| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:39 - Sep 4 with 1823 views | Juzzie |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 11:12 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
Problem is, drop out of the Premier League, and those 8,000 newbies who saw your Premier League tickets advertised on the side of a bus, aren't so keen on watching you play Millwall at home - see Craven Cottage attendance figures this season. |
Same can happen with any club that drops out of the PL. Middlesbrough have huge amounts of empty seats and so did other clubs with a new stadium that droped out of the PL.
We need to be pragmatic. If we have the new stadium and are not at any point in the PL, if it's a 2 tiered ground, ensure the lower tiers are full and the upper tiers (apart from maybe a few key blocks behind the goal or by the halfway line) kept empty.
If a single tiered ground, again, try and ensure the majority of the people are kept together.
Having everyone scattered around will be a disaster.
edit: Not that I'm championing a 40k ground though. I said on the survey 25k-30k is big enough. Just that if they do plough ahead with 40k, I think they need to factor in a way it can work outside of the PL without it looking like Middlesbrough MKII.
[Post edited 4 Sep 2014 14:45]
|  | |  |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:43 - Sep 4 with 1818 views | TheBlob |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:29 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
I think you'd be hard pushed to get a CPO out on a profitable local employer so that a loss making football club can have a shiny new stadium. |
Well the bottom could easily drop out of the car market - as it has done several times before , doesn't always follow that it's a long term phenomenon,ask Jim Gregory(through a medium of course).Housing and leisure facilities the way forward,personal transport in the big city is going to be increasingly demonised.I'm sure lots of other loss making enterprises are still encouraged.....although to be honest I can't think of one at the moment.
Wasn't CPO an element of the Emirates construction,and proposed in the new Spuds ground? |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:44 - Sep 4 with 1813 views | DWQPR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:29 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
I think you'd be hard pushed to get a CPO out on a profitable local employer so that a loss making football club can have a shiny new stadium. |
I think you could on the basis that the club is the catalyst for greater regeneration and anything that Cargiant may put forward would have to eclipse that of what the club is proposing. 700 employees on a site of 45 acres is not much in the scheme of things. I suspect that ultimately Cargiant will get a reasonable pay-off, I suspect that they have already earmarked some alternative pieces of land and with the backing of the GLA OOC will move forward quicker than people expect. Lets also remember that they have also in place the same legislation for redevelopment that the Olympic Park had.
With regards to the argument of Fulham being a comparison, over the last 30 years our fan base has been far more solid, Fulham got to 26,000 from an average of 5-7,000 just a decade or so previous. Since our relegation to League One (or Division Two as it was), or support base has gradually grown and only the constraints of LR has limited this. Filling 30,000 I reckon would be easily achievable and if the club achieves a status whereby they begin to more than survive, then why not could we start to achieve 35-40,000 crowds.
Middlesbrough are not a great example, a town where incomes are low and jobs scarce and lets be honest, if it was nuked would probably be on a small headline below a cat getting its head stuck up the arse of some bloke who wanted to try something different. London as we know is a different proposition both in attracting a better class of player and also higher attendances. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:45 - Sep 4 with 1810 views | EastR |
Anyone who believes that the money behind the club bought in without one eye on the sale of the existing real estate, and the development of a sporting/entertainment/residential mega project to generate even more money for them, is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Let’s build a 30/40k football ground in isolation and use it 19 times a year. Yeah, right. | |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:00 - Sep 4 with 1761 views | SpiritofGregory |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:22 - Sep 4 by TheBlob |
Maybe a lot depends on how much the local council want the club to succeed - indeed be a part of a new development.If they were to throw their weight in defence of the project then any hard nosing/delaying tactics by Car Giant might be met with a compulsory purchase order. |
Depends on how much the council want Loftus Rd for social housing. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:05 - Sep 4 with 1755 views | Nov77 |
Why are we so willing to let them turf us out of our current home and be relocated to a
shithole? (Which is what it will be for at least ten years while they build there)
Where we are now is perfect transport wise. Two major roads in and out of london a40 and a4.
