| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 19:01 - Sep 5 with 1687 views | DylanP |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 14:26 - Sep 4 by simmo |
If it doesnt happen, I won't be shedding any tears. Money is made from TV an sponsorships now anyway, the ticket sales are negligible in the scheme of things. Apart from anything else I don't want to leave LR. I don't care about the fckin leg room, I love our little shit ground. Moving us to a huge stadium to help fund a residential money maker so the 15k that go week in week out can look at thousands of empty seats the next time we fck things up and have to play with the other 'FL72 schleps' is not what made me love this club so much.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against a new stadium per se, if it's done right and kept realistic, but the main reason they want a new ground is to make more money from corporates and by hosting fckin 1Direction gigs and Coldplay concerts. Fck that. I want a football ground, built for a football team with the sole purpose of providing a venue to watch sports. That's what Loftus Road is at the moment so unless you want to give me a slightly bigger version of that, in close proximity, you and every other person worried about the revenue stream can fck all the way off. |
I love the sentiment and heart in that post. Really do.
The thing is, QPR cannot sustain itself at the moment, with our ground. There just isn't enough in the kitty to pay the crazy level of wages in the Premiership. It isn't just that we have gone a bit mad over the last few years. Even if we hadn't, the fact is that there isn't enough in sponsorship and sales to balance the book. As a result, we are constantly reliant on the hand-outs of rich owners to keep us afloat. Building a new stadium is an important part of putting us on a sustainable path financially. Without it, constant hand outs are the best case scenario every year.
That is why, while I never want to leave Loftus Road--my favourite place in all of London--I am resigned to the fact that it is inevitable and the only sensible thing in the long run. |  |
|  |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 19:19 - Sep 5 with 1666 views | Match82 |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 18:04 - Sep 5 by WeaverQPR |
This reduced tickets idea is a myth. |
Oh I'm well aware that it WONT happen. But if they're truly in it for the non-QPR ticket revenue then it is an option for them, albeit one they wont take |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 23:21 - Sep 5 with 1572 views | michael67 |
Suppose there is a 1D concert. Where are the profits going? QPR FC? QPR holdings? Stadium Ltd? Are the concerts there to make the stadium viable? And QPR FC still has to make it's money from Sky, burgers and ticket sales?
Otherwise I'm quite happy for a mob of screaming 13 year olds to occupy the place on a Tuesday night in July. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 23:25 - Sep 5 with 1568 views | TheBlob |
This prefab we're getting,does it have a sliding roof? |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 23:37 - Sep 5 with 1563 views | TGRRRSSS |
It's got to happen, otherwise we will possibly end up bottom end of League 2 eventually. Many sides up and down the divisions moving grounds or developing them so they will end up bigger or at least on a par with LR.
Change is frightening, but in the grand scheme of things most clubs have coped and developed a bit as a result of moving to a bigger ground. 40K isntt that unreasonable, and allows growth to be factored in over time, as opposed to say 30K then spending more later or possibly not being able too, and dont forget other events will be hosted too so sadly it is too parochial to say 40K is too much for QPR as other events will take place and that wont be a problem |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 00:15 - Sep 6 with 1535 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 23:21 - Sep 5 by michael67 |
Suppose there is a 1D concert. Where are the profits going? QPR FC? QPR holdings? Stadium Ltd? Are the concerts there to make the stadium viable? And QPR FC still has to make it's money from Sky, burgers and ticket sales?
Otherwise I'm quite happy for a mob of screaming 13 year olds to occupy the place on a Tuesday night in July. |
It'll be like Watford are back in town. |  |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 03:01 - Sep 6 with 1505 views | FDC |
| 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. |
This is so transparently the case, I'm amazed that fluff pieces like Fridays guardian article are sufficient to appease everyone. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 08:00 - Sep 6 with 1477 views | DWQPR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 23:37 - Sep 5 by TGRRRSSS |
It's got to happen, otherwise we will possibly end up bottom end of League 2 eventually. Many sides up and down the divisions moving grounds or developing them so they will end up bigger or at least on a par with LR.
