessons learned, like a wasteful teenager who's had his pocket money stopped only to brag about having controlled his spending).
There is ample money coming into this club. Scandalous money. Obscene money. Rolling-around-in-gushing-oil money. The nonsense that the club simply cannot survive without selling a few pies and beers at a tech conference on a Tuesday afternoon is insulting. The club doesn't need this money. Maybe they want it. But they don't need it.
There's two things going on here. Either
a) This is a great line to convince people we need to sell Loftus Road and move to OOC or b) The owners are such bad business people that they genuinely believe that they absolutely need income from yet another source and are willing to sacrifice our only asset for that income. Income that - based on past experience - they will doubtless splurge anyway in an orgy of Bacchanalian stupidity.
If we follow through the owners' logic that the stadium has to be self sufficient for us to survive, then we wouldn't need to play football at all.
[Post edited 18 Mar 2016 9:51]
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