Central line and hammersmith and city right on our doorstep. Numerous buses. Plenty of pubs to meet up in pre match.
The new location will have three roads that you can travel to it on, victoria road, harrow road and scrubs lane. That's it. Every car or bus you travel on will have that choice.
They seem to think that every single fan will be able to arrive at Willesden junction or that they won't mind a mile and a half walk from the nearest central line station.
If we're not in the premier league we will have swapped our 18000 capacity HOME to sit in a 40,000 capacity stadium with in all likelihood less than 18,000 people sitting in it.
Why not just stay where we are, gate receipts are having increasingly little impact on club finances in relation to TV money anyway. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:06 - Sep 4 with 1740 views | SpiritofGregory |
Can't just push Car Giant around they own a percentage of the site a provided employment. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:26 - Sep 4 with 1709 views | Jamie |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:16 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
No no that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that building a colossal stadium, far bigger than you need, on the basis that you can fill it with lots of away fans, cheap ticket deals, tourists and neutrals is not sustainable in the hard times when they come.
A 25,000 seater stadium would be more than adequate for QPR at the moment. I can only remember the Leeds match really, when we were getting the trophy, where there was a substantial amount of people locked out. And I don't buy this "we had 37,000 people at Wembley" nonsense either, because the world and his dog went to that. Hull and Swansea are great examples - didn't go mad, built what they needed, now filling them pretty much every week and maybe looking to add another tier.
You have to grow and build a support base over a considerable length of time, with success on the pitch, and hard work in the community.
Do it the way Fulham did it, which was the example given higher up the thread, and the minute the going gets tough they all fck off again.
Build a ground the way Middlesbrough did it, and the place is so empty and silent on matchdays that it's not a decent place to go and watch football, so nobody does, even when the team is decent.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Whilst i wholeheartedly agree, Phil Beard has already stated the stadium would have to be Multi-use to be viable. 40k is too big for us, but not for the likes of Pharrell, Ed Sheeran, 1D who can sell that out comfortably at £50 a ticket.
As I'm sure you would accept, 'Uncle Tone' is a businessman out to get the best return for his Tune Group, not a QPR fan looking to provide the best & most atmospheric football stadium he can for the club. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:32 - Sep 4 with 1708 views | hovehoop |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:06 - Sep 4 by SpiritofGregory |
Can't just push Car Giant around they own a percentage of the site a provided employment. |
Don't think the Club can push around Car Giant. Though if local government is involved then they might invoke powers to enforce sale to allow the regeneration. This may be necessary to allow development on such a scale. Though I don't know the rules about compulsory purchase. Car Giant aside, there could be many many other owners entitled to compensation within the development site. Does anyone know if we've already bought part/s of the site or, is it all in ownership of others??? On the issue of land acquisition alone this could be bogged down years. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:35 - Sep 4 with 1702 views | paulparker |
TBH I wouldn't lose any sleep if the whole thing goes pear shaped and we stay where we are, like simo & Nov77 said we are the envy of most London clubs and QPR is always looked at as a top away day, plenty of transport, Pubs , 15 minutes to the west end after the game,
for me the training ground & Academy should be a priority, the quicker we can start producing our "own" players to sell on the better , imagine us selling on a shaw, bale, Walcott etc that would mean money surely than a new stadium would generate
saw a documentary on the AJAX Academy a couple of months ago, blimey that's what we should be doing , TF is mad to think we can get away without one,
if we are to move I think we should be looking at 25k with an option to build on further a bit like MK dons have , if only chris fcuking wright had purchased that land behind the school end |  |
| 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 15:45 - Sep 4 with 1680 views | BostonR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 10:18 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
There was a meeting last night where Mark Donnelly was asked about the capacity and I'm just relaying what he said - long way off having to decide that, between 30 and 40k, definitely not decided yet.
The biggest problem we have at the moment is that 45 acres of the land we want to build on is owned by Car Giant. They have their own development plans, or they could move the car lot somewhere else and sell it for residential development themselves. QPR are not currently in discussions with Car Giant about buying the land after previous talks broke down.