Change is frightening, but in the grand scheme of things most clubs have coped and developed a bit as a result of moving to a bigger ground. 40K isntt that unreasonable, and allows growth to be factored in over time, as opposed to say 30K then spending more later or possibly not being able too, and dont forget other events will be hosted too so sadly it is too parochial to say 40K is too much for QPR as other events will take place and that wont be a problem |
Very well put and to put it into greater perspective, if this oesnt happen then one club that will overtake us is.............BRENTFORD, now in the process of building a 20,000 all sweater stadium in Lionel Road, complete with state of the art corporate facilities. Now imagine for the next 40 years Brentford having the bragging rights over us as we slip down the leagues stuck at a crumbling LR. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 09:57 - Sep 6 with 1439 views | QPR_Jim |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 08:00 - Sep 6 by DWQPR |
Very well put and to put it into greater perspective, if this oesnt happen then one club that will overtake us is.............BRENTFORD, now in the process of building a 20,000 all sweater stadium in Lionel Road, complete with state of the art corporate facilities. Now imagine for the next 40 years Brentford having the bragging rights over us as we slip down the leagues stuck at a crumbling LR. |
I think it's important we get a new ground but ownership does bother me more than size. Going to matches is a habit, one that has been restricted in me by work commitments of recent years but I'm sure a new stadium will attract people back, if only out of curiosity. Some of those will get back into the habit, as I hope to one day whether we're at LR or somewhere else.
Anyway my concern is how we'd be restricted by financial fair play if we don't own the stadium,.I think money invested on stadiums and facilities doesn't count under ffp but the revenue (or lack of it if we don't own the stadium) certainly contributes to what we can spend. Plus where does it leave us if Tony sells up? |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 10:28 - Sep 6 with 1414 views | wood_hoop |
| 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. |
+1 on this post, good reasoning and despite saying similar points about TF for a while at least someone who also feels the main reason behind the running of our club is to make money and masses of it.
Maybe TF has grown to more than just like us as a club and the football team matters a little more, but at the very heart is still the chance to fill his bank account, the training ground fiasco a clear pointer that the stadium is what really matters. |  | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 10:56 - Sep 6 with 1389 views | PunteR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 08:00 - Sep 6 by DWQPR |
Very well put and to put it into greater perspective, if this oesnt happen then one club that will overtake us is.............BRENTFORD, now in the process of building a 20,000 all sweater stadium in Lionel Road, complete with state of the art corporate facilities. Now imagine for the next 40 years Brentford having the bragging rights over us as we slip down the leagues stuck at a crumbling LR. |
20,000 seated stadium is hardly going to make them dominate the prem or championship over the next 100 years.
Our plans just seem over ambitious compared to theirs. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:10 - Sep 6 with 1367 views | Ingham |
This really is an amazing discussion. Every point on the various sides of the argument is relevant and well made.
But I do find it absurd if it is really the case that a Club that gets £60 million a year just for being in the Premiership, which we do, we think we can't compete for players.
But sure, let's have bigger attendances, 100,000 if we must, but to get ANY size of attendance at all 5,000-50,000 or more, the first requirement is to produce the required standard of football. The ground doesn't produce the support, the football does.
And the people running QPR don't know how to do it.
THAT is the elephant in the room. They don't know how to have 40,000 banging on the door to get tickets because we're so brilliant, so they change the subject, and as Clubs with big support tend to have big grounds, they talk as if booking into a suite at the Ritz is what is required to earn the money to live there.
It just doesn't work that way. But when we can't play well at Loftus Road, the people responsible don't take the blame. It must be the fault of the ground. That's it! The stadium is clueless.
It isn't.
The same applies to the by no means unworthy argument for an 'expandable' ground. But the capacity to increase the size of the ground is not the PROBLEM, because construction companies and developers are putting up big buildings every day, one might say any fool can put up a building and move into it. Every Club has done this at one time or another. But every Club has NOT won the league. Every Club is not successful. Every Club is not good. Virtually no Club even knows how to balance its books, let alone how to produce quality consistently.