Let's get past that issue before we start worrying about how many seats there will be or which stand is going to be named after Alan McDonald. You can't build anything unless you own the land. |
It seems the new development company do not need car giant on board. It would seem the deal is with Network Rail (and maybe Car Giant). The key word is exclusive and in terms of real estate development and urban re-generation that is key.
Very good start by all those involved. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:01 - Sep 4 with 1638 views | Grifter |
Re. Warren Farm, I thought a new training ground was a requirement for our Youth Academy to be upgraded from "Category 2" to "Category 1" (playing Vs the big boys like Utd/Liverpool/City etc).
Have the club detailed their plans for securing this upgrade without it yet?
It really is essential. [Post edited 4 Sep 2014 16:22]
| | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:04 - Sep 4 with 1623 views | wombat |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:27 - Sep 4 by robith |
Loads of Television centre is listed, so there's no way you could a stadium on the site |
far as I can remember the dome at at the front is listed so that's the hotel part sorted , simple internal fit out needed to make that happen no change to the shell of the building needed which would save she loads of money and time before that would be up and running.
as for the stages etc don't think they are listed and if they was , as it would be the borough wanting to keep us in the local area they would soon be removed rather than us up sticks to another borough
as a few have said unfortunately they board wouldn't make as much money doing it that way though as no new hosuing development to be added on well maybe minmul amount of new houses at loftus road maybe |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:13 - Sep 4 with 1599 views | Northernr |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:45 - Sep 4 by BostonR |
It seems the new development company do not need car giant on board. It would seem the deal is with Network Rail (and maybe Car Giant). The key word is exclusive and in terms of real estate development and urban re-generation that is key.
Very good start by all those involved. |
If you look at the map, the land the stadium on encompasses the 45 acres car giant own, the waste disposal site and the scrap metal yard. That's three private owners. The land to the south of the canal, where they want to put HS2, is Network Rail.
Whichever way you look at it, you cannot build anything there without buying the land from Car Giant. we have no exclusive arrangement with them at all. They could sell it for residential development themselves, and make a fortune. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:18 - Sep 4 with 1588 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:45 - Sep 4 by EastR |
Anyone who believes that the money behind the club bought in without one eye on the sale of the existing real estate, and the development of a sporting/entertainment/residential mega project to generate even more money for them, is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Let’s build a 30/40k football ground in isolation and use it 19 times a year. Yeah, right. |
"Even more money"?????
They've lost 10s of millions £s so far! | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:20 - Sep 4 with 1578 views | BostonR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:13 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
If you look at the map, the land the stadium on encompasses the 45 acres car giant own, the waste disposal site and the scrap metal yard. That's three private owners. The land to the south of the canal, where they want to put HS2, is Network Rail.
Whichever way you look at it, you cannot build anything there without buying the land from Car Giant. we have no exclusive arrangement with them at all. They could sell it for residential development themselves, and make a fortune. |
A seller needs a buyer.
Car giant do not hold the cards to a £6BN investment. A residential developer would not touch the car giant opportunity knowing the vast amount of construction that would take place - who would buy a unit?
Better to be in the bigger re-generation game - sell the land for a nominal sum and reap the investment over a longer period, which could be worth five times the current asset value. Would not be surprised if the deal is already done. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:28 - Sep 4 with 1561 views | Northernr |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:20 - Sep 4 by BostonR |
A seller needs a buyer.
Car giant do not hold the cards to a £6BN investment. A residential developer would not touch the car giant opportunity knowing the vast amount of construction that would take place - who would buy a unit?
Better to be in the bigger re-generation game - sell the land for a nominal sum and reap the investment over a longer period, which could be worth five times the current asset value. Would not be surprised if the deal is already done. |
The bigger regeneration is being led by the GLA, and a stadium is only part of one of the plans they considering. The others are all entirely residential and commercial. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:32 - Sep 4 with 1556 views | stansleftfoot |
Car Giant bought 10 acres of the current site 10 years ago, without planning permission at £5 million an acre.