The argument as to the necessity for a big ground seems to have overlooked Arsenal, Chelsea and City winning the title - 8 times, is it? - with grounds barely more than HALF the size of Old Trafford. And much smaller than Newcastle's, who haven't won the title since the mid-1920s. While Arsenal haven't won it at all since they got all the advantages they thought they would derive from their new ground.
The size argument is fine if it is consistent. 40,000? Why so small! How will THAT enable us to compete with Arsenal, United and Newcastle, let alone in Europe? Until we know how good our team is, we have no idea who our real rivals will be.
How did Liverpool ever dominate the English game with a record attendance (let alone capacity) of only 61,000, when Chelsea and City's grounds, and others of Clubs who had never won the title, were up to 20,000 or more bigger? Was it something to do with the football? Was United's demise before and after Ferguson anything to do with a sudden shrinkage of OT? Or is it just that they never had the nous to win things apart from Busby and Fergie?
Is an expandable ground one which expands both ways, so the attractive atmosphere of a full house isn't lost if the team takes 7 or 12 or 18 years to get back in the top flight (we know, we've been there, and so does almost every comparable club, few are in the top flight for long these days).
We're being propelled into a situation which is unnecessary. As I said above, let them build THEIR ground (it won't be QPR's, as many have pointed out). Let it become a success hosting bands and jehovah's witnesses conventions.
QPR can use it in the same way bands use it. When we have a game that will fill it, or a season ticket waiting list that will fill it, take it for one game or one season.
What's wrong with that? If we have 40,000 season ticket holders, book the ground for the season. But keep LR. When we have the revenue coming in, we can afford to hire the place. What's the point of paying the Landlord's overheads ALL the time when we can just pay for the place when we can afford it.
There's no need to panic. Once it is built, it will be there for a century. When we have TRUE talent at the Club, the transformation will be virtually overnight, like Chapman at Arsenal, Ramsey at Ipswich, Shankly, Paisley, Busby, Clough and Taylor, even Gregory at QPR.
Grounds, with few exceptions, are SMALLER now. City and Chelsea play in far smaller grounds than they used to before all-seaters. So do Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs.
Solving the football is the basis for all the rest. A superbly cunning, insightful, experienced, versatile, imaginative, loyal manager and coaching team, a steady supply of first class youth players, the ability to identify true 'world class talent' (to quote Fernandes) before it is apparent to the big Clubs who simply mop up anyone young or talented to stop anyone else getting them, tactical mastery.
Truly great sides. If it is that easy, let's just do it. But that's just the one thing that they can't do.
We've seen it. We've seen mundane - but knowing - English Clubs dominate the fancy dans of Europe for years on end, because the English teams learned to operate within their own limited resources. None of them built a bigger ground first.
If we can't dazzle them with our brilliance, it is just as likely - and on the evidence of our history and the history of other comparable clubs, far more likely - that our attendances will go DOWN, not up.
It is not just football either. The game changes. Maximum wage, retain and transfer system, bosman, the taylor report have progressively squeezed every Club outside the giants OUT OF competing at all. Blackburn only won the league by outspending all the others. That was a long time ago, and the smaller Clubs are less and less able to challege at all.
At the moment, our typical small club performances - the odd win, an occasional brief winning run, generally average to poor overall - are all we can manage.
When we ARE able to challenge, we'll know about it at once. But even Gregory couldn't keep it up. No sooner did he put together a good team than it was falling apart.
So what's the problem? If we're going to do what no small club can do so far - fill a 40,000 capacity ground every week - we're going to be playing football no other small club - or any Club outside the Champions League top four places - can play.
Let's see it. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:23 - Sep 6 with 1356 views | peejaybee |
Never a truer word spoken.  |  |
| If at first you dont succeed, pack up and f**k off home. |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:28 - Sep 6 with 1342 views | Jamie |
The 40,000 isn't for QPR though is it. Bit of netting over the top 15,000 seats, a few clever camera angles, bobs your uncle.
When 1D turn up for a couple of consecutive sold out concerts, whip the netting off and you are away.
QPR are an afterthought in the entire process. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:35 - Sep 6 with 1343 views | FDC |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:28 - Sep 6 by Jamie |
The 40,000 isn't for QPR though is it. Bit of netting over the top 15,000 seats, a few clever camera angles, bobs your uncle.