This "car dealer" is the biggest employed locally, he has a plan and has been waiting for the right time, he's in no hurry, the London shortage of residential property is locked in....the shortage of Football clubs is not important, unless you are the Council who have a covenant on Loftus Road.
Not sure getting a survey of anybody who can be bothered to complete is step one, but I guess there is a strategy to be bought into play.
Startled at Fernandes's and Beard's arrogance to be so public about perceived success without having got a mutual agreement with the owners of the property we want to build on that he could hold up as actual evidence.
" Nice Uncle" Tony? "Nice Boris?"
Car Giants seems to have created a far, far stronger position that our Man! seems reckless given that West London isn't known for large plots of development land. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:43 - Sep 4 with 1533 views | Phildo |
If you read what the cargiant guy is saying they are/were open to moving if they got what the land is (they think) worth. It is worth a fortune as part of one of the last big west london development sites. I guess they would not be too hurt by moving down the M4 somewhere as they are a bit of a destination for those who want to shop there.
The olympic site was cleared despite lots of local opposition with a fairly draconian act of parliament and compulsory purchase. It is unlikely there would be the political will for something like that to happen here so it is a private sector bunfight.
A mate of mine is heavily involved in the docklands project involving a chinese development next to the city airport- it is a few billion worth and the politicians were falling over themselves to try and get the chinese dosh in. He says they want to repeat the trick elsewhere but there are simply no sites anywhere in London that the economics support. Wimbledon dog track is a big site but can you imagine what that is worth.
I wonder if they really ought to be looking at some sort of joint bid. If QPR have commercially sensitive options in place on some of the land round there i would bet that is how it will end up because no one will win with stalemate and the planners GLA will be looking for a total plan rather than partial redevelopment. They ought to be trying to bring them on board at this stage but car salesmen are not the easiest to play chicken with. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:43 - Sep 4 with 1531 views | BostonR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:28 - Sep 4 by Northernr |
The bigger regeneration is being led by the GLA, and a stadium is only part of one of the plans they considering. The others are all entirely residential and commercial. |
GLA need partners to fund the regeneration. The scale we are looking at is north of 6BN and car giant are not in that league. TF along with his partners do have that kind of money and can attract more through foreign investment funds.
You can have grand ideas but in the end money-talks. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:43 - Sep 4 with 1531 views | EastR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:18 - Sep 4 by PinnerPaul |
"Even more money"?????
They've lost 10s of millions £s so far! |
the money they brought with them | |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:53 - Sep 4 with 1503 views | PinnerPaul |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:43 - Sep 4 by EastR |
the money they brought with them |
Well yes they are still rich men I accept that, but they would have been that little bit richer without their involvement in out club - as it stands presently.
TBH, very few clubs make a profit, new stadium or not, I just can't see us ever being a money spinner for Tony et al. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:01 - Sep 4 with 1486 views | daveB |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 15:26 - Sep 4 by Jamie |
Whilst i wholeheartedly agree, Phil Beard has already stated the stadium would have to be Multi-use to be viable. 40k is too big for us, but not for the likes of Pharrell, Ed Sheeran, 1D who can sell that out comfortably at £50 a ticket.
As I'm sure you would accept, 'Uncle Tone' is a businessman out to get the best return for his Tune Group, not a QPR fan looking to provide the best & most atmospheric football stadium he can for the club. |
Didn;t they say part of the stadium plans would be to have an Arena next to the stadium for concerts? I may have dreamt that though |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:06 - Sep 4 with 1471 views | EastR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:53 - Sep 4 by PinnerPaul |
Well yes they are still rich men I accept that, but they would have been that little bit richer without their involvement in out club - as it stands presently.
TBH, very few clubs make a profit, new stadium or not, I just can't see us ever being a money spinner for Tony et al. |
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 | |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:12 - Sep 4 with 1457 views | nadera78 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:01 - Sep 4 by daveB |
Didn;t they say part of the stadium plans would be to have an Arena next to the stadium for concerts? I may have dreamt that though |
5,000 capacity arena, so they said. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