When 1D turn up for a couple of consecutive sold out concerts, whip the netting off and you are away.
QPR are an afterthought in the entire process. |
Not quite a n after thought, more like the means by which to exercise the process | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:36 - Sep 6 with 1343 views | QPR_John |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 10:56 - Sep 6 by PunteR |
20,000 seated stadium is hardly going to make them dominate the prem or championship over the next 100 years.
Our plans just seem over ambitious compared to theirs. |
No but they well might dominate us | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:52 - Sep 6 with 1321 views | QPR_Jim |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:28 - Sep 6 by Jamie |
The 40,000 isn't for QPR though is it. Bit of netting over the top 15,000 seats, a few clever camera angles, bobs your uncle.
When 1D turn up for a couple of consecutive sold out concerts, whip the netting off and you are away.
QPR are an afterthought in the entire process. |
Well whether we're an afterthought all depends on whether we own the ground. If the club own the ground then we're the primary thought and the concerts and conferences are a means of maximising profit for the club. If TF owns it separately from the club then it's to maximise profit for himself and we are the afterthought.
If we built a stadium that the club own but didn't offer any other income revenues than from 19 football matches a year then we'd be shouting TF down as an idiot. We're always told about how well Arsenal did it but they made sure the stadium had other uses.
I can't see TF letting the club own the ground but then again he'll probably have to take a hit when he comes to sell the club as it will be worth a lot less once LR is sold off. Suppose we'll have to wait and see. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:04 - Sep 6 with 1308 views | NW5Hoop |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 03:01 - Sep 6 by FDC |
This is so transparently the case, I'm amazed that fluff pieces like Fridays guardian article are sufficient to appease everyone. |
The O2 is profitable because it is a year-round venue. Our stadium, because it is outdoors, will almost certainly not be a year round concert venue. Income from gigs and so on will be an add on, not a principal revenue source. It'll be corporate stuff, based on a development like Stamford Bridge, that will be the biggest non football revenue spinner. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 13:04 - Sep 6 with 1306 views | TGRRRSSS |
Not really, whats their current size, and also perhaps more importantly, where have they played the majority of their football for the past 30 odd years compared to where we have which has been for the most part the top 2 divisions.
Ok they are only going to 20K, but others have more, Brighton has 30k odd. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:16 - Sep 6 with 1260 views | PunteR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 12:36 - Sep 6 by QPR_John |
No but they well might dominate us |
On the pitch or whos got the best sparkly new stadium league?
It seems to me Brentfords long term plans will be to bounce around league 1,championship levels and there's no shame in that. Our plans don't seem realistic to me,at the moment anyway. If old oak plans fall through I can see us bouncing around the same league positions as Brentford in worst case scenario. | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:41 - Sep 6 with 1234 views | QPR_John |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 16:16 - Sep 6 by PunteR |
On the pitch or whos got the best sparkly new stadium league?
It seems to me Brentfords long term plans will be to bounce around league 1,championship levels and there's no shame in that. Our plans don't seem realistic to me,at the moment anyway. If old oak plans fall through I can see us bouncing around the same league positions as Brentford in worst case scenario. |
Yes but without those plans, the difference between a modern up to date stadium holding 20000 and a very old stadium holding only 18000 might be to be bouncing around at a lower level than planned by Brentford. | | | |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 00:00 - Sep 7 with 1161 views | PunteR |
| David McIntyre update on the Old Oak development. on 17:41 - Sep 6 by QPR_John |
Yes but without those plans, the difference between a modern up to date stadium holding 20000 and a very old stadium holding only 18000 might be to be bouncing around at a lower level than planned by Brentford. |
No matter how well you put your argument across , rightly or wrongly I refuse to believe Brentford will ever dominate us in football terms. That's like saying Man City will dominate
Man U!...
Erm... 
On a more serious note our owners our rich..bloody rich. I just wish they could just look after our club without completely gambling with our future.
I'm happy if they build a massive housing development,just give us a park to play football in. | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
